# What could be the fastest speed?



## roxer9918 (Jul 8, 2013)

Hello guys, I was thinking what could be the fastest speed in terms of TPS? I think it could be anywhere between 16 moves/sec because its the persistence of vision which does not allow to see more than one image in less than 1/16 secs. What do you think about it?


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 8, 2013)

i dont think any ones fingers can move that fast though. it would prolly be like 9 or 10.


----------



## googlebleh (Jul 8, 2013)

roxer9918 said:


> Hello guys, I was thinking what could be the fastest speed in terms of TPS? I think it could be anywhere between 16 moves/sec because its the persistence of vision which does not allow to see more than one image in less than 1/16 secs. What do you think about it?



When you're doing algs you don't have to see in order to turn. Just look at BLD solves.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 8, 2013)

roxer9918 said:


> the persistence of vision which does not allow to see more than one image in less than 1/16 secs



worst justification ever


----------



## irontwig (Jul 8, 2013)

inb4sub1yperm


----------



## scottishcuber (Jul 8, 2013)

If you mean in a single solve:
3*3 < 11TPS
2*2 < 14TPS

If you mean a single alg:
M E M' E' in 0.25 is 32TPS


----------



## Username (Jul 8, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> worst justification ever



This



irontwig said:


> inb4sub1yperm



Which many people have achieved  


This thread stupid imo


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 8, 2013)

Between 16 and what lol. This is dumb. Faz got 9 tps in his WR. People can get like 14 tps for 2x2. People can sub-1 every pll. So yeah.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 8, 2013)

roxer9918 said:


> Hello guys, I was thinking what could be the fastest speed in terms of TPS? I think it could be anywhere between 16 moves/sec because its the persistence of vision which does not allow to see more than one image in less than 1/16 secs. What do you think about it?



Ok, so since for example Fridrich is a seven-looks method, a solution time of 7*(1/16 secs) should be possible, which is less than half a second. Though since you asked for TPS and Fridrich typically takes around 55 moves, I guess that means 55/(7/16) ≈ 126 TPS.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Jul 8, 2013)

scottishcuber said:


> M E M' E' in 0.25 is 32TPS



Can someone help me feel less stupid, why is this 32 and not 16tps?


----------



## Stefan (Jul 8, 2013)

Clarkeeyyy said:


> Can someone help me feel less stupid, why is this 32 and not 16tps?



TPS usually refers to the HTM metric, where that counts as eight turns.


----------



## Lchu613 (Jul 8, 2013)

I think because with WCA movecount M and E count as 2 moves each


----------



## speedcuber50 (Jul 8, 2013)

But that's not a fair measurement, since you're actually only doing one turn and counting it as two. Take sexy, for example, in 0.25 seconds. That's 16 tps. Which more closely matches up to other measurements. Using slice turns and counting them as two turns it not consistent in this context.


----------



## Lchu613 (Jul 8, 2013)

It's not fair for people who use Roux in FMC either but that's how it is


----------



## Username (Jul 8, 2013)

Lchu613 said:


> It's not fair for people who use Roux in FMC either but that's how it is



People choose to use Roux in FMC, they aren't forced to.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 8, 2013)

The fastest will be 23.84 TPS. Any faster is impossible.


----------



## chrissyD (Jul 8, 2013)

30+ tps = melted cube


----------



## Username (Jul 8, 2013)

chrissyD said:


> 30+ tps = melted cube



40+ TPS = Explosion


----------



## Himandthatguy (Jul 8, 2013)

Some of the best speedsolvers in the world have been estimated to have up to 17 TPS on average.


----------



## Username (Jul 8, 2013)

Himandthatguy said:


> Some of the best speedsolvers in the world have been estimated to have up to 17 TPS on average.



In 3x3? bs. That would mean 2-3 second solves


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 8, 2013)

Himandthatguy said:


> Some of the best speedsolvers in the world have been estimated to have up to 17 TPS on average.



Maybe if they're doing their fastest alg... Not in a real solve though xD


----------



## uvafan (Jul 8, 2013)

Coolster01 said:


> Maybe if they're doing their fastest alg... Not in a real solve though xD



In a real solve when they're doing their fastest alg they can reach it...

On topic though, eventually we will be more limited by our hardware than by our dexterity. I don't think anyone can say for sure.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 8, 2013)

uvafan said:


> In a real solve when they're doing their fastest alg they can reach it...
> 
> On topic though, eventually we will be more limited by our hardware than by our dexterity. I don't think anyone can say for sure.



I was saying that the _entire_ solve can't really reach such an insane speed. That would require insane look ahead.

I think, eventually, some really good cuber who knows a lot about good cubes (such as cyoubx) could come out with "a perfect cube".


----------



## uvafan (Jul 8, 2013)

Coolster01 said:


> I was saying that the _entire_ solve can't really reach such an insane speed. That would require insane look ahead.
> 
> I think, eventually, some really good cuber who knows a lot about good cubes (such as cyoubx) could come out with "a perfect cube".



There will always be a factor as personal preference. Even as cubes start to push the limit, there will still be different feelings of cubes. I don't think there will ever be a *perfect cube* for *everyone*.


----------



## guythatlikesOH (Jul 8, 2013)

This really depends on whether or not we're talking about high TPS during solving, or just high TPS in general. If an algorith is practiced enough, someone can easily get it up to 15 TPS or greater, but I would find it very unlikely for someone to have faster than about 10 TPS during solving.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 8, 2013)

Himandthatguy said:


> Some of the best speedsolvers in the world have been estimated to have up to 17 TPS on average.



your lying


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 8, 2013)

HTM is annoying


----------



## davidx233 (Oct 27, 2013)

*Fastest possible time for 3x3?*

The world record is 5.55 seconds. How fast is the fastest anyone can go for 3x3? are sub 5 singles possible? Is there a point where it is just impossible to go any faster?


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 27, 2013)

sub-4 is possible


----------



## TDM (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm gusesing 15 TPS is possible, and if some can average 45 moves in a solve, then 3 seconds.


----------



## FaLoL (Oct 27, 2013)

sub-2 nl


----------



## Lchu613 (Oct 27, 2013)

sub-0. Like a boss.


----------



## kcl (Oct 27, 2013)

I would say a 3 second average seems about the max, and that's a stretch. I can see 4 second averages though.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 27, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I would say a 3 second average seems about the max, and that's a stretch. I can see 4 second averages though.


So about twice as fast as the current WR average? That would be astounding.


----------



## kcl (Oct 27, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> So about twice as fast as the current WR average? That would be astounding.



I know 

But like someone said, if we could get to 15TPS with around 45 move count, sub 4 is possible.


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 1, 2013)

Is it really about the TPS and not about move count? If you can turn 6-7 TPS and have a decently low movecount, then shouldn't you be golden?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 1, 2013)

Cheese11 said:


> Is it really about the TPS and not about move count? If you can turn 6-7 TPS and have a decently low movecount, then shouldn't you be golden?



no cos then u need a method with a really movecount

oh wait roux

5BLD just need to get his tps up


----------



## PeelingStickers (Nov 1, 2013)

Lchu613 said:


> sub-0. Like a boss.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?44356-Negative-Time-Solving-Contest-2013

already done. Thread closed


----------



## ThomasJE (Nov 1, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?44356-Negative-Time-Solving-Contest-2013
> 
> already done. Thread closed



Haha...


----------



## TDM (Nov 1, 2013)

Since first reading this thread, I've found Snyder's website. He says he has a method which could average 30 moves. If someone can theoretically average 15 TPS, then they could average 2 seconds. But 3 looks more realistic at the moment.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2013)

TDM said:


> Since first reading this thread, I've found Snyder's website. He says he has a method which could average 30 moves. If someone can theoretically average 15 TPS, then they could average 2 seconds. But 3 looks more realistic at the moment.



Snyder's 'method' is complete vapourware and doesn't actually exist.


----------



## elrog (Nov 1, 2013)

I think eventually people will begin changing the genetics of people to make them better at something and there's no real way to tell the absolute fastest humanly achievable time because you'd have to define at what point they are not people. There isn't really any definite point at which you can say that though, so there's no real answer.


Himandthatguy said:


> Some of the best speedsolvers in the world have been estimated to have up to 17 TPS on average.



This wouldn't be so hard if you insert (R U R' U') in enough times before you do the PLL.


----------



## TDM (Nov 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Snyder's 'method' is complete vapourware and doesn't actually exist.


I was thinking that its movecount was just too low to be real. Wasn't sure though.
Something like blockbuilding F2L and 1-look LL could be quite efficient. Does anyone know how many moves this would take on average?


----------



## KongShou (Nov 1, 2013)

how many move would be EOCross + ZZ F2L + ZBLL?

cos i think thats the best method possible


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Snyder's 'method' is complete vapourware and doesn't actually exist.


That's a polite way of saying it! A speedcubing method with move count below the FMC WR? Don't think so. The human brain needs 'stages' or 'steps' to break the cube down - any human method will inevitably be sub-obtimal. With Roux growing in popularity, I'd hope more time will be spent on it, and more variations developed. Maybe this, OLS and other CFOP developments, or, as Kong says, ZZ with ZBLL could give a method which averages possibly 40-45ish moves?! 



elrog said:


> I think eventually people will begin changing the genetics of people to make them better at something and there's no real way to tell the absolute fastest humanly achievable time because you'd have to define at what point they are not people. There isn't really any definite point at which you can say that though, so there's no real answer.


Really????

I think you'll find that elective genetic procedures are illegal, and procedures of the type you're referring to are probably a generation away. There's little point speculating though - the purpose of this thread is to discuss the possible fastest speed that HUMANS are capable of, not computers, cyborgs, etc.! 

So back on-topic, I'd say a method with a 40-45 move count is possible. 15TPS, on the other hand, probably isn't! 10-12 maybe, but not consistently. 

I'd imagine we'll see an official sub-5 single in the next few years, and a sub-7 average. Realistically, I think sub-4 singles and sub-5 averages would be close to the limit of human potential.

Edit: sub-4 single using a method that averages 45 moves (possibly a lucky scramble - c.40-45 moves) = 10-11.25 TPS

sub-5 averages using a method that averages 45 moves = 9 TPS


----------



## kcl (Nov 1, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> That's a polite way of saying it! A speedcubing method with move count below the FMC WR? Don't think so. The human brain needs 'stages' or 'steps' to break the cube down - any human method will inevitably be sub-obtimal. With Roux growing in popularity, I'd hope more time will be spent on it, and more variations developed. Maybe this, OLS and other CFOP developments, or, as Kong says, ZZ with ZBLL could give a method which averages possibly 40-45ish moves?!
> 
> 
> Really????
> ...



It's only a matter of time until Faz or Alex get a sub5 single and a sub7 average.


----------



## pipkiksass (Nov 1, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> It's only a matter of time until Faz, MATS or Alex get a sub5 single and a sub7 average.



Fixed


----------



## kcl (Nov 1, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Fixed



I can't honestly say for Mats because I don't know what his global 3x3 average is. I have no way to know if he gets sub 7 averages very much because he doesn't post videos all that often.


----------



## rj (Nov 1, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I know
> 
> But like someone said, if we could get to 15TPS with around 45 move count, sub 4 is possible.




Roux FTW!


----------



## kcl (Nov 1, 2013)

rj said:


> Roux FTW!



I think it can be done with CFOP too. We'll make some huge breakthrough in f2l or something. The RLS and VLS are a first step IMO


----------



## rj (Nov 2, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I think it can be done with CFOP too. We'll make some huge breakthrough in f2l or something. The RLS and VLS are a first step IMO



Or FreeFOP FTW!!!


----------



## kcl (Nov 2, 2013)

rj said:


> Or FreeFOP FTW!!!



Freefop is just CFOP with very long Xcrosses


----------



## rj (Nov 2, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Freefop is just CFOP with very long Xcrosses



Not really. Think more roux-like.


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Nov 2, 2013)

rj said:


> Not really. Think more roux-like.



Not really. Roux is just blocks, CMLL, and MU spamming. FreeFOP just introduces block building into CFOP. Hence, FreeF2L, OLL, and PLL. It doesn't use MU group


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 2, 2013)

CFOP with random sexy moves


----------



## tx789 (Nov 2, 2013)

Until we you different timers .100 or .02 depending wheather it a pro timer or not


----------



## Aaron Shukert (Nov 3, 2013)

I think theoretically someone could hit 30 tps... I was attemping to go as fast as possible and i got a 32 tps using RUR'U' in like .124 second. We just need some genetic engineering to modify our brains to go as fast as our hands can go, then we will 2 second average...


----------



## TDM (Nov 3, 2013)

Aaron Shukert said:


> I think theoretically someone could hit 30 tps... I was attemping to go as fast as possible and i got a 32 tps using RUR'U' in like .124 second. We just need some genetic engineering to modify our brains to go as fast as our hands can go, then we will 2 second average...


But we can't do 32 TPS at everything, even prepared solves where we don't have to think. Try doing an F perm at 32 TPS.
And just four moves isn't a good indication of TPS. The result is changed significantly by your timer start. Try doing something like (R U R' U')*6, or even better *24.


----------



## kcl (Nov 3, 2013)

TDM said:


> But we can't do 32 TPS at everything, even prepared solves where we don't have to think. Try doing an F perm at 32 TPS.
> And just four moves isn't a good indication of TPS. The result is changed significantly by your timer start. Try doing something like (R U R' U')*6, or even better *24.



My max on that is 1.07


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 4, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> My max on that is 1.07



RURU*24 / 1.07 = 89.7 TPS

30 should be easy


----------



## kcl (Nov 4, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> RURU*24 / 1.07 = 89.7 TPS
> 
> 30 should be easy



Uh.. No I meant 24 turns in 1.07 XD it's like 22


----------

