What is the Limit?

[Stefan]

Can someone do a rolling-average-of-100 progression-over-time diagram for Feliks?

"Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 5 seconds (the average time)."
--Jessica Fridrich

Um... that quote is not from that page.

 

[Petro Leum]

Speaking of evolution...

http://i59.tinypic.com/c51c1.png

Can't you just make a prediction via regression using this data? i guess that would be the most accurate prediction, right?

 

[Ross The Boss]

there is no limit really. following the principal of diminishing returns, advancements will become increasingly incremental and come at ever greater expense (more practicing, efficiency training, longer times between improvements, etc). there will come a time where improvements by the smallest amount will be as impressive as, oh idunno, something like antoine's sub 11 oh average record (or fazzle's sub 7 single too, i suppose).

 

[cashis]

Um... that quote is not from that page.

Wow, sorry. You're right...
(I'm really dyslexic and thought something else)

 

[NeilH]

I predict 5 global average and 3 second single.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

If you by chance will do a later project on estimating world record times on the 4x4x4 - 7x7x7, you can use my prediction formula which simply takes the 3x3x3 world record average of 5 as input. As you can see in that post, it's pretty accurate based on the current single world record times (and I made this formula more than three years ago).

 

[molarmanful]

THE SKY IS THE LIMIT

But seriously, I'd say 3 seconds is the limit for single. 5 seconds is the limit for average. For me, 5 seconds would be entirely possible given that I turned at 10 turns per second (a bit less than my current maximum TPS), little to no pauses (superhuman lookahead), and sub-50 movecount. So a method like Roux could get very far.

But this is just my opinion. It will be hard to get this fast, but possible.

 

[TDM]

We know 10 TPS is possible, since people have been getting near that officially. If we could get up to 12 TPS in the future, with sub-50 movecounts from a method like Roux (let's say 48 average movecount), that's 4 second average. So I'm going to guess people will be getting 4 second averages in the future. Lucky scrambles and you could get a 3.5 average.

PB singles can be half your global average, though it's less likely to be that low with a method like Roux. So if you get a PB single in comp and average 4, that's... 2.5 seconds?

 

[newtonbase]

There are no limits. If someone sets a record then someone else will always beat it. Eventually the margins get very small but it'll keep happening.

Look at the 100m. People have been failing to predict the limits of that for a century and cubing has far more scope for improvements. There will always be new methods, algs, equipment and training techniques and as it's still a low participation activity progress is relatively slow.

I think that within 10 years 5s averages will be commonplace and records will be sub 4s but people will continue to get quicker.

 

[nalralz]

I wouldn't be surprised if Feliks got the single down to sub-4.5 and the average to sub-5.5 in the next year or so.

 

[Stefan]

There are no limits. If someone sets a record then someone else will always beat it. Eventually the margins get very small but it'll keep happening.

If the WR goes like 6.5, 6.05, 6.005, 6.0005, 6.00005, etc, then that matches your description and yet there's obviously a limit.

More generally, since the WR sequence is bounded and monotonic, there's a limit.

 

[samcorrigan]

If the WR goes like 6.5, 6.05, 6.005, 6.0005, 6.00005, etc, then that matches your description and yet there's obviously a limit.

More generally, since the WR sequence is bounded and monotonic, there's a limit.

My thought was that we are likely converge onto a limit, Although we may never meet it, we also may never break it, just get closer and closer

 

[josh42732]

My thought was that we are likely converge onto a limit, Although we may never meet it, we also may never break it, just get closer and closer

Agreed. It probably just seems like there isn't a limit because we are so far from it, but there is, indeed a limit. I predict like a lot of other people in this thread that the single will be in the 3's and average in the 5's. Although, the current average and single are about 1.25 seconds apart, the single might be high 3 while average might be low 5. But I predict that it will be when all of the young people currently in the community will be "retired" from cubing. Basically, no offense to anybody, but I predict that our generation will not have those solves.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

WUUUUT?!

Just because it is Jessica Fridrich doesn't imply that she was talking about the CFOP method. People have gotten 20 move FMC solutions, even below that unofficially. You could average 20 moves. A 2.5 second average is almost definitely possible, probably even a 2 average.

 

[cashis]

Just because it is Jessica Fridrich doesn't imply that she was talking about the CFOP method. People have gotten 20 move FMC solutions, even below that unofficially. You could average 20 moves. A 2.5 second average is almost definitely possible, probably even a 2 average.

I think I would be accurate in saying that nobody will ever be able to do NISS or other FMC techniques in the 15 second inspection time. Ever.

 

[WayneMigraine]

I think I would be accurate in saying that nobody will ever be able to do NISS or other FMC techniques in the 15 second inspection time. Ever.

Plus, NISS and a lot of other FMC techniques require you to have the actual scramble that you are solving.

 

[obelisk477]

It's silly to talk about limits on competition averages. More pertinent to the question is limits for global averages. And to that I say 6 seconds flat, is the fastest global average someone will ever have

 

[nvpendsey]

Seriously no one got this idea?? (Everything is hypothetical)(cube it friction less)
Assume that the corners (of the corners of the cube) are moving at light speed and the cube is regular 57mm.the corners would be (57/2)*sqrt2 away form the axis of rotation.therefore the circumference would be (57/2)*sqrt2*2pi = 57*sqrt*pi.dividing it by 4 to get the length traveled by the corner in one Quater turn (57*sqrt2*pi/4).Dividing this by speed of light (in mm/s) to get the minimum time taken for one quarter.(2.112 x 10^-10 sec per move)And then multiplying this value with god number ie. 26 (in QTM). The final answer is 5.491 * 10^-9 seconds or approx 5.5 nano seconds

 

[cmhardw]

Seriously no one got this idea?? (Everything is hypothetical)(cube it friction less)
Assume that the corners (of the corners of the cube) are moving at light speed and the cube is regular 57mm.the corners would be (57/2)*sqrt2 away form the axis of rotation.therefore the circumference would be (57/2)*sqrt2*2pi = 57*sqrt*pi.dividing it by 4 to get the length traveled by the corner in one Quater turn (57*sqrt2*pi/4).Dividing this by speed of light (in mm/s) to get the minimum time taken for one quarter.(2.112 x 10^-10 sec per move)And then multiplying this value with god number ie. 26 (in QTM). The final answer is 5.491 * 10^-9 seconds or approx 5.5 nano seconds

Very cool post

This approach reminds me of the myth busters episode about catching an arrow in mid air.

 

[OLLiver]

Better estimate high I suppose.
Avg record I will say sub 4.5 (ZB/ZZ) 4VER!!!!!!!!!! ZBLL IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE! BUT YOU CAN ONLY LEARN IT IF YOU ARE CRAZY!!!!!
Single- Feliks 3.2ish LL skip solve- If that solve had had (2 hads lol) an Xcross/XXcross. It could have been sub 3- the first ever. One day someone like faz will get one in competition so I will guess around 2.5-2.7 seconds for single.