ZERO Method...

[cmhardw]

Well, if you're going to insist on using "sub-X" to mean "absolutely anything under X", you have to be prepared to occasionally have to think twice about things people say.

I think my comment will perhaps lead to an unintended flame war, but I think that sub-X is generally used to mean absolutely anything under X. When someone says that they are sub-15 on average, we would generally assume they mean 14.xx average. However, a 12.xx average cuber would still be a "sub-15" cuber in my mind. They just also happen to be sub-14, and sub-13.

Another way to put the original phrase would be "Jessica Fridrich predicted that the fastest averages would be 10-12 seconds," or "Jessica predicted that the fastest averages would not be sub-10."

My original comment was just an observation on my part.

\thread hijack

Chris

 

[Olivér Perge]

When someone says that they are sub-15 on average, we would generally assume they mean 14.xx average. However, a 12.xx average cuber would still be a "sub-15" cuber in my mind. They just also happen to be sub-14, and sub-13.

You are absolutely right. I think the same too.

When someone tells me: "Ahh, I'm so slow, I average sub-minute...", I just simply say: "Yeah, me too...".

 

[Jukuren]

i thought the answer would have been pretty simple but i guess not
i wasn't looking for the human limit or anything like that... just ballpark based on people knowledge or experience
the method is derived from two other well accepted methods
sub 15 seems pretty reasonable to me... sub 10? not so sure... (are there any sub ten ZZ users out there?)
i guess in the end only practice will answer that for me... lol

 

[a small kitten]

are there any sub ten ZZ users out there?

Not that I know of.

 

[oll+phase+sync]

Not that I know of.

Is there any knowledge How fast a given method (petrus, mgls , ZZ, ZB, Roux, Non matching color Roux ) have every been solved (under competion like circumstances) ?

 

[Rpotts]

^wat? I'm assuming that you're asking how fast methods are in comp? As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable. Any method (except belt lol) can be fast in the right hands.

Also, what do you mean by non matching color roux? I've never heard that phrase.

 

[Cyrus C.]

I'm pretty sure what he's trying to say is that somebody may be sub-10 and be solving under competition-like conditions, we just don't know about them.

 

[qqwref]

As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable.

Sure it is. The only problem is that speed does not depend entirely on the potential of the method.

Any method (except belt lol) can be fast in the right hands.

Fast, maybe, but not *equally* fast.

 

[cmhardw]

As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable.

Of course method potential is quantifiable. In an engineering, or scientific, sense to quantify something is to analyze it numerically. If method X has a calculated average move count of 50 turns, then you can quantify, in one aspect, it's potential. If you can solve with most methods using, say, 3 turns per second average sustained throughout the solve, then an estimate of your speed using method X is 50/3 = 16.67 seconds on average. The accuracy of this calculation can be obtained by analyzing how accurate a 3 turn per second turn rate is for a) you the solver and b) method X based on how often consecutive turns use things like RUL subgroups or RUD, etc. Doing this for a method gives a numerical quantity that can be compared to the same numerical quantity from other methods, giving a ranking of which methods are faster or slower.

How would this not be quantifying method X's potential, in the particular aspect of estimating your personal average using that method?

Chris

 

[Kirjava]

Like I elaborated before, of course you can quantify the potential.

The problem is, comparing two methods this way is useless, movecount is not the only factor.

In fact, with the methods I assume you'd be intending to compare, the movecount is so similar as to make it an unimportant consideration.

You could consider things like case recognition and ergonomics - while it would be possible, I think you would have difficulty quantifying these things with much meaning.

The reason why I originally said it was unquantifiable is because attempting to seriously quantify each result accuratly is an exercise in frivolity.

 

[joey]

Just pick the fastest user with each method, and compare their times.

 

[Rpotts]

but what if the fastest person had devoted all their time to another method?

 

[TMOY]

Just pick the fastest user with each method, and compare their times.

lol.That kind of comparison is just meaningless because of its strong bias towards the most popular methods.