What is the Limit?

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.
 
Jessica Fridrich is not a reliable source. She's just another slow cuber. Obviously there is a limit that we will never exceed. I would say low 3 single and high 4 average.
 
Sajwo said:
Jessica Fridrich is not a reliable source. She's just another slow cuber. Obviously there is a limit that we will never exceed. I would say low 3 single and high 4 average.
Click to expand...
I agree that I have no idea why everyone was using her as a source before, but how does speed make any difference on knowledge?
 
Sajwo said:
Jessica Fridrich is not a reliable source. She's just another slow cuber. Obviously there is a limit that we will never exceed. I would say low 3 single and high 4 average.
Click to expand...

So slow cuber means they know nothing?

Yeah, I guess Lars Petrus and Frank Morris and all the others who would be considered "slow" today obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

And although she may not be the most reliable, she did create the method that has been used in every WR solve excluding 1982. It's still nice to have her opinion because of her big contributions to speedcubing.

That's like saying why do people ask Feliks about his opinion on the limits of speedcubing. Of course he isn't the most reliable source, but his fame means people would like to know his own opinion anyway.

Whilst we're on the topic - who would you deem as a "reliable" source?
 
Sajwo said:
Jessica Fridrich is not a reliable source. She's just another slow cuber. Obviously there is a limit that we will never exceed. I would say low 3 single and high 4 average.
Click to expand...

Speed doesn't determine knowledge, though. You don't have to be fast to have a very good understanding of the cube. Being fast often comes down to simply raw TPS. Fridrich invented a, dare I say, genius method for 3x3. She was one of the innovators of speed cubing. I think her opinion ought to be worth *something*. Look at people like Tony Fisher and Oskar Van Deventer; Tony must have a pretty good understanding of the cube to have figured it out on his own. Oskar shows a very good understanding of how parts interact through the wide variety of puzzles he has invented. Neither of them, however, are fast at all. So maybe Jessica Fridrich's opinion may not be correct, maybe she's not a reliable source, but who actually is? Does there exist any "reliable source" for something like this? It's all vague opinions and conjectures. You cannot cast aside a person's opinion on this topic purely based on speed.
 
PenguinsDontFly said:
In my opinion, the limit is 1LLL/ZBLL (3 step cfop------>CFL or ZZ with ZBLL). Bindedsa is the limit.
Click to expand...
Bindedsa is nowhere near done, and he's said before that he actually took learning algs pretty slowly. He thinks he's capable of much more than he's done, and that other people are too. He's nowhere near his own limit, and nobody is anywhere near the human limit.
 
IRNjuggle28 said:
Bindedsa is nowhere near done, and he's said before that he actually took learning algs pretty slowly. He thinks he's capable of much more than he's done, and that other people are too. He's nowhere near his own limit, and nobody is anywhere near the human limit.
Click to expand...

To Sir BindedSa-what other algorithm sets do you plan to learn? knowing full ZBLL is 7/57 of full 1LLL I believe.
 
In the year 2027, someone will 1-look a 13 move solution, when the fast people are averaging 13 TPS per solve. They will get a 1.10, hitting a "not bad" 11.8 TPS.

A 3.0 global average seems like a reasonable limit to me though. Somewhere between 15 tps/45 moves, and 10 tps/30 moves.
 
CyanSandwich said:
In the year 2027, someone will 1-look a 13 move solution, when the fast people are averaging 13 TPS per solve. They will get a 1.10, hitting a "not bad" 11.8 TPS.

A 3.0 global average seems like a reasonable limit to me though. Somewhere between 15 tps/45 moves, and 10 tps/30 moves.
Click to expand...

what method?
 
I'm just gonna make a prediction here:
By 2020, the WR single will be 3.22 and the average will be 4.98.
They will be beaten during the same solve.
[4.57 5.48 (6.77) 4.90 (3.22) ] = 4.98 WR average

The method will be CFOP for the counting times. The 6.77 is a Roux solve because of a really easy F2B. However, the solver, who uses CFOP as their main method, does not know the CMLL alg and has to 2-look, resulting in a "poor" time. The 3.22 is a 4 move XXCross and a forced EOLL skip, and COLL to a solved cube.
 
With the increasing competition of the 3x3x3, I believe that within a generation, sub 4-second averages will be achieved with something like a 75-algorithms set from the initial scramble. It just remains to discover the algorithms and the method. I think it will work much like a 2x2x2 method that now achieves sub 1-second solves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2
Selling Premium Speedcubes at NAC 2026 – Limited Stock, Good Prices!
Replies
0
Views
310
2022datt02
2
ARndmPrsn
GAN 14 Galaxy Limited Edition for Sale
Replies
4
Views
586
SpeedCubingLord
SpeedCubingLord
Jerry Hua
(For sale)QiYi 3x3 5x5 Magic Clock Blue Pink Clock Global Limited Edition 88 Sets
Replies
3
Views
573
Puzzle Maniac
Puzzle Maniac
U
Selling limited edition Gan cubes(11 m pro k’un, 356 XS vita)
Replies
7
Views
1,166
qwr
qwr
ILCubing
QiYi 2025 Limited Edition Clock (Green)
Replies
1
Views
576
That_slow_guy
That_slow_guy
Back
Top