Relative Solve Times for 2x2x2 - 7x7x7

Looking at official PBs from top OH solvers it looks it's usually close to 1.5, although Antoine Cantin's is lower than 1.4 (and 1.65 for Feliks Zemdegs).

I've done 43000 2H timed solves (around 50000 total) and 5000 timed OH (maybe 8000-9000 total), with similar practice I'm guessing it would be maybe 1.4 or so, although I think GuRoux practice OH frequently and his ratio is 1.5.

I see a lot of lightning fast OH times in the Roux Facebook Group competition, I'm usually at the bottom. BTW I'm the least efficient Roux solver ever :p
 
This thread gets bumped from time to time, and I found my latest statistical analysis interesting. I think I'm relatively better at the stuff I practice. What's interesting to me is that, based on the chart on the first page of this thread, my relative 4x4/3x3 solve times are off the chart, literally, and better than average up through 6x6. In reality that reflects a lack of 3x3 practice more than anything else, but still interesting.

Ao100 for 2-4, Ao50 for 5-7
2/3 = 11.95/32.11 = 0.37
4/3 = 1:35.35/32.11 = 2.97
5/4 = 2:57.99/1:35.35 = 1.87
6/5 = 5:17.29/2:57.99 = 1.78
7/6 = 8:28.21/5:17.29 = 1.60

Going by best singles:
2/3 = 4.20/21.65 = .19
4/3 = 1:13.13/21.65 = 3.38
5/4 = 2:24.41/1:13.13 = 1.97
6/5 = 4:23.69/2:24.41 = 1.96
7/6 = 7:27.81/4:23.69 = 1.58
 
Logiqx said:
Yes. I've considered it on several occasions.

Since you are interested, I'll do it some time soon.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's an interesting analysis and a good way of answering the "how fast should I be at X" questions that often come up. My guess is that the results won't be much different if recalculated today, but I'm curious anyway.
 
Updated stats (2018-10-08)

I've re-generated the original charts and created a new chart for the non-cubic puzzles.

All of the statistics were generated using my "WCA SPV" project on GitHub.

I have attached the Excel spreadsheet for anyone who wants the actual numbers behind the charts (min, max, mean, iqm, etc).

2x2x2-7x7x7.png


non-cubic.png


oh-ft-bld.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Excellent work. Just curious - how do Megaminx times compare with 5x5 times?
 
mark49152 said:
Good stuff, thanks. Looks pretty much the same, AFAICS. Except for the fast end of BLD, unsurprisingly!
Click to expand...

Little change overall. I was expecting the 6x6 ratio to have dropped but pretty much everything has improved at the same rate.

5BLD was the most noticeable change but I also switched the 3BLD graph to use PB single rather than mean..
 
Logiqx said:
5BLD was the most noticeable change but I also switched the 3BLD graph to use PB single rather than mean..
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I think 4BLD is the biggest advance, from 3.84 to 2.66 for the fastest, if I'm looking at the right numbers.

So, now I have some new personal targets, and they look even more ambitious :)
 
mark49152 said:
Makes sense. I think 4BLD is the biggest advance, from 3.84 to 2.66 for the fastest, if I'm looking at the right numbers.

So, now I have some new personal targets, and they look even more ambitious :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I remembered incorrectly. 4BLD was the biggest change, followed by 5BLD.

I'd advise you to stop improving your sighted times if you're aiming for a good BLD ratio. ;)
 
From my longest current averages in CSTimer: (Mean from spreadsheet, AoX)
2x2/3x3 = 0.37 (0.38, 100)
4x4/3x3 = 3.19 (4.89, 500)
5x5/4x4 = 1.73 (2.10, 500)
6x6/5x5 = 1.96 (2.21, 500)
7x7/6x6 = 1.38 (1.55, 100)
OH/3x3 = 1.74 (2.32, 100)
Feet/3x3 = 3.84 (11.40, 100)
Mega/3x3 = 7.10 (9.97, 500)

Ha! It's fun to find out I'm good at something, even if it's just because it's relative to 3x3, at which I apparently suck (29.72 Ao1000 is what these figures are based on). For the most part those are pretty nearly elite relative times, if I'm understanding the methodology correctly.
 
One Wheel said:
From my longest current averages in CSTimer: (Mean from spreadsheet, AoX)
Ha! It's fun to find out I'm good at something, even if it's just because it's relative to 3x3, at which I apparently suck (29.72 Ao1000 is what these figures are based on). For the most part those are pretty nearly elite relative times, if I'm understanding the methodology correctly.
Click to expand...

It is probably most insightful to look at the top 5% vigintile as opposed to the mean. You're a lot better than that for 4x4 and quite a bit better for 5x5.

IMO the figures are most useful to people who practice the events roughly evenly. I'm guessing you're not working hard on improving your 3x3 times and practice 4x4+ a lot more?

Pyjam said:
See also: The Warp Scale
Click to expand...

That's cool except that I'm slow... globally around warp 3.5 for most events. :D
 
Hm looks like I'm only relatively good at Squan (1.60 Squan/3x3) and Megaminx (4.47 Mega/3x3). Throwback to a few months ago when my Mega/3x3 ratio was 3.97, less than even Juan Pablo Huanqui's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FenTheGoat
Relation between Music and solve times
Replies
9
Views
1,029
Deleted member 36445
D
IAssemble
How does a Sudoku puzzle relate to a LEGO Rubik's Cube solving robot?!?
Replies
0
Views
1,411
IAssemble
IAssemble
microchado
programming cube related stuff
Replies
4
Views
250
-Cube Kid-
-Cube Kid-
MrCubert
Weird cubing related dreams
Replies
11
Views
708
MrCubert
MrCubert
Xflighenjoyer
need help for a school project related to cubing
Replies
14
Views
1,298
Xflighenjoyer
Xflighenjoyer
Back
Top