(Re-)considering The Limits

KJiptner

KJiptner

Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
663
Location
Görlitz, Germany
WCA ID
2007JIPT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
At the beginning, the limits of the Fridrich Method (CFOP) were considered to be arount 17secs as you can see on Jessica Fridrichs webpage:
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/system.html
And Zborowski mentioned that the only way of getting 15sec avg is to learn his method:
http://www.zborowski.republika.pl/

Yesterday we've had a new WR: 11.76 Avg of 5 for a 3x3x3 ... with the standard CFOP system.
Are the limits for this method reached?
And what can be considered the limits with a fully mastered ZB now? (if anyone should ever reach this state)
 
Those limits are severely outdated. The 17 was before optimized algorithms. Fridrich did say that the limits are 10-12 seconds (look at her limits of speedcubing" page).

And she's about right. Macky gave the same estimates on his site (cubefreak.net).

There's really no way to average more than 5 turns per second while during a CFOP solve. If you try to go faster, there's no way you can see the next pair in time. For a ZB solve, you have to go slower during the F2L (see Chris Hardwick's site) because you only insert three pairs instead of 4. The last one has to be done slower. Additionally, the LL algorithms, while more efficient, are nowhere close to being as optimized as the fastest OLLs and PLLs. So for a ZB solve, the limit for turns per second is probably 4.

So if you take that a CFOP solve is a little over 50 turns and a ZB solve is about 40, then 10 seconds/solve is really the limit. But ultimately, the most important factor is the cuber, not the system. Macky was heads and shoulders above everyone else for two years. And now there's another leap in times. The algorithms are probably as optimized as they're going to get, it's just how well one learns to execute them.
 
Originally posted by tenderchkn@Jan 8 2007, 05:16 PM
So if you take that a CFOP solve is a little over 50 turns and a ZB solve is about 40, then 10 seconds/solve is really the limit.
Click to expand...
How would you average 40 moves using ZB??

And why do you guys ignore all the other methods? It is indeed possible to average around 40 moves, if you don't build a cross but start solving the pieces directly. I know that most speedcubers disagree with me, but I think 8-9 seconds on average is possible.
 
YOU ARE INCORRECT, JIRI SAYS THE LIMIT WAS 10-12 SECOND
Click to expand...
okay, okay. i see. no need to scream around.

sorry, for my carelessnes. but she actually says limits for speed cubing... not cfop... but okay...

we could also consider other methods...
I just took fridrich into consideration because it is the most used (and so the most "tested"/optimized) and ZB because it's the most advanced, i think.

I think 8-9 seconds on average is possible.
Click to expand...

limit of 8-9 sec...well seems a little bit humanly impossible at first... but we'll see. time has proven a lot of things.
 
Originally posted by Johannes91+Jan 8 2007, 06:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Johannes91 @ Jan 8 2007, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tenderchkn@Jan 8 2007, 05:16 PM
So if you take that a CFOP solve is a little over 50 turns and a ZB solve is about 40, then 10 seconds/solve is really the limit.
Click to expand...
How would you average 40 moves using ZB??

And why do you guys ignore all the other methods? It is indeed possible to average around 40 moves, if you don't build a cross but start solving the pieces directly. I know that most speedcubers disagree with me, but I think 8-9 seconds on average is possible. [/b][/quote]
That's what ZB claims on his site. I know that actual CFOP solves are around 60 moves and ZB solves are probably close to 50 for most people, but since we're talking about theoretical limits, we might as well assume that we have cubers who can solve close to the theoretical optimum. And the point that I was making is that it doesn't matter what method one uses to solve the cube - the limits remain the same. It is not the method, but the cuber that is the limiting factor.

I don't mean to leave out Petrus, but my point remains the same. Being completely color neutral makes Petrus a more efficient solving method, but just like ZB, that does no translate into faster speeds. No matter how you do the F2L, you will be limited in some way (cross in Fridrich and the 2x3x3 in Petrus). It's just the fact that a lot of Petrus solvers choose to be color neutral that makes it more efficient.
 
I agree with Johannes on this one. Although 8-9 sec avg might seem unlikely right now, sub-12 avg would have seemed impossible a few years ago, yet multiple people have gotten it.

However, 8-9 sec avg with CFOP does seem very unlikely (but not impossible). I think that an avg of that speed would require another, more efficient method.
 
I just took fridrich into consideration because it is the most used (and so the most "tested"/optimized) and ZB because it's the most advanced, i think.
Click to expand...

It isn't the most advanced. I think Heise is much more advanced than ZB. More "algorithms" (and a lot of time spent finding them) doesn't mean more advanced.

Originally posted by "Erik"
Have you considered roux?...
The roux method itself is somwhat about 40 moves. And the last steps are not very much optimized yet.. I see potential...
Click to expand...

Yeah, people leave out Roux even more than Petrus. It's about 48 moves for most people that use "normal" Roux (same blocks every time). I use Non-matching Roux and use 43 moves on average in speedsolving. If you are color neutral, I think 38 would be a good number for most people. For Heise, it's the same numbers IMO.

Like Johannes has told people many times, 38 moves at around 4 moves per second means a less than 10 second solve. Andrew Kang, the Unofficial record holder, does 4.6 moves per second on average so if you divide that into 38....
 
I think rather then reconsidering the limits i think that it could be possible that we have reached the limits.
Slowly but surely there are longer periods of times between new records being set. A few years ago new records were set with each competition that came along. Now new records aren't as common. I think that it's accurate to say that the Speedcubing community as a whole has reached its limits with most of the puzzles out there. No doubt the single solve records will be broken, but there will eventually be a record that will blow the others away like a lucky sub-10 around 7 or 6.xx. However as far as averages (of 5 in this case) go it seems that the limits have been reached.
 
Originally posted by Me!@Jan 10 2007, 06:23 AM
I think rather then reconsidering the limits i think that it could be possible that we have reached the limits.
Click to expand...
An interesting fact is that almost ALL WRs were broken in 2006, only 3 exceptions and they weren't any main events (clock and fewest moves). So I can't believe the limits have been reached yet. In pretty much every big competition there are some WRs broken. And I don't need to reconsider anything, btw, because I never thought that 13.22 is a perfect average...
 
Hi everybody,

To my mind, sub 12 in competition is a very very hard work. Gungz broke the WR because he works more than 5 hours/day since 2003...So nobody will broke the sub 11 average (with no lucky solve or less than 40% of solves) :huh: .

Bye .

Guillaume :D
 
Originally posted by GuillaumeMeunier@Jan 17 2007, 09:58 AM
Gungz broke the WR because he works more than 5 hours/day since 2003...
Click to expand...
What? Didn't he have anyhing else to do? Sounds a little bit like a myth. Amazing what he did though. Maybe this record will be broken by himself again. Probatly he is still getting better. Fear.:unsure:
Just by the way: I also have Mr. Harris "tell me how to get my cube faster, even though I avg 12,7sec of 100 with it" Chan on my list of potential WR holders... If he should ever have the chance to join an official competition.
 
Ill admit that was an awful bump, but this is interesting to see the contrasting views of "limits" now and then. Speedcubing has come a long way.
Maybe one day there will be a cuber to master most of ZB. Who knows? ;o

Edit: not that zb will improve times drastically, but theres not much room for times to decrease anyway.
 
Patrick M said:
Ill admit that was an awful bump, but this is interesting to see the contrasting views of "limits" now and then. Speedcubing has come a long way.
Maybe one day there will be a cuber to master most of ZB. Who knows? ;o

Edit: not that zb will improve times drastically, but theres not much room for times to decrease anyway.
Click to expand...
If you compare the times for the finalists of Worlds 2011 and 2013 you get very interesting results.
I don't see any reason not to post in this thread, but the way it was done (just 5.55) is indeed really not worth it. That said: 4.41 :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael Wimberly
What's considered a "normal" rate of progression?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5,063
MrCubert
MrCubert
C
Please consider some cubes from my collection
Replies
1
Views
497
chadliam
C
abunickabhi
When do we consider a speedcuber to be washed up?
2
Replies
24
Views
2,769
Clock_Enthusiast
Clock_Enthusiast
precompsubwr
WCA Regulations Committee considering allowing logos for bld solving
Replies
19
Views
4,539
Jorian Meeuse
J
White KB
Guys, I'm considering making a diss track of DG the Artist... Submit Lyric Ideas and I'll credit you!
Replies
3
Views
774
JDAW6
JDAW6
Back
Top