Message #1100

From: Matthew <damienturtle@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 3^4 in 237 twists
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:46:11 -0000

Just to let everyone know that I had an attempt at using cube explorer to improve my 251 twist solution, which gave a result of 210 twists. I like the idea of the new categories: human only, human plus computer (what Klaus and I have done, by doing part of the solve by hand, and part by computer), and computer only. For years we were just concentrating on human only solves, but there is a certain interest to be had in the other catagories, as long as they stay separate. It will be interesting to see what someone could achieve by making a program for fewest moves solving, and I don’t think it has been explored for 4D yet.

I have been distracted by other cube things recently so I haven’t put in a lot of effort to optimise my solution more by hand, but now I have a target of 237 twists (and I think I can maybe manage it …)

Matt

— In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Weidinger <klaus.weidinger@…> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> the last two days I finally found enough time to finish my third solve of the
> 3^4. This time I broke Matthew’s record and managed to get down to 237 twists.
> However, I have to admit, that I would not have been able to do so without some
> help from CubeExplorer. The programme solved two 3^3s for me (17 and 18 twists).
> By the way: "my" parity occured again and this time I managed to solve it
> without help (but only because I knew, that it was able within 5 twists).
>
> Next weekend I will try to finish this solve again, but this time, without a
> computer. I hope that I will stay below 300 twists, but I don’t think I can get
> anywhere close to Matthew with this method without usage of a computer.
> Therefore I have to congratulate Matthew again on his astonishing solve.
>
> It would be really nice if you (Melinda) could add a new category to the hall of
> fame which says "Shortest solution with computer aid", because I really don’t
> want to "rob" Matthew’s record in this manner. I think this category might get
> really necessary in the future, because in 4D I expect god’s number to lie out
> of human range unlike in 3D. Therefore there should be two records. One for
> humans and one for computers.
>
> I have already sent the logfile to Melinda and will put it in my MC4D-wiki
> profile in the next few days.
>
> Happy Hypercubing,
> Klaus
>