[Help Thread] Colour Neutrality Discussion

[DuctCube]

Ive been color neutral ever since i started cubing, but i guess thats a good time to start, i think thrawst has a video about that

 

[rubiknewbie]

Never. Just use white. Or white and yellow.

 

[Arx]

What's the real issue here? If you want to prove it, just do a larger sample set average.

Pick your best colour(if you have one), do 50 solves. Do 50 solves CN.

Better yet. alternate. 1 fixed, 1 CN

Mathematically, there's a slight advantage to a CN solve on the cross. You have the choice of faces, and on average you'll need 1 less turn. That's a really small advantage on its own, but for someone who is truly colour neutral it is an advantage.
(If you're worse with some colours than others, you're not truly colour neutral.)

I expect, where the bigger advantage may be is in the f2l. (Someone said this a bunch of pages ago)

An example:

Pick up a cube that has rgw+gw already paired up, and rwb+wb already paired up.

as a white cross guy: you build your white cross, then proceed to do your 4 f2l pairs as per normal.

as a CN guy: build the cross on red. get 2 free f2l pairs.


If, in another case, the white happens to be the best side, then CN has no advantage on that solve, but no disadvantage either.

So, in some cases it's better, in some cases it's the same. In no cases is it worse.

Being CN is an advantage. Period.

That said, until you get to the point where your recognition is perfectly equal (you no longer have a best/worst colour) you're not actually colour neutral and you'll likely be slower by trying.

Also, the fact that there's definitely an advantage doesn't mean that it's a worthwhile one for all cubers.

Me, I'm still over a minute. If I want to get to 30 seconds soon, I would be far better off working on my f2l, than my colour neutrality.

I don't see how it should really matter, now or later. My times will get way worse for a while, whether it's from 80 to 120 now , or 12 to 16 a year from now.

I guess it's just more frustrating for some really good cubers to be going from very good to pretty good, than for a beginner going from slow to a bit more slow.

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

Though I appreciate the humour, the two aren't analogous.

A proper analog would be. Do an average with Roux only, then do an average choosing what you think is the best for the specific scramble.

If you were equally good at CFOP (method neutral), and would use it only when you thought you could solve the scramble faster, and use Roux in the other cases, then you might actually get some meaningful statistics.

 

[Kirjava]

What's the real issue here? If you want to prove it, just do a larger sample set average.

I don't think you understand what the word proof means.

Mathematically, there's a slight advantage to a CN solve on the cross. You have the choice of faces, and on average you'll need 1 less turn. That's a really small advantage on its own, but for someone who is truly colour neutral it is an advantage.
(If you're worse with some colours than others, you're not truly colour neutral.)

I expect, where the bigger advantage may be is in the f2l. (Someone said this a bunch of pages ago)

An example:

Pick up a cube that has rgw+gw already paired up, and rwb+wb already paired up.

as a white cross guy: you build your white cross, then proceed to do your 4 f2l pairs as per normal.

as a CN guy: build the cross on red. get 2 free f2l pairs.

Since when was movecount proportional to solve time? Of all the factors to choose, it is relativly unimportant. Other variables (recognition, inspection length, personal preference, amounst others) play a larger role. Since you cannot measure some of these, it cannot be proven to give an overall advantage.

So, in some cases it's better, in some cases it's the same. In no cases is it worse.

Being CN is an advantage. Period.

Sure, it's an advantage in one specific area, but speedsolving doesn't rely on movecount alone. There may even be disadvantages we are not aware of.

That said, until you get to the point where your recognition is perfectly equal (you no longer have a best/worst colour) you're not actually colour neutral and you'll likely be slower by trying.

I've already stated this very thing.

Also, the fact that there's definitely an advantage doesn't mean that it's a worthwhile one for all cubers.

There's no 'definite advantage'. I've already stated that it could vary from cuber to cuber.

Me, I'm still over a minute. If I want to get to 30 seconds soon, I would be far better off working on my f2l, than my colour neutrality.

If you want to actually be CN one day, it's better to switch sooner than later. If you want to get faster quicker, work on F2L.

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

Though I appreciate the humour, the two aren't analogous.

A proper analog would be. Do an average with Roux only, then do an average choosing what you think is the best for the specific scramble.

If you were equally good at CFOP (method neutral), and would use it only when you thought you could solve the scramble faster, and use Roux in the other cases, then you might actually get some meaningful statistics.

Statistics mean nothing.

 

[Zarxrax]

How is there any debate that being color neutral doesn't help? It seems like a ridiculous statement to make. If you can always have a good cross, potentially a good x-cross, how is that not helpful?

Why don't we try scaling things back for a second, and look at the 2x2. In 2x2 solving, anyone who is serious will tell you that you need to be color neutral. Why is that? It's because being color neutral on 2x2 will RESULT IN FASTER TIMES. Now if that bit of advice applies to the 2x2, then exactly what disqualifies it from applying to the 3x3?

 

[dannyz0r]

Color neutrality on 2x2 is different than 3x3. You can switch on 2x2 easily, but on 3x3 F2l is what affects your times when you switch. Unless you started off color neutral, switching will have an affect on your 3x3 times.

 

[Zarxrax]

Color neutrality on 2x2 is different than 3x3. You can switch on 2x2 easily, but on 3x3 F2l is what affects your times when you switch. Unless you started off color neutral, switching will have an affect on your 3x3 times.

Except being color neutral means that you are equally fast on matter what side you are on. So, assuming you were color neutral from the beginning, or you just practiced to that point, once you are truly color neutral, there is no adverse effect on your times.

 

[Kirjava]

How is there any debate that being color neutral doesn't help? It seems like a ridiculous statement to make. If you can always have a good cross, potentially a good x-cross, how is that not helpful?

I never stated that being colour neutral doesn't help. I said we cannot know for sure if it is better than nonCN or not.

It sounds crazy but this also applies to 2x2x2.

 

[RyanO]

Some people prefer non CN on 2x2 to help with CLL recognition. anyway, CN is quite different on a 2x2 than on a 3x3. You can see a lot farther during inspection with puzzles such as 2x2 or pyraminx.

 

[DavidWoner]

How is there any debate that being color neutral doesn't help? It seems like a ridiculous statement to make. If you can always have a good cross, potentially a good x-cross, how is that not helpful?

Yes that would be extremely helpful if color neutrality actually gave you those things.

Why don't we try scaling things back for a second, and look at the 2x2. In 2x2 solving, anyone who is serious will tell you that you need to be color neutral. Why is that? It's because being color neutral on 2x2 will RESULT IN FASTER TIMES. Now if that bit of advice applies to the 2x2, then exactly what disqualifies it from applying to the 3x3?

Because 54 moves vs 55 moves for 3x3 solve doesn't really make a difference. You're operating under the assumption that a color neutral solver always finds the best start, which is not true at all.

On 2x2, with short first steps it is easy to one-look the solve, which makes a huge difference. Nobody is going to one-look a 3x3 solve just because there is a two-move cross. Color-neutrality on 2x2 greatly increases the chances of eliminating all recognition time.

 

[Zarxrax]

Why don't we try scaling things back for a second, and look at the 2x2. In 2x2 solving, anyone who is serious will tell you that you need to be color neutral. Why is that? It's because being color neutral on 2x2 will RESULT IN FASTER TIMES. Now if that bit of advice applies to the 2x2, then exactly what disqualifies it from applying to the 3x3?

Because 54 moves vs 55 moves for 3x3 solve doesn't really make a difference. You're operating under the assumption that a color neutral solver always finds the best start, which is not true at all.

On 2x2, with short first steps it is easy to one-look the solve, which makes a huge difference. Nobody is going to one-look a 3x3 solve just because there is a two-move cross. Color-neutrality on 2x2 greatly increases the chances of eliminating all recognition time.

It's NOT just a 1 move difference, that is an *average* difference. You could very well have an easy 3 move cross on the red side, and a difficult 7 move cross on the white side.
Next, cross moves tend to be slower than the rest of the solve, because we aren't working with fingertricky algs here. So even a one move savings on the cross CAN be significant.

On 2x2, you can one-look the solve only because the 2x2 doesn't require many steps. What is actually happening, is it allows you to look into *the next step*. On 3x3, the exact same thing can happen. An easy cross can allow you to look into the next step, while you might not be able to do so with a difficult cross. And this doesn't necessarily even have to relate to the move count.
I don't think its unreasonable to claim that this can shave about half a second or a second off of your times, which is a huge deal once you get sub-15 or so.

 

[Escher]

You are still missing the essential point.

 

[Arx]

I don't think you understand what the word proof means.

Sure I do. In this case, I'd say a large sample set average is a good enough approximation of the truth to be taken as a proof, assuming that it's done scientifically.

Since when was movecount proportional to solve time? Of all the factors to choose, it is relativly unimportant. Other variables (recognition, inspection length, personal preference, amounst others) play a larger role. Since you cannot measure some of these, it cannot be proven to give an overall advantage.

Yes, but for someone who actually colour neutral (not some one who is still working on it) personal preference and recognition aren't a problem.
Inspection length could be a problem if the colour neutral guy is neglecting lookahead in favour of choosing the best colour, but assuming he has time to choose a colour and still look ahead to the same depth, that's fine too.

Sure, it's an advantage in one specific area, but speedsolving doesn't rely on movecount alone. There may even be disadvantages we are not aware of.

I never said that it did. But if you can reduce movecount without compromising anything else, then it's helpful.

There's no 'definite advantage'. I've already stated that it could vary from cuber to cuber.
Yes, some cubers may have a disadvantage when trying to solve on their non-best colour. But then they aren't really colour neutral then, are they.

If you want to actually be CN one day, it's better to switch sooner than later.

Why?

I'm not disagreeing here, but I don't see how this is true.
It's likely more frustrating trying to switch later, and having your times go up, but you'll also be able to see better when it actually does start to improve your times, vs someone who is colour neutral from the start, and doesn't ever get really good at recognition on any of them.

Statistics mean nothing.

WTF? Seriously? :fp

Statistics are often misinterpreted, but properly collected and analysed they're certainly not meaningless.

Just think about this scenario though...

I alternate 1 white cross solve, 1 CN solve 100 times.
So I have a 100 solve average for each, taken as close to the same circumstances as possible.

If my average on CN was 10% lower than my average on white cross, how would you explain that?:confused:

I think the problem is that all of you white cross guys aren't understanding what we're saying.

I'm not saying you should learn colour neutrality. I don't plan to learn it any time soon myself.

Not everyone is capable of reaching that level of colour neutrality without compromising other skills, so you may never get faster than you would sticking with the white cross instead.

Colour neutral means you're exactly as good with any colour. If you're exactly as good with any colour, and you see one of them will save you moves, how can that be bad?

The thing that makes the statistics valid (for positives only), is that white cross is a subset of CN. Therefore, the white cross is still available to someone doing CN solves. If it is the best case, it can still be chosen.

Really, that ave 100 isn't proving that colour neutral is better, because colour neutral is mathematically better as a fact.

What it would prove is that the cuber is actually pretty close to colour neutral.

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think you understand what the word proof means.

Sure I do. In this case, I'd say a large sample set average is a good enough approximation of the truth to be taken as a proof, assuming that it's done scientifically.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that correlation implys causation.

Say I take a coin and flip it 10000 times. It lands on heads 4500 times and lands on tails 5500 times. Did I just prove that tails is the better choice? Of course not, I proved nothing.

There is no difference between a single stat and a bajillion stats in the land of absolute truth.

Lets look at it another way; there has never been a scramble that takes 21 moves to solve, it can always be solved in less. We have an extremely large sample size for this, too. This doesn't prove that all scrambles can be solved in under 21 moves. In fact, it has not yet been proven.

Since when was movecount proportional to solve time? Of all the factors to choose, it is relativly unimportant. Other variables (recognition, inspection length, personal preference, amounst others) play a larger role. Since you cannot measure some of these, it cannot be proven to give an overall advantage.

Yes, but for someone who actually colour neutral (not some one who is still working on it) personal preference and recognition aren't a problem.
Inspection length could be a problem if the colour neutral guy is neglecting lookahead in favour of choosing the best colour, but assuming he has time to choose a colour and still look ahead to the same depth, that's fine too.

Since you cannot measure some of these, it cannot be proven to give an overall advantage.

You're missing the fundamental point.

Sure, it's an advantage in one specific area, but speedsolving doesn't rely on movecount alone. There may even be disadvantages we are not aware of.

I never said that it did. But if you can reduce movecount without compromising anything else, then it's helpful.

You never showed that the movecount reduction was without compromise. (You can't)

There's no 'definite advantage'. I've already stated that it could vary from cuber to cuber.
Yes, some cubers may have a disadvantage when trying to solve on their non-best colour. But then they aren't really colour neutral then, are they.

If you want to actually be CN one day, it's better to switch sooner than later.

Why?

I'm not disagreeing here, but I don't see how this is true.
It's likely more frustrating trying to switch later, and having your times go up, but you'll also be able to see better when it actually does start to improve your times, vs someone who is colour neutral from the start, and doesn't ever get really good at recognition on any of them.

With no cubing knowledge, picking CN/nonCN makes little difference. After being nonCN for a while, CN is quite hard to attain, due to your amplified recognition (and possibly other things) with a single colour.

Statistics mean nothing.

WTF? Seriously? :fp

Statistics are often misinterpreted, but properly collected and analysed they're certainly not meaningless.

Just think about this scenario though...

I alternate 1 white cross solve, 1 CN solve 100 times.
So I have a 100 solve average for each, taken as close to the same circumstances as possible.

If my average on CN was 10% lower than my average on white cross, how would you explain that?:confused:

I'm not saying you should learn colour neutrality. I don't plan to learn it any time soon myself.

Not everyone is capable of reaching that level of colour neutrality without compromising other skills, so you may never get faster than you would sticking with the white cross instead.

Colour neutral means you're exactly as good with any colour. If you're exactly as good with any colour, and you see one of them will save you moves, how can that be bad?

The thing that makes the statistics valid (for positives only), is that white cross is a subset of CN. Therefore, the white cross is still available to someone doing CN solves. If it is the best case, it can still be chosen.

Really, that ave 100 isn't proving that colour neutral is better, because colour neutral is mathematically better as a fact.

What it would prove is that the cuber is actually pretty close to colour neutral.

First of all, stop telling me that CN is "mathematically better as a fact". It has a lower movecount, I've accepted this. And I've already told you that movecount is a relativly minor factor in speedsolving. To prove it's overall better, you have to show it's better at things we cannot measure and things we don't even know about.

Secondly, stop showing me these dumb senarios that somehow 'prove' things. Your experiments mean absolutly nothing if you are trying to prove something. You do not understand the problem of induction

I think the problem is that all of you white cross guys aren't understanding what we're saying.

Ignorant xenophobe.

 

[Zarxrax]

Lets look at it another way; there has never been a scramble that takes 21 moves to solve, it can always be solved in less. We have an extremely large sample size for this, too. This doesn't prove that all scrambles can be solved in under 21 moves. In fact, it has not yet been proven.

You prefer to sit there and argue over words like "proof" than the actual thing that is on discussion. No one cares if color neutrality can meet the scientific scrutiny that you want to use.
Maybe you can't "prove" that all cubes can be solved in under 21 moves. But *based on what we know*, it is truth. It's as ridiculous as saying "does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods if no one observes it?" Sure, maybe you can't "prove" that, but does anyone care?
Color neutrality has clear advantages that aren't hard to see. It doesn't come free, you have to work at it. But the advantages are definitely there.

 

[Kirjava]

Lets look at it another way; there has never been a scramble that takes 21 moves to solve, it can always be solved in less. We have an extremely large sample size for this, too. This doesn't prove that all scrambles can be solved in under 21 moves. In fact, it has not yet been proven.

You prefer to sit there and argue over words like "proof" than the actual thing that is on discussion. No one cares if color neutrality can meet the scientific scrutiny that you want to use.

People obviously care, otherwise people wouldn't be replying ^_^. My argument still applies somewhat if you omit having to outright prove something, too. It would probably require rewording to be properly defended though

Maybe you can't "prove" that all cubes can be solved in under 21 moves. But *based on what we know*, it is truth.

Is the statement "the universe will never end" true? (It's neither true or false of course, it's more like a cat)

Color neutrality has clear advantages that aren't hard to see. It doesn't come free, you have to work at it. But the advantages are definitely there.

I don't disagree with this. You're yet again missing the point. You cannot show that it's overall advantageous due to things we cannot measure and things we perhaps do not know about.

Please stop making me reiterate myself

 

[Zarxrax]

I don't disagree with this. You're yet again missing the point. You cannot show that it's overall advantageous due to things we cannot measure and things we perhaps do not know about.

Please stop making me reiterate myself

By the same arguments, I could also say that there's no way to prove that 1-look OLL is advantagous over 2-look oll. 1-look requires tons more algorithms. When a case comes up, you have to stop and think about it! It takes longer to recognize. Maybe some people can manage to get it as fast as their 2-look recognition, but can we really know for sure? You can't practice those 1-look algs as much, because they come up so infrequently compared to the 2-look cases. And what if you get a lucky case that would have only been 1-look with your 2-look algs? The slower recognition just slowed you down! 1-look can't be proved to be faster.

 

[Kirjava]

I don't disagree with this. You're yet again missing the point. You cannot show that it's overall advantageous due to things we cannot measure and things we perhaps do not know about.

Please stop making me reiterate myself

By the same arguments, I could also say that there's no way to prove that 1-look OLL is advantagous over 2-look oll.

This is correct.

You also can't prove that CFOP is better than LBL.

 

[Zarxrax]

This is correct.

Then I'm finished here

 

[keemy]

I don't disagree with this. You're yet again missing the point. You cannot show that it's overall advantageous due to things we cannot measure and things we perhaps do not know about.

Please stop making me reiterate myself

By the same arguments, I could also say that there's no way to prove that 1-look OLL is advantagous over 2-look oll. 1-look requires tons more algorithms. When a case comes up, you have to stop and think about it! It takes longer to recognize. Maybe some people can manage to get it as fast as their 2-look recognition, but can we really know for sure? You can't practice those 1-look algs as much, because they come up so infrequently compared to the 2-look cases. And what if you get a lucky case that would have only been 1-look with your 2-look algs? The slower recognition just slowed you down! 1-look can't be proved to be faster.

Now you are getting it.