I initially thought the cube would simply record the moves to jumble it, then undo the moves in reverse order to solve it; sort of winding and unwinding. But the cube took more moves to solve itself than the user did messing it up, so there is something else going on. An algorithm, perhaps...

I initially thought the cube would simply record the moves to jumble it, then undo the moves in reverse order to solve it; sort of winding and unwinding. But the cube took more moves to solve itself than the user did messing it up, so there is something else going on. An algorithm, perhaps...

I wondered that myself, so I ran the question past a blindfold cuber I know.... his comments :

"It's definitely solving it and not reversing the scramble - you can tell this because it's just using an implementation of a 'human' algorithm (where you see lots of partial blocks built up along the way, and a large number of moves, vs a good computer algorithm or reverse scramble, both of which would be very few moves and appear to do nothing sensible for a while before suddenly everything falls into place)

The problem of solving it in the least moves is quite well studied - you only need 20 at most, and most scrambles do need 20 moves. There have been computer implementations of minimum move solvers for years, and more recently some heavy computation on some Google clusters showed the 20 move bound for any of the (absurdly large number of) possible scrambles"

The robots that solve cubes that fast are boring. All you need is quality mechanics to make it work at those speeds. I would rather watch some odd looking contraption made out of legos solving a cube.

## Comments

2,885148Next time I see it, I will then point to this video as an example of someone who is

actuallysmart.19,58714,175I wondered that myself, so I ran the question past a blindfold cuber I know.... his comments :

"It's definitely solving it and not reversing the scramble - you can tell this because it's just using an implementation of a 'human' algorithm (where you see lots of partial blocks built up along the way, and a large number of moves, vs a good computer algorithm or reverse scramble, both of which would be very few moves and appear to do nothing sensible for a while before suddenly everything falls into place)

The problem of solving it in the least moves is quite well studied - you only need 20 at most, and most scrambles do need 20 moves. There have been computer implementations of minimum move solvers for years, and more recently some heavy computation on some Google clusters showed the 20 move bound for any of the (absurdly large number of) possible scrambles"

19,5875,8631,565Holy ****!

19,5874,096Yes! I am surprised it holds together.

2,8853,289