If Fridrich wasn't invented, what do you think the WR time would be?

[Godmil]

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34290-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods

Woah, that's awesome. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[megaminxwin]

Well, I suppose it depends. Consider the 1982 WC, most people there didn't have a clue what Fridrich was, and it hadn't actually come into the public cubing consciousness until around 1997, when she published the method on her website. Despite this, there were 9 people faster than Fridrich. I'm going to assume that none of these people knew about the Fridrich method, so that's 9 people getting times faster than Fridrich without using her method. The world record was set using a corners-first solution, actually.

This time was 22.95 seconds, which means that we can automatically discount half of the entire poll, up to 20-25. This is where it gets trickier.

I'm also going to assume that Cross, F2L, OLL and PLL were all thought up by separate people around the globe. There's definite proof that the Cross and F2L were invented by David Singmaster and René Schoof, respectively. OLL and PLL shouldn't have been too hard to think up individually. These steps were just never combined into a method.

Anyway.

It appears Lars Petrus has shown to have discovered lots of good ideas for speedcubing, such as finger tricks, quite independent of Fridrich. His best average is 20.48, and it doesn't seem to be too much of a jump to be able to get 15-20 with this. So 20-25 is out.

The Roux method has been shown to be incredibly fast, although the question arises whether the method was discovered completely independently or with ideas from the Fridrich method. It looks like it would be hard to come up with completely independently, but I suppose with the Petrus method out there, it wouldn't be too hard.

(EDIT: Turns out he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman. So there weren't ideas from the Fridrich method, I only put that in because it was proposed 6 years after Fridrich was published. So there you go.)

Regardless, it is fast. 5BLD has achieved a 10 second average officially, while BigGreen has achieved 9.65 seconds. I think it's fair to say that we can strike out 10-15 off the list, leaving sub-5 and 5-10.

Sub-5 would be incredibly difficult to achieve, with any method, even only with a single time, not average. So I don't think that will be the world record for at least another year, and even then it will probably be easy or lucky. 5-10, however, while difficult to achieve, is certainly possible. So I voted for that, thus destroying the nice round number of voters that there were.

*prepares for hate mail*

 

[aronpm]

*prepares for hate mail*

Whoa whoa whoa. Someone actually thinking about their response to one of these threads? Everybody get your pitchforks and torches.

 

[ottozing]

*prepares for hate mail*

you really shouldnt assume that everyone hates you. your post was logical and made alot of sense.

 

[cubelover111]

To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.

 

[megaminxwin]

you really shouldnt assume that everyone hates you. your post was logical and made alot of sense.

I know I shouldn't, but it's honestly just easier. If you don't get hatemail, you feel really happy, and if you do, then at least you were prepared, so you don't get really disappointed. Whereas going the other way round... egh. You feel normal when you don't get hatemail and really terrible when you do. I choose the safer route.

EDIT: Besides, it was more for the fact that I destroyed the round number of voters, but I suppose that doesn't mean anything really, so meh.

To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.

People are saying that Roux is better than CFOP from the perspective of someone who isn't prepared to spend pretty much everyday of their entire cubing life practicing, at least half an hour at a time. So I'm not sure this is completely justified.

Besides, I think that practicing 3x3 a hell of a lot gives you a massive advantage when going into other events, as it lets you see pieces quicker, it can help your recognition time, and so forth. But I don't know if that's actually true. If you want to find out, go ahead and ask him.

 

[irontwig]

The Roux method has been shown to be incredibly fast, although the question arises whether the method was discovered completely independently or with ideas from the Fridrich method. It looks like it would be hard to come up with completely independently, but I suppose with the Petrus method out there, it wouldn't be too hard. Regardless, it is fast. 5BLD has achieved a 10 second average officially, while BigGreen has achieved 9.65 seconds. I think it's fair to say that we can strike out 10-15 off the list, leaving sub-5 and 5-10.

Iirc Gilles has said that he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman, neither of which knew about CFOP when they thought up their methods.

 

[megaminxwin]

Iirc Gilles has said that he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman, neither of which knew about CFOP when they thought up their methods.

Hooray for new information! Editing now, thanks.

So there you go. Roux would probably be one of, if not the, method of choice for speedcubers today if Fridrich didn't exist.

 

[Kirjava]

Learning algs is easier than becoming good at thinking about moves and solving more intuitively; at least, for beginners.

Really? I find that beginners tend to have trouble learning algs.

Also, what's the fastest method? In my head, it'd be the one with the least number of steps and/or turns- God's algorithm if you're... God-

Speed optimal is 'faster' than optimal.

or maybe something with ZBLL. I'm not sure how many people know full ZBLL, let alone use ZBLL for speedsolving; I was told once that "only about two people know it and they don't bother using it for speed".
So this isn't the most reliable source, but my point is that ZBLL is hardly common, but theoretically the fastest Last-layer approach (unless I have been living in a cave and actually everybody knows it apart from me).

I think there are better techniques than ZBLL or 1LLL for LL, and I think there are better techniques than doing LL at all.

5.66. It would've been created/published by someone other than Fridrich.

It wasn't created by Fridrich, and the topic is 'not invented' not 'not invented by Fridrich'.

Anyone can get fast at CFOP, but roux is a much harder method to master.

[citation needed]

IMO FreeFOP should be much faster than CFOP, and thats the mothod i think would hold the WR.

In theory, yes - but in practise getting good at a multitude of techniques for F2L compared to getting very good at one might not be better overall

Well, I suppose it depends. Consider the 1982 WC, most people there didn't have a clue what Fridrich was, and it hadn't actually come into the public cubing consciousness until around 1997, when she published the method on her website. Despite this, there were 9 people faster than Fridrich. I'm going to assume that none of these people knew about the Fridrich method, so that's 9 people getting times faster than Fridrich without using her method.

People were using very similar methods to fridrich though.

To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.

This literally means nothing as far as what method is 'best'.

 

[thatkid]

to get top 100 in 5bld all you need is a success in competition

 

[TMOY]

The "26 years" option is missing.

 

[Godmil]

to get top 100 in 5bld all you need is a success in competition

That still takes a hellava lot of work though, surely.

 

[Erik]

This must be one of the worst polls ever on speedsolving... sorry to say. The options show no insight in the expected results, plus the gaps should be exponential rather than linear with the knowledge we have now of different methods.
Even in 1982 already Marc Waterman was like far sub-20 average (17-18) with his own method so.. come on.

Besides this, Fridrich was born, not invented ;-) (jk jk)

Spoiler

but srsly it's a bad name for referring to what is commonly known as CFOP

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

Really? I find that beginners tend to have trouble learning algs.

I find that beginners have more trouble trying to block-build than memorising a few short algs (probably varies from person to person).

Speed optimal is 'faster' than optimal.

True, but I don't recall reading anywhere that a hypothetical "fastest method" had to apply to a method performed by a human. Also, move optimal could also be speed optimal in certain circumstances.

I think there are better techniques than ZBLL or 1LLL for LL, and I think there are better techniques than doing LL at all.

I was just going off the top of my head. I'm not too fond of looking at LL variations; more fond of looking the concept of methods with different last steps. I probably could've talked about how finishing with a layer may not necessarily be optimal (speed, or otherwise).

These are just my thoughts on the subject, I don't have any concrete evidence for anything I have suggested. I just hope you don't use that detail to immediately disprove them.

 

[Kirjava]

I find that beginners have more trouble trying to block-build than memorising a few short algs (probably varies from person to person).

They have less trouble using a braindead piece solving technique than learning algs. It doesn't have to be blockbuilding.

True, but I don't recall reading anywhere that a hypothetical "fastest method" had to apply to a method performed by a human.

Are you honestly saying that that assumption would be an outlandish one to make, given the context of this forum?

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

They have less trouble using a braindead piece solving technique than learning algs. It doesn't have to be blockbuilding.

Never said it had to be, just that algs were easier than blockbuilding for most people I know. As of yet, I am not aware of any braindead methods that do not involve some form of set move sequence at one point or another (something that could be described as an algorithm, in terms of cubing).

Are you honestly saying that that assumption would be an outlandish one to make, given the context of this forum?

Not really, just saying it's an assumption I personally didn't make this time. In my head, humans are pretty much jack of all trades, master of none; we're not specifically designed for speedsolving a 3x3, so we're probably not the most efficient at it. Maybe I'm just being silly.

 

[Kirjava]

Never said it had to be, just that algs were easier than blockbuilding for most people I know. As of yet, I am not aware of any braindead methods that do not involve some form of set move sequence at one point or another (something that could be described as an algorithm, in terms of cubing).

No pre memorised move sequences required

Not really, just saying it's an assumption I personally didn't make this time. In my head, humans are pretty much jack of all trades, master of none; we're not specifically designed for speedsolving a 3x3, so we're probably not the most efficient at it. Maybe I'm just being silly.

You are. That kind of assumption is a given given the context.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

No pre memorised move sequences required

I would guess that most beginners would be too intimidated by this or just memorise the examples; I can only guess though. Furthermore, I wouldn't describe it as braindead as it does involve some kind of observation and creative piece manipulation (assuming this "beginner" hasn't just memorised the examples). This is quite nice though, thank you for sharing it

 

[qqwref]

If you ask me, the world record would be 22.95 seconds set by Minh Thai, at the last cubing world championship ever held.

 

[megaminxwin]

People were using very similar methods to fridrich though.

The point being? They might have been very similar, but that doesn't mean they were close enough to be called Fridrich/CFOP/FG (Fridrich-Goljan). Besides, even if they were faster and using something close enough to be called CFOP, you have people like Lars Petrus, who got a 24.57 as opposed to Fridrich's 29.11.

If you ask me, the world record would be 22.95 seconds set by Minh Thai, at the last cubing world championship ever held.

Smart, but just because Fridrich published the method on her website, kickstarting the craze again, doesn't mean that it could've come back by other means. For example, Petrus published his method around the same time, so who's to say that he couldn't have started it again? (i'm getting the wrong thing here aren't i. meh)

EDIT: Also, it looks like TwistyPuzzles.com managed to get started without Fridrich's help at all, so it could've restarted through there, but it looks like a [citation needed] kind of thing. Still interesting though.