My collection has grown a bit since I last showed it off. In addition to 3-D puzzles of different shapes, or that turn along different axes, I've also sized up to the 8x8x8, 9x9x9 and 10x10x10 cube – leaving only the 11x11x11 before I reach the limit of mass-produced Rubik's Cube-type puzzles that are sanctioned for official competition, and for which scrambles are provided by the online puzzle scrambler that I consult. I'm not so much concerned about the official competition bit; as I've said many times, I'm no speed cuber. But I do like the help of a scrambler to set up a random state of each puzzle for me to solve.
This isn't going to be as much of a tutorial as the previous ones in this series, for the 2- through 7-cubes. There are no new parity errors to work your way through; just lots of cases of edge, OLL and PLL parity, for which the solutions are the same algorithms as ever, only applied to deeper and/or wider slices of the cube. The last time I solved the 10-cube, for example, I had one case each of edge parity that affected single, double and triple layers. If you've gotten down those parity algorithms and have the flexibility to apply them in a variety of situations, and if you've fully absorbed the strategy for solving last two centers and last two edges on any cube sized 5x5x5 and up, and if you know your method for solving a 3x3x3 cube, you're golden.
I'll just use this space to alert you to the very few, relatively minor ways in which solving an 8-cube and up is harder than 7-cube on down. First and foremost, moving the layers is more difficult. They're tiny. They catch on each other and lock up, unless they're perfectly aligned. A few minutes ago (while setting up for the photo above, in fact), I dropped my 10 cube and for a hot minute, I wasn't sure it was ever going to work again, there were so many pieces pushed out of alignment and locked up amongst each other. Then I pushed something just the right way and everything snapped back into place again, thank God.
Second, scrambling the cube takes a lot more steps, and if you're striving toward competition, that exposes you to a lot more chances of missing a step, or losing your place in the scramble, and not arriving at the state depicted at the end of the scramble ... which would be bad, in the context of competition, but doesn't really matter if you're just puzzling for fun. Still, it's a longer-lasting chore and any lapse of concentration can lead to that frustrating moment where you find yourself asking, "Where was I in this list of steps?"
Third, while solving the centers and edges is the same job as ever (from 4- or 5-cube on up), it's a helluva lot more work, so you'd better enjoy the process before you invest in the cube. The puzzle isn't any harder, and it's actually kind of relaxing if you ask me, when you know exactly what it's going to take to solve each side and each edge. But it will take longer, for sure. And when you add this on top of issue no. 1 – I blush to admit how many times I found myself swearing at these larger cubes, when they wouldn't let me make the turns I wanted – let's just say, enjoyment of a toy like this will be proportional to the
Sitzfleisch you possess. Which is to say, this is a pursuit best enjoyed by highly focused, task-orient(at)ed people; not, I should think, for the amusement of someone with ADHD.
The 8x8x8 version of Rubik's Cube is shown above in its solved state in the front row of toys ahead of the smaller-scale cubes. Known as V-Cube 8, its invention is credited to Panagiotis Verdes in 2007, but it's made by a number of different manufacturers and I guess there might be smoother-moving versions than the budget cube I bought. Verdes Innovations makes the V-Cube 8 with rounded sides; Chinese-made versions have flat sides, like the copy I own. Like the 4-, 6- and 10-cube, it has no fixed centers, so it's on you, as the puzzle solver, to assemble the 6x6 centers in the correct order. There are 296 pieces, including 216 single-color center pieces, 72 two-color edge pieces and the usual eight three-color corner cubies. The number of possible permutations of these pieces has been calculated at 3.52x10^217. You understand that that's a 218-digit number, right? Nevertheless, the unofficial speed record for solving the 8-cube, at this writing, is alleged to be 3 minutes, 19.87 seconds.
The 9x9x9 or V-Cube 9, like the 3-, 5- and 7-cubes, does have a fixed center on each side, plus 288 center pieces that can move anywhere and that you have to assemble into 7-by-7 centers; 84 edge pieces and, of course, eight corners. There are about 1.42x10^277 possible ways to scramble it. I'm told it's been solved in as little as 6 minutes 58.33 seconds.
About the 10x10x10 or V-Cube 10, I can't tell you much. Despite the center pieces getting smaller in cubes 8 and up, the overall sizes of the cubes have also grown to the point where this massive toy is actually tricky to hold in the hands, and at times you have to think about how you're going to make the next move. I don't have any data about record solves or possible permutations, I'm afraid. But the latter statistic is already way beyond the number of particles in the observable universe, going back a few cubes, so there's little doubt that that number, for the 10-cube, is just stupidly big, on a scale that has no meaning to the human mind. And probably, there's somebody in China or Korea who knows how to solve a well-scrambled 10 in, like, 10 minutes or less. Believe it or not, I've solved it (and the 9-cube as well), as recently as yesterday. But I've reached the point where "scrambling all my cubes and solving them" is no longer something I can do within the duration of a Hallmark Channel movie.
The 9- and 10-cubes are unsolved in the picture above. It so happens that I scrambled all nine cubes, from 2x2x2 up, last night and solved 2 through 7 while watching YouTube videos before bedtime. I had solved the 8-cube's centers too, leaving the rest of the puzzle for me to finish over lunchtime today. I'm saving the 9- and 10-cubes for tonight after work. I just haven't had the time yet and I didn't feature spending the time solving them to shoot pictures of a process I've shown in my previous tutorials, give or take an extra few pieces per row of center facets or edge pieces. Like I said, same puzzle, same solution, only bigger and requiring more time and work; not actually any harder, except in the three ways noted above.
What is the effect of all this leveling-up? I can only speak for myself. I'm still engaged in the puzzles. I'm a little frustrated with the amount of effort it takes – not the steps of solving the puzzle as such, but struggling with layers that catch on each other and lock up. I might have been happier if I had invested in a "speed cuber" grade product instead of the cheapo cubes I got. But the fun of puzzling is still there, and with each center solved, each edge, each parity case sorted, each step taken toward the final solution, that endorphin payoff keeps me hooked. I was talking, a few installments back, about the "comfort cube" needle on my dashboard edging from the 4-cube to the 5-cube. Honestly, today, I'd say my "comfort cube" is somewhere between the 6 and the 7 – in that sweet spot between not too easy and not too hard – and I think that needle will continue to move, despite these minor annoyances.
