Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: cheaters?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:19 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
I've heard a lot of phrases like 'learn more algs' or 'learn the ** method'....and for people who don't know how to solve a cube, or any twisty puzzle for that matter, some call it 'cheating' or w/e....How do you guys feel about "learning" how to solve a rubik's cube, or etc...?

Personally, I actually watched a video about the 3x3 which helped me learn the 'methods' in solving the cube....then moving onto other puzzles, I've pretty much figured them out myself with no outside help (other than the video on the 3x3) yet, even after I've solved a puzzle on my own and I want to learn faster ways to do it or learn patterns or w/e, people look down upon you for looking it up on the net?

Basically it's all a learned/memorized method in solving any puzzle right? Once you solve it, you can do it....period....so I don't see what the big deal is about learning other algorithms and such after the fact....

This may be a pointless thread, but I'm just curious how other cubers feel about this matter...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: PA, USA
I don't care; I can solve it [quickly], they can't [at all]. :roll:

What about jigsaw puzzles? It's the same principle as a twisty puzzle; you start from a scrambled state and you solve it to one unique configuration. Am I cheating if I look at the picture to see what the puzzle is supposed to look like, or if I flip over all the pieces so that the picture sides are visible?

_________________
WCA profile


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:19 pm
Yeah, isn't it those type of comments made by people who can't solve it and say it to those who can so they won't feel so bad themselves for not being able to solve it?

_________________
http://www.rockstargames.com/V/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: United States-California
I don't think there is any problem at all. Although I dislike it when people start by reading the solution on every puzzle they buy without trying it themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Norway
Hi :-)

It all depends on ones purpose. If the sole purpose is to solve the darn thing i see nothing wrong in looking up solutions. If the purpose is to truly understand the cube, then try for yourself - don't give up easily. Those who solved the cube early 80's (me included) often did not have any solution available. And still solved it. It IS hard first time. But when you start to *understand* it's a ton of fun :wink:

-Per

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans" -John Lennon, Beautiful Boy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:19 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
I see what you mean perfredlund...it's just that those who don't know how or just plain can't solve a puzzle sometimes get annoying with their comments or remarks towards those who can solve...I mean I have just started to get into the rubik's world myself and after solving the 3x3 I was hooked....but I did have a little help solving it via the internet (as stated previously) so I guess I'm asking if that makes me/you/anyone a 'cheater'? I know that a lot of puzzles (especially the 'cubes') use the exact algorithms or some slight variation of the alg's used on the 3x3...so if you were the person who couldn't solve it and you knew I saw it on the net and now I can solve the 4x4 and 5x5 is it fair to still say I 'cheated' even though I didn't actually look up stuff for those two particular puzzles?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:15 pm
I have instructed some people personally on how to solve the cube, explicitly telling them what to do every step of the way and even explaining the reasoning behind it. I have done this several times. They still can't do it on their own.

You have not cheated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Isn't the whole point of a puzzle that you solve it? Any external help in my eyes is cheating and is not solving. However if your main aim is not to solve but to speedcube or just to be able to complete it, then it doesn't matter.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:17 pm
Location: New Jersey
In my humble opinion, I don't find it as cheating. Like Per, I was around 12 years old back in the early 80's when I first got a hold of the cube, and we didn't have the internet to search for various solution methods. It took me a month to figure it out, and in doing so, I learned to solve it with my own method and started to understnd the cube. I used my method, still know it, and can still get around 40 seconds using it. So, am I a cheater for now using Friedrich exlusively because I want to be a sub 20 second solver? Anyway, I think that we should just take their negative comments in stride and just know that they are only saying them because they can't solve the puzzles in the first place. Have you ever been accused as a cheater by someone who does know how to solve the cube, regardless of their times? I doubt it. For those who do accuse you of cheating, it makes them feel better, and they just don't understand. In fact, I guarantee if you hand them a cube and give them a week to solve it without either taking it apart or taking the stickers off, the majority of them will either fail, or simly give up; and those that give up will give you an excuse like "I'm not wasting my time on this". It's all good, we know the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:59 pm
Location: Mantua, Ohio
The way I see, you should try and solve it without any outside help (just for solving though.) When it comes to speed solving you can use whatever source out there to make your solve faster. Do you think Boxers use video to help them with there next fight? If you gonna compete, then whatever you need to do to help yourself gain speed is fair game. However, if you can become the faster Rubik's cube solver without any outside help then you're one of the icons of speed cubing with a name everyone will always remember.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Since we are only talking about puzzles I don't think the term "cheating" is negative at all. It merely means you haven't solved a puzzle by yourself. It's not like cheating at an exam. I play a lot of online scrabble. Many of my opponents use word finding software during the actual games. It's very common and done openly but to me that is cheating. It's not wrong or bad but it's definitely cheating.
BTW when I talk about solving a puzzle I mean the process of working out how to do it regardless of it's scrambled position. In my eyes a speedcuber isn't "solving" puzzles when he competes, he is completing them. The only time he solved it was the first time. Obviously there will be different opinions to what "solve" actually means but that's the way I see it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Norway
Hi :-)

Let us rename the board to something appropriate - speedcompletion :lol:

The fastest solving i have heard about was a couple of days. For me it took 2 months to solve it. My first big discovery was how to easily manipulate corner positions. I didnt know i had discovered commutators. And far less that i actually did something related to mathematical group theory :roll:

-Per

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans" -John Lennon, Beautiful Boy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:03 am
Location: Koblenz, Germany
So many answers? :shock:
Seems like a questions worth a poll...
My 2 cents: I have built three dozen bandaged cubes because i wanted the challenge of creating my own solution. Speedsolving never interested me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
I bought my first cube on 2nd April 1981. I completed it on 3rd April 1981 through my own method. However I had previously played around with them a little at school and was probably able to do one side. It took three weeks before I could solve/complete it from any position.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada
I think the notion that anyone who learns any solution off the internet is a cheater is absolutely ridiculous. By that narrow definition, that means everyone responsible for every great scientific breakthrough, discovery, invention, or achievement is a cheater. We've all learned from someone else - that's how we've managed to advance as a civilization. If it weren't for "cheating", as it were, we would still be starting fires by going to the neighbouring village and stealing theirs.

So there have been people that figured out the solution on their own? Good for them. As it stands, I never claimed to have figured it out on my own.

_________________
Best times:
Pyramix - 13.50
3x3x3 - 18.78 (unofficial) / 25.68 official - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T671TKU5nPU
4x4x4 - 3:19.68 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3sDLT87TNQ
5x5x5 - 4:46.96 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8E1_6zV_zU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
I will admit I never solved the top layer by myself, however, me and my mother worked out the first two layers between. Do I consider myself a cheat? No, but I do feel I have cheated myself out of an experience.

However, with the knowledge I have gained from learning how to solve the 3x3, I managed the 4x4 and 5x5 (all but the parity that is), Skewb, Square-1, Clock, Dogic, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Cage (4x4 and 5x5, all by myself) among with many other puzzles I don't own. Learning about the 3x3, in my opinion, was more like giving myself tools to solve the other puzzles. You get taught maths, and then get given questions using the methods you have learned in maths, it's the same with the cube if you ask me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
I first learned from the booklet that comes with it. I never bothered to learn the algs but I knew I had to make 2 layers. I was able to get 2 layers with out learning any algs. Then I went back and learned to do the rest. I taught myself petrus. Then about a year ago I learned Roux and Heise just because you can never know too many handy techniques.

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
Toquinha1977 wrote:
I think the notion that anyone who learns any solution off the internet is a cheater is absolutely ridiculous. By that narrow definition, that means everyone responsible for every great scientific breakthrough, discovery, invention, or achievement is a cheater. We've all learned from someone else - that's how we've managed to advance as a civilization. If it weren't for "cheating", as it were, we would still be starting fires by going to the neighbouring village and stealing theirs.


There is a massive difference between using your existing knowledge and experience to cheating. How can anyone claim to have solved a puzzle if they have looked up the solution? If I copy a book that doesn't mean I have written it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: cheating
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
The term cheating applies if someone claims to "solve" the cube when he/she uses a solution they didn't originate.

When the cube first came out the greatest value of it was recognized to be the challenge of solving it with no outside help. There were a whole number of people who did it and it's great to meet others who could do it.

It would be nice it the tournaments had a "solve by themselves" category for the people who only use what they themselves have developed. I wish I knew such people in this day and age.

No one has contacted me about it...am I the only one on this board who only uses his own solutions/algs?

David J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA
Like many I was too young to consider that learning a solution would deprive me of deriving my own. But, also like many, I've tackled subsequent puzzles on my own. I've gone so far as to invent my own 3x3x3 solution (mostly just to prove to myself I could), but never use it as it isn't particularly efficient.

I think perhaps less charged language than "cheating" would lead to less of a divide in the conversation.

I consider that I am solving the cube when I use a layer method with algorithms I've found on various sites, or learned from friends. But I couldn't claim to have invented or derived that solution. I am using a solution to bring a mixed puzzle to a solved state, so I think "solved" is a reasonable verb.

For all but perhaps two of my hundreds of puzzles I have derived my own solutions, and that has a completely different level of enjoyment.

Dave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cheating
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
David J wrote:
No one has contacted me about it...am I the only one on this board who only uses his own solutions/algs?

David J

Well Thom uses K4, I use my version of K4 with everything found myself, I also have my Big Cubes method, along with my Cage method which I found all by myself. Not to mention my Square-1 solution, Dogic, oh and Pyraminx.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:37 pm
DLitwin wrote:
I think perhaps less charged language than "cheating" would lead to less of a divide in the conversation.


I think in this context it's comparable to computer game cheats. It doesn't imply anything negative or insulting it's just a clarification of how something was achieved.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:31 am
Location: Greece, Australia, Thailand, India, Singapore.
For me there are many different types of people solving puzzles. For example:

1. Self solvers (those who find the entire solution by themselves).
2. Half solvers (those who managed to solve part of the puzzle by themselves).
3. Speed solvers (those who can solve the puzzle fast, regardless if it is their own method or not).
4. Relaxed solvers (those who always take their time when solving a puzzle).
5. Profet solvers (those who have found a solution to a puzzle which has not been invented yet).
6. Cheat solvers (those who claim another's method was found by them).
7. Virtual solvers (those who enjoy playing with java, flash, or other computer type puzzles)
8. Emo solvers (those who hurt the puzzle or themselves after getting frustrated).
9. Math solvers (those who unfairly(?) use mathematical analysis to solve puzzles).
10. Blind solvers (those who can solve a puzzle without using the sense of sight)

Of course there are more... you may add your own category LOL

To summarize, I used to be an emo-math solver, but now I am more of a relaxed-self solver!

;)



Pantazis

_________________

Educational R&D, Gravity, 4D Symmetry, Puzzle Ninja, Matrix Mech, Alien Technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cheating
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:15 pm
Tony Fisher wrote:
Toquinha1977 wrote:
I think the notion that anyone who learns any solution off the internet is a cheater is absolutely ridiculous. By that narrow definition, that means everyone responsible for every great scientific breakthrough, discovery, invention, or achievement is a cheater. We've all learned from someone else - that's how we've managed to advance as a civilization. If it weren't for "cheating", as it were, we would still be starting fires by going to the neighbouring village and stealing theirs.


There is a massive difference between using your existing knowledge and experience to cheating. How can anyone claim to have solved a puzzle if they have looked up the solution? If I copy a book that doesn't mean I have written it.

I'm a bit confused. If I copy a book I am doing more than using someone's else's knowledge of how to make a book, I'm taking it word for word. Wouldn't the cubing equivalent be going online to one of the places where you input the state of your cube and it tells you, move by move, exactly how to solve it instead of using a method found online which instead tells you what you need to know to solve it?

It may or may not be a pointless distinction. I ask because, as far as I know, using someone else's method to write a book is only plagiarism if you end up with the same book. The odds of any two people, even using the same method, ending up with the same solve are negligible.

That's not what has me really confused though, what has me really confused is word search puzzles. You see, every time I do one I use the same method, I don't know whether I created it myself, I learned it from others, or it was a bit of both.

If we assume that I did learn it from someone else, does that make me a cheater?

I can be fairly sure that if I was taught the method I use the one who did it never saw the vast majority of the puzzles I have solved, but then again the one who writes an online solution never sees the vast majority of positions of the cube people reading it will encounter. The method I use will solve any word search puzzle, just as an online method for solving the cube will solve any position of the cube.

-

David J wrote:
No one has contacted me about it...am I the only one on this board who only uses his own solutions/algs?

I use only my own solution but it is identical to one I found online. The only difference is that the online solution is far better explained than I ever managed which, mercifully, makes it easier to remember.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cheating
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
Pembo wrote:
David J wrote:
No one has contacted me about it...am I the only one on this board who only uses his own solutions/algs?

David J

Well Thom uses K4, I use my version of K4 with everything found myself, I also have my Big Cubes method, along with my Cage method which I found all by myself. Not to mention my Square-1 solution, Dogic, oh and Pyraminx.


That's good. (but I don't know what K4 is)

I should note that some people, even though they use other's algs and solutions originally, do end up with a profound understanding.

*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
K4 is a direct solving method for 4x4. A brief overview:

Solve two opposite centres
Solve 1x3x4 block
Solve rest of centres
Finish first layer
Solve F3L
Solve LL corners
Solve LL edges

or in video format:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g2iXP8Va4q4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
Pembo wrote:
K4 is a direct solving method for 4x4. A brief overview:

Solve two opposite centres
Solve 1x3x4 block
Solve rest of centres
Finish first layer
Solve F3L
Solve LL corners
Solve LL edges

or in video format:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g2iXP8Va4q4


Cool, thanks!

My 4by method:

1. Solve two opposite centers,
2. Solve two 1x3x4 blocks,

This leaves unsolved the top corners, the two edge pairs on top of the two blocks, and two whole rows right around the middle.

3. Solve the remaining edge pairs,
4. Solve the four remaining centers.

There's a point while solving the remaining edge pairs where you can see whether or not you have the parity problem. If you do, you solve the remaining centers with an odd number of turns, if you don't, you solve the remaining centers with an even number of moves.

David J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:04 am
Location: exeter,england
Hi All,I am a combination of Self solver and relaxed Solver as I find,the joy of puzzles is in the solving,to paraphrase an old saying.As for Alg and notation tables,I can't seem to read them properly due to dyslexia.But I don't consider people who use algs etc for speedsolving,cheats as they all seem to personalise them to their own tastes and preferences,Harry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Norway
Hi :-)

Well, to all intents and purposes i do use solely my own invented algorithms/sequences for speedsolving any sized cube. That is not to say that the sequences are unique. In fact most of them are very trivial, but i didn't read it up anywhere before i discovered/constructed them myself! To this day i'm too stubborn to learn any "advanced" method. My avg avg is about 25 secs with some warm-up. Not bad for a basic method.

Pembo, i thought you had learnt some cage stuff from me/thom? Anyone who learns K4 has indeed been "borrowing" from my cage method. Thom openly admits that his K4 method was constructed on the basis on knowledge of my cage method. His K4 was made so as to make the centers solution faster while still retaining a direct solving approach for the rest 8-) What makes a good cage method is not the steps as such, but the fast/flexible algs that make up the stages. Also im not the first to make/use a method that builds a "cage". Even the solution booklet has a simnilar solution. I'm the first to give this approach an easy name. And all algs are my own!

-Per

_________________
"Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans" -John Lennon, Beautiful Boy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
Well Per, I used your structure for cage, and Thom's K4 structure, but all algorithms/commutators are my own. I got some guidance from Thom as to how you form the LL commutators, but the F3L slots are my own. My cage LL was also found by me, I did not use commutators when I did it, but some algorithms which altered centres.

For the centres, I found my own 3 cycle, but I do believe you taught the block 3 cycle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
perfredlund wrote:
Hi :-)

Well, to all intents and purposes i do use solely my own invented algorithms/sequences for speedsolving any sized cube. That is not to say that the sequences are unique. In fact most of them are very trivial, but i didn't read it up anywhere before i discovered/constructed them myself! To this day i'm too stubborn to learn any "advanced" method. My avg avg is about 25 secs with some warm-up. Not bad for a basic method.[snip]

-Per


Hi Per,

I thought that might be the case but I hadn't seen anything definitive before.
Congratulations!

David J

*


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NXTgen and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group