Give up color neutrality?

[deadalnix]

I think deadalinx is completely missing the point of being colour neutral. It's not that you look through every cross and decide which is the best - that would be silly. You just glimpse at the puzzle and something will stand out. (Of course, if Mr(s). deadalinx took the time to think about it, that would have been obvious to him).

Mr deadalnix have knowledges in probabilities and mathematics in general. So he knows that lucky cross, even with color neutrality are so rare that you shouldn't expect having more than one in an average.

It's just like have a PLL skip.

On average, you win 0.6 move par cross being color neutral (compared to opposite color neutral). And it doesn't change anything for the rest of the solve. And that obviously if you take care of all 6 cross carefully, thing you can't do in 15s.

On a ramdom cube, you get 6 to 7 move cross on every faces. And you are not able to know which one is the best one. Anyway, you can see it easily when one of the cross is very easy.

Anyway, sure you can see a very lucky cross quite easily, but probability are here : it almost never happen.

Theyre are others puzzles, like 2x2x2 where color neutrality is useful. But with fridrich it's really useless. Opposite color neutrality is enought as long as it avoid very crappy cross.

So yes you can have some lucky cases, that are easy to see, but they are so rare that it will not matter in your average.

 

[Edmund]

I put a black side on my black cubes, and it was screwing with my all powerfull color neutrality.

Color neutrality, you keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fixed

 

[Johannes91]

Anyway, sure you can see a very lucky cross quite easily, but probability are here : it almost never happen.

Optimal color neutral cross is at most 3 moves almost 5% of the time and at most 4 moves about 29% of the time. I'd say almost never is an exaggeration.

There's also XCross. Even those who've practised it don't use it in every solve but just for easy cases (AFAIK), and color neutrality makes those significantly more common (sorry, no exact numbers). Yes you'll keep using 100% pure CFOP forever, but some others want to learn other methods and techniques. If you're color neutral in general it makes absolutely no sense to arbitrarily restrict it for just CFOP; even though it's just a small gain, it comes for zero cost.

 

[deadalnix]

Yes you are right.

I admit color neutral helps. But not so much. If you are already color neutral, you shouldn't restrict yourself for fridrich (or any method begining with a cross).

But choosing to be color neutral and expect being faster with that is just a lie.

Anyway, I think being opposite color neutral is a good thing. Easy to get, avoid crappy cross and give you enought time to think seriously about both cross.

 

[Dene]

deadalinx: you still miss the point. I was arguing against the view that single/opp colour cross was faster. There is simply no evidence.

Johannes: I'm not sure what you mean to be honest?

teller and Pedro: Perhaps, but I don't think either of those two are about to come up with a sub10 average in comp, which is what I mean by "serious contender".

 

[Johannes91]

Johannes: I'm not sure what you mean to be honest?

How could anyone prove that color neutrality *can't* be as fast as fixed color solving?

You could say "There's no proof that Xenu isn't real." and be technically correct, but it doesn't really mean anything because the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, not on others to disprove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#The_Fallacy_of_Demanding_Negative_Proof

 

[deadalnix]

deadalinx: you still miss the point. I was arguing against the view that single/opp colour cross was faster. There is simply no evidence.

I have not said such sort of things. I'm just saiying that you shouldn't expect significant improvement using color neutrality.

 

[Meisen]

My advice to you would be; no, do not give up color neutrality!

I am a white cross only fridrich solver. I have tried solving with yellow cross, and that is not so bad . I'm not as fast with yellow cross as i am with white, but i think i can get there reasonable fast if i put some effort in it.

However, if i try to solve the cube with green/blue/red/orange cross my times double or triple. It's just so hard!

Now, if you're already color neutral, then you have 6 sides to choose from, i have only one, or two (if i practise a little bit at the yellow cross).

I feel positively sure that gives you an edge, even if it might be small

If i could do it all again, i would go for color neutrality...

 

[Dene]

deadalinx: you still miss the point. I was arguing against the view that single/opp colour cross was faster. There is simply no evidence.

I have not said such sort of things. I'm just saiying that you shouldn't expect significant improvement using color neutrality.

Your right, I misspoke. I meant to say "better" instead of "faster". You don't technically say that, but you certainly give off the appearance of thinking that being colour neutral isn't worth the time, while being opp colour neutral is. My argument is that it doesn't make a difference whatsoever, therefore the original poster has no reason to give up being colour neutral.

Johannes: I see. (read this post here for clarity on what I've been trying (and failing) to say the whole time).

 

[deadalnix]

No, I don't say that people shouldn't be color neutral. I'm just saying that it isn't a point to work if you want to get faster. This makes a big difference !

 

[guitardude7241]

http://www.cubezone.be/crossstudy.html

check here, deadalnix, you <i>can</i> be faster if you're color neutral, as far as cross goes by a small amount at most. less moves, less time.

edit: sorry, you already know this. let me prove another point about color neutrality.

let's say you have a white xcross to be completed in 4 moves. on all other faces, and cross takes 6 minimum. what if you do red cross first?

 

[nigtv]

I've done very little CFOP solving, but I'd say that from what I know, color neutral isn't really a big issue. In fact, I think (based on 0 experience with CFOP) that you would probably gain more with neutral entire cube orientation, being able to solve a cross/pair with whatever color on U that makes the rest easier, but I'd guess that if you're already fast with it, you probably do minimal rotations anyway (and algs based on dominant hand turns negate the value as well).

Of course, with other methods, it's much more important (or at least can be), but even with a 2x2x2 block, you'd never need to be more than opposite color neutral, since its either a U or D color on the block, in the other later steps, yea, but even then, it's hard to say that you'd gain more from forgetting your recognition habits than using them.

I'd say skip learning it with CFOP. If it were heise, then yea, but here, i realy don't think that it would be all that useful.

 

[teller]

This is dumb..of course color neutral, properly mastered, is superior. It may not be a huge edge, but it's an edge. Maybe if you kinda suck that extra 0.50 seconds doesn't matter since you're never going to get even close to 0:10 anyway, but it's there.

Every time I get a crappy cross, I am jealous of Feliks Zemdegs, who can just pick another one well within the 15 second inspection time, while you armchair quarterbacks pontificate about how it doesn't matter. PFFFT!

 

[rubiknewbie]

It doesn't matter if Feliks Zemdegs is able to pick another color. Heck it doesn't even matter if he doesn't look ahead.

He turns so fast he's gonna get sub 15 anyway .

 

[deadalnix]

let's say you have a white xcross to be completed in 4 moves. on all other faces, and cross takes 6 minimum. what if you do red cross first?

Then you do a crapier time and you really don't care as long as 4 move XCross is really rare. Study is done, I'm checking the fact : if you explore any possibilities, you only win 0.6 mvts.