• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Cubing - Present, Near Future, Future

Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
437
Location
Tennessee
I saw the thread in the begginer's forum about the future of cubing. I could say Fridrich has found it's end. Well, maybe a second faster on average, but not too much(not saying it's slow, it's rather fast). But there's the methods that aren't explored by too many, such as ZZ and ZB. EJF2L has come up recently, and the masters of Roux have gotten a tad faster(obviously by practice, and practice alone). I know Jason Baum is learning ZB, and that has quite a few algorithms. I've heard talk of marking out OLL and PLL and using 1LLL. Does anybody know how many different cases there'd be for 1LLL? I've thought the averaging of sub-9.5 and lower would come by methods with lower move counts, or a knowledge of much more algorithms, or(I'd think it'd be unlikely) some super-hybrid. Has anybody come up with very efficient methods/possibly efficient methods(with work, of course) other than the ones we know?
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
437
Location
Tennessee
True, qq, 1211 plus inverses and mirrors would be a huge amount. But then again if someone were to put like 20-30 years into it, they'd have 1LLL down pat. At least that's what I'd think.

And sorry about that oxymoron there. :p
 

amostay2004

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
2,788
Location
Malaysia
WCA
2009SWEE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
True, qq, 1211 plus inverses and mirrors would be a huge amount. But then again if someone were to put like 20-30 years into it, they'd have 1LLL down pat. At least that's what I'd think.

And sorry about that oxymoron there. :p

20-30 years of practice and algo-memorizing for something that could at best make you average 1-1.5secs faster (and that's if you're damn good at recognizing the different thousand cases)...not feasible
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Well, maybe it's theoretically possible to do something like that, but I can't see anyone having that level of dedication for cubing. (In that time, incidentally, you'd probably want to use something much better than F2L.) I guess we'll have to wait and see if cubing will even last another 20 years. The first wave didn't last anywhere near that long.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Im exploring ZB~
I agree with sparkzer00. Thats a nice variation.

The next step is to improve and optimize fridrich (or petrus, ZBLL would very well compliment petrus.)

EDIT: Back in april or so, i went to a competition with Jason at it. (Chattahoochee 09)
I heard he was no longer learning ZB.
 
Top