From whuang@cco.caltech.edu Tue Jan 10 16:44:58 1995 Return-Path: Received: from piccolo.cco.caltech.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA22169; Tue, 10 Jan 95 16:44:58 EST Received: from accord.cco.caltech.edu by piccolo.cco.caltech.edu with ESMTP (8.6.7/DEI:4.41) id NAA00237; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 13:44:49 -0800 From: whuang@cco.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang) Received: by accord.cco.caltech.edu (8.6.7/UGCS:4.41) id NAA23853; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 13:44:47 -0800 Message-Id: <199501102144.NAA23853@accord.cco.caltech.edu> Subject: Re: SKEWB To: cube-lovers@life.ai.mit.edu Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 13:44:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199501101808.KAA07315@holonet.net> from "ishius@holonet.net" at Jan 10, 95 10:08:07 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 495 > > If you're familiar with the SKEWB, > I would like to know whether it's harder or easier than the classic 3x3x3 > Rubik's Cube (I suspect it's simpler, but it has fewer symmetries). It took me a while to give out a working algorithm from it. Surprizingly my moves have very little use on Rubik's, and if the SKEWB wasn't as simple as it was it would be really tough to work out. Fortunately, due to its simplicity I need to remember only one code sequence. (Solution posted on request.)