Sorry. I can't let this one pass by without comment.

CPELLEY@delphi.com says
> Richard Snyder's book on Square-1 is now being published. He sent me the
> following press release about a forthcoming Square-1 Puzzle Party:
<text deleted>
> It's really two puzzles in one! Harder than Rubik's, it's so hard that
> only 5 people in the whole world have ever been able to come up with a
> complete solution to it!

Unless Snyder or his agent is talking about a God's Algorithm for
Square-1, this statement is ridiculous.
I doubt that this number includes myself, as I have only told a few family
members and friends that I have solved this. (I expect many of you can say
the same thing.)

Harder than Rubik's? This is a matter of opinion and definition.
Do they mean conceptually harder, harder to derive a solution method,
harder to prove a solution method, or harder to achieve an individual
solution attempt? Or does harder just mean more time? More time
to derive a solution method, more time to prove a solution method,
or more time to achieve an individual solution attempt?
I don't really doubt the last. Except for the Pyraminx (and the 2-Cube),
all of the puzzles of this type take me longer to solve than the Cube.
I think that the Rubik's cube still holds the record as the puzzle that
took me longest to derive a solution method. (Of course all of the others
borrowed substantially from the cube.)

>Bring your Square-1, your Rubik's Cube, and your other Rubik's puzzles that
>you haven't been able to solve!
Sorry, I don't have any. Except the 10x10 Rubik's Tangle.

Chris Worrell
ccw@eql.caltech.edu