Driving force of getting to sub 10?

[Cube4Life]

Hi guys. I just finished learning full oll, and i average about 25-30 ish seconds. I suppose that i should work on my f2l next, which (combined with cross) usually is from 15-19 seconds, but it seems like learning better algs and such will at most get me to sub 20. So what aspect of sub 15 or sub 10 solvers' f2l makes it so fast? what is the driving force which gets people to these times?

 

[shadowslice e]

Increased tps overall stemming from better lookahead.

e: And practise. Practise is very useful.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

To get sub 10: At least track first pair in inspection, Turn slow to lookahead and F2L cases need to be somewhat efficient and fast

By a global 10.3er

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

To get sub 10: At least track first pair in inspection, Turn slow to lookahead and F2L cases need to be somewhat efficien and fast

By a global 10.3er

Completely agreed to by a global 10.1er

 

[EmperorZant]

To get sub 10: At least track first pair in inspection, Turn slow to lookahead and F2L cases need to be somewhat efficient and fast

By a global 10.3er

Completely agreed to by a global 10.1er

Not even Sub-10, what is this

 

[Escher]

About 4k-8k hours depending on person, I think that helps the most. I wrote this when I was high 8-9ish. Take steps to ensure f2l movecount is almost never >40. Learn algs constantly. Turn fast randomly without looking when watching TV. Turn slow and porpoisefully without a timer when pooping. Go to sleep thinking about some cool f2l thing you just worked out. Wake up and reach for the cube. Rinse and repeat for a year or two.

Shortest answer is 'having done all the necessary things to be that fast', which there's a fair bit. People care way too much about the right order to do things in to get the best gains. This tendency can lead to paralysis by analysis. Just follow what you're passionate and motivated to do with practice, and pick up the slack when your splits get too wonky (4s PLL stage at 15s average, for ex.).

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Not even Sub-10, what is this

Cuz the solves that I can predict the F2L pair on are usually sub 9.5. Solves that I can't track the first F2L pair on and solves I don't turn slow on, suck.

So I pretty much know how to be sub 10 but I guess Im not completely capable of it just yet.

 

[EmperorZant]

Cuz the solves that I can predict the F2L pair on are usually sub 9.5. Solves that I can't track the first F2L pair on and solves I don't turn slow on, suck.

So I pretty much know how to be sub 10 but I guess Im not completely capable of it just yet.

Oh I was just kidding, but that's still a good clarification to make

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Oh I was just kidding, but that's still a good clarification to make

Yeah I know, I just felt like mentioning that was a good idea for anyone else that might read it and wonder why I though so.

 

[Gomorrite]

About 4k-8k hours depending on person

That range has to be wider. Aren't quite a few people nowadays becoming sub-10 in less than 2 years? And I don't think they are practicing 5 hours per day. Probably 2000 hours or less is enough for some people.

 

[Petro Leum]

That range has to be wider. Aren't quite a few people nowadays becoming sub-10 in less than 2 years? And I don't think they are practicing 5 hours per day. Probably 2000 hours or less is enough for some people.

That's the thing, they're kids and have looots of time. they most likely practice more than 5 hours a day.

 

[Gomorrite]

That's the thing, they're kids and have looots of time. they most likely practice more than 5 hours a day.

Wouldn't that require cubing to be almost the only activity after school, every single day? Seems like a lot to me. Maybe it is possible if a lot of it is casual solving instead of purposeful training, but then it would mean that the same level can be achieved in less hours.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Max got sub 10 in a year :O I don't think he was particularly young when he did it

 

[Gomorrite]

Max got sub 10 in a year :O I don't think he was particularly young when he did it

Did he really? Because his competition results don't suggest that at all. It seems like it took him around 3 years since his first competition.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Did he really? Because his competition results don't suggest that at all. It seems like it took him around 3 years since his first competition.

Yeah that's true, and it confuses me because I'm 80% sure he replied to a youtube comment when someone asked, replying that he got sub 10 in 'about a year'.

 

[Escher]

That range has to be wider. Aren't quite a few people nowadays becoming sub-10 in less than 2 years? And I don't think they are practicing 5 hours per day. Probably 2000 hours or less is enough for some people.

I definitely agree with the idea that <4000 is plausible for some, but if we're talking to a general audience, and assume a normal distribution, I think it's smarter to push the estimate up quite a lot.

Regarding the difference between purposeful practice and casual solving or play-solving, well, I reckon it's pretty common for natural kinds of play to produce a significant improvement of skill, theoretical intent (the 'methods of practice') or not. I actually think there's a trade-off involved with more purposeful practice at early stages - simply 'playing' can produce lots of insights.

Regarding Max's comp performances, it took me about 13 months to get my first <10 avg12, iirc, but obviously it took me a little longer to get my first sub 10 avg5 in comp. I tend to get really, really anxious before competition solves, and my mind ends up spinning trying to keep myself composed and focused on solving. Performance anxiety tends to present itself as an environmental barrier, and I guess after a few years Max got comfortable solving in that very different environment (notice the comp-like setup for home videos). It's a process that has taken me a while to go through!

 

[ComputerGuy365]

It's tough.

I've been cubing for awhile and I still linger ~20 seconds per solve. I just came back from a long break, I averaged 22-23 before and now I average 20-21.

Essentially, consistent sub-10 solvers can plan out their crosses extremely well and are very good at F2L recognition & execution. They also need quick TPS on OLL/PLL, which takes a lot of practice.

 

[Cube4Life]

Thanks for replying guys it means a lot to me. I've tried all of your suggestions and show signs of improvement already--my avg times are down to 25 sec. I got rid of the 30 sec times. Sub 30 feels gooooddd!!!
Thanks again

 

[Draranor]

To get sub 10: At least track first pair in inspection, ...

Or you could be like me, and not do that

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

Just follow what you're passionate and motivated to do with practice, and pick up the slack when your splits get too wonky (4s PLL stage at 15s average, for ex.).

...I guess I need to work on my PLL.