• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

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

Relative Solve Times for 2x2x2 - 7x7x7

newtonbase

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
2,952
Location
MK, UK
WCA
2015ADAM03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I learned Yau about 6 or 7 weeks ago, and started practicing 4x4 almost to the exclusion of everything else just over a month ago when I found out about the competition I will miss tomorrow. I haven't recorded DNFs, and I've done a reasonable number of untimed solves, but since I started Yau I have recorded times for 603 4x4 solves. After 50 solves my Ao12 was 3:29, so that's a reasonable approximation of where I started. My pb single in those solves is 1:44.16, and my current Ao100 is 2:17.76. Sure, it's possible to get there, but in the last month I've spent over 27 hours of cumulative solve time on 4x4 alone, probably closer to 30 hours, and I'm nowhere close to 1:30. I'll get there someday, I'm sure, but I'd like to compete sooner rather than later.
I targeted hard cutoff for 4x4 in my first comp and scraped it. Tomorrow is my 4th comp and soft cutoff would still be a big PB but competitions are about much more than that. For me they are about socialising, learning, beating PBs and messing up blind solves.
PS I'll also be missing 5x5 and OH cutoffs.
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,559
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
they are about socialising, learning, beating PBs and messing up blind solves.
Fair enough, it's just that the nearest competitions to me are in Madison, WI, about 2 hours drive away, and I have 35-40 cows to milk at home before and after. I need something more than socializing to justify getting up at 3:00 AM instead of 5:00 or 6:00, and driving 4 hours.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,703
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
@One Wheel : Keep plugging away at it and you'll get there in the end. I wasn't trying to compare our performance, I was just making the point that I got disheartened for the same reasons but with some effort made cut sooner than I thought possible. You can too.

Regarding practice, have you timed your splits to figure where your weaknesses are? Have you thought of trying Hoya instead? Maybe your issue is not amount of time practising, but whether you're doing the right things.
 

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,813
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
From an organizer's standpoint, it would be a terrible idea to do "first 40 people that sign up get to do 4x4" or something like that. It would achieve the exact opposite of what you're trying to fix, as the faster cubers are the ones that usually sign up first. The slower competitors usually sign up right at the end of registration. It also brings the issue of what if a faster competitor signs up late? Then do they just not get to compete?

On top of this, it makes scheduling a (bigger) nightmare. When you have a cutoff, it allows you to make a reasonable guess.
I get what you're trying to say, and I understand that it's just not very easy for you to get those times down, but it's just not feasible to switch.

Best of luck!
 

mafergut

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
2,893
Location
Spain
WCA
2018GUTI13
YouTube
Visit Channel
I took a look at this thread some months ago when I started to take 4x4 seriously. I was averaging over 2min at 4x4 back then and around 19 at 3x3. Knowing that x4 to x5 was achievable gave me motivation. A couple months (and a better cube) later I'm now averaging around 1:30 so, possibly closer to my limit, which would now be 18.5 x 4 = approx 1:15. I think I can really make it in some more months practicing so I would, in theory, be able to get an average at a comp with a 1:30 hard cut. And I'm 46 years old with no special skills. So I'm sure you can do it, @One Wheel.

Now I came back to check what I should expect at 5x5 to 7x7. Surprisingly that would be:
5x5 = x2 (4x4) = 3:00 based on current 4x4 times, 2:30 based on current 3x3 times
6x6 = x2 (5x5) = 6:00 or even down to 5:00
7x7 = x1.5 (6x6) = 9:00 or even down to 7:30

I am now at around 4:00 average at 5x5 and have no experience at all speedsolving 6x6 nor 7x7 so I'm happy, as all this means plenty of PBs in the following months (as 3x3 PBs are rarer and rarer now, I think I'm reaching my limit there). I don't want to think about singles yet :)

Thanks, Michael @Logiqx for the information. See you at the "oldies" thread :)
 

mafergut

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
2,893
Location
Spain
WCA
2018GUTI13
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is amazing! I guess I'm good at 2x2 (.25 vs the .41 mean), I can't wait to check the others out.
It can be interpreted like good at 2x2 or bad at 3x3. In my case I have a PB Ao100 of 5.5 at 2x2 and 18.5 at 3x3 which makes it 0.29 which is on the "relatively fast" side too. But I don't consider myself fast at 2x2, I think what happens is that I'm slow at 3x3 :(

This impression is also reinforced by the fact that, with 1:32 avg at 4x4 I'm at 4.97 ratio for 4x4 vs 3x3, which is already on the average but with just a few months of 4x4 practice against more than two years of 3x3.
 
Last edited:

mjm

Member
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
146
Location
Austin, TX
WCA
2015MAHE01
It can be interpreted like good at 2x2 or bad at 3x3. In my case I have a PB Ao100 of 5.5 at 2x2 and 18.5 at 3x3 which makes it 0.29 which is on the "relatively fast" side too. But I don't consider myself fast at 2x2, I think what happens is that I'm slow at 3x3 :(

This impression is also reinforced by the fact that, with 1:32 avg at 4x4 I'm at 4.97 ratio for 4x4 vs 3x3, which is already on the average but with just a few months of 4x4 practice against more than two years of 3x3.
Haha, fair enough. I consider my 3x3 as my baseline, right in the middle. The more I improve at that, the more potential I have to pick a cube up after not using it for a while and be better at it. I've never really thought of myself as fast or slow on 3x3, but I think I am pretty fast for not knowing CLL on 2x2. Also, hey! Sub-19 is definitely not slow :)
 

mafergut

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
2,893
Location
Spain
WCA
2018GUTI13
YouTube
Visit Channel
Haha, fair enough. I consider my 3x3 as my baseline, right in the middle. The more I improve at that, the more potential I have to pick a cube up after not using it for a while and be better at it. I've never really thought of myself as fast or slow on 3x3, but I think I am pretty fast for not knowing CLL on 2x2. Also, hey! Sub-19 is definitely not slow :)
I was just pulling your leg a bit, you know. By your signature I already could see you were way faster than I am but what I had not realized is that those 2x2 times are... with Ortega!!! Now I have to agree with you that you are nowhere near slow at 3x3 but you're pretty dang fast at 2x2. Also thanks, for an oldie like me, being sub-20 is already an achievement but there's still room for improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjm

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,559
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
In round numbers I'm at:
2/3 = 0.28
4/3 = 3.54
5/4 = 2.3
6/5 = 1.8

Looks like relatively pretty good on 4x4, and I'm pretty sure I'm losing a lot of time on 5x5 to a bad cube.
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,559
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
I'm not that good at big databases, but I would be really curious if anybody who actually knows how would be interested in updating the original numbers in this thread (not mine, which I'm convinced now are pretty useless). I'm interested to see if advances in cube design have had a measurable impact on relative times. a year - over - year comparison would be ideal, if possible.
 

One Wheel

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
2,559
Location
Wisconsin
WCA
2016BAIR04
I've used the 100 best averages per year.

Base is 3x3 (100%).
That's a simpler way of doing it. interesting that it seems the trend is actually opposite of what I would have expected on 5x5. Maybe 5x5 hardware is advancing at a relatively slower rate than other puzzles?
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,703
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
The original study addressed this by comparing the performances of individuals.
@Logiqx, does that mean that min=3.03 for 3BLD does not compare WRs, but that somewhere there is an individual whose 3BLD is 3.03 times their 3x3 and that is the best recorded ratio?

It would be interesting to know the average ratio for say the fastest 10% of 3BLDers, as opposed to the smallest 10% of ratios.
 

Logiqx

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,421
Location
Herts, UK
WCA
2015GEOR02
YouTube
Visit Channel
@Logiqx, does that mean that min=3.03 for 3BLD does not compare WRs, but that somewhere there is an individual whose 3BLD is 3.03 times their 3x3 and that is the best recorded ratio?
Min = 3.03 means the top 5% of blinders take 3.03 times longer than 3x3.

Well... they did at the time of the study.

@LogiqxIt would be interesting to know the average ratio for say the fastest 10% of 3BLDers, as opposed to the smallest 10% of ratios.
This is what the reports show although I must have failed to explain it clearly.

The calculations can be summarised as follows:
1) Split the data into 20 groups (vigintiles) based on WCA ranking for the event being reported.
2) For each vigintile, calculate each individual's ratio then calculate the average across the individuals

The end is result is typical ratios for the top X% of competitors, based on their WCA ranking as opposed to people with the top ratios. I believe this is what you are after?
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,703
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I believe this is what you are after?
Yes it is, thanks. Perhaps it was explained somewhere and I missed it, but I assumed the vigintiles were based on ratios since that's what the Y axis of the graph shows. In which case, the results might have been be skewed by e.g. mediocre BLDers who get a good ratio because they are even worse at 3x3, etc.
 

mafergut

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
2,893
Location
Spain
WCA
2018GUTI13
YouTube
Visit Channel
I was going to post this on the "oldies" thread but I thought it belongs here so...

I was comparing my 3x3 2H and OH times to see if I'm close or not to the expected times according to the statistical information compiled here by @Logiqx. The mean relative times seem to be 2.36x 2H for OH so, taking my PB Ao100 at 2H of 18.5 more or less the expected OH average would be 18.5 x 2.36 = 43,66. This was very close to reality until I retook OH practise this week and pushed it down to 41,05 Ao100.

Again, I have practised OH significantly less than 2H and I don't even know half of the OLLs OH but I do 2H so I'm a bit puzzled. I either am better at OH than 2H with much less practise or I just can lookahead better in OH due to the slower TPS which would point to lookahead being an important improvement point for me at 2H.

But taking as an example another of us oldies: David @muchacho. He's more or less as fast as I am in 2H at 18.8 Ao100 but he's a lot faster in OH with a 31.7 Ao100 last time I checked his PBs :) That's around 1.6x factor, which would be among the best. Is this something that might have something to do with method? As David uses Roux, maybe the smaller move-count, paired with the slower TPS -> improved lookahead makes his OH times be closer to his 2H times?

By the way, congrats to @muchacho for those lightning speed OH times. I'm envious! :)
 

Ordway Persyn

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,990
Location
Mimal the Elf's boot
WCA
2016PERS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I generally think that if someone actually puts dedicated practice into OH, a 1.6x factor would seem about right.
My OH times are about 3 times slower than my 2H times, which I think is quite slow (14 for 2H and ~42 for OH).
I think that a ZZ user may be able to get OH times closer to their 2H times more easily, as the method works better for OH. I'm no OH expert though so don't quote me on this.
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top