[Help Thread] Colour Neutrality Discussion

[RyanO]

Saying 'solving white all the time gives no advantage over someone who isn't color neutral' seems to imply that being CN is an advantage. Did I misinterpret?

I was responding to Jms' claim that a CN solver can't possibly do non CN averages. What I was saying is that a CN cuber solving fixed color averages is exactly the same as a non CN cuber doing fixed color averages. Therefore any perceived advantage can't possibly exist in this format. The only claim I made about the advantage/disadvantage of CN is that it's ludicrous to propose that CN can account for ~10% decrease in someones times, such as a 1 second drop in Feliks' times would indicate.

 

[teller]

The only claim I made about the advantage/disadvantage of CN is that it's ludicrous to propose that CN can account for ~10% decrease in someones times, such as a 1 second drop in Feliks' times would indicate.

Feliks just demonstrated a ~10% decrease. What part of this is ludicrous?

 

[RyanO]

The only claim I made about the advantage/disadvantage of CN is that it's ludicrous to propose that CN can account for ~10% decrease in someones times, such as a 1 second drop in Feliks' times would indicate.

Feliks just demonstrated a ~10% decrease. What part of this is ludicrous?

Don't be daft. Two averages of 5 is a silly sample size for this type of experiment. The CN average had a sub 7 PLL skip. Do you really think this is a good representation of his abilities on average?

 

[Kian]

The only claim I made about the advantage/disadvantage of CN is that it's ludicrous to propose that CN can account for ~10% decrease in someones times, such as a 1 second drop in Feliks' times would indicate.

Feliks just demonstrated a ~10% decrease. What part of this is ludicrous?

Causation does not imply correlation in this case.

Firstly, those are two averages of 5, hardly representative. Secondly, Feliks is color neutral, and nobody has suggested that those who are color neutral would automatically be faster or as fast with one color cross. Without practicing intently with both you could not possibly get a fair study.

Either way, as I said before, there is absolutely no way to prove one is faster than the other from an objective standpoint. Doesn't mean it's impossible that one is, just means that arguing about it makes no sense.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that colour neutrality can possibly improve is the first step. I see much more merit in partial blockbuilding colour neutrality, but not Fridrich colour neutrality.

Well, in my opinion, it is a lot easier to look ahead into the solve with colour neutral solves. Personally, I usually see the first pair in my solves, and sometimes 2.

I just took an average of 5 with colour neutral, and white cross to compare

6.93[1, pll skip], 9.97[1], 8.06[1], 8.24[1], 8.59[1] = 8.30

Comments: Really good average for me, and saw the first pair in every solve. The 1st and 3rd solves were 3 move insert first pairs

White cross:

9.89[1], 9.76[0], 10.94[0], 9.84[x cross], 7.86[0] = 9.83

Comments: Not being able to immediately continue after the cross sometimes is a bit annoying. On the last solve, my f2l was really smooth, with barely any rotations.

Ok, I see. So if you were so bad that you couldn't see the first pair almost everytime in inspection, it would have less of an effect on your times?

 

[Kirjava]

Feliks just demonstrated a ~10% decrease. What part of this is ludicrous?

Ahahaha. You are stupid.

Statistics prove nothing.

And you fail at quoting :/

RyanO: Ok, I'm glad you can see that. Your post just wasn't very clear.

 

[teller]

Feliks just demonstrated a ~10% decrease. What part of this is ludicrous?

Ahahaha. You are stupid.

Statistics prove nothing.

You are rude.

I didn't mean to imply that an Avg of 5 is conclusive by any means, just that the results were encouraging, quite the opposite of "ludicrous."

 

[Kirjava]

You're proposing that CN can account for a 10% drop in times based on an extremely small amount of sample data you have collected.

Ludicrous.

The crazy part is that you think that someone who is CN is faster when being CN is significant in any way.

 

[teller]

You're proposing that CN can account for a 10% drop in times based on an extremely small amount of sample data you have collected.

Ludicrous.

The crazy part is that you think that someone who is CN is faster when being CN is significant in any way.

It's not the first time Feliks has done such an experiment; results were similar last time. Add to that his common sense description of this thought process (here and elsewhere), and no, it's not ludicrous.

But this is degenerating into some weird nit-picky stuff. Enjoy!

 

[Dene]

CN IN FASTA ANYONE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE IS A NOOB FAZZLES AND ROWIKINS ARE PROOFZ!!1

 

[Kirjava]

But this is degenerating into some weird nit-picky stuff.

Hi, I'm Kirjava.

You're proposing that CN can account for a 10% drop in times based on an extremely small amount of sample data you have collected.

Ludicrous.

The crazy part is that you think that someone who is CN is faster when being CN is significant in any way.

It's not the first time Feliks has done such an experiment; results were similar last time. Add to that his common sense description of this thought process (here and elsewhere), and no, it's not ludicrous.

Woah, hold on. Are you trying to say that more results would change anything at all?

I'm about twice as fast with Roux than I am with CFOP. Then that means... OMG ROUX CAN DROP YOUR TIMES BY 200%

Is that a ludicrous statement?

 

[Muesli]

The only way we can take an educated guess this is to get 50 identical cubers, 25 white crossers, 25 CN solvers. Identical scrambles, identical cubes and 50 average of 1000 or so.

Of course this is never going to happen, so until the top 100 in the world are either exclusively CN or not, we will never know. At the moment, we have a yellow/white crossed WR single and a CN WR avg-5, so there is nothing inbetween the two sides. It's a choice, and it currently seems to make no obvious difference to your times.

Switch if you like, just understand that there is no evidence to suggest that it will improve your times at all.

 

[Kirjava]

The only way we can conclusively prove or disprove this is to get 50 identical cubers, 25 white crossers, 25 CN solvers. Identical scrambles, identical cubes and 50 average of 1000 or so.

Uhm, this wouldn't prove it.

 

[Muesli]

The only way we can conclusively prove or disprove this is to get 50 identical cubers, 25 white crossers, 25 CN solvers. Identical scrambles, identical cubes and 50 average of 1000 or so.

Uhm, this wouldn't prove it.

It'd show a decent enough spread of data to decide either way. I edited.

 

[Kirjava]

The only way we can conclusively prove or disprove this is to get 50 identical cubers, 25 white crossers, 25 CN solvers. Identical scrambles, identical cubes and 50 average of 1000 or so.

Uhm, this wouldn't prove it.

It'd show a decent enough spread of data to decide either way. I edited.

No, it wouldn't. Statistics prove nothing. You said conclusively prove, and this does not do this.

Like I said, it's pretty much impossible to prove it.

 

[Muesli]

The only way we can conclusively prove or disprove this is to get 50 identical cubers, 25 white crossers, 25 CN solvers. Identical scrambles, identical cubes and 50 average of 1000 or so.

Uhm, this wouldn't prove it.

It'd show a decent enough spread of data to decide either way. I edited.

No, it wouldn't. Statistics prove nothing. You said conclusively prove, and this does not do this.

Like I said, it's pretty much impossible to prove it.

I edited.

 

[Kirjava]

Subtle edit that changed the whole point of your post? eek.

Anyway. It's not like your guess has the slightest chance of being correct. You cannot possibly know either way.

Another reason I thought of for this is that.. it could vary from person to person. You can't decide on an answer. Too many variables in play here.

 

[ribonzz]

If you like to look on the light colors, then you should try using them first, that'll make you easier and faster.

 

[Daniel Wu]

If you want to become color neutral, you should do it before it becomes too difficult. The longer you practice with only one color, the harder it gets to be CN.

 

[miniGOINGS]

But this is degenerating into some weird nit-picky stuff.

Hi, I'm Kirjava.

You're proposing that CN can account for a 10% drop in times based on an extremely small amount of sample data you have collected.

Ludicrous.

The crazy part is that you think that someone who is CN is faster when being CN is significant in any way.

It's not the first time Feliks has done such an experiment; results were similar last time. Add to that his common sense description of this thought process (here and elsewhere), and no, it's not ludicrous.

Woah, hold on. Are you trying to say that more results would change anything at all?

I'm about twice as fast with Roux than I am with CFOP. Then that means... OMG ROUX CAN DROP YOUR TIMES BY 200%

Is that a ludicrous statement?

Winpost. It's officially in my sig.

Kirjava has a point though (like most/all of the time).