• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

if a sub-1 7x7 single is possible, when will it happen?

Thom S.

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
746
I'd say this year in November

Edit: Looked at the UWRs and now I'd say. November in two years. Hopefully by anyone else other than Max.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,586
Is it possible? Yes, obviously. You could just get a scramble that has, say, only outer-layer moves; or perhaps a little less far-fetched, a scramble with the centres already solved. [0] The top big cubers could certainly capitalise on this and get a sub-minute solve.

Is it likely to happen within our lifetimes? Probably not. A decently lucky speedsolve on a 7×7×7 will still take over 450 moves [1]. You're looking at a sustained 7.5 tps with zero pauses in order to execute 450 moves in a minute. Max's 1:47.87 WR single went at "only" 5.04 tps (STM), for context, and also used much more than just 450 moves.

Future single records are always a bit funny to speculate on, because they're just one lucky scramble away from being broken. My gut feel is that we won't see a sub-minute single in at least the next 20 years [2], but it's hard to say with much certainty. The biggest source of uncertainty isn't about whether Max Park will get it (he won't); it's whether there'll be a new generation of big cube specialists who will overtake Max, the same way Max overtook Feliks and Kevin Hays a few years ago.

---

[0] So, I did a little calculation, and I have a lower bound of 1/2e54 on the chance of getting all centres already solved on a random-move scramble. That's 23 orders of magnitude more likely than with random-state scrambles (1/3.61e77), though of course it's still very unlikely in absolute terms.

[1] Unfortunately, I don't have move counts for 7×7×7 solves available, but I do have my own stats for 6×6×6 linear slow solves (~330 moves), and that's about 1.5 times the 6FMC UWR (226 moves). If we extrapolate this to the 7FMC UWR (313 moves), that would mean unrealistically efficient 7×7×7 solves would take ~470 moves on average. (This is very handwavy and is not at all a precise calculation.)

[2] Under conditions similar to WCA comps, so using computer-generated scrambles, using a proper timer, etc.
 
Last edited:

NigelTheCuber

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2022
Messages
810
Location
duck cubing parties
WCA
2022PHAN03
YouTube
Visit Channel
Is it possible? Yes, obviously. You could just get a scramble that has, say, only outer-layer moves; or perhaps a little less far-fetched, a scramble with the centres already solved. [0] The top big cubers could certainly capitalise on this and get a sub-minute solve.

Is it likely to happen within our lifetimes? Probably not. A decently lucky speedsolve on a 7×7×7 will still take over 450 moves [1]. You're looking at a sustained 7.5 tps with zero pauses in order to execute 450 moves in a minute. Max's 1:47.87 WR single went at "only" 5.04 tps (STM), for context, and also used much more than just 450 moves.

Future single records are always a bit funny to speculate on, because they're just one lucky scramble away from being broken. My gut feel is that we won't see a sub-minute single in at least the next 20 years [2], but it's hard to say with much certainty. The biggest source of uncertainty isn't about whether Max Park will get it (he won't); it's whether there'll be a new generation of big cube specialists who will overtake Max, the same way Max overtook Feliks and Kevin Hays a few years ago.

---

[0] So, I did a little calculation, and I have a lower bound of 1/2e54 on the chance of getting all centres already solved on a random-move scramble. That's 23 orders of magnitude more likely than with random-state scrambles (1/3.61e77), though of course it's still very unlikely in absolute terms.

[1] Unfortunately, I don't have move counts for 7×7×7 solves available, but I do have my own stats for 6×6×6 linear slow solves (~330 moves), and that's about 1.5 times the 6FMC UWR (226 moves). If we extrapolate this to the 7FMC UWR (313 moves), that would mean unrealistically efficient 7×7×7 solves would take ~470 moves on average. (This is very handwavy and is not at all a precise calculation.)

[2] Under conditions similar to WCA comps, so using computer-generated scrambles, using a proper timer, etc.
the fact that you took the time to write all that is extraordinary

thanks lol
 
Top