The Future of Competitive Speedsolving (a discussion)

Apologies in advance if this has been covered to death already. In that case, for the mods, please feel free to delete this post if it improves the overall quality of the forums. (That was not sarcasm. I was being serious.)

The Future of Competitive Speedsolving (a discussion)

Summary/Abstract for the TL;DR crowd:


After spending a couple weekends with some big names of cubing and having attended my first National level competition last weekend (Canadian Open 2011) and just attended a local competition (Vancouver Open Summer 2011), there's always talk about beating world records in any event, especially with some of the speedsolvers I see in competition. As the limits of physical human potential are reached, at a certain point, records will become essentially unbeatable.

I hear a lot of talk about constantly falling records and the effect it has on the speedsolving community. The general sense I get is that with the top records being repeatedly broken by one individual does not necessarily generate the same excitement as when it was someone new each time.

While not to take away from the achievements of Feliks Zemdegs (who could very well be reading this), this has many parallels to other competitive endeavors, such as the world of professional sports. Take a consistently winning sports team such as the Wayne Gretzky era Edmonton Oilers or the Michael Jordan era Chicago Bulls. When standings are consistently dominated by one team, interest starts to wane and it's no longer such a big deal when the top ranked team continues to win, and towards the end of the team's reign, fans start cheering for the underdog.

Up until Erik Akkersdijk's 7.08 record was broken, this was largely unprecedented in the world of speedsolving, as previously most records had some level of staying power, or were at least beaten by someone different each time. I don't know if it's a testament to the fact that many solvers are getting that much faster or if we're actually reaching the limits as far as speedsolving potential. And when top ranks are increasingly more and more difficult to attain, will there be any continued draw towards competitive speedsolving?

Indeed, short of someone who does not have autistic savant syndrome (a la Daniel Tammet) being able to figure out the God's Algorithm, we quite possibly on our way to reaching the limit as to how fast we can go. Mechanical and physical limits will prevent a 3x3x3 from being solved in less than a second without setting it on fire due to the friction (unless they start making them out of metal), while barring mutation and enhancement (eg: smart drugs, genetic engineering, bionic enhancements), humans will be limited to how fast they can turn the thing.

This is where the comparison between speedsolving and organized sports fails. Success in sports is dictated by many, many factors, most of which is determined the quality of your opponents. In speedsolving, while there are other opponents, the ultimate opponent is time. When we finally reach a WR 3x3x3 solve that is for all intents and purposes unbeatable, what next?

When the knowledge is available to everyone thanks to the Internet, we're also going to stop seeing large ranges in the top times, separated by hundredths or thousandths of a second (indeed, there are already three people tied for fastest 2x2x2 single solve, at 0.96 seconds). At that point, is it worthwhile to add one more significant digit? Should Speedstacks be redesigning their timing devices so that they can be measured by that level?

Despite what my age and official WCA stats indicate, I do enjoy speedsolving and intend to continue practicing and competing, if for nothing else but my own personal gratification. At the same time, I do lament what looks like the early signs of a decline of competitive speedsolving, although I also suggest with some hope that it may be merely cyclical in nature, much like disco (after all, the Rubik's Cube did toil in obscurity from the mid 80s to late 90s).

I was thinking about this one day, and I thought of the idea that after a record becomes unbeatable, maybe every year the WCA starts up fresh and instead of "world record holder" we will have "[insert year here] WR holder". The times from previous years get stored in some archive after that.

Everyone should practice their life out..

But that means speedsolving is like cup stacking in a way. Speed and dexterity(with quick recognition).

Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.

There's always a way to get faster at a puzzle, you just have to be the first one to do it and effectively use it to be faster than everyone else. The dedication and will to this will decrease amongst speedcubers and we dive deeper and deeper into these techniques.

Basically, learning a bunch of algorithms and case recognition to optimize your solves. People are already doing this, but it be taken far beyond where it is now.

Also, incentive for the continuation of cubing aside from getting world records (or records in general) is to win competitions. Easier for some depending on who's attending.

Much more can be said, but I haven't the time to further discuss these matters.
Edit: PLUS IT'S FUN and addicting.

The number of competitions has increased massively since 2003. I stand corrected but I see no sign of the decline of competitive speedsolving. In fact I think the figures show it is increasing. Im sure Australians didnt give up swimming after Mark Spitz.

David, you make more sense than anyone else on these forums.

Cubing and going to competitions doesn't have to be about winning or records. Unless you can get those sort of times at home, I wouldn't bother worrying about it at all.

I believe that there will be a spike in interest but a decline in "lifespan" for cubers. What I'm trying to say is, with all the resources (websites, videos, tutorials, hardware) out there at this time, almost anybody can be fast. This I feel is really appealing to people and spark an interest. In fact maybe they will even get sub-20 and faster. It's a great way to impress people. But despite this, a lot of people just don't put the time and effort to becoming faster or use fewer moves or just plain attending a competition. since they expect things and not having certain results.

We have nubs coming into the community (not a bad thing to be a nub, we all were at point even faznub). They show a flare for cubing but they expect instant gratification. And when they don't get it, they just give up at times. Most nubs do.

I think cubing is becoming more like other competitive racing sports in that technique starts to be less important, and raw ability to be fast is the dominating factor.

In 2003-2005 or so, cubes were a lot stiffer, and instead of TPS ruling the day, cubing was about recognition and optimality. Even up to relatively recently you could get to world-class level without having incredible TPS. But nowadays everyone starts out turning fast, and that's all that really matters. You practice until you get good lookahead, and then your speed is entirely determined by your turning ability, and the fastest one wins. So, look at all the people who have sub-9 and sub-8 - that's the future. More and more of those, with pretty much the same style, always trying to turn slightly faster. And the people who do beautiful flowing smooth solves that max out in the 10-15 second range will get left more and more behind.

It kind of saddens me to see this progression (although I realize it's inevitable) because I remember when technique was still very important. Slightly so in 3x3 and 3OH, and much more so in the longer events like bigcubes. I had a huge respect for the top cubers back then - especially the top bigcubers - because I really got the feeling that they weren't just faster, but had a deeper understanding of the puzzles. One of the reasons I've been tending towards more difficult puzzles (including sims) is to recapture that feel, of a contest where the winner is the one with the best understanding of the puzzle. Anyway, in those days cubing felt like an exclusive club of people who had mastered something that was so difficult that most people immediately gave up on it - nowadays it feels a bit more like a bunch of 13-year-olds with fast fingers, and I think that's the trend for the future. The experts will always be there, but they will continue to get separated from the top people, and only get respect from inside the community.

EDIT: I remember this one anecdote that expresses my viewpoint pretty well. Sometime around when I started college, I remember Leyan Lo doing some slow turning solves for me, and it totally blew my mind that he could get sub-20s (pretty good for me at the time) going so slowly. This was pretty early (way before the youtube community) and I hadn't seen anyone do that before, and it really made the point that he was not just a faster version of me, but a real master of the puzzle. So the big difference is that a fast person back then would make me think "wow, he is really good at that", but a fast person now makes me think "wow, he turns really fast".

I remember having conversations with Stefan Pochmann back in the day where we thought times of sub-1 on magic were IMPOSSIBLE. We also estimated the limits of Master Magic at about 2.5 seconds. We were way off. This holds true for most puzzles. Given enough time, almost any record will be broken.

In defense of Feliks, he does far more than just kill everything with TPS...his solves usually involve an x-cross and his F2L always looks "lucky" because of multi-slotting. That's not even mentioning the color-neutral edge or the various LL tricks. He can turn like a demon, but really...there's so much more! It's an exciting time to be a speedcuber if you're paying attention...

Actually, I have to disagree with that. His official solves are generally pretty normal (although there is the occasional ZBLL and xcross), and sometimes he messes up and does an incredibly bad pair. Maybe the ones that have those tricks are the ones that have good times and end up being put on youtube?

Once more and more people start maxing out their TPS, it's that deeper understanding of the cube that will give you in advantage.

Jorghi said:

Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.

Click to expand...

I'd say that technique can work decently well, actually.

I know this post is probably geared more towards the small cubes; however, I would just like to say that big cubes have a looooong way to go before times are separated by only hundreths. Michal is the only one in the world capable of getting even close to sub 3 on 7x7, and I'm sure it is possible to average sub 3 with enough practice. Also, I don't see any reason why averaging sub 55 on 5x5 or sub 1:50 on 6x6 isn't possible.

Anything I've done on the sim can be done on a real cube with good enough hardware and TPS.

No offense to the OP, but I really disagree. I think now is the most exciting time to be cubing, compared to any year before. Records and times now are so much faster than all the times people used to say were impossible or highly unlikely, as Bob said in his post. Maybe it's also because I'm older, but I have more freedom to either travel to a competition, or just plain organize one, than I used to. There are so many advanced methods out there that anybody interested in theory has much more to learn than they could in 5 or 10 years if they're trying to master each method.

I learned a long time ago that if you compete outwardly (I will beat you, I will place in the top 10, I will beat a world record, I will make it to the final), that this is a very unhealthy way to be competitive. If you compete inwardly (I will get times in competition very close to the times I get at home, I will beat my competition personal best in my next competition, I will do better at the next competition than I did at the last competition), that this is a much healthier way to be competitive. The OPs post sounds like competing outwardly (beat Feliks, beat the WR), which I think is not only a terrible way to be competitive, but it leads to depression, anger, feelings of wanting to quit cubing, and it just plain sucks to think this way. I say that because I was competitive in this way a few years ago, and you really do start to feel that way bit by bit, and it only gets worse over time.

Simply put: don't compete outwardly - compete inwardly. For one, you'll have SO much more fun, and second you will still perform well in competitions (and you will feel good about meeting your personal goals at each and every competition as long as you train to meet them).

inb4-you're-just-slow-and-sour-grapes

Hardwick, that was brilliant! Preach it, brother!

Jorghi said:

Everyone should practice their life out..

But that means speedsolving is like cup stacking in a way. Speed and dexterity(with quick recognition).

Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.

Click to expand...

That was quite the ignorant comment, the second part that is. Solving slow helps a lot, you don't have to slow solve every time. Doing calm solves every once in a while will help your TPS, look-ahead, and number of pauses. I average about 17 seconds and I managed to get a 12 second nl due to one fluid solve, so HA!

cmhardw said:

I learned a long time ago that if you compete outwardly (I will beat you, I will place in the top 10, I will beat a world record, I will make it to the final), that this is a very unhealthy way to be competitive. If you compete inwardly (I will get times in competition very close to the times I get at home, I will beat my competition personal best in my next competition, I will do better at the next competition than I did at the last competition), that this is a much healthier way to be competitive. The OPs post sounds like competing outwardly (beat Feliks, beat the WR), which I think is not only a terrible way to be competitive, but it leads to depression, anger, feelings of wanting to quit cubing, and it just plain sucks to think this way. I say that because I was competitive in this way a few years ago, and you really do start to feel that way bit by bit, and it only gets worse over time.

Simply put: don't compete outwardly - compete inwardly. For one, you'll have SO much more fun, and second you will still perform well in competitions (and you will feel good about meeting your personal goals at each and every competition as long as you train to meet them).

inb4-you're-just-slow-and-sour-grapes

Click to expand...

No offense taken.

Sour grapes? I would hope those that know me don't see me that way. As it is, I do agree with the sentiment that outward competition isn't particularly healthy (perhaps I should've used the words "self-improvement" rather than "self-gratification"), and have accepted that becoming the best at something comes with equal portions of effort, natural talent, and skill/knowledge, and if it starts taking over my life and making me depressed, I should probably try something else or adjust my attitude (or switch to single-player video games). I mean, I some pretty weak showings at my last two comps, only showing marginal improvements in 3x3x3, although I've shown some significant jumps in other areas, which has largely renewed my drive to do better (although my intent is to put more focus into OH, just to shake things up a bit, especially since I'm pretty sure that I peaked in 3x3x3)

As it is, most of this stems from hanging out with and a few of the bigger names of speedsolving over the past couple of weeks (must not name drop...must not name dro...Stefan Pochmann), people who have developed a lot of the techniques that speedsolvers today take for granted and whose printouts appear in my notebooks, as well as hearing some of the various whispers about WRs and Feliks actually turning into outright hostility (even on this board), which is largely in line with the sports analogy in the OP. Fans of the sport have been known to lose interest when there's a consistently dominant team. It starts being predictable. As to whether or not this can happen to competitive speedsolving, I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad thing, having one person dominate records and consistently beat them for almost a year, especially since Erik Akkersdjik held onto his record for about 2 years. However, I do wonder if there is any actual makings of "Familiarity breeds contempt" in today's competitive scene.