Lego Robot Solves Any Rubik's Cube In 12 Seconds

kkleiner writes "Cube Stormer is the latest creation from Mike Dobson, aka Robotics Solutions, and not only is it made entirely out of Legos, it can solve any 3x3 Rubik's cube in less than twelve seconds. Often it can finish in less than five! This thing looks bad-ass and is incredible to watch."

Comments

Stickers

[Anonymous Coward]

And heres me expecting to see a robot that can quickly rearrange the stickers.

Re:Stickers

[JesseL]

And here's me expecting not to see stories from 9 years ago repeated.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/07/0133248

Re:Stickers

[djh2400]

As I scroll through looking for "Funny", I see jokes from 9 years ago repeated.

Re:Stickers

[uvajed_ekil]

When I was a small child of 4 or 5 in the early 80's, my Dad got a Rubik's Cube for Christmas. He found it amusing. A few days later I brought it to him, completely solved. He was amazed! Not only had his genius son shown remarkable problem solving skills at such a young age, I had even managed to put a few of the stickers back on straight.

Re:Stickers

[JosKarith]

When I got stuck on the Rubiks cube, I worked out how to disassemble and reassemble the whole cube in the correct order. Peeling off the stickers never even occured to me.

Cool

[Chris Lawrence]

Cool, just make sure it doesn't mistake your head for a Rubik's Cube. :)

That's fast

[TheVoxyn]

Think 99% of the world population can't do that :P

Re:That's fast

[c6gunner]

Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

That's because in China they use The People's Cube

Re:That's fast

[turing_m]

Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

Interesting comment. East Asians have a higher visuospatial IQ. It would make sense that solving a Rubik's cube would play to their strengths - it's pure visuospatial ability. Your anecdote rings true with me - I remember being amazed at how quickly a group of average Japanese students could play Tetris on the Gameboy. They were able to play it indefinitely at the fastest level. The ability of their brains to rapidly process that sort of information - this block rotated this way, will fit there - was much more efficient than my own, even with practice. And it's not that I'm uncoordinated or bad at video games in general - far from it. In FPS or RTS games I'd easily be well within the top 10%. But with a game like tetris, I was not able to use reflexes, hand-eye coordination or intelligence in a strategic sense to make up for my slower visuospatial processing.

This sort of experience makes me suspect that there is a difference in mental "modules" between Europeans and East Asians, and if you don't have the right "module", it's like trying to play a modern FPS without a 3d graphics card. You might be able to do the same task in a "software emulation" type mode, but it will be at reduced speed. Or maybe if it is too hard, your brain just can't do it.

I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomeness

[myocardialinfarction]

of our new Lego robot masters.

Re:Obligatory

[Anita Coney]

You can use trademarks as adjectives. The rest of the world uses them as nouns and verbs. Get over it.

Cheating!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

That thing got four arms. Come on, that is cheating.

I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once

[Monkeedude1212]

All I needed was 6 different paint brushes dipped in 6 different colours.

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once

[Jorl17]

I just threw mine out the window! There, problem solved!

How they are doing it?

[JoshuaZ]

Unfortunately, the linked to post and video doesn't give much details. Naively, I expect that the computer program is first figuring out very quickly what the series of movements to solve the cube and then implementing those. There are around 4 * 10^19 possible configurations for a Rubik's cube, but the group theory allows one to work out what steps to take without having to do very exhaustive searches since the Rubik's group is very well-behaved. However, this assumes one is in an actually solvable configuration. I'd be curious to find out if they've debugged the device well enough to make sure it doesn't hang or get in some infinite loop if one gives it an unsolvable cube (not all possible permutations of squares are solvable. Most trivially, edges need to stay on edges, corners on corners and centers on centers. But some configurations are still not solvable. For example, if one swaps two center stickers it isn't hard to see that that lays outside the Rubik's group of reachable permutations).

Re:How they are doing it?

[Monkeedude1212]

They probably didn't debug it much, but in actuality - most of it is pattern recognition. If you look straight down the corner of one Rubiks cube, you will see 3 faces of it, and that is all you actually need to solve the Rubiks cube. All the pros merely remember the patterns and the steps required to solve each pattern. Rotate the cube 90 degrees and the pattern still exists, even though things are in a different shape.

Really, the programming side of this isn't that impressive once you know how Rubiks cube solving is done. I'm more impressed at the speed, which I've normally found Lego technic and Mindstorm products to be a little laggy in commands and slow to operate, keep in mind though, that was the stuff I used like 7 years ago.

Re:How they are doing it?

[Dunbal]

You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

      I'm stunned. And here I was thinking it worked by magic. Is that REALLY how it's done?

      Sorry, I'm just feeling rather cynical today. Pffft.

Re:How they are doing it?

[Garble Snarky]

I am one of those people who can solve a brand-new, just-opened Rubik's cube blindfolded. Let me tell you, it's not all that difficult.

Re:How they are doing it?

[Paiev]

I'm a competitive cuber/scrabble player, you insensitive clod!

(No, seriously, I am. Scrabble has a lot of depth to it when played on a higher level that you are completely ignoring. Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because you don't know much about it.)

Re:How they are doing it?

[Paiev]

Just as a quick note, the page you linked is unofficial world records and hasn't been updated in a while. The official fastest times are here

Before someone claims dishonesty, all these solves were performed in competition with judges observing,

Re:How they are doing it?

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, I don't know anything, I just watched the private lives of national competitors. I judge them lacking. That is my prerogative.

Also, Scrabble lacks depth at higher levels. National competitors learn spellings but not necessarily meanings, which completely bastardizes the entire point of language. National Scrabble competitors essentially live or die by the number of combinations of seven letters they know are valid. To me that is a disgusting travesty, and quite frankly after watching Word Wars I discovered I had a lower opinion of tournament Scrabble players than I did before I knew anything about them. Once again, my prerogative. I don't know you, and if you're different, great, but you're not the only Scrabble player, and I'm more keen to trust what I've seen than you, quite frankly.

Re:How they are doing it?

[Paiev]

It depends on your perspective. You're right in that competitive Scrabble isn't about knowing meanings of words, and this does bother some people. You can view Scrabble as not being about words so much as about combinations of letters. The game is then about a mix of anagramming and strategy (it was this strategy that I was talking about when I referred to depth; while living room Scrabble games usually feature little strategy, competitive players take into account many factors when choosing a play).

Scrabble isn't a game about words, it's just a game that uses them. It's about anagramming and about strategic decisions. It's no coincidence that Scrabble players tend to be on the more math-y side. If you shift your view of the point of the game, you might lose some of your disgust.

Re:How they are doing it?

[TheMadTopher]

When asked what happened after I lost my last game of Scrabble, I could only say that, "I was at a loss of words."

Re:Obligatory

[natehoy]

"loosers"? What are "loosers"? The opposite of "tighters"?

Only losers use the word "loosers". :)

Re:Obligatory

[PrescriptionWarning]

Legos my egos. Leggo my eggo. Let go of my eggo waffle. Biznatch.

LHC?

[Daas]

Am I the only one who thinks it looks a bit like ATLAS from the LHC??

Which makes it even more AWESOME.

Re:Not impressive

[SoVeryTired]

3X3 refers to the configuration of squares on each face of the cube. The 3x3 is the standard one that made us all so angry in the 80's.

Re:Obligatory

[Waffle Iron]

The only people who care about that pointless distinction are trademark lawyers.

For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

Re:But can it...

[ArsonSmith]

And people wonder why the robots are going to revolt and dominate us.

Heh that's nothing

[Dunbal]

I have one I HAVEN'T solved in 30 years. Young kids, always wanting to do everything in a rush...

And how!

[LoyalOpposition]

Once, I peeled off the three decals on the corner of a cube and stuck them in different places to try to stump it. It just peeled them back off and stuck them on in the right places.

~Loyal

Re:Obligatory

[idontgno]

Allow me to bring you some Kleenexes; your weeping protestation is piteous.

Maybe a couple of aspirins for your headache?

Reality must really piss off language prescriptionists.

Re:Obligatory

[H0p313ss]

For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

The world is divided into two groups, those that call them Legos and those that make fun of the first group.

Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scr

[caluml]

Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scripts included than I've ever seen. It scrolls off my screen when listed in NoScript. *That's* why NoScript is good. :)

Re:Obligatory

[Waffle Iron]

Yes, non-pedants call each little piece of plastic a *LEGO*. How hard is that for you to understand?

Simplified hardware

[LoudMusic]

This guy did it a while back with considerably less hardware, though it takes his rig a bit more time to get the puzzle done ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htnL1KTpaY8

I don't get it

[computerchimp]

I can't understand why this is a "Lego" robot.
The pads are Lego the rest of the Lego is total cheap fluff. If I stick a few pieces of Lego on my car does that mean I drive a Lego car?
Maybe it is some cheap promo.

What am I missing here?

CC

Re:Obligatory

[H0p313ss]

Those that make fun of the first group and those who are utterly baffled at using a singular noun to describe something that is only interesting in the plural.

Like fish, and sheep...

Re:Obligatory

[mirix]

When you go hunting and fishing, do you bring back deers, elks, geeses, fishes? and drink some beers?

Cause I bring back deer, elk, geese and fish, and have a few beer. Well I would if I were a hunter.

This Video is FAKE

[tonycheese]

Okay, it's not FAKE but it's completely and entirely dishonest. I can solve the rubik's cube in about 20 seconds over an average of 12 solves, so I have a thorough understanding of human speed-solving. Computers, on the other hand, would go for some idea solution that a human brain is not capable of producing. This is especially true since the robot in this video moves EXTREMELY slowly, about 1-2 turns per second on average. Human hands can EASILY sustain 3-5 moves per second. This computer, to solve the Rubik's cube in 2 seconds as in the first part of the video, or 4 seconds as in the second part of the video, would have to be able to solve the cube in 4-10 moves. The optimal solution for solving a rubik's cube has already been bounded at about 18 moves (look it up).

Still don't believe me? Start watching and replay the video from 30s onwards. Freeze the video when the timer starts at 0:00 and look at the cube, it is actually a single 90 degree rotation away from a fully solved state.

The 4s video beginning at 1:07 shows several rotations of the WHOLE CUBE without making any actual moves, then does 4 turns and solve it, which means that it wasn't anywhere near a scrambled state to begin with.

More evidence that it's fake? Is there any information on this other than a 2 minute video on youtube?

Re:This Video is FAKE

[newcastlejon]

The optimal solution for solving a rubik's cube has already been bounded at about 18 moves (look it up).

Only in the worst possible configuration of the cube. 18 moves can't be the lower bound for every cube, because there exist many configurations that can be solved in less than 18. (Like the one you mentioned at 30s) If you'd read the rest of the wiki article you probably just consulted you would have seen that there even configurations that need over 20 moves too.

As for turning the cube then solving it in 4 moves, look at the computer and note a single view of the cube. The machine has to determine the starting point before solving and perhaps one needs to see more than a single face to know enough to solve the cube.

I don't see how this is dishonest and you didn't say why you think it is. Is it because it uses a different algorithm than a human? Newsflash: Man invented the Machine to do things Man couldn't.

Re:This Video is FAKE

[tonycheese]

It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time. Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.

And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.

For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube. When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.

Re:This Video is FAKE

[imerso]

If I were you, I would delete all the "it's dishonest!" comments from youtube and slashdot. I saw the Rubik's Cube Robot and Schwarzenegger heading over to your house...

Re:This Video is FAKE

[ChinggisK]

He isn't claiming that it is fully scrambled in the 2s one - for the one immediately after he specifically says to get ready for a "full solve" and has big letters come up saying the NEXT CUBE is a "totally scrambled cube". The 2s was just a demonstration of the machine moving and is implied as such. You could maybe make a case about the 4 second one, but I'm not sure he's claiming that one to be a full scramble either.

Re:This Video is FAKE

[somenickname]

I think your definition of "fake" and mine differ. The video is certainly not fake. It's a Lego machine that can solve a Rubics Cube that is being blogged about by some random overzealous blogger. The 2 and 4 second solves were probably the engineer running test cases where he took a solved cube and rotated it a certain number of times to see if the machine would then solve it in the same number of rotations. It's fairly obvious that the machine isn't capable of solving a random cube in 2-4 seconds because it doesn't move fast enough.

Oh, for fucks sake, IT'S A LEGO ROBOT SOLVING A RUBICS CUBE!

Re:This Video is FAKE

[bondsbw]

The next to last solve (at 41s) takes 21 moves*, and is the only cube claimed to be random... thus, I don't see any dishonesty. It takes around 1.9 seconds to analyze, about 0.4 seconds to reset/process, and the remaining 8+ seconds to solve. Therefore, it makes on average between 2 and 3 turns per second.

Humans do not include inspection time in the speed calculation (at least, that's the case in the accompanying video of the world record). An apples-to-apples comparison, therefore, would be the human time at 7 seconds and the robot at a little over 8. I couldn't follow the world-record video, but I think I saw at least one mistake (a move followed by the opposite move) and a little hesitation. So, you're probably correct in the 3-5 moves per second for humans.

*21 includes twice that the computer simultaneously moves two faces, each counted as two separate moves. 180 degree moves are counted once.

Re:This Video is FAKE

[TheGeniusIsOut]

If you watch carefully, the "Full Solve", which states such and claims to be a "totally random cube (Honest)", takes 10.75 seconds, including inspection. The 2.01 second solve is a demonstration of the MINIMUM time required for "inspecting and making one twist" on an unsolved cube. It is the blogger, and not the video, who makes the claims of solving in 2.01 seconds, and while it technically is a solve, the inventor rightfully does not claim such. The world record human solve of 7.08 seconds is not including the untimed inspection period. I would not consider this a dishonest video, since the video does not claim anything but the 10.75s solve to be a real solve, which by the rules of the second video's competition, would actually be an 8.74s solve....

Re:This Video is FAKE

[newcastlejon]

It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time.

This isn't dishonest. I watched the video and saw that the machine can solve a trivial problem in one move. The video didn't disguise this in the slightest. You can see a more complex configuration being solved elsewhere in the video and this obviously takes more time.

Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.

At 0:30 I see a cut from one sequence to another. I didn't think I was watching a real demonstration until I saw a start-to-finish run without any cuts.

And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.

No, it doesn't. Your original argument seemed to be that 18 moves is the lower bound for solving any particular configuration of a Rubik's Cube; this is just wrong.

I can show you at least a dozen possible configurations that need only one move to solve. If you include an already solved cube then the lower bound becomes zero. The upper bound is the significant one because for any starting position you can solve the cube in x moves or fewer. However, the upper bound means there is/are configurations that cannot be solved in less than x moves. If this was your point, then so what? No cube can be solved in fewer moves than it took to set it up, and the fewer moves that took, the lower the upper bound for solving it.

For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube.

I didn't suggest that the machine looked at only one face, I said it could only look at one at a time. The 3-4 moves are so the machine can look at more than one face to fully determine the state the cube was in.

However, When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.

What particular parts of each face are important is - from a practical standpoint - irrelevant. The machine still needs to look at more than one face irrespective of what bits the algorithm works with.

Re:Obligatory

[mgblst]

The main problem is that the US calls it one way, the rest of the world another way.

Just as with metric, math (vs maths), the US has to do it differently.

Re:Obligatory

[DudemanX]

To make it easier on all of you pedantic types how about if instead of pluralizing Lego to Legos. We'll just abbreviate "Lego Bricks" to something that rolls off the tongue a little easier. How about "Legos"?

Re:Not impressive

[Gunstick]

in fact the Rubics Cube being a *cube* one could simply say "a 3".

The Lego-Coolness equation

[brendan.hill]

Um

It's made of LEGO dude.

Being made of Lego raises the coolness of an object to it's own power. So if a machine solving a Rubik's Cube had a coolness factor of say, 100, then a machine solving a Rubik's Cube MADE OF LEGO would be 100 ^ 100, or:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I mean I don't even care if it's fake... it's still epickly cool.

Re:Obligatory

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I always called them "Lego brand building blocks". As in, "Hey Timmy, want to come to my house after kindy to play with my Lego brand building blocks?". Timmy never came to my house though.
 
On an unrelated note, my father was a trademark lawyer.

Re:I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomenes

[myocardialinfarction]

Pervert.

Slower manipulation, faster thinking

[The_Duck271]

Mostly this is just a demonstration of how a computer can, from the initial scrambled state, immediately see clear through to a solution in a relatively short path, whereas humans can't visualize a whole solve instantly, and so they take it in steps, at a significant cost to solution length. Comparing the two videos you can see that the human is much faster than the robot at making sequences of turns, but must make many more moves than the robot.

The sudoko is seems more impressive

[SmallFurryCreature]

mind you, the cubic solver is nice looking and has a lot of attention paid to making it look good, but it seems to be using a netbook. The sudoko seems to be using ONLY its onboard lego controller, and it has that human touch of writing with a real pen that makes it spooky. The math may be simpler, the robotics seems far more complex. I can almost imagine that robot driving around looking for dropped newspapers to solve the puzzles :P

The sudoko also wins for me because while all the principles involved are simple enough, getting it all to work together so smoothly is anything but.

Cubestorm for looks and sheer speed, sudoko robot for neatness and purity.