What is the Limit?

[samcorrigan]

Hi guys, so Im doing a Project on the Cube, and the theory behind it, and I am doing a section on the limits, How fast can we actually solve a Rubik's cube?
My question to you is this:
What do you think the limit for the 3x3x3 Cube is (To the nearest .1 of a second). I will be doing some analysing of the results I collect to come to an approximate answer. Cheers.

 

[Username]

Depends on if you want single solves, averages or stuff like that

 

[TheCoolMinxer]

As an average maybe 6.2, single is stupid, because if someone is really good like Feliks, you can get sub3.2 or even less with a LL skip

 

[DGCubes]

In the future I have no doubts that people will average sub-3.5 or sub-4 (or at the very least sub-5, for those who think I'm crazy). If you want a number, I'd say around 3 seconds would be the limit for a global average. Mainly because I have seen, time and time again, predictions from the past that have been so insanely inaccurate. Just look around the Predictions for 2020 thread and you'll see things like the world record average being predicted at 8 seconds. There is no way to accurately predict the future for cubing, and as crazy as it sounds now, I feel like the only way to be correct is to over-predict by a lot. I'm pretty sure Fridrich once claimed (correct me if I'm wrong/making this up) that 2 second averages could be possible (20 move solutions, 10 moves per second), and I could possibly see that happening. Cubing is still in its youth; there is a very very long way to go.

 

[samcorrigan]

Cheers for the responses so far, the inaccuracy of the predictions is something Im going to talk about in the project, as of course its hard to predict future changes. This is more of a current opinion type thing

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

make a poll and use the results from that!

 

[cashis]

I'm pretty sure Fridrich once claimed (correct me if I'm wrong/making this up) that 2 second averages could be possible (20 move solutions, 10 moves per second), and I could possibly see that happening.

I'm pretty sure she said right at five seconds was the limit for CFOP, though I could also be wrong.

 

[CubeWizard23]

yeah she said 10 TPS 50-60 move solutions ~ 5.xx sec avgs sub 3 singles tho

 

[Lucas Garron]

I'm pretty sure she said right at five seconds was the limit for CFOP, though I could also be wrong.

No need to guess. Let's back up your claim!
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html

Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 5 seconds (the average time).

(Top search result for "fridrich limit".)

 

[rubikmaster]

In the future I have no doubts that people will average sub-3.5 or sub-4 (or at the very least sub-5, for those who think I'm crazy). If you want a number, I'd say around 3 seconds would be the limit for a global average. Mainly because I have seen, time and time again, predictions from the past that have been so insanely inaccurate. Just look around the Predictions for 2020 thread and you'll see things like the world record average being predicted at 8 seconds. There is no way to accurately predict the future for cubing, and as crazy as it sounds now, I feel like the only way to be correct is to over-predict by a lot.
I'm pretty sure Fridrich once claimed (correct me if I'm wrong/making this up) that 2 second averages could be possible (20 move solutions, 10 moves per second), and I could possibly see that happening. Cubing is still in its youth; there is a very very long way to go.

WUUUUT?!


Anyway, I'd say my prediction would be 4.5 for average and 2.8 for single simply because an insanely fast cuber is bound to come across an insanely easy scramble one day (e.g. double x-cross and LL-skip). There's also a good chance a more efficient method than CFOP could come into being during the next decades/centuries. And also, considering an insanely long time limit and the neverending growth of the size of the speedcubing community, an average with 3 or 4 insanely lucky scrambles is also bound to happen.

But hey, we're all just throwing out numbers here. No one can really make an accurate prediction, even if you have 1000 people giving you their prediction it will be no more accuratte than 10 people's predictions. Some people will make a good prediction simply by chance, most will not. I wouldn't really say there is such a thing as an absolute limit. As the records times become lower and lower, their progression will exponentially slow down (e.g. a 1 second progression during the next 10 years, then 0.5 seconds during the 10 years after that, 0.25, 0.125, 0.063, etc.)

 

[cashis]

No need to guess. Let's back up your claim!

Thanks Lucas

There's also a good chance a more efficient method than CFOP could come into being during the next decades/centuries.

There already are methods that are more efficient than CFOP
But hey, who knows, maybe Heise will be the most popular method in 10 years.

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

I think that other methods such as ZZ, ZB, and Heise, which are made to be more efficient, will eventually get better times than CFOP.
CFOP-5.25 average
ZZ-4.75 average
ZB-4.50 average

 

[DGCubes]

WUUUUT?!

Haha, it definitely sounds crazy to me too, but we are talking all time limits here. If human speedsolvers come to the point where we can see near optimal solutions in inspection (I'm not an FMC-er so I don't know quite how impossible that is), it would theoretically be possible. Keep in mind we could be millennia away from that though.

...

But then again, it may never happen at all.

 

[Jason Nguyen]

Thanks Lucas

There already are methods that are more efficient than CFOP
But hey, who knows, maybe Heise will be the most popular method in 10 years.

There's already a more efficient method, but it has 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 algorithms. :/

 

[samcorrigan]

Yea I agree, the predictions wont be accurate, which is half the reason why I'm collecting them I also believe the only absoloute limit that could arise would be a mechanical one, but obviously this would be a very low limit if it were to be reached.

 

[irontwig]

No need to guess. Let's back up your claim!
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html

Hindsight is 20/20, but...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030408131531/http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html

 

[Stefan]

"I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 10-12 seconds (the average time)"
-- Jessica Fridrich

In the future I have no doubts that people will average sub-3.5 or sub-4 (or at the very least sub-5, for those who think I'm crazy). If you want a number

Yes, please. I do want a number. The year of that "future", please.

 

[OrigamiCuber1]

In the future I have no doubts that people will average sub-3.5 or sub-4 (or at the very least sub-5, for those who think I'm crazy). If you want a number, I'd say around 3 seconds would be the limit for a global average. Mainly because I have seen, time and time again, predictions from the past that have been so insanely inaccurate. Just look around the Predictions for 2020 thread and you'll see things like the world record average being predicted at 8 seconds. There is no way to accurately predict the future for cubing, and as crazy as it sounds now, I feel like the only way to be correct is to over-predict by a lot. I'm pretty sure Fridrich once claimed (correct me if I'm wrong/making this up) that 2 second averages could be possible (20 move solutions, 10 moves per second), and I could possibly see that happening. Cubing is still in its youth; there is a very very long way to go.

Well, you are definitely crazy. Feliks' 3 second was a skip and that was some crazy look ahead. Cubing may be in its youth but it may take human evolution to get that fast.

 

[Stefan]

it may take human evolution to get that fast.

Speaking of evolution...

 

[cashis]

"I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 10-12 seconds (the average time)"
-- Jessica Fridrich

"Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 5 seconds (the average time)."
--Jessica Fridrich

She was talking about something else, though that's still what she said. Although it directly contradicts your quote...whatever,