Hey forum, Here I am presenting my puzzle for the Summer puzzle building contest called the Child's play.



Video



The name of this puzzle derives from the common game for children where the child must put shaped blocks through a correspondingly shaped hole(see picture below). Additionally, the name is very deceptive because I imagine this will an incredibly challenging solve. I plan on mixing up only one of the 2x2x2's and solving it. I think that mixing up both is beyond my ability. I made the puzzle slightly easier by coloring the parts so that it is obvious which layer each piece goes on.




Oskar has done similar things with his Gear Snake and Swap cube but this is a little different. Additionally Andreas Nortmann has done something very similar.


While the puzzle is in its solved state, all 6 sides of each cube can interact with the corresponding(opposite side) of the other cube without changing the orientation of either 2x2x2.If you have any more questions, feel free to ask!


--Eric Vergo

Very clever. I love it!
It looks so simple, yet it must be very challenging to solve!

Wow! I have to admit, the coloring really takes this puzzle to another level. I was worried it would look a little boring, but now I see there was nothing to worry about!

Now, Go solve it!

(I still think that "Penetration Cubes" was a better name)

Very Original I like it!

Hmm very interesting. But if you would just scramble one, and you scramble the other into some kind of mirror image of that one, wouldn't they fit as well?

Garrett wrote:(I still think that "Penetration Cubes" was a better name)

I don't think that would be a very good name, but it would definitely describe the puzzle better than 'child's play'. Doesn't the original game from the second picture have a particular name?

What a great idea. I really like this double cube puzzle. The colors look great and the concept is actually intimidating, seems like it would be fairly hard to solve. Kudos!

Sjoerd wrote:

Garrett wrote:(I still think that "Penetration Cubes" was a better name)

I don't think that would be a very good name, but it would definitely describe the puzzle better than 'child's play'. Doesn't the original game from the second picture have a particular name?

The word penetration has many negative connotations in the English language. "Child's Play" reminds too much of Chucky from the movie called... Child's Play. Also, the original toy is sometimes called Shape Sorting Box. I like how you talk about "interaction" on your video. Maybe think of a name that uses the words interaction and shape? Shape-interaction cubes?

My 2¢ worth,

Skarabajo.

If I couldn't do these as a kid, what makes you think I can do them now?

Really cool, the coloration makes it look a lot better!

Thanks for all the kind words. I am surprised to see that the name is not getting such a positive response, I thought It was quite fitting. I will consider changing it. Also, I will be at nationals and this (along with other puzzles) will be there!

How about...the Ultra-Interactive Dual Penetrating Cubes?

UIDPC for short

I personally LOVE the name.
The fact that no child would solve this does not take away that they would see it as a great toy and that it looks stunning and very toy like.
Penetration cube is quite possibly the worst name ever, as it can be taken in an inaproriate way.
Great job, I love it

Child's Play is a fine name because they look like children's blocks. Keep it. It is obvious that this has nothing to do with the Chucky movies. In fact, "Chucky" did not cross my mind at all until Skarabajo brought it up. I'd also like to add that I believe this puzzle is a fine candidate for mass production, as would be easy to manufacture with colored plastics, and something people could relate to.

My 2 cents

I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Wow. I am actually pretty impressed by this concept, actually. Can't wait to see them at nationals!

c1829 wrote:I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Both cubes scramble at the same time, and to solve one, you need to have the solution for the other.

Garrett wrote:

c1829 wrote:I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Both cubes scramble at the same time, and to solve one, you need to have the solution for the other.

Well then all you would have to do is solve one and then solve the other one to match. No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote:

c1829 wrote:I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Both cubes scramble at the same time, and to solve one, you need to have the solution for the other.

Well then all you would have to do is solve one and then solve the other one to match. No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

Buy it after the contest, and you'll see!

I love the name too, especially with that colour scheme.

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote:

c1829 wrote:I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Both cubes scramble at the same time, and to solve one, you need to have the solution for the other.

Well then all you would have to do is solve one and then solve the other one to match. No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

You are still missing the point. It's not a mechanically difficult puzzle.

Thats like saying the Qubami is easy because its built on a 3x3. We all know its a very difficult puzzle.

Garrett wrote: You are still missing the point. It's not a mechanically difficult puzzle.

Thats like saying the Qubami is easy because its built on a 3x3. We all know its a very difficult puzzle.

Very difficult for a 3x3x3 yes, but still not nearly as difficult as other puzzles because its still a 3x3x3 and they have their limits.

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote: You are still missing the point. It's not a mechanically difficult puzzle.

Thats like saying the Qubami is easy because its built on a 3x3. We all know its a very difficult puzzle.

Very difficult for a 3x3x3 yes, but still not nearly as difficult as other puzzles because its still a 3x3x3 and they have their limits.

Maze cube

If this was only one color, it in my opinion would be harder then even a 5x5x5 maze cube. The reason is, you don't know if you've solved it until all pieces on both cubes are correct. This puzzle would be really really really really hard to solve And this concept could be used to make even harder versions

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote:

c1829 wrote:I don't understand how this could be difficult at all.

Both cubes scramble at the same time, and to solve one, you need to have the solution for the other.

Well then all you would have to do is solve one and then solve the other one to match. No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

You can't really tell when it's solved.

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote: You are still missing the point. It's not a mechanically difficult puzzle.

Thats like saying the Qubami is easy because its built on a 3x3. We all know its a very difficult puzzle.

Very difficult for a 3x3x3 yes, but still not nearly as difficult as other puzzles because its still a 3x3x3 and they have their limits.

Have you solved one?

Steveo wrote:

c1829 wrote:

Garrett wrote: You are still missing the point. It's not a mechanically difficult puzzle.

Thats like saying the Qubami is easy because its built on a 3x3. We all know its a very difficult puzzle.

Very difficult for a 3x3x3 yes, but still not nearly as difficult as other puzzles because its still a 3x3x3 and they have their limits.

Have you solved one?

No, I wish I had one but I don't. But even though I have not solved one I still know that it is not as difficult as puzzles such as the 7x7x7 and the teraminx.

c1829 wrote: No, I wish I had one but I don't. But even though I have not solved one I still know that it is not as difficult as puzzles such as the 7x7x7 and the teraminx.

Wrong

Harder then any puzzle you've ever solved(maybe pushing it)

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:

c1829 wrote: No, I wish I had one but I don't. But even though I have not solved one I still know that it is not as difficult as puzzles such as the 7x7x7 and the teraminx.

Wrong

Harder then any puzzle you've ever solved(maybe pushing it)

I don't think sooo...
Like I said earlier 3x3x3s have their limits.

c1829 wrote:

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:

c1829 wrote: No, I wish I had one but I don't. But even though I have not solved one I still know that it is not as difficult as puzzles such as the 7x7x7 and the teraminx.

Wrong

Harder then any puzzle you've ever solved(maybe pushing it)

I don't think sooo...
Like I said earlier 3x3x3s have their limits.

You cannot base that assumption on the mechanism! Don't say anything until you've tried one!

Steveo wrote:
You cannot base that assumption on the mechanism! Don't say anything until you've tried one!

I have solved the maze 3x3x3. Which one is harder?

How about the penetrating child's cube

eye2eye wrote:How about the penetrating child's cube

Possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen on this forum.

it looks totally awsome

c1829 wrote:

Steveo wrote:
You cannot base that assumption on the mechanism! Don't say anything until you've tried one!

I have solved the maze 3x3x3. Which one is harder?

Did you solve it without knowing the solution? I would say this is way harder because you don't know if a piece is correct or not until both cubes are 100% solved.

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:

c1829 wrote:

Steveo wrote:
You cannot base that assumption on the mechanism! Don't say anything until you've tried one!

I have solved the maze 3x3x3. Which one is harder?

Did you solve it without knowing the solution? I would say this is way harder because you don't know if a piece is correct or not until both cubes are 100% solved.

Yes I solved it without knowing the solution, and I was asking which one is harder between the maze cube and the Qubami.

This is exactly what I am talking about all this time.
Combing different types of puzzles is what creates
new more exciting breeds. This one is a cross between
a 3x3x3 and a (shape) matching puzzle.

I believe the difficulty is not that hard, that is,
unless you use one color for each of the cubes!!!

Just brilliant!



Pantazis

kastellorizo wrote:This is exactly what I am talking about all this time.
Combing different types of puzzles is what creates
new more exciting breeds. This one is a cross between
a 3x3x3 and a (shape) matching puzzle.

I believe the difficulty is not that hard, that is,
unless you use one color for each of the cubes!!!

Just brilliant!



Pantazis

Finally someone agrees with me.

gingervergo wrote:As far as I know, there has never been two separate twisty puzzles that need to be solved simultaneously.

Great minds think alike:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... =15&t=7238

Andreas Nortmann wrote:

gingervergo wrote:As far as I know, there has never been two separate twisty puzzles that need to be solved simultaneously.

Great minds think alike:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopi ... =15&t=7238

Ah, I am sorely mistaken, the claim has been removed. I was not aware of the existence of that puzzle.

Sorry to double post!

I have mixed up both cubes of the child's play, and I can assure everyone that it is a very difficult puzzle to solve. Although I am not a particularly talented solver, I am confident that the unique aspects of this puzzle make it very challenging. The only way I will be able to get this puzzle back into the solved state is by looking at the design file. Solving this is just out of my range. c1829 mentioned that a 7x7 could be a more challenging puzzle. this is clearly not the case, I solved every higher order cube (up to 7x7) only armed with the knowledge of how to solve a 3x3. This is just a different, and more challenging solve.

Don't get me wrong, as stated, it is brilliant design.

And since it is a matching puzzle combined with a twisty,
the usage of more than one colors is actually "betraying"
the solution. Using two colors makes it an easier challenge,
and by solving it until each layer is the same color, it only
requires some last checking.

But if each cube has only one color, then you will have some
serious brain challenge! The solver would not know where to
start as the puzzle will have an additional dimension of difficulty!




Pantazis

c1829 wrote: Well then all you would have to do is solve one and then solve the other one to match. No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

You need one to know if the other is solved

c1829 wrote: No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

Eye2eye's post reminded me of this.
I have a 2x2x2 mod that would be/is the hardest puzzle in the world to solve. Harder then a 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 mixed with a milaminx. When scrambled, it is 100% black. When solved, wires connect a circuit and a small light turns on

On topic, this puzzle is great and I look forward to seeing how the concept is applied to future versions

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:

c1829 wrote: No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

Eye2eye's post reminded me of this.
I have a 2x2x2 mod that would be/is the hardest puzzle in the world to solve. Harder then a 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 mixed with a milaminx. When scrambled, it is 100% black. When solved, wires connect a circuit and a small light turns on

On topic, this puzzle is great and I look forward to seeing how the concept is applied to future versions

It'd have to follow a maze pattern, but isn't totally impossible. I've been thinking about ways to get something like this done and I've come up with a few, I'm happy to say. Well, a few for a 3x3x3, but it would scale down to a 2x2x2.

theVDude wrote:

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:

c1829 wrote: No matter what you do to a 2x2x2 it still can only reach a certain level of difficulty which is not very high.

Eye2eye's post reminded me of this.
I have a 2x2x2 mod that would be/is the hardest puzzle in the world to solve. Harder then a 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 mixed with a milaminx. When scrambled, it is 100% black. When solved, wires connect a circuit and a small light turns on

On topic, this puzzle is great and I look forward to seeing how the concept is applied to future versions

It'd have to follow a maze pattern, but isn't totally impossible. I've been thinking about ways to get something like this done and I've come up with a few, I'm happy to say. Well, a few for a 3x3x3, but it would scale down to a 2x2x2.

I don't think you understand. The ONLY way to solve my puzzle is to randomly twist it and hope the light turns on. I'm working on a 3x3x3 version and might show pics.

EDT: I think I understand what you were meaning now.

PuzzleMaster6262 wrote:I don't think you understand. The ONLY way to solve my puzzle is to randomly twist it and hope the light turns on. I'm working on a 3x3x3 version and might show pics.

EDT: I think I understand what you were meaning now.

The wires would have to follow on the inside as a maze pattern would go on the outside. I know a couple of ways to do this (the problem for me was never the pattern, but what wire to use and how to get it from cubie to cubie, but I've solved both.)

Very nice presentation, and takes Andreas' Nortmann's idea a bit further (multiple faces).

Given the shapes, colors and challenge this seems like something worth entering into next year's IPP competition

Dave

kastellorizo wrote:Don't get me wrong, as stated, it is brilliant design.

And since it is a matching puzzle combined with a twisty,
the usage of more than one colors is actually "betraying"
the solution. Using two colors makes it an easier challenge,
and by solving it until each layer is the same color, it only
requires some last checking.

But if each cube has only one color, then you will have some
serious brain challenge! The solver would not know where to
start as the puzzle will have an additional dimension of difficulty!




Pantazis

Well... Think of it this way; When two colors per cube, when the layers are seperated, you still have to make one permutation and orientation on one cube, and see if it can be done on the other one. If not, you'll have to try the next permutation, and so on. Then, when you finally match up that layer, you still got ANOTHER layer to do. So don't go calling this puzzle easy or anything just because of an extra color...

But you're right, it would be much more difficult with onlye one color per cube. The puzzle really is briliant.

Chagi wrote:

kastellorizo wrote: Using two colors makes it an easier challenge,
and by solving it until each layer is the same color, it only
requires some last checking.

Well... Think of it this way; When two colors per cube, when the layers are seperated, you still have to make one permutation and orientation on one cube, and see if it can be done on the other one. If not, you'll have to try the next permutation, and so on. Then, when you finally match up that layer, you still got ANOTHER layer to do. So don't go calling this puzzle easy or anything just because of an extra color...

We can first agree that the 3x3x3, 2x2x2 etc, have been around forever.
Now, don't you think that those few permutations & orientations you described
are easy enough to do? Any solver here can do them in a few seconds (even my slow self!).

I always look things from a mathematical point of view. It is easy to eliminate certain
cases in a matching puzzle and avoid doing unnecessary moves. Anyway, I think I explained
my point already in the previous post(s).

If there were two 7x7x7 cubes, even then, the colors play a major role to the difficulty of the puzzle.
You cannot avoid this interaction, as this needs to be seen as a combination of two puzzles
(whose movements are dependent to each other), and not as two different puzzles.

With two colors, you *know* the starting point. With one color you don't. Plain and simple.
It is *this* starting point which is the most difficult part of this puzzle, and by using two colors,
this difficulty is being eliminated (i.e. the puzzle is being simplified).




Pantazis

kastellorizo wrote:With two colors, you *know* the starting point.

kastellorizo wrote:It is *this* starting point which is the most difficult part of this puzzle, and by using two colors,
this difficulty is being eliminated

Not eliminated just reduced. You by no means know the starting point (unless you only scramble one of the cubes), just the possible starting points are limited. There are still an insane amount of possible positions that have the 4 blue corners on the bottom and the 4 green ones on the top (and the same for the red and orange cube) and you'd therefore still have to figure out, either by a long inspection of both cubes if possible or a long session of trial and error.

kastellorizo wrote:Now, don't you think that those few permutations & orientations you described are easy enough to do? Any solver here can do them in a few seconds (even my slow self!)

Well yes performing the permutations is easy but figuring out which ones to do is sure going to take a long time. I am by no means disagreeing that one colour would be much harder but i'd say this would be a very hard puzzle even with 2 colours. It's like having a code and a key to the code but both the code and the key are mixed up. Having two colours isn't like someone unscrambled the key, that would be having scrambled only one cube. It's more like they just made the code less complex.

Elwyn wrote:

kastellorizo wrote:With two colors, you *know* the starting point.

kastellorizo wrote:It is *this* starting point which is the most difficult part of this puzzle, and by using two colors,
this difficulty is being eliminated

Not eliminated just reduced. You by no means know the starting point (unless you only scramble one of the cubes), just the possible starting points are limited. There are still an insane amount of possible positions that have the 4 blue corners on the bottom and the 4 green ones on the top (and the same for the red and orange cube) and you'd therefore still have to figure out, either by a long inspection of both cubes if possible or a long session of trial and error.

kastellorizo wrote:Now, don't you think that those few permutations & orientations you described are easy enough to do? Any solver here can do them in a few seconds (even my slow self!)

Well yes performing the permutations is easy but figuring out which ones to do is sure going to take a long time. I am by no means disagreeing that one colour would be much harder but i'd say this would be a very hard puzzle even with 2 colours. It's like having a code and a key to the code but both the code and the key are mixed up. Having two colours isn't like someone unscrambled the key, that would be having scrambled only one cube. It's more like they just made the code less complex.

This would be a very hard puzzle.

If I end up getting one (I love it, so I might) I'd want it all one color for each cube.

Elwyn wrote:

kastellorizo wrote:With two colors, you *know* the starting point.

kastellorizo wrote:It is *this* starting point which is the most difficult part of this puzzle, and by using two colors,
this difficulty is being eliminated

Not eliminated just reduced. You by no means know the starting point (unless you only scramble one of the cubes), just the possible starting points are limited. There are still an insane amount of possible positions that have the 4 blue corners on the bottom and the 4 green ones on the top (and the same for the red and orange cube) and you'd therefore still have to figure out, either by a long inspection of both cubes if possible or a long session of trial and error.

The thing is, you do not have just one cube, but two cubes. Using two cubes
together with the two colors practically eliminates that problem. Now if someone
wants to start randomly, that is not my issue. Just like when someone wants to
go through all 4.3*10^19 positions of the 3x3x3. (i.e. just like twisty puzzles have their
own techniques to be solved, so do the matching puzzles - In fact, some matching puzzles
in my collection require far more complex techniques than the one here).

When I say you know the starting point, you know which side to start for each cube.
With one color no one knows which side it is (again for both cubes). That is, with two
colors, you know which pieces are going to be at the top, and which are at the bottom.
With one color, not only you have no idea which is the top or bottom, you have literally
no idea where any of the faces is supposed it be, as well as no idea whether any of the
pieces are supposed to be together. The increase of difficulty in this case is enormous.
Just like the decrease of difficulty when reverting back to the two cubes.

I prefer to analyse a puzzle for a few minutes and then start to solve it. For the one color case
the inspection time as well as the difficulty, is increased exponentially, and not arithmetically.
And I have already explained why... (in fact I have already explained many things and I am
starting to repeat them)

At least, some can see now that the combination of a twisty puzzle and a matching puzzle,
is not that trivial. But those with a little bit of experience in both types of puzzles,
would never have much trouble solving the two colored one. But the one colored one?
Yes, a lot of trouble!


Pantazis