Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

To Solve a Rubik's Cube In 1 Second, It Takes a Robot

Posted by timothy on from the don't-blink dept.

The Next Web features a quick look at an eyebrow-raisingly fast Rubik's Cube-solving robot, created by developers Jay Flatland and Paul Rose. How fast? The robot can solve a scrambled cube in one second (as long as you're willing to round down consistent solutions in "less than 1.2 seconds") which makes for some fun repeat views on YouTube. One speed-shaving element of the design: Rather than grip the cube with a robot hand, Flatland and Rose essentially made the cube an integral part of the system, by drilling holes in the cube's center faces, and attaching stepper motors directly. (Also at Motherboard).

100 comments

  1. It does run on linux by ls671 · · Score: 4, Funny

    OMG, it runs on linux!

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:It does run on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does it use systemd?

    2. Re:It does run on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With windows it would take 11.2 seconds if you plugged in a mouse or cd-rom at the same time.

    3. Re:It does run on linux by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      And uses 3-D printed parts!!

    4. Re:It does run on linux by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      False. Windows would crash if you plugged in a USB mouse at the same time.

    5. Re:It does run on linux by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Solving a Rubik's Cube in 1s is not actually a hard real time requirement system, says the clueless Microsoft engineer, regardless of the app's designer's intent.

      I'll never forget that statement.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. So? by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With all the power of robotics, you've taken a task that takes a human less than five seconds, and reduced it to 1.2 seconds? Wow. I'm impressed.

    1. Re:So? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much optimization they could still do. One thing I can think of is the web cams used to monitor progress. They don't mention they are anything special. Maybe lab type cams could reduce latency.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re: So? by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      We need to protect the jobs of all the Rubik's cubes players. What else will they do all day? Destroy the robot!!!!

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but their robot requires modifying the cube. And the entire damn problem is trivial in the first place. Solving algorithms for the Rubik's cube have been around since the Rubik's cube was invented. This thing just turns three motors in a sequence that's been known for ages.

      This isn't novel, new, interesting, or exciting at all. It's a fun project, maybe, but hardly anything newsworthy. The fact that fastest Rubik's cube solving robot is a world record shows just how absurd world records have become. They used to be about real achievement, but now they're about whatever dumbass thing you come up with. It's just more of the everyone gets a trophy attitude that people seem to have nowadays.

    4. Re:So? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Well, unless they just take a single snap shot before they actually press the start button and go from there. Thinking of it, that's probably what they do. Maybe they wait for the start button to get pressed before taking the snap shot, that would be interesting to know...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots are all about destroying minimum wage job. Just yesterday here in Seattle McDonalds confirmed their plans to force thousand of their employer out into the streets with robot replacements.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as the summary says it's not a stock Rubik's cube but rather one that has been modified and permanently installed into the system.
      That means that they don't really need to monitor the progress optically. They just need to keep track of how much the stepper motors have turned.

      Since you can't place a stock cube in there I also don't really see the point of having the physical manifestation. If they were to render a cube on a display they could easily get the time down to 10ms.

      Instead of building a Rubik's cube solver they redefined the problem and claimed it solved.

    7. Re:So? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      With all the power of robotics, you've taken a task that takes a human less than five seconds, and reduced it to 1.2 seconds? Wow. I'm impressed.

      That's what she said.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:So? by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not a permanently installed cube. The take it out to scramble it up. Also, when scrambling, they block one of the cameras so it can't come up with a solution until they remove the blind. Impressive, but I think the speed is limited by how fast you can actually spin the cube faces.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    9. Re:So? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      While at it, how much time does a player get to look at the cube before beginning to actually change its configuration in Rubik cube tournaments and world records (e.g. before the chronometer starts) ?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    10. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you allowed to drill holes in the cube at a competition? Maybe I could just vaporize the cube and produce a new, solved one. I could do that pretty fast if I have it under my shirt...

    11. Re: So? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      It is worse than that and not limited to humans. They even do it with cartoon characters and animals nowadays:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

         

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    12. Re:So? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      i got mine 30 years ago and i'm nearing the completion of 1 side.

    13. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modifications they made are allowed, yes.

    14. Re:So? by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I personally like that they did this using components that are easily available to you average nerd. Barring some mysterious process that isn't evident, for me personally, the most difficult part of re-creating the project would be writing the code for the image recognition (only because it's something I've never done before.) Building the models for 3D print, solving the algorithm, and controlling the stepper motors with Arduino seems pretty straightfoward.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    15. Re:So? by drolli · · Score: 1

      The mos important optimization would not to use webcams, but have 54 dedicated sensors for the colors whioh you feed directly to the microcontroller, But since they use the webcams only in the beginning i dont think this would change much.

    16. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess they should add the time taken to drill the holes... after all it is part of the solution in this case.

    17. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I watched the video the first time, I thought they were moving it with compressed air, which would have been much more impressive.

    18. Re:So? by Chatsubo · · Score: 1

      > but I think the speed is limited by how fast you can actually spin the cube faces.

      I imagine the limits here are how fast you can turn your steppers against the friction combined with how fast you can turn the faces before he internal surfaces melt. It's possible that this cube doesn't melt simply because the operation only lasts a fraction of a second. Perhaps if this turn rate were sustained it'd fuse the internal surfaces. THAT experiment I want to see!

      Yes, even though competition cubes are very fast and very easy to turn there is still friction. As an aside some pro cubers prefer to have a bit of a "scratchy" feel for tactile feedback... Humans are different to robots like that, we don't have perfect control.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    19. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is 3. There are 3 females in that video.

    20. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General image recognition is hard, but with fixed cameras looking at a cube mounted at a fixed position, all you need to do is define the positions of each face. Set the point in the middle, and you've got quite a bit of tolerance.

    21. Re:So? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      While at it, how much time does a player get to look at the cube before beginning to actually change its configuration in Rubik cube tournaments and world records (e.g. before the chronometer starts) ?

      A3a1) The competitor is allotted a maximum of 15 seconds to inspect the puzzle and start the solve.

    22. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. It's difficult to tell if you are stupid or just trolling. However, given the decent level of literacy, I'll go with trolling. Have a nice day, troll!

    23. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought is what we're going to do with all the people who've been working in the cubesolving industry once their good, living wage jobs are lost to automation. Five years from now, they'll be lucky to find a dice-rolling gig at the local big box store.

    24. Re:So? by popstack · · Score: 1

      When I was a boy the way to do a Rubik's cube was to pull it to pieces and put it back together. But drill holes in it? Sheesh. Kids these days.

    25. Re:So? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Get back to work, Michael.

      Signed,
      Jim.

    26. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a troll; its a valid point. All they did was hook up a few motors and ran a known algorithm. Now if the robot had to find a hidden cube, pick it up, drill holes, and then run the algorithm that would be interesting.

    27. Re:So? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Well, as the summary says it's not a stock Rubik's cube but rather one that has been modified and permanently installed into the system.
      That means that they don't really need to monitor the progress optically. They just need to keep track of how much the stepper motors have turned.

      Since you can't place a stock cube in there I also don't really see the point of having the physical manifestation. If they were to render a cube on a display they could easily get the time down to 10ms.

      All solvers, be it human or mechanical only look at the cube once - it's the only way humans can solve it In under 5 seconds. The human visual system is too slow to provide feedback while solving.

      Basically once you scan in the cube and figure out the squares, you solve it based on the known algorithms and moves to get it to the solved state, and you update your internal state of the cube at the same time. Looking at it incurs a processing delay that will just slow down your solving.

    28. Re:So? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's been shown no cube is more than 20-something twists from being solved. I memorized a solution book, and just part of it, sufficient to solve any cube when I was a kid.

      The rest is just mechanical manipulation. Should robot-specific cubes be allowed, with faced bolted to the robot? Or special grip attachments on the faces? Special bearings inside that won't jam or melt?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    29. Re:So? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Basically once you scan in the cube and figure out the squares, you solve it based on the known algorithms and moves to get it to the solved state

      That's simply not true.

      The best cubers are simply looking ahead. Some have memorized hundreds of patterns and algorithms, some just a couple dozen, but most of the time solving a cube is spent on the first two layers, which is fairly straightforward algorithmically. The big speed up comes from thinking about how the cube will look when you're done with the current set of moves, so your next algorithm is already chosen when it's needed. But you're constantly looking at the cube, because you're only thinking one algorithm ahead, and need to constantly refresh.

      There's a different competition where you only look at the cube once: that's blindfolded solving. World records there are around 24 seconds IIRC. It's slower because you simply can't mentally track the state of the cube if you use the usual algorithms. Instead you use a very minimal set of algorithms that makes very predictable state changes to the cube, so that you can keep its evolving state in your head without looking at it.

      This is a real advantage to mechanical solvers.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    30. Re: So? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This seems like disallowing peeling off the stickers, but allowing a tiny set of spray paint cans because robot.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re:So? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Get back to work, Michael.

      That's what she said.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    32. Re:So? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Line 'em up next to the people from the buggy whip and tic tac toe industries.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    33. Re:So? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      Well, Toe may have lost his job but Tic and Tac invented a new candy that's still popular today.

    34. Re: So? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      I think the robot can only solve the first cube faster than a human, otherwise you could dump 50 cubes into a hopper and the machine would finish solving the last one about 60 seconds later. Now that would be impressive!

      So change the rules to require the participant to solve, let's say 3 cubes.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    35. Re: So? by almostadnsguy · · Score: 1

      If this is a "Robot cooking scam" and they cook spam does it make is a Spam Scam?

    36. Re:So? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I wonder how quickly it can be done in just software - with no physical manifestation at all? While I've never bothered learning the mechanism, I am given to understand that they are actually significantly easier to solve than one might think, requiring no more than a couple of dozen moves at absolute worst. I also understand that once you learn a half-dozen or so 'solutions' then the thing is fairly trivial to solve and the only thing to do after that is pick up speed. I suspect that it can be done entirely in software, on a graphical representation, nearly instantly - with even just an SBC's worth of compute cycles and RAM.

      I do own a book that tells the secrets of accomplishing this great feat but, alas, I've never actually read it - or played with the included "competition grade official cube!" I've a slight penchant for learning strange things like that but I've never actually bothered to learn this one. I'm actually kind of amazed at the staying power the cube has had. They were a passing fad but they've never really faded entirely from view. I can juggle, yo-yo, do a whole host of illusions, and know countless playing card manipulations - including some that are slight of hand and others that are just math, but I've never learned to solve the cube. I probably should, it seems like something I should know and I planned on learning it at one point.

      It all started with a book, many years ago, about becoming an every day genius. At one point in time, a friend and I used to go to a local hospital, once a month, and put on a show for the kids as well as do a few other things. I've even learned a bit of clowning - which is harder than one might think. However, we were told that they'd prefer us to not do clowning, at least in costume, at the hospital. It seems that there are actually quite a few kids who are scared by clowns.

      I do have my own, rather long, version of the ball and cup routine that I've managed to get pretty perfect. I guess that's one that I'm actually proud of. I'm not dreadfully anal about it but I do prefer "illusionist" to "magician." I do illusions, not tricks. Tricks are what a pony does or what a whore does for money. I've learned a lot, from some great illusionists, and had a lot of fun doing the shows for the kids. My daughter now works in an emergency children's trauma unit. When I go visit her, I go in and do a bit of a show for the kids. You have to vary them a bit, some aren't allowed things like balloon animals or the likes. Meh, it's just a little something that I've picked up and made a little use of over the years.

      At any rate, I should think that it'd be insanely fast (nearly instant) without the need for mechanical manipulation. Come to think of it, writing a cube solver might be a good way for me to learn Python a bit better. I'm currently working on learning Python and that might be a fun project. I imagine someone's already done something similar if not exactly that so I'll have to avoid searching or do any searching carefully - lest I find the whole thing already done and just crib entirely from that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re: So? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, it's a troll. You don't get to decide what others are interested in - you can only say that it is uninteresting to you. I suspect that the reason you don't say that is because that would say more about you than it would about the feat. You're seeking a reaction, based on minimal effort, and that's the very definition of trolling. It's predicated on the false assumption that you are arbiter, for others, of what is and is not interesting.

      It's not very clever. If Slashdot did have a greatness in its past, it was that we had better trolls back in the day.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    38. Re:So? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Makes sense, thanks. I ain't knowing much about Rubik cubes as per my posts although I intuitively felt that way. Thanks.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  3. To be fair... by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 1

    I've seen video of a guy doing it in about 3.5 seconds, without drilling holes in it.

    1. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are three pieces to the solve. Position assessment, route planning, and mechanical solution. This robot does all three in ~1 second.

      In humans, they are only rated on the mechanical solution. They get to inspect the cube and consider their moves prior to the first step in the solution, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. That doesn't change the fact that a 3-4 seconds solve by a human is amazing. However a person cannot, and likely will not ever, be able to assess a random cube, plan, and execute the moves all in ~1 second. The machines have won again.

    2. Re: To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the colours or add some patterns and give it to that same robot. Or make the cube out of some spungy material. Or make one corner really bendy. Just change something slightly and the robot fails miserably. Until a robot picks up and learns how to solve a cube on its own, it's inferior.

    3. Re: To be fair... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is a bigger issue that some realize. Give the computer a full virtual cube and it can solve it in microseconds or less. For that matte4, conjuring a list of turns should be sufficient for a computer.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  4. DQ'ed by mattyj · · Score: 2

    Not an unmodified cube. This is more like a robot that *is* a Rubik's Cube.

    1. Re:DQ'ed by serbanp · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that they could come up with a method of attaching the centers to the stepper motors without requiring hole drilling.

      However, turning the faces faster and faster requires both extreme force and very careful over- and under-shoot control. Eventually, the inertial forces will be so high that the cube will disintegrate (its corners will fly away as their little holding ledges break off).

    2. Re:DQ'ed by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      This is more like a robot that *is* a Rubik's Cube.

      Whoa. So then the robot is solving itself.

      My mind is, like, totally blown...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re: DQ'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A masturbation joke would have been funny.
      Ironic astonishment is lame.
      Let's all argue about humor now!

    4. Re:DQ'ed by Barny · · Score: 1

      In the video they actually talk about the controller for the motors having acceleration curves programmed in.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    5. Re:DQ'ed by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's a robot in the same way that industrial automation is classified as robotics.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    6. Re:DQ'ed by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'd be much more impressed with a robot that could solve a 4x4 cube. 3x3 is a sort of special case where you can just turn the centers and thereby turn the faces. Larger cubes have internal layers that are more mechanically complicated to turn, and even-sized cubes don't have a center cell to drill into to turn the face.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:DQ'ed by countach · · Score: 1

      It's hardly a special case. Rather the case of cubes with an odd as opposed to even number of divisions.

  5. Drilling holes is cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is garbage, and anyone involved with this should feel bad. If you have to modify the cube, it doesn't count.

    1. Re: Drilling holes is cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Do it in software instead! No bits were hurt, etc.

  6. Acceleration / Decelartion by nuckfuts · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the video:

    The Arduino is responsible for controlling highly-tuned acceleration / deceleration curves to drive the stepper motors.

    This is very similar to the way mechanical hard drives position their read/write heads via magnetic coil. Depending on the distance (number of cylinders) that the heads need to travel across, a proportional amount of current is applied to accelerate the arm with the heads attached. After just a few milliseconds, however, the heads need to start decelerating in order to come to rest precisely over the desired track without overshooting.

    With both the Rubik's Cube and the hard drive, a physical object needs to be moved and then come to rest precisely in the blink of an eye. It's quite a neat trick of engineering.

    1. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Carefully-timed acceleration and deceleration are things that would need to be done to drive a voice coil, which is what modern hard drives use. Stepper motors, on the other hand, just need to be sent a discrete number of pulses (one per "step", hence their name) in order to end up where you want them to be, which is why they're used in floppy drives, really old hard drives, flatbed scanners, and other such things.

    2. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      . . . That every CNC Mill and 3D Printer have to do as part of their normal operations.

      In an open loop system, you MUST tune the PIDs, in a closed loop system, they can tune themselves. Theres nothing new or marvelous about this. Its not 'quite a neat trick of engineering', its just a basic PID controller.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, marvel at the shit you take for granted.

      Yes, we use it everywhere, but it is still impressive.

    4. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Do you marvel at plastics? Because they're pretty fucking impressive too.

    5. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its just a basic PID controller.

      I work with PID controllers very frequently. I still consider them a damn amazing and neat trick of engineering. Just because something becomes common shouldn't mean that we stop marvelling at the genius thought that went behind creating it.

    6. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      its just a basic PID controller.

      I work with PID controllers very frequently. I still consider them a damn amazing and neat trick of engineering. Just because something becomes common shouldn't mean that we stop marvelling at the genius thought that went behind creating it.

      Yeah. Just try writing your own PID-controller algorithm from scratch. No libraries — Do it from scratch.

      DOUBLE-RESPONSE POST: Mechanically, the guys in the video could have instead used some super-strong suction cups or glue. So, the cube is not necessarily a part of the robot.

    7. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Done that, actually everyone I work with has. It's quite a common university exercise. The lecturers then like catching out the people who forget about implementing things like anti-windup.

      The theory behind it is not difficult. But I'm still blown away at what can be considered off the shelf engineering these days.

    8. Re:Acceleration / Decelartion by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Done that, actually everyone I work with has. It's quite a common university exercise. The lecturers then like catching out the people who forget about implementing things like anti-windup.

      The theory behind it is not difficult. But I'm still blown away at what can be considered off the shelf engineering these days.

      Yes indeed. I used to teach a senior-level class in LabView (w/lots of hands-on bread-boarding, etc., so not just a programming class). I pushed very hard each year for at least one student group to choose, as their final project, the task of writing and implementing a PID controller, in this case to control a furnace. None of them ever took up the challenge, but instead came up with other sense-and-control projects –some of which turned out to be more difficult than making a PID-controller. I told them so after their final presentations. :-D

      BTW, this was not a CS class, but one in an Engineering Department. I got high 'satisfaction' marks, but have heard through the grapevine that my class was "brutal". Good. I designed it to force them to think things through, and designed assignments to make it nearly impossible to find and re-use code someone else had written and shared on the web or ni.com. Devilish? No, just fair.

      They hated me at the time, but in the end were happy, and I had top-of-Department satisfaction ratings every time. One student even went on to start his own consulting company providing LabView process-automation services.

      Why the fear of the PID? The unknown, I suppose. No free PID-controller code is (or was at the time) freely available, but a few people were selling their own for around $10k. Maybe that was what frightened them off. So, in the last day of class, I also made a point of telling them that expensive solutions are not always expensive because they are too hard, but sometimes because people fear the unknown.

  7. Not for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    systemd is writing it's own kernel.

    1. Re:Not for long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope systemd doesn't learn english from you.

  8. 1.2 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that including the time it took to drill the holes?

  9. Not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This one uses quite a long time to prepare but the solve itself is around 1 second

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laPVTrzGDpA

  10. 1.21 seconds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rotating at 88 jiggaRPMs?

  11. It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have modified the toy, it is no longer a Rubik's Cube. It is some other thing.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% a cheat. it requires drilling holes for "grip". Sorry; real title: to be faster than a human, you must first modify the rubix cube.

    2. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Paul+Rose · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is a valid point of view.
      The modifications are within those allowed by the WCA for human competitions.
      Also the current Guinness record holder has done an even deeper modification ( which was the inspiration for us to go this route ).
      Paul Rose ( the one from the video that doesn't talk )

    3. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how IBM's computer stomped on Jeopardy...though it didn't have to "hear" the questions, getting them fed in scanned form whilst meat-based contestants had to be read them aloud.

    4. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect, in this case.

      Read the official rules. No, I am not going to provide a link to you. You have been lazy enough by not checking them in the first place and instead running to a flawed conclusion. You should now compensate by finding them, reading them, and accepting that you were wrong.

      Plus points for admitting it here in a subsequent post.

    5. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's silly. The human competitors on Jeopardy (just like the audience) read the answers at the same time as the host does.

    6. Re: It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the rules are wrong.

    7. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by vux984 · · Score: 2

      .though it didn't have to "hear" the questions, getting them fed in scanned form whilst meat-based contestants had to be read them aloud.

      1) The vast majority jeopardy clues are 'revealed' immediately; then the host reads them out. The modern show requires the contestants wait for the host to finish reading them before they can hit the button. (And they even have indicators on their consoles to indicate when they are allowed to answer. Earlier in the series contestants were able to buzz in while the clue was still being read, but that was removed to make it more viewer friendly.

      2) 1) The Watson challenge had slightly modified rules. Watch the documentary. Or read about that specific match for more details.

    8. Re:It's not a Rubik's Cube any more by lgw · · Score: 1

      I've seen videos of a robot that didn't need holes drilled - it used small suction cups. No idea how reliable that is - I'm guess not very or you would have gone that way?

      Does your robot follow the usual set of algorithms a human would use, or have you gone deep into the group theory to produce a much larger set of algorithms to trim off a few moves?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put the steppers and solving logic in the cube, seamlessly, and make it solve itself on a clap, I'll be impressed.

    1. Re:Inside by Paul+Rose · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome!
      The thing would flop around on the table until solved.
      I think it would require a larger cube ( like the coffee table style novelty cube ) or some seriously small steppers.
      That would be a good prank cube. Build it and don't tell anyone. Let someone solve it. At 2:00am it will secretly scramble itself. Hilarity ensues. Paul Rose ( the silent one in the video ).

    2. Re:Inside by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Miniature stepper motors already exist, the question is would they be strong enough?

      A neat trick would be to add an accelerometer inside. Take scrambled cube, throw it in the air and it solves itself, lands back in your hands completed.

  13. I can be solved even more quickly... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Go into the virtual world where you don't have to worry about such mundane things as a physical cube, and you can twist and turn the cube in nanoseconds, probably solve it in well under a microsecond.

    1. Re:I can be solved even more quickly... by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Or within a few nanoseconds in a massively multi-core system.

  14. Early tests were done with an unmodified cube... by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Behold, my robot can solve a Rubik's cube in less than a second!"

    [He pushes the button. There is a whirr of motion, and a flash.]

    "Uh... well, as you can see, after the procedure, the cube is a bit too... on fire... to read. But rest assured, if it weren't charred, and, um... also, if it were still a cube, I guess... then each side would be a single color. Uh, a single other than black, I mean. Impressive, no?"

    [The audience is silent.]

    "Uh... ta-daaaa!"

  15. Trivial by Sperbels · · Score: 0

    This is a trivial task for a human, even more so for a computer. The bulk of the time is taken up simply moving the cube. The computer already knew the solution it was going to use before it even started moving the thing. What's the point of this anymore? The computer can come up with a solution in sub-1-second if you simply remove the physical cube and simulate it.

    1. Re:Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of solving a Rubik's cube by hand?

      What's the point of anything?

    2. Re: Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that it's hard for a human to train themselves even if they read a solution with an algorithm. A computer has no problems memorizing and performing algorithms. This is basically the equivalent of saying "my car drives 60 mph, but no human can go that fast. Well, no shit Sherlock...

  16. Beowulf Cluster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine how fast it would be on a Robotic Beowulf Cluster!