# (Re-)considering The Limits



## KJiptner (Jan 8, 2007)

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)


----------



## ArunJangity (Jan 8, 2007)

YOU ARE INCORRECT, JIRI SAYS THE LIMIT WAS 10-12 SECOND

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html#limits


----------



## tenderchkn (Jan 8, 2007)

Those limits are severely outdated.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.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 8, 2007)

> _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.*


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.


----------



## KJiptner (Jan 8, 2007)

> * YOU ARE INCORRECT, JIRI SAYS THE LIMIT WAS 10-12 SECOND
> *


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.
> *



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.


----------



## tenderchkn (Jan 8, 2007)

> _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.*


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.


----------



## watermelon (Jan 8, 2007)

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.


----------



## Erik (Jan 9, 2007)

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...


----------



## Athefre (Jan 9, 2007)

> *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.*



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...*



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....


----------



## Me (Jan 10, 2007)

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.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 10, 2007)

> _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. *


 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...


----------



## GuillaumeMeunier (Jan 17, 2007)

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


----------



## KJiptner (Jan 17, 2007)

> _Originally posted by GuillaumeMeunier_@Jan 17 2007, 09:58 AM
> * Gungz broke the WR because he works more than 5 hours/day since 2003... *


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.


----------



## rybaby (Aug 9, 2013)

5.55


----------



## JasonK (Aug 9, 2013)

rybaby said:


> 5.55



6 and a half years. That's the biggest bump I've seen on this forum, congratulations :tu


----------



## Patrick M (Aug 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## tx789 (Aug 9, 2013)

I saw a bump last year from a thread made in 2006 about multi-slotting


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 9, 2013)

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.


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


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Aug 9, 2013)

We really just need to wait for one of the top cubers to get a LL skip during comp, someday it should happen, and would inevitably break the 5.55


----------



## YddEd (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> We really just need to wait for one of the top cubers to get a *LL skip* during comp, someday it should happen, and would inevitably break the 5.55


Does it *have* to be a LL skip?


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Aug 9, 2013)

YddEd said:


> Does it *have* to be a LL skip?


I guess no, so let me re-phrase that. The records will be broken again for sure, but _when_ one of the top cubers get a LL skip during comp, it's going to be pretty damn impossible to beat the single.


----------



## YddEd (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> I guess no, so let me re-phrase that. The records will be broken again for sure, but _when_ one of the top cubers get a *LL skip* during comp, it's going to be pretty damn impossible to beat the single.


So... Alexander Lau gets a LL skip using Roux. Cool.
if he gets a wr


----------



## Patrick M (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> We really just need to wait for one of the top cubers to get a LL skip during comp, someday it should happen, and would inevitably break the 5.55



I dont want something like that...i wish the wr could keep getting broken but now i know that sounds ridiculous 

Its awesome when it gets broken. 

Also arent zz users like 8 times more likely to get ll skip? Maybe someone will do that xD?


----------



## EMI (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> I guess no, so let me re-phrase that. The records will be broken again for sure, but _when_ one of the top cubers get a LL skip during comp, it's going to be pretty damn impossible to beat the single.



if the rest of the solve is really bad, why not 

No seriously, it's a question of propability I guess. Even if someone gets a 4 seconds solve, there is still the possibility of an even luckier solve. That's what I like about speedcubing. There is no limit to it, as luck will always play a role (well, theoretically the limit is given through the at-least-four-moves scrambles rule, but such a thing won't ever happen on 3x3).


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Aug 9, 2013)

YddEd said:


> So... Alexander Lau gets a LL skip using Roux. Cool.
> if he gets a wr


God dammit. *Last steps* skip then, happy now?


----------



## YddEd (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> God dammit. *Last steps* skip then, happy now?


But then there are... jkjk I'm happy now


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Aug 9, 2013)

YddEd said:


> But then there are... jkjk I'm happy now



What, zeroing?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 9, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> God dammit. *Last steps* skip then, happy now?



It's still called a last layer skip in roux. The probability of it happening is 1/12.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 9, 2013)

YddEd said:


> So... Alexander Lau gets a LL skip using Roux. Cool.
> if he gets a wr



Is the M layer not a layer?


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 9, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Is the M layer not a layer?


Is a slice of cheese a layer in a sandwich?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 9, 2013)

cheese is a layer of a sandwich that includes cheese. 
so M is a layer in Roux.


----------



## Dino (Aug 9, 2013)

waffle=ijm said:


> cheese is a layer of a sandwich that includes cheese.


But what if you grate it?


----------



## cubernya (Aug 9, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Is a slice of cheese a layer in a sandwich?



Yes?

Dino: If it's grated, then it's not sliced cheese


----------



## Ninja Storm (Aug 9, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Yes?
> 
> Dino: If it's grated, then it's not sliced cheese



But say it was grated from sliced cheese. So now it's grated sliced cheese.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 9, 2013)

We also haven't considered if the person eating the sandwich was lactose intolerant or allergic to milk but the point of the cheese/method analogy is that to a specific sandwich there exist specific ingredients. Likewise, a method leaves the last layer to be M means that M is a layer.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 9, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> But say it was grated from sliced cheese. So now it's grated sliced cheese.



1. Who grates sliced cheese?
2. It's not sliced any more, it's grated

M is a layer /argument


----------



## Hershey (Aug 9, 2013)

Erik said:


> 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...



0_0 Erik was right!



KJiptner said:


> limit of 8-9 sec...well seems a little bit humanly impossible at first...


 
Lol.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 9, 2013)

While we're on the subject of funny comments in this thread, how about this one:


Me said:


> 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.



The whole start of this thread is now quite fun to read.



Me said:


> 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.


Note that 10 days before this was written, the 2x2x2 average WR was 4.69, 4x4x4 average was 59.21, 5x5x5 average was 1:55, megaminx average WR was 1:28, pyraminx average was 8.46, square-1 average was 28.14, clock average was 9.74, 3x3x3 BLD single best was 1:28.82.


----------



## Lchu613 (Aug 9, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> 1. Who grates sliced cheese?
> 2. It's not sliced any more, it's grated



1. True dat 
2. No, it's (grated(sliced(cheese)))+(grated(humanfingers))


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 9, 2013)

tenderchkn said:


> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.



Oh my. With a 5tps limit, it seems the cube was an important factor.


----------



## Pro94 (Aug 9, 2013)

He didn't say that 5TPS were the limit and you can't turn faster due cube limitations; but 5 TPS were the limit for having a good Look Ahead during F2L.


----------



## tx789 (Aug 9, 2013)

Reading the beginning og the thread there people are saying the limit will be 10 seconds on average and 5tps. It goes to show how much cubing has progressed. These days it seems that hardware is reaching it's limit. Or the times you can get on that puzzle. In Cubecast Feliks said that the shengshou 5x5 helped him to get sub 1. I think think that hardware wise, big cubes have the most possible potential to be improved. Whether hardware will improve remains to be seen. But with small cubes it seems the won't get much better. But who knows. Method wise it seems they won't get much better. Some may say but Yau is the main 4x4 method now. It's an improvement to reduction. They may think it's new, but Yau has been around for years. Just hardly anyone used it. Until Sebastian Weyer got his sun 30 average. If 5BLD set a world record with roux then more people will start switching to Roux. I personally think in 10 years the world records may not be that much better, world records will be rarer but beaten with times a little bit better. Due to this popularity might wane. Still in Athletics the world records aren't beaten that often the most regularly beaten world record is 100m. The field events for men world record are all from the 80's and 90's. This part about Athletics much seem off topic but it shows how something that has similar discussion at times about limits. But has been around for much, much, much longer. 

In conclusion we haven't reached the limits but the top times may start to decrease in the near future. 7x7 is the event with the most improvement to be had. In my opinion.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 10, 2013)

“The only limits are, as always, those of vision.” James Broughton

That being said, there are no limits, other that the ones we put on ourselves. It's crazy how evident this is made by the whole thread.


----------



## slinky773 (Aug 10, 2013)

The bigger cubes can definitely get faster, IMO. However, for the 3x3 I think we've pretty much came to the limit. Maybe 4 seconds could be the limit, but I think we're going to go to 3 or 2 seconds, for sure. Feliks has beat 5.55 a bunch of times unofficially, though, so I think we can get faster. The fastest recorded machine solve is 5.27, though, and I don't think humans can be much faster than machines, so…


----------



## Robocopter87 (Aug 10, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> 3x3x3 BLD single best was 1:28.82.



This is by far the most insane drop.

Of all the things that could've been imagined in that time period, if you told someone that there would be a 23 second blindfold solve to come, they probably would've slapped you.


----------



## uvafan (Aug 10, 2013)

tx789 said:


> Reading the beginning og the thread there people are saying the limit will be 10 seconds on average and 5tps. It goes to show how much cubing has progressed. These days it seems that hardware is reaching it's limit. Or the times you can get on that puzzle. In Cubecast Feliks said that the shengshou 5x5 helped him to get sub 1. I think think that hardware wise, big cubes have the most possible potential to be improved. Whether hardware will improve remains to be seen. But with small cubes it seems the won't get much better. But who knows. Method wise it seems they won't get much better. Some may say but Yau is the main 4x4 method now. It's an improvement to reduction. They may think it's new, but Yau has been around for years. Just hardly anyone used it. Until Sebastian Weyer got his sun 30 average. If 5BLD set a world record with roux then more people will start switching to Roux. I personally think in 10 years the world records may not be that much better, world records will be rarer but beaten with times a little bit better. Due to this popularity might wane. Still in Athletics the world records aren't beaten that often the most regularly beaten world record is 100m. The field events for men world record are all from the 80's and 90's. This part about Athletics much seem off topic but it shows how something that has similar discussion at times about limits. But has been around for much, much, much longer.
> 
> In conclusion we haven't reached the limits but the top times may start to decrease in the near future. *7x7 is the event with the most improvement to be had. In my opinion.*



Out of all the sighted events, yes. But what about MBLD and 5BLD?


----------



## Robocopter87 (Aug 10, 2013)

As for limits, I don't think sub-3 is possible. 4 second average if there is one extremely dedicated individual. Though I don't like to say they have to be talented, it always is annoying for people to give credit to random heretical factors when the person has put so much time and effort into their skill.

I think the other puzzles still have quite a way to go before they hit their mark.


----------



## uvafan (Aug 10, 2013)

Robocopter87 said:


> As for limits, I don't think sub-3 is possible. 4 second average if there is one extremely dedicated individual. Though I don't like to say they have to be talented, it always is annoying for people to give credit to random heretical factors when the person has put so much time and effort into their skill.
> *
> I think the other puzzles still have quite a way to go before they hit their mark.*


*cough*2x2, pyra, and clock*cough*


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 10, 2013)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> “The only limits are, as always, those of vision.” James Broughton
> 
> That being said, there are no fcukin limits, other that the ones we put on ourselves. It's crazy how evident this is made by the whole thread.


If you were to use any known speed solving method and do it in a second, you would have between 35-60 TPS. However, method development is still in progress but even then 1-look 3x3 would still be super hard to accomplish.


----------



## Robocopter87 (Aug 10, 2013)

uvafan said:


> *cough*2x2, pyra, and clock*cough*



My apologies, I'm referring to Megaminx, the cubes past 4x4, and everything past 3x3 BLD. They all have a ways to go, I think.

The longer events I guess, 2x2 definitely is right there. Pyra is close but still has just a bit left. I don't know clock at all so I couldn't give an opinion.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 10, 2013)

Of course the absolute limit for solving is 0 seconds, at least until backward time travel becomes possible (-60 minutes limit if you count the Negative time solving contest  ). One thought I find interesting is that since we report our averages accurate to the hundredth of a second, then there are only 753 "possible" averages that are faster than the current world record 3x3x3 average. These are 7.52 seconds, 7.51 seconds, ... , 0.03 second, 0.02 second, 0.01 second, 0.00 second (less than 1 hundredth of a second). Of course I think an average solving time of less than one hundredth of a second seems absurd, but 7.52 seconds seems perfectly reasonable. This would lead me to believe that there _is_ an absolute human limit, and I find thinking about what that limit is to be a fascinating train of thought!


----------



## kcl (Aug 10, 2013)

I can see 5bld or Faz becoming sub 6 or even sub 5. They're capable of it for sure.


----------



## cubesonfire (Aug 10, 2013)

According to me, the limits are :
2x2 : maybe a sub 2 average 
3x3 : a 5 second average 
4x4: a sub 20 single
5x5 : sub 50
And all these will only be possible if the cube hardware is improved. ( which I think won't be easily done )


----------



## Patrick M (Aug 10, 2013)

You think a 5 second average on 3x3 is possible but only sub 50 on 5x5? Haha going by that id say sub 40 single 5x5 is possible. Maybe sub 6 avg on 3x3 but thats still crazy xD


----------



## YddEd (Aug 10, 2013)

Patrick M said:


> You think a 5 second average on 3x3 is possible but only sub 50 on 5x5? Haha going by that id say sub 40 single 5x5 is possible. Maybe *sub 6 avg on 3x3* but thats still crazy xD


avg5 5.89	Feliks Zemdegs Australia (4.49), (7.03), 5.50, 5.74, 6.42
Totally crazy.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 10, 2013)

YddEd said:


> avg5 5.89	Feliks Zemdegs Australia (4.49), (7.03), 5.50, 5.74, 6.42
> Totally crazy.



5BLD has a 5.90 avg5 too.


----------



## YddEd (Aug 10, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> 5BLD has a 5.90 avg5 too.


0.01 HUGE difference lol


----------



## Dino (Aug 10, 2013)

YddEd said:


> 0.01 HUGE difference lol



I think Antoine was actually backing up your post and saying that it's not just Faz that has an unofficial sub-6 Ao5.


----------



## ianliu64 (Aug 10, 2013)

How about a quadruple X-Cross solved in 4 moves and a LL skip...


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Aug 10, 2013)

ianliu64 said:


> How about a quadruple X-Cross solved in 4 moves and a LL skip...



I'm pretty sure the WCA filters competition scrambles to stop that being possible. I think the optimal solution has to be 13 moves or more (possibly 14).


----------



## cubernya (Aug 10, 2013)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> I'm pretty sure the WCA filters competition scrambles to stop that being possible. I think the optimal solution has to be 13 moves or more (possibly 14).



No. Whatever scramble is received is used, unless it's shown to the board and they say to throw it out


----------



## Rune (Aug 10, 2013)

You´ll never find it.That would mean that you can accept X.yz as a possible abslolute limit but not X.yz-1. And how could you conclude that?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 10, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> No. Whatever scramble is received is used, unless it's shown to the board and they say to throw it out



_"Shown to the board"_? I don't know what filtering is encoded in the scrambler program and whether it's in the version on the WCA website already, but...

_"Scrambles are filtered according to rules set by the WCA Board. Note that these rules are not hardcoded in the WCA Regulations."_
source


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 15, 2013)

Some super human mathmatician might have a brain powerfull enough to generate a soloution just like those solving apps that you imput the cube and it gives you a 20+ move soloution, give him super fast fingers and you have a new world record, also we have a nearly perfect 3x3 methods (zz,cfop,roux) and any faster than 5 seconds requres a skip of some sort, but what about bigger cubes, imo we dont even nearly have a perfect method. Time will go on and we will descover


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Aug 15, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> any faster than 5 seconds requres a skip of some sort



Actually, Feliks got a 4.42 full step. It does have a very short F2L though.


----------



## rj (Aug 15, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> Some super human mathmatician might have a brain powerfull enough to generate a soloution just like those solving apps that you imput the cube and it gives you a 20+ move soloution, give him super fast fingers and you have a new world record, also we have a nearly perfect 3x3 methods (zz,cfop,roux) and any faster than 5 seconds requres a skip of some sort, but what about bigger cubes, imo we dont even nearly have a perfect method. Time will go on and we will descover



Jessica Fridrich agrees with you. I think that a blockbuilding/1LLL method will take the cake. VHLS?


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 15, 2013)

rj said:


> VHLS



eugh


----------



## rj (Aug 16, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> eugh



What do you mean?


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 16, 2013)

rj said:


> What do you mean?


He doesn't agree with you and neither do I. I think Roux will "take the cake".


----------



## ianliu64 (Aug 16, 2013)

aceofspades98 said:


> He doesn't agree with you and neither do I. I think Roux will "take the cake".



Seee. That's the problem. I want to switch to Roux, but I've tried, and I suck at it because I'm so used to CFOP... D:
fml.


----------



## rj (Aug 16, 2013)

I <3 Roux. I avg 40 secs.


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 16, 2013)

rj said:


> Jessica Fridrich agrees with you. I think that a blockbuilding/1LLL method will take the cake. VHLS?


vhls is stupid unless you can recognise the "magic cases", like knowing when to sledgehammer or up across down. i only use it for coll when i see a case thats fast


----------



## rj (Aug 16, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> vhls is stupid unless you can recognise the "magic cases", like knowing when to sledgehammer or up across down. i only use it for coll when i see a case thats fast



I can usually manipulate the LL edges, no problem.


----------



## YddEd (Aug 16, 2013)

ianliu64 said:


> Seee. That's the problem. I want to switch to Roux, but I've tried, and I suck at it because I'm so used to CFOP... D:
> fml.


And isn't that why you practise?


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 16, 2013)

CubezUBR said:


> Some super human mathmatician might have a brain powerfull enough to generate a soloution just like those solving apps that you imput the cube and it gives you a 20+ move soloution, give him super fast fingers and you have a new world record, also we have a nearly perfect 3x3 methods (zz,cfop,roux) and any faster than 5 seconds requres a skip of some sort, but what about bigger cubes, imo we dont even nearly have a perfect method. Time will go on and we will descover


The fastest people in the world now take longer to perform a 20 move scramble than to perform a 50 move solution


----------



## Ross The Boss (Aug 16, 2013)

aceofspades98 said:


> He doesn't agree with you and neither do I. I think Roux will "take the cake".



roux isnt better than a method like cfop. they are two very diferent methods which suit different types of cubers. they are both equally fast but one cuber may be may better off with one of them depending on his/her solving style, turning abilities, and the way they think of the cube. 
im pretty sure that all of this has been said before many times.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> The fastest people in the world now take longer to perform a 20 move scramble than to perform a 50 move solution



I doubt that. But if true, it might be because they're not trying to scramble as fast as they can.

Also, most solutions wouldn't exceed 18 moves. Unless optimized for finger speed, which is another improvement.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2013)

Ross The Boss said:


> roux isnt better than a method like cfop. they are two very diferent methods which suit different types of cubers. they are both equally fast but one cuber may be may better off with one of them depending on his/her solving style, turning abilities, and the way they think of the cube.
> im pretty sure that all of this has been said before many times.



Saying they're equally fast is just as wrong as saying they're not.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Aug 16, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Saying they're equally fast is just as wrong as saying they're not.



ya youre right. i should have said something along the lines of: they both have _equal potential_ but one peson would be better off with one method than someone else would be. (not a very well writen sentence but i'll do).


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2013)

Ross The Boss said:


> i should have said something along the lines of: they both have _equal potential_



That's pretty much how I interpreted _"equally fast"_ already. And I think it's wrong saying that, cause we can't know about the potentials. And if we could, I'd be rather surprised if they were equal. I'd expect *some* difference. Actually, that does make saying _"they're not equally fast"_ better than _"they are"_, let me correct myself here. I do consider "they're equally fast" just as bad as picking one and saying it's faster.

Though, my personal current suspicion is that Roux has more potential, given Alex's average-of-100 record which even Feliks recently called "ridiculous", and the fact that Roux has had far less usage than CFOP. Alex is obviously awesome, but statistically speaking, he's maybe a "1 in 100" speedcuber, so what might happen if a maybe "1 in 10000" speedcuber like Feliks used Roux? (Not implying Feliks is better than Alex, again just statistically speaking. And the numbers are of course made up, the point just being there are many more serious CFOP cubers than Roux cubers).


----------



## Carrot (Aug 16, 2013)

Stefan said:


> That's pretty much how I interpreted _"equally fast"_ already. And I think it's wrong saying that, cause we can't know about the potentials. And if we could, I'd be rather surprised if they were equal. I'd expect *some* difference. Actually, that does make saying _"they're not equally fast"_ better than _"they are"_, let me correct myself here. I do consider "they're equally fast" just as bad as picking one and saying it's faster.



I would go as far as saying that they are equally fast has around 0% chance to be true, therefore picking one randomly and saying it's faster would be correct in 50% of the cases, while saying they are equally fast would be correct 0% of the time, therefore you can by picking randomly and be somewhat sure that there is only 50% of being off instead of 100% chance of being off. I would therefore say that I would rather take the chance and have a chance of winning that going for the middle and have 100% chance of losing. 

However, I do agree with Stefan about it's ridiculous to even guess, as the chance of being wrong is greater than the chance of being correct.


----------



## rj (Aug 16, 2013)

I've been thinking of CMLL with orientation of edges built in.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 16, 2013)

rj said:


> I've been thinking of CMLL with orientation of edges built in.



Ollcp
I made a roux variation called PPCLL that works by also doing some of 4b
Too many algs though


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 16, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> The fastest people in the world now take longer to perform a 20 move scramble than to perform a 50 move solution


scramble comes from paper, execution of a solve comes from the brain
its the same with almost anything: you can think of a sentence faster than you can read it out of a book. so yeah but i dont see how your post relates to my original one?


----------



## Endgame (Aug 16, 2013)

5BLD said:


> Ollcp
> I made a roux variation called PPCLL that works by also doing some of 4b
> Too many algs though



isnt that that method you devised a year ago and i never understood


----------

