Color Neutral Debate

[aznanimedude]

having a 1LLL is pretty awesome IMO, all in the execution though

 

[Kirjava]

1LLL

Should ZBLL really be considered one look last layer? You look at the last layer pieces more than once during the solve.

 

[yoshinator]

Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?

Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.

 

[Kirjava]

Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?

You can try.

Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.

The timescale involved can be apathy inducing enough to make it not worth it.

 

[jskyler91]

Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?

Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.

It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.

 

[qqwref]

CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.

I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.

 

[jskyler91]

CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.
I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.

I disagree, recognition when your CN is exactly the same for all colors, you just learn to look for patterns instead of particular colors. If you are having trouble recognizing cases then you are looking for them in the wrong way.

 

[cmhardw]

I disagree, recognition when your CN is exactly the same for all colors, you just learn to look for patterns instead of particular colors. If you are having trouble recognizing cases then you are looking for them in the wrong way.

For me personally this is definitely not the case at all (yet). I'm down to about 1-1.5 second slower than my bi-color neutral method before switching to full color neutral. I still find myself on certain solves (for non-white/yellow cross) to make a completely wrong recognition decision based on the white/yellow stickers. When you've solved the same color(s) for long enough time, I think that a part of your brain has learned to see the cube as colors, and not as patterns.

I agree with you that I am probably looking for cases in the wrong way, because I forced myself to look for colors for so long. I am still enjoying color neutrality very much, and I will continue to try to improve. However, I am finding that when solving on non-white/yellow pieces I feel like I have the skill level of a 1-2 year cuber. When solving on white/yellow I feel like I have all the years of training since the first day I started. There is a noticeable difference in difficulty level of recognition, thinking ahead, look ahead, even trying to pace myself throughout the solve. Pacing on white/yellow is automatic and effortless. I have to consciously pace myself such as to not rush when solving non-white/yellow.

In short, I think blanket statements about color neutrality are probably a bad idea. The bolded part in your quote is probably completely true for those who either started out color neutral, or switched "early enough". For those like me who switched very late in the game the recognition part is really a significant issue, and there are years of "bad habit" that need to be unlearned in order to achieve the kind of recognition you're taking about.

Of course I could be very wrong about all this, but this has been my experience so far.

 

[yoshinator]

CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.

I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.

As I discussed in my initial post, recognition can be improved with practice, in other words, with enough time, equally good recognition with all colors is very possible. With that I'm mind, if you are willing and able to put in the time needed to become properly color neutral, it is definitely worth it.

You can try.



The timescale involved can be apathy inducing enough to make it not worth it.

If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.

However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.

It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.

I definitely agree. I also find that treating cubing as something that I will be doing for an infinite amount of time is more fun, but if Kirjava or any others want to get fast as quick as possible, which totally makes sense, one of the greatest things in cubing is the sense of accomplishment when you break a barier or a PB, than color neutrality is not going to be worth it for them (with that mindset).

This is why I say that the debate on how long it takes to become CN, and whether putting that much time in is worth it, is silly. It completely depends on how you think about cubing, and how you treat it overall.

 

[teller]

If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.

However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.

This sums it up nicely. It's an expensive investment...but the idea that one plans to retire from cubing and therefore doesn't want to put forth too much effort before they hop into the grave is just gross. If that's how one feels about it, then the tortoise will totally stomp the rigor mortis-addled hare with much less effort than one that is at least still alive and pursing other time-saving avenues. IMO, though, nothing can cream a solve like a head start...a live hare had better bring something serious to the comp if he/she hopes to make up for that loss.

 

[ottozing]

If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.

However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.
.

very well put. i used to think that colour neutrality was only worth it if you started out colour neutral but at the end of the day, colour neutral solvers still have an advantage (even if it isnt a big one).

 

[Kirjava]

It's an expensive investment...but the idea that one plans to retire from cubing and therefore doesn't want to put forth too much effort before they hop into the grave is just gross.

Where did this idea come from?

Yet again, ideas are being attributed to people that never mentioned them.

 

[Godmil]

Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.

Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.

I had a steady but slow progress going, then I took 2 months out to be bi-CN, but I'm not seeing many instances where it makes a difference which cross I'm choosing, so it's essentially like I just took a 2 month break from improving.
Although that should be disclaimered by the fact that I'm quiet slow and rarely look into the first F2L pair yet.

 

[frankvanhoof]

Would you call that your perpetual n-1 theory. CN cubers, like myself, are like the little brother who will always be 1 year younger than his big brother. Seems to me the advantage can be quantified, but of course you would have to assume the cuber would always recognize the optimal choice.

 

[Godmil]

CN cubers, like myself, are like the little brother who will always be 1 year younger than his big brother.

Only if the cuber took that time out to learn CN (i.e. not someone who became CN early), and assuming the non-CN cuber was doing productive practice in the mean time.
But it's just a hypothetical situation, nothing is that easy to catagorise.

 

[yoshinator]

Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.

Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.

I had a steady but slow progress going, then I took 2 months out to be bi-CN, but I'm not seeing many instances where it makes a difference which cross I'm choosing, so it's essentially like I just took a 2 month break from improving.
Although that should be disclaimered by the fact that I'm quiet slow and rarely look into the first F2L pair yet.

I totally agree, however, I prefer to imagine that I will be cubing for an infinite amount of time (because I find it more fun), which just really depends on the person. If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible, than that's great, but thats just not how I imagine cubing, and this color neutrality is worth it for me.

 

[Kirjava]

Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?

This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.

 

[cmhardw]

Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?

This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.

As far as I understood it, the infinite time part of the argument was proposed by jskyler in the following message. He makes a mention of "cubers not having infinite time" so I took that to be the genesis of that argument, which was taken up by others after this post:

It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.

 

[Kirjava]

It has not been proposed as a reason not to switch to CN, so I find it odd that it is receiving a counterargument. Am I perceiving the way it is presented incorrectly?

Arguments against switching apply regardless of the time period.

 

[yoshinator]

Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?

This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.

What I am saying is that your argument against CN was that for the amount of time it would take to do it, being CN was not worth it, and with your mindset, it is. (I totally respect this mindset, it definitely makes sense)

I don't think that I've ever said that you argument is based off of the fact that you are going to quit at some point, what I am saying is that your argument is based off of time, and jsyler and I prefer to ignore the time it takes to achieve things.

However, if, like jskyler and I, you prefer to imagine that cubing is an infinite activity, in other words that to will be doing it for an infinite amount of time, than color neutrality is worth it.

If I'm wrong in all of this, about that being your point, please tell me.