2x2x2 WR average

[Jonathan Cuber]

i do think so
it looks easy for some lol
bec.... many cubers have got sub-1 averages

 

[CoderGuru]

I think it's big distinction if you mean ao5 WR or global average.
I think it's definitely possible that someone will get sub-1 ao5.

It's been happening a lot as well in practice video sessions. Sub-1 ao12s also exist, so the time for a new 2x2 WR is ripe

 

[SzokL]

it will take 2 years, 7 months, 22 days, 7hours and 13.87 seconds by a method neutral chinese solver (full eg + tcll, SS, ortega and guimond and a new method simply known as "2ZRNG")

check that soon

 

[Mike Hughey]

Zayn has 10 sub-1 averages in our weekly competition on this forum. I certainly believe he can do it officially.

 

[Cuber142857]

In a few years maybe some Chinese cuber with insane TPS and very lucky scrambles. Idk how many people are practicing 2x2 actively.

That sounds like Ruihang Xu version 2.0

 

[NigelTheCuber]

With decently easy scrambles really any eg user can get one, they would probably need some tcll or stuff like that to increase the chances

 

[ProStar]

A sub-1 2x2 average is very possible and probably will be coming soon. Zayn has a 1.02 official average, and many sub-1s at home. All he needs is a good scramble set without messing up

 

[NmeCuber]

A sub-1 2x2 average is very possible and probably will be coming soon. Zayn has a 1.02 official average, and many sub-1s at home. All he needs is a good scramble set without messing up

Didn't he mess up two possibly sub-1 averages because he dropped the cube or fumbled it?

 

[efattah]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

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.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

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.

 

[Meanjuice]

Zayn will get wr 2x2 avg this year

 

[Cand]

Does anyone think It's possible to get a sub 1 average on 2x2x2.

Zayn already did it but it wasnt official

 

[NigelTheCuber]

Now were only 0.01 off, make bets on when the sub 1 will come?

 

[Meanjuice]

Zayn will get wr 2x2 avg this year

I knew it

 

[NmeCuber]

Now were only 0.01 off, make bets on when the sub 1 will come?

April 22nd

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

April 22nd

I will have a comp then, does that mean I...

Ok forget it