YrMyKnight
Regular
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 179
Contents
Introduction
Limits of speedcubing
The future
Credits section
Introduction
This thread is going to predict what will happen to speedcubing many years from now.
Our current 3x3 world record is set by Feliks Zemdegs of 5.66 secs (SINGLE) 7.64 (Average)
I did a lot of research before making this thread and I hope you guys respect that.
Note : Feliks Zemdegs make you wanna quit cubing and take up fishing -,-
And I'm mainly talking about CFOP in this thread.
Limits of speedcubing
Any algorithmic set which can be performed by a human must be limited to a couple of hundreds at most thousands of algorithms. These algorithms need to be performed in a fast manner without too much thinking. This puts limits on the amount of time needed to solve the cube. If there was a hypothetical person who could see the shortest or the almost shortest algorithm right away in the beginning (which is quite improbable), he or she would need about 2 seconds, provided the farthest position is around 20 face moves at the twist rate of 10 moves per second. 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). One should totally abandon the concept of a record time since it has very little informational value. If somebody messes up the cube carelessly, one can take advantage of it and solve the cube in a few seconds. Therefore, for comparing purposes, I suggest to use an average of 10 consecutive times. For my system, I defined the concept of a modified record: I discarded record times whenever more than one stage was skipped during the cube solving. By skipping a stage, I mean: placing the four edges using less than 3 moves, too much luck for the four blocks (in the second layer), skipping the orientation of 8 cubicles from the last layer, skipping the permutation part in the last layer. For the first two layers, it is hard to estimate the probabilities, but the last layer can be calculated exactly. The probability that after solving the second layer, the last layer will have the correct color is 1/216, and the probablity that after orienting the cubes in the last layer one will not need to permute them, is 1/72. So, for example, if the last layer got assembled by chance right after the second layer, I discarded the time since the probability of that happening is too small: 1/(216*72).
-Jessica Fridrich
Even now. Getting below 10 seconds would take numerous amount of effort and time.
First, the secret of achieving amazingly short times is not just the algorithms themselves. After all, a system will never solve the cube. Humans do! Probably the most important factor is dedication and a lot of practicing. As you may notice, some positions in the last layer have several algorithms associated with them. I alternate between them to minimize turning the cube as a whole, thus cutting on time.
So, what is the best system for speed cubing? I do not think that there is such thing as the best system. One system may better fit one person, other system may be more natural for somebody else. I believe that any system which is worked out into sufficient perfection is good. We should not be comparing systems but cubists. Those certainly are comparable.
Things needed to get below sub-7
No delays between Algorithms
Finger Shortcuts
Multiple Algorithms
Fast twisting
Hardwork
The future
What will happen after a few decades?
Will the record time remain the same or will it be broken?
It will be broke of course!
According to the times on the past decade, none has ever stayed longer then a year. (With exceptions)
As stated in the limits of speedcubing, it takes a lot of effort to get under sub-10.
What will it take to get under sub-5?
Here is my aftermath.
Place the four edges from the first layer
Time taken - Less then one second
Average number of moves - Under 5
Place four blocks each consisting of one
corner from the first layer and a corresponding
edge from the second layer. (F2L)
Time taken- two seconds
Average number of moves- 5x4 = 20
Simultaneously orient the corners AND edges
so that the last layer has the required color
(one algorithm out of 40).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves- 9
Simultaneously permute the 8 cubes in the
last layer without rotating corners or flipping
edges (one algorithm out of 13).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves - 12
All together = 46 moves = 46 divide 5 = At least 9 moves per sec. Not to mention the cube rotations. but . . .
Nothing is impossible.
Faster twisting does not have to mean shorter times
One needs to be especially dextered to be able to solve the cube that fast (in 5 seconds). I would be lying to say that some dexterity is not important, but I insist that an average person possesses the necessary dexterity to solve the cube in really short times. I believe that almost everybody can achieve the twisting speed of 4 twists per second. Remember, all you are required to do is to learn a finite set of algorithms perform quickly. This relates to the important issue of adjusting algorithms for your hands. So why is it possible that faster twisting speed may bring you longer times? By performing the moves really fast, one deprives him/herself of the [important] knowledge of what is actually happening to the cube. After performing an algorithm, one is then suddenly thrown into a new position and needs some time to decide which move to choose next. If you had turned the cube just little slower, you could actually see what is happening to the cube, and choose the best next move during the last couple of moves of the previous algorithm. If you compare the times: fast turns + delay between moves and slow turns + shorter delays, you will find out that the second summation may be shorter! Another argument for the second alternative is that it is very hard to turn the cube really fast, and one often encounters "stuck" cubicles, or breaks the cube to its atoms. This can slow you down as well as frustrate.
Oh will, this is the end of my research. I will update it when my mind has ideas.
Credit section will be filled later.
Introduction
Limits of speedcubing
The future
Credits section
Introduction
This thread is going to predict what will happen to speedcubing many years from now.
Our current 3x3 world record is set by Feliks Zemdegs of 5.66 secs (SINGLE) 7.64 (Average)
I did a lot of research before making this thread and I hope you guys respect that.
Note : Feliks Zemdegs make you wanna quit cubing and take up fishing -,-
And I'm mainly talking about CFOP in this thread.
Limits of speedcubing
Any algorithmic set which can be performed by a human must be limited to a couple of hundreds at most thousands of algorithms. These algorithms need to be performed in a fast manner without too much thinking. This puts limits on the amount of time needed to solve the cube. If there was a hypothetical person who could see the shortest or the almost shortest algorithm right away in the beginning (which is quite improbable), he or she would need about 2 seconds, provided the farthest position is around 20 face moves at the twist rate of 10 moves per second. 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). One should totally abandon the concept of a record time since it has very little informational value. If somebody messes up the cube carelessly, one can take advantage of it and solve the cube in a few seconds. Therefore, for comparing purposes, I suggest to use an average of 10 consecutive times. For my system, I defined the concept of a modified record: I discarded record times whenever more than one stage was skipped during the cube solving. By skipping a stage, I mean: placing the four edges using less than 3 moves, too much luck for the four blocks (in the second layer), skipping the orientation of 8 cubicles from the last layer, skipping the permutation part in the last layer. For the first two layers, it is hard to estimate the probabilities, but the last layer can be calculated exactly. The probability that after solving the second layer, the last layer will have the correct color is 1/216, and the probablity that after orienting the cubes in the last layer one will not need to permute them, is 1/72. So, for example, if the last layer got assembled by chance right after the second layer, I discarded the time since the probability of that happening is too small: 1/(216*72).
-Jessica Fridrich
Even now. Getting below 10 seconds would take numerous amount of effort and time.
First, the secret of achieving amazingly short times is not just the algorithms themselves. After all, a system will never solve the cube. Humans do! Probably the most important factor is dedication and a lot of practicing. As you may notice, some positions in the last layer have several algorithms associated with them. I alternate between them to minimize turning the cube as a whole, thus cutting on time.
So, what is the best system for speed cubing? I do not think that there is such thing as the best system. One system may better fit one person, other system may be more natural for somebody else. I believe that any system which is worked out into sufficient perfection is good. We should not be comparing systems but cubists. Those certainly are comparable.
Things needed to get below sub-7
No delays between Algorithms
Finger Shortcuts
Multiple Algorithms
Fast twisting
Hardwork
The future
What will happen after a few decades?
Will the record time remain the same or will it be broken?
It will be broke of course!
According to the times on the past decade, none has ever stayed longer then a year. (With exceptions)
As stated in the limits of speedcubing, it takes a lot of effort to get under sub-10.
What will it take to get under sub-5?
Here is my aftermath.
Place the four edges from the first layer
Time taken - Less then one second
Average number of moves - Under 5
Place four blocks each consisting of one
corner from the first layer and a corresponding
edge from the second layer. (F2L)
Time taken- two seconds
Average number of moves- 5x4 = 20
Simultaneously orient the corners AND edges
so that the last layer has the required color
(one algorithm out of 40).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves- 9
Simultaneously permute the 8 cubes in the
last layer without rotating corners or flipping
edges (one algorithm out of 13).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves - 12
All together = 46 moves = 46 divide 5 = At least 9 moves per sec. Not to mention the cube rotations. but . . .
Nothing is impossible.
Faster twisting does not have to mean shorter times
One needs to be especially dextered to be able to solve the cube that fast (in 5 seconds). I would be lying to say that some dexterity is not important, but I insist that an average person possesses the necessary dexterity to solve the cube in really short times. I believe that almost everybody can achieve the twisting speed of 4 twists per second. Remember, all you are required to do is to learn a finite set of algorithms perform quickly. This relates to the important issue of adjusting algorithms for your hands. So why is it possible that faster twisting speed may bring you longer times? By performing the moves really fast, one deprives him/herself of the [important] knowledge of what is actually happening to the cube. After performing an algorithm, one is then suddenly thrown into a new position and needs some time to decide which move to choose next. If you had turned the cube just little slower, you could actually see what is happening to the cube, and choose the best next move during the last couple of moves of the previous algorithm. If you compare the times: fast turns + delay between moves and slow turns + shorter delays, you will find out that the second summation may be shorter! Another argument for the second alternative is that it is very hard to turn the cube really fast, and one often encounters "stuck" cubicles, or breaks the cube to its atoms. This can slow you down as well as frustrate.
Oh will, this is the end of my research. I will update it when my mind has ideas.
Credit section will be filled later.
