How the 3.47 WR changes cubing

[Mike Hughey]

Yep, anything is possible. Who knows, a new, move efficient method may be developed. Or, a ZZ user or a Roux user may get a record and that could completely change the way people see other methods.

I seriously doubt a newer, more efficient method is necessary to beat this within 5 years. I believe continued very minor incremental improvement, combined with another lucky solve like this one, will be more than enough to beat it.

Edit: I just noticed that Max Park beat this at home by almost a third of a second just a little more than a month ago, according to his PB spreadsheet. Max is certainly capable of matching his home results in competition, so it's just a matter of him getting a lucky solve for him to beat this in competition. And there are certainly several other cubers capable of similar things, I'm sure.

 

[David Zemdegs]

Any top cuber getting an OLL and PLL skip can probably beat it. Jay nearly did.

 

[LightFlame_]

Any top cuber getting an OLL and PLL skip can probably beat it. Jay nearly did.

R.I.P. Jay. May he get better luck next time.

 

[DGCubes]

Well, I put all WR Singles on a graph (except Minh Thai's 22.95), and made an exponential reduction (which approximates the trend).
With the current trend, this record will probably be broken around the beginning of 2020. I remind that it just uses probabilities with a very bad model!
Here's the graph for those interested:View attachment 9738

Very cool graph with a lot of potential applications! You could use the x-distances from the trendline to show how ahead of its time a given record is (or how much potential to improve the record there still was at any given time). I find it interesting that according to this, the 4.22 actually was behind its time, especially since people found it pretty insane at the time.

I am always a bit wary of graphs like these, especially for extrapolation, but it seems pretty good for interpolation. How does this graph extend, say 10 years in the future?

 

[Julio974]

Very cool graph with a lot of potential applications! You could use the x-distances from the trendline to show how ahead of its time a given record is (or how much potential to improve the record there still was at any given time). I find it interesting that according to this, the 4.22 actually was behind its time, especially since people found it pretty insane at the time.

I am always a bit wary of graphs like these, especially for extrapolation, but it seems pretty good for interpolation. How does this graph extend, say 10 years in the future?

I will precise that:
1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
Anyway, here are the graphs for:
3x3x3 Singles
3x3x3 Averages
2x2x2 Singles
2x2x2 Averages
Singles are in red, averages in blue. It is interesting that only 3x3 single is currently the only one better than expected.

 

[Matt—]

I will precise that:
1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
Anyway, here are the graphs for:
3x3x3 Singles
3x3x3 Averages
2x2x2 Singles
2x2x2 Averages
Singles are in red, averages in blue. It is interesting that only 3x3 single is currently the only one better than expected.
View attachment 9745View attachment 9744View attachment 9743View attachment 9742

Nice graphs. What does “likely to be broken soon mean”? That could be in a month, or a year.

 

[whatshisbucket]

I will precise that:
1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
Anyway, here are the graphs for:
3x3x3 Singles
3x3x3 Averages
2x2x2 Singles
2x2x2 Averages
Singles are in red, averages in blue. It is interesting that only 3x3 single is currently the only one better than expected.
View attachment 9745View attachment 9744View attachment 9743View attachment 9742

Hi i think these fits could be much better. In particular, it looks like you used a program that generate fits under the assumption that the data should asymptotically approach zero, which is ridiculous in this scenario. If you were to add a third parameter (a constant representing the asymptotic behavior of the data), you would be able to get much better fits (and potentially be able to predict about where the world record should stop getting better).

 

[Julio974]

Nice graphs. What does “likely to be broken soon mean”? That could be in a month, or a year.

"Likely to be broken soon" just means that the current WR is above the average and therefore is not expected to last.

Hi i think these fits could be much better. In particular, it looks like you used a program that generate fits under the assumption that the data should asymptotically approach zero, which is ridiculous in this scenario. If you were to add a third parameter (a constant representing the asymptotic behavior of the data), you would be able to get much better fits (and potentially be able to predict about where the world record should stop getting better).

Also, I used MS Excel 2016, so I can't add a 3rd variable. The reduction isn't curved enough for realistically predict future world records (that's why I don't trust it after 5 years). I'll however try, in the future, to add a new point for the currrent WR at the current day (as it is still active). It should correct it a little bit.

 

[Hazel]

I seriously doubt a newer, more efficient method is necessary to beat this within 5 years. I believe continued very minor incremental improvement, combined with another lucky solve like this one, will be more than enough to beat it.

Edit: I just noticed that Max Park beat this at home by almost a third of a second just a little more than a month ago, according to his PB spreadsheet. Max is certainly capable of matching his home results in competition, so it's just a matter of him getting a lucky solve for him to beat this in competition. And there are certainly several other cubers capable of similar things, I'm sure.

I just realized Max got this PB on my birthday

 

[Julio974]

New graph, for skewb this time!
The transparent points at the end are just the current records (with excel's MIN and TODAY functions)
I doubled single and average this time, and for once I didn't round the records to the month but to the day. I may redo that for 3x3.
Both records seems likely to be beaten soon!

 

[abunickabhi]

The record used just 27 moves. Even the method I am developing (LMCF) which uses an average of 43 moves, only gets a 28 move solution 1 in 5000+ solves. The 3x3 record now not only requires incredible skill, but incredible luck too, since 27 moves is a crazy low amount for any method. Even at home. Let alone in a competition.

Yes luck is incredibly embedded into the 3x3 single now.
Guess we have to focus on other events now yo.

The spotlight will gradually shift away from 3x3 and move to other events.

 

[Ronxu]

Why yall gotta be so dramatic about it? It's just another WR that will probably stand for longer than most others. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[CornerCutter]

New graph, for skewb this time!
The transparent points at the end are just the current records (with excel's MIN and TODAY functions)
I doubled single and average this time, and for once I didn't round the records to the month but to the day. I may redo that for 3x3.
Both records seems likely to be beaten soon!
View attachment 9755

Nice graph! Could you make one for Pyraminx?

Also, 7x7 would be really cool since Max has gotten unbelievable times.

 

[u Cube]

3.47 isn't as Surprising as You Think
Okay, before I get a ton of hate, yes this is a very good result and is just as surprising as any other world record, but maybe a bit more. Honestly though, people are blowing this way out of proportion. The 3.47 is a big deal yet honestly it was bound to happen around this time. We actually have had two precursors to this world record, one being the 3.27 misscramble and Jayden's sub-4 fail cube drop. It was almost assured to happen soon that some decently fast cuber would get an easy scramble that isn't a lot of moves and can be executed with lightning fast speed. Also, there have been many people who have gotten sub-4s at home because naturally, people do more solves at home therefore they have a better chance of getting a lucky scramble and it just happened to occur in a comp this time. That's it....

 

[pglewis]

I fully understand why 3x3 single is the one thing the media and a general audience are going to take any interest in but I've long wondered why the speedsolving community itself still seems to consider 3x3 single as the most holy WR rather than average. Give the modern fastest solvers enough scrambles and we were eventually going to see that mid 3 with a perfect storm.

 

[sqAree]

While 3x3 single is a lot about luck, it still needs a lot of skill to be executed nicely. On top of that this WR isn't "just sub4", it's A LOT faster and there are not many people who have a time like that at home. Like, really not many.

 

[u Cube]

I fully understand why 3x3 single is the one thing the media and a general audience are going to take any interest in but I've long wondered why the speedsolving community itself still seems to consider 3x3 single as the most holy WR rather than average. Give the modern fastest solvers enough scrambles and we were eventually going to see that mid 3 with a perfect storm.

precisely

 

[pglewis]

While 3x3 single is a lot about luck, it still needs a lot of skill to be executed nicely. On top of that this WR isn't "just sub4", it's A LOT faster and there are not many people who have a time like that at home. Like, really not many.

Yeah, I should be clear that I'm not suggesting it's pure luck, I'm not going to sub 4 any scramble . The size of the jump was definitely a shocker but going by the history graph it seems like we were due for another big jump. Also, being on the slower side, it's not much more insane to someone at my level than a "mundane" sub 6. It's so far beyond what I do I eventually just shrug and say "sure, why not?"

 

[AidanNoogie]

The 3.27 was a setup, not a misscramble.

 

[Loser]

3.27 was setup, also Jay failed a 3.9. A 3.47 when the closest we've gotten is something that could have been 0.5 seconds off. Yeah it's unexpected