• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

2x2x2 WR average

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
711
I average 4.5s on 2x2 and 13.5s on 3x3 with LMCF where the first step is solving the corners, so in LMCF it seems that the entire solve (3x3) takes three times the length of solving the corners (2x2). This is weird because it would imply a 1-second 2x2 expert could solve the 3x3 in 3 seconds. I doubt this is true but it is hard to see where the logic is wrong.
 

espeed

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2022
Messages
91
Location
Germany
I average 4.5s on 2x2 and 13.5s on 3x3 with LMCF where the first step is solving the corners, so in LMCF it seems that the entire solve (3x3) takes three times the length of solving the corners (2x2). This is weird because it would imply a 1-second 2x2 expert could solve the 3x3 in 3 seconds. I doubt this is true but it is hard to see where the logic is wrong.
The logic is you should practice 2x2 more
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
6,253
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
SS Competition Results
I average 4.5s on 2x2 and 13.5s on 3x3 with LMCF where the first step is solving the corners, so in LMCF it seems that the entire solve (3x3) takes three times the length of solving the corners (2x2). This is weird because it would imply a 1-second 2x2 expert could solve the 3x3 in 3 seconds. I doubt this is true but it is hard to see where the logic is wrong.

That's pretty poor logic. You're assuming it's a clean distribution from 2x2 to 3x3 times, where the actual distribution is not linear or predictable at all. This is because many skills on 3x3 do not transfer over to 2x2, and viceversa. Plus, you're assuming that you're the average, which unless you have something to support that, is quite a dubious claim.

I'm sure there's a lot more technical ways to prove your logic faulty but I'm bad at statistics and cubing so that's as good as you're gonna get from me
 

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
873
I average 4.5s on 2x2 and 13.5s on 3x3 with LMCF where the first step is solving the corners, so in LMCF it seems that the entire solve (3x3) takes three times the length of solving the corners (2x2). This is weird because it would imply a 1-second 2x2 expert could solve the 3x3 in 3 seconds. I doubt this is true but it is hard to see where the logic is wrong.

I believe that the lapse in logic would not be considering diminishing returns. Averaging 4.5 seconds on 2x2 equates to averaging around 20 seconds on 3x3. Since you're averaging 13.5 on 3x3 this would seem to indicate that you are better at solving edges than corners on 3x3. If this is true than the room for improvement for corners won't equate to the room for improvement for edges.

Estimating the fastest execution of each step should be done independently and only after should there be a relationship established. If you were to make estimations of edge execution it'd be a lot better to look at 3BLD execution instead.
 
Last edited:

Jorian Meeuse

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
1,806
Location
The Netherlands
WCA
2022MEEU02
SS Competition Results
YouTube
Visit Channel
2x2 skill simply does not transfer to 3x3, because the events are so different. 2x2 relies entirely on algorithms, TPS and ability to 1-look a good solution. TPS might transfer to 3x3, but the 2x2 algs are useless on 3x3, and planning cross+1 or more on 3x3 is a lot different from 2x2 1-looking, because you are looking at different things, and a cross solution is very different from an EG-face.

As for your LMCF method, I agree with Silky. In addition to what he said, a pro 1 second 2x2er would still have to pause before edges with LMCF, and the algs for that probably aren't as good as 2x2 algs. Besides, 2x2 algs are sometimes quite hard to do quickly on a 3x3.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,727
Location
A mythical land filled with talking Ducks
WCA
2022MCCO11
I average 4.5s on 2x2 and 13.5s on 3x3 with LMCF where the first step is solving the corners, so in LMCF it seems that the entire solve (3x3) takes three times the length of solving the corners (2x2). This is weird because it would imply a 1-second 2x2 expert could solve the 3x3 in 3 seconds. I doubt this is true but it is hard to see where the logic is wrong.
I have a 7.90 official 2x2 average and I average global mid-10 on 3x3. To me it seems that LMCF has even greater potential then you say! If I can lower my times to low-1 I will easily be sub-3 on 3x3.
 
Last edited:
Top