Will the Fridrich method ever be beaten?

[qqwref]

- Finding a "missing link", something that can be done on-the-fly after finishing the left block, in order to make the rest of the cube 2-gen, would be a big step forward, though it might not be possible - there has been some effort in this area already.

I don't really see why you want to make it 2gen. First of all, the recognition is guaranteed to be extremely difficult, which will lead to a huge pause in the middle of the solve, right where you should be going as fast as possible. And second, it doesn't affect F2L (which is 2gen anyway), so you might as well do it after F2L; but then you're just solving LL in two looks with CP/2GLL, so why not just do CO/PLL or CLL/EP or ZBLL or whatever? The way I see it, there's no easy solution and it won't help, so why bother?

 

[Escher]

i dont understand your argument. do you know what phasing is?

 

[*LukeMayn*]

escher:
What they are talking about is making the cube solvable with only 2 sides after the left block, not phasing but the "missing Link..."

 

[Escher]

ahh, i just reread micheal hordecki's article on ZZ...

i see

 

[McWizzle94]

I think ZZ users should also work on blockbuilding for the left and right blocks, instead of using 2-gen Fridrich.

That's true, but after doing Fridrich for so long it's hard to learn blockbuilding xD

 

[yurivish]

I think ZZ users should also work on blockbuilding for the left and right blocks, instead of using 2-gen Fridrich.

That's true, but after doing Fridrich for so long it's hard to learn blockbuilding xD

Er, isn't ZZ all about blockbuilding the left and right sides? I do a cross occasionally when it's easier, but I try to stick with building a 2x2 and then inserting the last pair.

 

[abr71310]

Theoretically and philosophically yes...

It's called "God's Algorithm".
Currently only machines (and maybe a few people) are able to figure it out, since it requires EXTREME depth analysis, but I think given our human intelligence potential there's going to be sub-5 times for the 3x3x3 in the next twenty years...

The only reason I think that is because back in 2005, when I went off to summer camp and was first introduced to WorldCubeAssociation.com, the world record at that time was 11.18 seconds.

Now the record is 7.08 seconds, 3 years later...

I understand the argument that that was an EXTREMELY lucky solve, but remember that Harris Chan got a 9.44 unlucky solve that required some extreme AUF knowledge to complete...

God's Algorithm can currently solve any Rubik's cube in 23 moves - if I remember correctly the human brain (average) can usually only see 10-15 moves ahead (on a cube - in chess it's 7, in other games it can be as low as 4). If someone with extremely high depth analysis (like maybe Lars Vandenburgh or Guus Razoux-Schultz) skills practices 24/7 for a year, there's a high chance that they're going to see patterns that none of us see when we use our standard algorithm sets of Petrus, Fridrich or ZB (or w/e we use).

 

[qqwref]

It's called "God's Algorithm".
Currently only machines (and maybe a few people) are able to figure it out, since it requires EXTREME depth analysis, but I think given our human intelligence potential there's going to be sub-5 times for the 3x3x3 in the next twenty years...

Maybe single, but it would have to be very lucky, and I'm pretty sure you would have to use a speed method. (20 turns @ sub-5 = 4+ TPS, so it can't be a fewest moves method like Heise...) Let me just say that I don't think it would happen, you would have to be able to basically see the solution in inspection...

God's Algorithm can currently solve any Rubik's cube in 23 moves

Any cube can be solved in 20 moves or fewer (yes, I'm sure, even if it hasn't been proved yet), most are 17 or 18.

 

[Lofty]

I think Fridrich is the best method for the state speedcubing is at now. There isn't really money in it and its just for fun so tho we put loads of time into it we dont put all our time into it. If it ever became some huge sport and we put all our time and money into it then I think something like PHZB would be the best. Basicaly Petrus/Heise start then ZBF2L+ZBLL finish. Yea the recognition for ZB isn't as easy as Fridrich and learning all those algs is a huge feat if we made it a job I think people could get it done. eventually I think it will get to a point where an average joe can't just pick up a cube and a year later be WR fast, they'll have to master something like ZB to do well.
ZZ is good for the meantime tho. Where people are starting to spend more time cubing its a good medium, a medium number of algs and a little more blockbuilding.
I've been wondering about the hardware thing too. If the above situation does happen I think it would be fun to go to the local sporting goods store or a spcialized cube store where you could go and get a personalized amazing high quality cube that would cost at least like a hundred or so dollars.

 

[crabs!!!]

I personally thing that in the next 10 years Fridrich will no longer be the fastest method if the speedcubing community starts to develop and optimize other methods. Fridrich though will NEVER get beaten in popularity.

Since I have decided roux is going to be my main method I'm going to make a roux discussion/research thread soon. I think that all non fridrich users should join in with the community to develop their method(s).

 

[Dene]

Theoretically and philosophically yes...

How was any of this theory or philosophy? It sounded like speculation to me.
BTW, on a speedcubing webiste, you probably don't have to explain God's Algorithm (or at least, you shouldn't have to).

There is no need for a 3x3x3 solve to be solved using God's Algorithm to get sub5. All someone like Erik or Yu or Harris needs is a LL skip, with a quick F2L.

 

[waffle=ijm]

I personally thing that in the next 10 years Fridrich will no longer be the fastest method if the speedcubing community starts to develop and optimize other methods. Fridrich though will NEVER get beaten in popularity.

Since I have decided roux is going to be my main method I'm going to make a roux discussion/research thread soon. I think that all non fridrich users should join in with the community to develop their method(s).

I SHALL JOIN!!! ROUX FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (excessive smileys)

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Maybe in optimal speed, but Fridrich won't be beaten in popularity.
The very first method most people learn are all LBLs.
The fact is, Roux is a completely different type of thing, starting with corners.
Petrus requires intuition and so fast speeds will be out of a lot of peoples' ability.

 

[Tomarse]

I think that its not JUST about move count, its about how fast you can execute the moves, say someone does 20 moves in er 15 seconds? and someone does 25 in 13, thats the idea. I think.

 

[Escher]

which is exactly why we have ZZ, and variants of it like ZZ+ZBLL
move ergonomy (RUL) + shorter move count (with efficient block building of the rest of f2l). EOLine averages 6 moves, too

 

[yurivish]

which is exactly why we have ZZ, and variants of it like ZZ+ZBLL
move ergonomy (RUL) + shorter move count (with efficient block building of the rest of f2l). EOLine averages 6 moves, too

EOLine averages 9.

 

[MTGjumper]

EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.

Also, I definitely see ZZ having potential. I accidently did a ZZ solve earlier today and got 10.08 (OLL skip, but that's still my second best time). MY TPS was ~4.5, whereas I'm normally 3.8-4 TPS.

 

[Tomarse]

EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.

Also, I definitely see ZZ having potential. I accidently did a ZZ solve earlier today and got 10.08 (OLL skip, but that's still my second best time). MY TPS was ~4.5, whereas I'm normally 3.8-4 TPS.

Never heard of these methods, care to elaborate?

 

[yurivish]

EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.

Also, I definitely see ZZ having potential. I accidently did a ZZ solve earlier today and got 10.08 (OLL skip, but that's still my second best time). MY TPS was ~4.5, whereas I'm normally 3.8-4 TPS.

Never heard of these methods, care to elaborate?

Oh, my bad. I thought the average was 9 for some reason!

Check out http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

About the thing a few pages back, there is someone who is non-fridrich and puts as much time into their cubes as Erik (and others)...Erik Akkersdijk has been cubing for about 3 maybe 3 1/2 years and he's around 11 seconds. Erik Johannes has been cubing for 5 YEARS with petrus so he's put in even more time with a different method .