Ever stared at a standard 3x3 and thought, "This isn't hard enough"? Most people haven't. But in the world of twisty puzzles, there's a weird, obsessive arms race that leads people to wonder about the Rubik's Cube 100 by 100.
It’s massive. It’s absurd. It’s honestly a bit terrifying to look at.
We aren't talking about a physical toy you can buy at Target. If you tried to make a physical 100x100x100 cube, the internal mechanisms would likely collapse under their own weight, or the friction would make it impossible to turn. Instead, this behemoth lives almost exclusively in the digital realm. It exists in simulators where the laws of physics don't apply, but the laws of mathematics most certainly do.
The sheer scale of the 100x100x100
Let’s talk numbers. A standard 3x3 cube has about $4.3 \times 10^{19}$ permutations. That’s a lot. But a Rubik's Cube 100 by 100? The number of possible positions is so large that our brains literally cannot comprehend it. It involves numbers with thousands of digits.
When you look at a digital render of a 100-layer cube, the individual stickers look like tiny pixels. In fact, if you aren't using a high-resolution monitor, you can't even see the lines between the pieces. It just looks like a solid gradient of color until you start scrambling it. Once it's scrambled, it looks like digital noise—like a television station from the 90s that isn't quite picking up a signal.
It’s a hardware killer
You might think a computer could solve this in a heartbeat. Not really. While a computer can execute moves instantly, rendering the cube and calculating the logic for 60,000 "stickers" on the surface (remember, we only see the outer shell, but the program has to track every piece) requires some decent RAM. Most people who tackle these use specialized software like pCubes or the Ultimate Magic Cube simulator.
If you try to load a 100x100 on an old laptop, don't be surprised if the fans start sounding like a jet engine.
How do you actually solve this thing?
You don't need new math. Surprisingly, if you can solve a 4x4 or a 5x5, you technically have the knowledge to solve a Rubik's Cube 100 by 100. The method used is almost always the Reduction Method.
Essentially, you turn the giant nightmare into a simple 3x3.
First, you solve the centers. On a 100x100, each face has a 98x98 grid of center pieces. That's 9,604 pieces per side. You have to group these into solid colors. It’s tedious. It's soul-crushing. It takes hours—or days—just for one side.
Then comes edge pairing. You have to find 98 individual edge segments and line them up to form one long "edge." There are 12 of these massive edges to build.
Finally, you treat the whole thing like a 3x3 and solve it.
But there's a catch. Parity.
The Parity Problem
Parity is a "glitch" that happens on even-layered cubes where pieces appear to be in a position that is impossible on a 3x3. On a Rubik's Cube 100 by 100, you are almost guaranteed to hit parity. Fixing it requires a long sequence of moves. If you mess up one move in that sequence on a 100-layer cube, you might break dozens of centers you spent five hours fixing.
Imagine the stress. One finger slip on your mouse or keyboard, and ten hours of work evaporates.
Who actually does this?
The "Big Cube" community is a small, dedicated subset of the speedcubing world. While the World Cube Association (WCA) only officially recognizes cubes up to the 7x7 in competition, the online community tracks "Unofficial World Records" for massive digital solves.
A solve of a Rubik's Cube 100 by 100 isn't measured in seconds or minutes. It’s measured in weeks.
In 2011, a cuber named Michael Feather solved a 100x100 digital cube. It took him 62 days. He didn't sit there for 1,488 hours straight, obviously. He did it in sessions, saving his progress. Total move count? Over 480,000 moves.
Think about that. Nearly half a million turns. Your wrists would be screaming if this were a physical object.
Is a physical 100x100 even possible?
Short answer: No. Not with current materials.
💡 You might also like: Lord of Bloods Exultation: Why Your Bleed Build Still Needs This Talisman
The current world record for the largest physical Rubik's-style puzzle is held by Gregoire Pfennig, who created a 33x33x33. It’s a heavy, fragile beast that costs thousands of dollars and takes months to 3D print and assemble.
As you add layers, the "core" of the cube has to hold onto longer and thinner plastic extensions to reach the surface. By the time you get to a 100x100, those internal "arms" would be so thin they'd snap the moment you tried to rotate a layer. Plus, the weight. A solid plastic 100x100 would weigh as much as a small child.
If someone ever claims to have a physical Rubik's Cube 100 by 100, they are either lying or they've discovered a new form of carbon fiber that defies the laws of friction.
Why bother?
It's a fair question. Why spend two months clicking a mouse to solve a digital puzzle?
For most, it’s about the meditative quality. It’s a repetitive, logical process that blocks out the rest of the world. It’s the ultimate endurance test for the mind. There's also the bragging rights. Very few people on Earth can say they’ve completed a 100x100 solve.
What most people get wrong
People think you need to be a genius. You don't. You just need extreme patience and a very good save system.
The strategy doesn't change from a 5x5 to a 100x100. It just scales. If you can handle the "Big Cube" logic, the rest is just stamina. It's the difference between walking a mile and walking a marathon. The mechanic of walking is the same; the mental fortitude required is completely different.
Getting started with mega-cubes
If you want to try this, don't jump to 100. You'll quit in twenty minutes.
Start with a digital 10x10. See how long that takes you. Usually, it's about 30 to 60 minutes for a first-timer. Then try a 20x20. You’ll notice the time doesn’t just double; it grows exponentially because finding the specific piece you need in a sea of 400 identical-looking blue centers is a nightmare.
Tools of the trade
- Software: Download pCubes. It’s the gold standard for virtual puzzles. It supports everything from 1x1 to 120x120 and even non-cubic shapes.
- Macro settings: Some solvers use macros for repetitive sequences, but purists argue that's cheating. Decide where you stand before you start.
- Music/Podcasts: You’re going to be here a while. You need audio entertainment.
The future of massive puzzles
We are seeing AI take a crack at these. DeepCubeA, a deep reinforcement learning algorithm, can solve a 3x3 in a fraction of a second. But even AI struggles with the 100x100 because the "state space" is so vast. The sheer number of permutations makes it hard for an AI to find a "path" to the solution without being guided by the same reduction methods humans use.
Perhaps one day, 3D printing technology will allow for a 50x50 or even a 100x100 using magnetic levitation to reduce friction. But for now, the 100-layer mountain remains a digital peak to climb.
How to prep for your first big solve
If you're serious about tackling a Rubik's Cube 100 by 100, you need a plan.
- Master the 7x7 first. If you can't solve a physical or digital 7x7 in under 10 minutes, a 100x100 will be purely frustrating.
- Learn the "Cage" method for centers. It's often more efficient for massive digital cubes than the standard "strip" method used on 5x5s.
- Set a schedule. Dedicate 30 minutes a day. If you try to marathon it, you’ll experience "cube blindness" where the colors start to bleed together.
- Backup your save file. Computers crash. Software glitches. Don't lose 40 hours of work because of a Windows update.
The Rubik's Cube 100 by 100 isn't just a puzzle; it's a test of human persistence. It’s you versus a giant grid of chaos. And when that last layer finally clicks into place and the screen flashes "Solved," the rush of dopamine is unlike anything else in the hobby.
Ready to ruin your sleep schedule? Download a simulator and start with a 20x20. If you can handle that without wanting to throw your computer out the window, the 100x100 might just be your next great obsession. Stop thinking about the whole cube and just focus on one row of centers at a time. That's the only way anyone ever finishes.