Highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve

Well I think that after watching Nakajima's solves, I would be motivated to move faster so what rahulkadukar said isn't particularly wrong in my case :P I get inspired by cubers so easily :)
 
Wasn't Nakajima's practised solve(for the weekly competition) around 7.1 TPS?.So,even 7 TPS for a non-practised solve sounds incredible.
 
Last edited:
bundat said:
This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.

Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.

So I guess measuring TPS from a solve which was not meant to be a "high TPS solve" would be better than actually focusing on measuring and increasing your TPS in each solve.
Click to expand...

It was the exact same way with the first 5 seasons of CAL (DotA Allstars -- mod of WCIII); professional teams had combined APMs of about 1500 per minute, and they were all doing useful movements/actions; after the creation of more and more teams, who thought random clicking did something to skill level, it ruined the point of measuring APMs --> skill.
 
Robert-Y said:
What is the highest reachable tps (turns per second) in a 3x3 solve?

The highest I have come across is about 8.18 done by Breandan in his 7.21 solve (59/7.21 = 8.18 (2.d.p.). My highest is about 5.9 (time was about 10.5). I think that other fast cubers have gotten over 6 tps before (Harris for sure, probably Erik and Nakaji). I think the highest reachable tps might be 10-15tps.
Click to expand...

That seems nearly impossible if it was a regular 3x3 solve.
 
maybe he spelt it wrong by accident? (no offense :D) maybe somebody else posted it for him?
i remember hearing that he changed it because he felt that 'Vallance' was cooler sounding than 'McElhill'. i agree. i think that ones his dads surname, and ones his mums... i dont think he just changed it to a random name :p
 
Just to clear things up:

Yes my actual name is Breandan McElhill but Vallance is just overall easier to say/spelletc. (for some reason people at school spell it McEnhill, i dont get how people can mistake l for n :rolleyes:) basically it leaves only 1 name which is difficult to spell

and its spelled Breandon McElhill on the UWR page because Joey posted it :P well actually a previous time but when i updated it the name didnt change

So anyway Breandan Vallance is my speedcubing name and the correct spelling


Also, i assure you my solve isnt fake, the tps just seems high because i saw both of the last 2 slots at the same time which werent particularly short(15 moves) and i had 2 long (but fast for me) ll algs. with 2 extra U' moves in the pll, which was a Y perm, giving a total of 19 moves for pll. I was very surprised at the time, 59 moves is a lot even for a sub-10 IMO:)

and Nakajima's solve was only 7 tps because there are far less moves in his solution
 
Last edited:
bundat said:
This is like Starcraft's APM (actions-per-minute).
It's good to measure, as long as you're not aware of it.

Before people cared about it, the APM of the world's top players with godly micro abilities (like Slayers_BoXeR) was almost above everyone else. When people noticed this, they started measuring their own APMs, and started doing stupid things like random clicking and dragging just to increase their APM, which made it pointless.

So I guess measuring TPS from a solve which was not meant to be a "high TPS solve" would be better than actually focusing on measuring and increasing your TPS in each solve.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The measures of APM, TPS, clicks/sec in minesweeper and so on, are only useful when you use them to judge the skill of attempts that were trying to just be good in their own right. It's not an absolute measure of skill, something you can look at and immediately know how good someone is - but that doesn't mean it's not useful! I think I said this a long time ago at twistypuzzles: "Solve time = Turns * Turn speed + Delays". If you can reduce the delays down to basically nothing, the only thing separating you from faster people who use the same method is turn speed, so measuring your TPS on a legitimate solve can be very informative.

So for cubing, TPS is only useful to measure a solve that was supposed to be fast, because as Stefan pointed out anyone can get an abnormally high TPS solve by spamming RUR'U' or T-perm or whatever else they're fast at. You can do this on computer simulators too, I just did a 6.16 tps solve on IsoCubeSim, just by clicking as fast as I could. It's the same in Starcraft, and also in Minesweeper, where just counting clicks/second tells you nothing because it is possible to just click as fast as you can without doing anything. (At least in Minesweeper there is an "effective clicks per second" kind of thing, because there's a way to determine how efficient it is possible to be on a given board... in cubing this would be ridiculous, because nobody even approaches optimal solves on a speedsolve.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Puzzle Maniac
Speedsolving.com Top Twenty Highest Reaction Scores (data visualisation)
Replies
0
Views
12
Puzzle Maniac
Puzzle Maniac
OtaMota
Yuxin 51x51: In Progress Highest Order NxN WR Attempt
Replies
6
Views
623
Sub 20 Cuber
Sub 20 Cuber
Martyt7777
Who has the highest RS-to-Messages ratio?
Replies
8
Views
595
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
OtaMota
49x49 Highest Order Cube WR
2
Replies
32
Views
8,766
OtaMota
OtaMota
Curunír
WORLD RECORD highest order rubik's cube (34x34x34)
2 3
Replies
47
Views
10,484
An Animating Cuber
An Animating Cuber
Back
Top