You’ve seen the speedcubers. Their fingers are a blur, the plastic clicks like a machine gun, and suddenly, a scrambled mess becomes a perfect six-sided trophy. It’s impressive. But there’s a secret that most casual hobbyists don’t realize: even the world’s fastest solvers rarely find the most efficient path. They use algorithms—pre-memorized patterns—to "muscle-through" the solve. It’s fast, sure. But it isn’t optimal.
If you want to know how to solve a Rubik's cube in 20 moves, you aren't looking for speed. You’re looking for God’s Algorithm.
Every single one of the 43 quintillion possible positions of a 3x3 Rubik's Cube can be solved in 20 moves or fewer. This isn't a guess. It’s a mathematical fact proven back in 2010 by a team of researchers including Morley Davidson, John Dethridge, Herbert Kociemba, and Tomas Rokicki. They used Google’s infrastructure to crunch the numbers. It took 35 CPU-years of idle time to confirm that 20 is the magic number.
But here is the kicker. Knowing it's possible and actually doing it are two very different beasts.
👉 See also: Why Everyone Still Struggles With the Are U Smarter Than a 5th Grader Online Game
The Myth of the 20-Move Method
Most people think there’s a secret "trick" or a specific set of moves they can memorize to always hit that 20-move limit. There isn't. Solving in 20 moves requires a deep, almost instinctual understanding of how pieces move across the three-dimensional space, or, more realistically, a very powerful computer.
When we talk about the 20-move solve, we are talking about the "Half-Turn Metric" (HTM). In this world, a 180-degree turn of a face counts as a single move, just like a 90-degree turn. If you use the "Quarter-Turn Metric," that number jumps to 26.
Standard methods like CFOP (Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL) usually take about 55 to 60 moves. Even the most efficient "human" method, the Roux method, usually clocks in around 45 moves. To get down to 20, you have to abandon the idea of "steps" entirely. You have to solve the whole thing at once.
How the Pros (and Computers) Find the Shortest Path
In the competitive cubing world, there is an event called Fewest Move Count (FMC). In FMC, competitors are given an hour to find the shortest solution possible for a specific scramble. They use paper, three cubes, and a whole lot of brainpower.
The current world record for a single solve in competition is 16 moves, held by Sebastiano Tronto. The average of three is usually around 20 or 21. How do they do it? They don't use the same logic you used to solve your first cube.
NISS and Blockbuilding
They use something called NISS—Normal-Inverse Scramble Sequence. Basically, they solve part of the cube, then they switch to the "inverse" of the scramble and solve it from the other direction. It sounds like black magic. It kind of is. By jumping back and forth between the normal and inverse states, they find "linear" solutions that a normal human eye would never see.
Then there’s blockbuilding. Instead of building a cross on the bottom, they build small 2x2x1 blocks. It’s more efficient. It leaves more "freedom" in the cube to manipulate other pieces without breaking what you’ve already built.
Kociemba’s Algorithm
If you’ve ever used an online Rubik’s solver, you’ve used Herbert Kociemba’s work. His algorithm is the gold standard. It doesn't find the absolute shortest path instantly (that would take too much computing power for a web browser), but it finds a solution under 20 moves in a fraction of a second. It works by breaking the problem into two phases.
Phase one reduces the cube into a specific "subgroup" where it can be solved using only a limited set of turns. Phase two finishes it off. It’s the logic behind almost every "solver" app on your phone right now.
Why 20 is God’s Number
For decades, mathematicians chased this number. They knew it was somewhere between 18 and 52. In 1995, Michael Reid proved that the "superflip" position—where every corner is correct but every edge is flipped in place—required exactly 20 moves. That set the "lower bound." We knew God's Number couldn't be lower than 20 because we found a position that needed 20.
👉 See also: Why Spicy Eel Stardew Valley Is Still the Most Important Meal You Can Carry
The hard part was proving the "upper bound." Proving that nothing needed 21.
The researchers finally did it by partitioning the 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 possible positions into sets that were small enough to check. Even then, "small enough" meant billions of positions per set.
The Reality of Learning How to Solve a Rubik's Cube in 20 Moves
Let’s be real for a second. You probably aren't going to sit down today and find a 20-move solution by hand. Honestly, it's exhausting. But you can get closer to that efficiency by changing how you look at the cube.
Stop thinking about "sides." The biggest mistake beginners make is trying to solve one color at a time. The cube is made of pieces, not stickers. There are 8 corners, 12 edges, and 6 centers. The centers don't move. Everything else is just orbiting them.
To improve your efficiency, you need to learn "Heise" or "Roux." These methods prioritize move count over finger speed. They force you to look at the relationship between pieces.
Common Misconceptions
- The "Secret" Move: There is no single 20-move sequence that resets a cube. The sequence depends entirely on the scramble.
- The World Record Speed: When Yusheng Du solved the cube in 3.47 seconds, he didn't use 20 moves. He used more. Speedcubing is about "TPS" (Turns Per Second), not move efficiency.
- The Software: Most apps that say "Solve in 20 moves" are just running Kociemba’s code. It's not teaching you to solve; it's giving you a map.
Stepping Toward Efficiency
If you’re serious about lowering your move count, your first step isn’t memorizing more algorithms. It’s actually memorizing fewer. You want to move toward "intuitive" cubing.
- Start with the "Freefop" method. It’s a hybrid between the standard beginner method and blockbuilding. Instead of a rigid cross, try to build a 2x2x2 block in one corner.
- Learn to use the "M" slice. The middle layer is your best friend. In the Roux method, you use the middle slice to orient edges, which is way more efficient than rotating the whole cube.
- Study the "Superflip." Take a solved cube and perform this: $U \ R2 \ F \ B \ R \ B2 \ R \ U2 \ L \ B2 \ R \ U' \ D' \ R2 \ F \ R' \ L \ B2 \ U2 \ F2$. That is a 20-move sequence. It is one of the "hardest" positions for a computer to solve. Look at how the pieces travel. It’s chaotic.
The Actionable Path to God's Number
You won't hit 20 moves tomorrow. You just won't. But you can get your 60-move average down to 40 with some specific practice.
First, download a "Cube Explorer" program on your PC. It’s old-school software, but it’s what the pros use to analyze their moves. Input a scramble and watch how the software finds a 19 or 20-move path. Follow it. Try to understand why the computer chose a specific rotation instead of the one you would have picked.
Next, start practicing "untimed" solves. Most cubers are obsessed with the stopwatch. Toss the timer in a drawer. Sit down and try to solve the cross in 8 moves or less every single time. Every cross can be done in 8 moves. If you're taking 12, you're wasting energy.
Finally, dive into the world of Commutators. This is the logic used in blindfolded solving. It allows you to move three specific pieces without disturbing the rest of the cube. It’s the ultimate tool for move efficiency because it eliminates the "two steps forward, one step back" nature of beginner methods.
Solving the cube in 20 moves is less about manual dexterity and more about becoming a mathematician of the plastic. It’s about seeing the shortest bridge between chaos and order. Even if you never hit that perfect 20, the journey to get there will make you a better solver than 99% of the population.
✨ Don't miss: Finding the Wild Armor Trim in Minecraft: Why Your Luck Probably Sucks
Grab your cube. Stop turning so fast. Start looking closer at where those edges actually go when you rotate the front face. The efficiency is there; you just have to stop rushing past it.