# What do you think are the fastest times that can be hit?



## Hadley4000 (Oct 6, 2008)

This is a debate I've had with cubers. What do you think are the maximum times that can be hit full step??

Let's go un officially. Jason Baum hit a 6.71 full a little while ago. That is insane. But, who is to say 6.7*0* isn't possible. Then 6.69 and so on and so on. 

For 5x5x5. We know that sub-1:19 can be hit. So is it really un realistic that sub-1:17? 1:16? 1????


4x4x4. Unofficially 39 second solves have been hit. What about 38? If 38.00 get's hit, why can't 37.99 be hit? 37.98?


For all puzzles, here is my question. What are the times that you think are IMPOSSIBLE to be beaten, evem by .01 seconds?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 6, 2008)

.01. That's the lowest time people have achieved on a timer.


----------



## Garmon (Oct 6, 2008)

20 move solve, 8 moves per second so 3 seconds, plus picking up and putting down so 4 seconds!
But really, anything lower than 7 be it lucky or not seems insane. I think it will be over a year till 7.08 will be broken.


----------



## Erik (Oct 6, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> .01. That's the lowest time people have achieved on a timer.



Really... I doubt it... 0.02 seems the limit for the stackmats made so far.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Oct 6, 2008)

I was actually thinking about a similar topic the other day, but i took lucky solves into consideration. That's a different ball game altogether though.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 6, 2008)

Erik said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > .01. That's the lowest time people have achieved on a timer.
> ...


Oh. My bad then. .02 it is.


----------



## Vulosity (Oct 7, 2008)

I don't think that a sub 3 or 4 will be possible ona 3x3.


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 7, 2008)

I once heard someone speak of a 3x3 phase skip with reduction on big cubes....
If someone were to get that... the time would be frightening.

I once got a cross skip, fully permuted after reduction, no lie.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 7, 2008)

Cubes=Life said:


> I once heard someone speak of a 3x3 phase skip with reduction on big cubes....
> If someone were to get that... the time would be frightening.
> 
> I once got a cross skip, fully permuted after reduction, no lie.



I've gotten a skipped XX-Cross before. I sometimes try to make a cross while pairing though.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 7, 2008)

Hadley4000 said:


> This is a debate I've had with cubers. What do you think are the *maximum* times that can be hit full step??


dont you mean minimum?



> Let's go un officially. Jason Baum hit a 6.71 full a little while ago. That is insane. But, who is to say 6.7*0* isn't possible. Then 6.69 and so on and so on.


i dont think its feasible to maintain an avg tps higher than 8. so a non-lucky CFOP is like 45+ moves, which makes for about 6 seconds. petrus/roux is less moves, but look-ahead/fingertricking is not as good, so tps would be less. i think the limit for other methods would be about the same.



> For 5x5x5. We know that sub-1:19 can be hit. So is it really un realistic that sub-1:17? 1:16? 1????


Michal Halzcuk hit a 1:15.62, its on the UWRs.
also, Per claims a super-lucky sub-1 with cage, but there was a great deal of debate about the authenticity.



> 4x4x4. Unofficially 39 second solves have been hit. What about 38? If 38.00 get's hit, why can't 37.99 be hit? 37.98?
> 
> 
> For all puzzles, here is my question. What are the times that you think are IMPOSSIBLE to be beaten, evem by .01 seconds?



ok, time for me to stop Palin-ing your question:
Nobody knows. it is impossible to tell what the limit is. im sure a few years ago people thought sub 90 5x5 was impossible, let alone sub-80. who knows where we'll be 2 years from now, or even 10 years from now.


----------



## joey (Oct 7, 2008)

If I'm honest, I don't want know.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Oct 7, 2008)

5.8x maybe for 3x3x3, i'll eat my words when 5.79 is hit :]


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 7, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > hawkmp4 said:
> ...



If you use JNetcube, it's 00.00








Hadley4000 said:


> For all puzzles, here is my question. What are the times that you think are IMPOSSIBLE to be beaten, evem by .01 seconds?



LOL. Limits.

As turning speed approaches infinity, time approaches 0.


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 7, 2008)

6.03 in 3x3
30.00 in 4x4 (8 secons center+15 seconds edges+7 seconds 3x3 phase)
1:00.00 in 5x5


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 7, 2008)

I thought it was a well known fact that the limits for non-lucky solves are:
2x2x2: 1.15
3x3x3: 4.55
4x4x4: 28.12
5x5x5: 1:00:03

These numbers are based on years of top secret research. It is now stored in a bottom secret location only known to *Ton*netje*Ron*d and Casey Pernsteiner (she sees all after her abduction) and is garded by the DeeNights

If you somehow think these numbers are wrong (they are not) please provide prove in the form of an official WCA result.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Oct 7, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I thought it was a well known fact that the limits for non-lucky solves are:
> 2x2x2: 1.15
> 3x3x3: 4.55
> 4x4x4: 28.12
> ...



Dang, I'd like to see that 4x4 solve in person xD It's pretty cool how there's this research going on *wonders how they calculated it*.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 7, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I thought it was a well known fact that the limits for non-lucky solves are:
> 2x2x2: 1.15
> 3x3x3: 4.55
> 4x4x4: 28.12
> 5x5x5: 1:00:03


I thought this was public knowledge. Huh. Seems obvious.


----------



## Kurzeja (Oct 7, 2008)

I don't know about other puzzles and methods, but I think that the limit for 3x3x3 CFOP average is 7.2 seconds. (Of course if we have the person with the fastest lookahead and fingers)
.2 - Pick up and drop
.8 - cross + slot
.2 - look for pieces
.8 - Second slot
.2 - look for pieces
.8 - third slot
.2 - look for pieces
.8 - last slot
.2 - look
1.2 - OLL
.3 - look
1.5 - PLL
= 7.2 seconds


----------



## Brett (Oct 7, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> I don't know about other puzzles and methods, but I think that the limit for 3x3x3 CFOP average is 7.2 seconds. (Of course if we have the person with the fastest lookahead and fingers)
> .2 - Pick up and drop
> .8 - cross + slot
> .2 - look for pieces
> ...



Your limit has been surpassed already  Once officially and more unofficially.

all I know is I hope all these incredible human feats better be on video


----------



## Kit Clement (Oct 7, 2008)

Brett said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about other puzzles and methods, but I think that the limit for 3x3x3 CFOP average is 7.2 seconds. (Of course if we have the person with the fastest lookahead and fingers)
> ...



I believe he is speaking in terms of non-lucky solves, but either way, that's a bit high for an optimal non-lucky solve.


----------



## Dene (Oct 7, 2008)

I think sub1 5x5x5 is possible.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 7, 2008)

You are asking the wrong question. So did all others before you who asked for "limits".

Don't ask for limits or what times are reachable and which are not. If you do that, obviously "zero seconds" is the only answer that could possibly make sense. But that's not very satisfying. All other times are wrong, because as you pointed out yourself, when 7.08 is possible why shouldn't 7.07 be?

Instead ask for probabilities. While 0.57 for a 3x3 solve is obviously possible, it's also obviously extremely unlikely. And 7.08 is a bit more likely than 7.07. Note however there aren't absolute values for this, it depends on the cuber (Erik has a better chance for 7.07 than me) and even for a fixed cuber it changes over time (Erik now has a better chance for 7.07 than he had two years ago).


----------



## qinbomaster (Oct 7, 2008)

imagine being that first person to ever get the "unbeatable" time and have your name go down in history forever and ever XD

then your great grandchildren will be in history class and the teacher will say "and in 20XX [blank] solved the Rubik's cube at a time that is currently, and will always remain, unbeatable." then you have the satisfaction of knowing that your great grandkids will stand up and say: "That was my grandparent!!!" and the other kids will gasp and the teacher will drop his/her book and stare. "Perhaps you have also inherited the 'Fingers of God' "
and your grandkid will shake his head "No, my sister has the 'Fingers,' I have the 'Eyes' and my brother has the 'Mind.' But--legend has it that one day, when the world is in great peril, these three powers shall combine once more! and the 'Divine Cuber' shall walk amongst men once again and deliver them from destruction--at that time--man shall know: God's Algorithm."

i'm going to go write a fan-fic now


----------



## Swoncen (Oct 7, 2008)

qinbomaster said:


> imagine being that first person to ever get the "unbeatable" time and have your name go down in history forever and ever XD
> 
> then your great grandchildren will be in history class and the teacher will say "and in 20XX [blank] solved the Rubik's cube at a time that is currently, and will always remain, unbeatable." then you have the satisfaction of knowing that your great grandkids will stand up and say: "That was my grandparent!!!" and the other kids will gasp and the teacher will drop his/her book and stare. "Perhaps you have also inherited the 'Fingers of God' "
> and your grandkid will shake his head "No, my sister has the 'Fingers,' I have the 'Eyes' and my brother has the 'Mind.' But--legend has it that one day, when the world is in great peril, these three powers shall combine once more! and the 'Divine Cuber' shall walk amongst men once again and deliver them from destruction--at that time--man shall know: God's Algorithm."
> ...



ROFL, yes please do that.. I imagine a manga like Dragonball. Super Sayajin fingers!


----------



## Raffael (Oct 7, 2008)

I'd go for this scenario:

Someday someone will see the FMC solution during inspection time.
Due to the fact, that this someone is using the ultimate hybrid cube with the ultimate lube, the friction loss equals zero.

Anyway:
The obvious answer is: 0.42
(Actually that would have been a 0.23, but the timer's battery was low.)


----------



## mati rubik (Oct 7, 2008)

no way

full step solution sub-6 it's impossible


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 7, 2008)

mati rubik said:


> no way
> 
> full step solution sub-6 it's impossible


 
That largely depends on the full steps you need. What if you can use this method:
Cross+1st pair
2nd+3rd pair
4th pair + edges LL
Corners last layer

And Stefan: Do you have any formula for that probability-scenario? If so, how likely was the new WR becoming 8.72 twice in 1 day? And how likely was it that the next WR became 7.08 (HUGE drop) while (according to you) 8.71 would have been more likely?


----------



## Laurentius (Oct 7, 2008)

Brett said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about other puzzles and methods, but I think that the limit for 3x3x3 CFOP average is 7.2 seconds. (Of course if we have the person with the fastest lookahead and fingers)
> ...



What? When did someone get a sub 7.2 average?


----------



## LarsN (Oct 7, 2008)

Raffael said:


> Anyway:
> The obvious answer is: 0.42




Woah, this is without a doubt the true answer. I can't believe I didn't see it right away!

If you don't understand the answer then maybe you don't fully understand the question to the answer...


----------



## Stefan (Oct 7, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> And Stefan: Do you have any formula for that probability-scenario? If so, how likely was the new WR becoming 8.72 twice in 1 day? And how likely was it that the next WR became 7.08 (HUGE drop) while (according to you) 8.71 would have been more likely?


No, I don't have a formula for the probabilities or the expertise to answer your other questions. I'm only able to point out trivial stuff, for more advanced math stuff we need guys like Lucas. I imagine a first step could be to look at the distribution of times of averages-of-100 of the fastest guys, guess the "type" of the probability curve, and determine its parameters with the data. Then compute the probabilities for times you're interested in and answer the questions you asked. But I really don't have the knowledge and tools for that.


----------



## Escher (Oct 7, 2008)

personally, i think that it wont be for a long time that we see the 7.08 being broken in competition, particularly not full-step.
imagine the times if someone like Yu, Erik, Harris, Baum or Breandon might get with a last layer skip...
anyway, i reckon that the limits are roughly...
2x2 - 1.2 (i know that Chukk got a 4 move solution once with a completely random scramble and got a 1.5, and i reckon it could've been faster)
3x3 - 6. no lower, without massively lucky skips.
4x4 - 25-30. again, if the reduced time was lucky and incredibly fast, and/or if someone had very lucky dedges.
5x5 - 1:00, without luck.
3x3 BLD - sub 20. if someone had savant-like memory and incredible execution.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 7, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > And Stefan: Do you have any formula for that probability-scenario? If so, how likely was the new WR becoming 8.72 twice in 1 day? And how likely was it that the next WR became 7.08 (HUGE drop) while (according to you) 8.71 would have been more likely?
> ...


I liked how you answered that question so "seriously". My whole point was to prove that statistics at this moment are practically meaningless because things with very low probability keep happening (8.72 twice, drop to 7.08 soon afterwards)

And I disagree that 7.08 won't be broken soon. At the Euro 2008 final both Ron and Tomasz were finished with OLL before 7 seconds at least once. "Just" a pll-skip would have been enough to break the WR in both cases


----------



## brunson (Oct 7, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> mati rubik said:
> 
> 
> > no way
> ...



There could be a randomly generated scramble that would result in a solved cube, but I doubt that the judges or the delegate at a competition would allow that scramble to be used.

I think with any given method there's probably a limit (greater than zero) that will be approached asymptotically. People used to think that the four minute mile might never be broken and now people may wonder about the three minute mile. There are limits to human capabilities, no one will ever run a 30 second mile. Even if Usain Bolt were able to maintain his 100M speed of 10.04M/s over the course of a mile, he wouldn't even break 2:30. I think it's safe to say that, without genetic manipulation or mutation, the three minute mile will never be broken by an unenhanced human.

With current methods I'm willing to bet 5s is the limit, anything lower would require a scramble that was so lucky as to be inadmissible.

With other methods, say someone with a savant gift of seeing the optimal solution to any scramble and the ability to execute it at 10 tps would still have an average of about 1.6 seconds.

Here's a challenge. This simplest scramble that isn't solved is 1 qtm. How fast can you start the timer make 1 qtm, then stop the timer. I can't get much below .25 s, I'm sure some of you kids can. Don't cheat, you can't touch the cube before the timer starts, but you don't have to lift it off the table.


----------



## ooveehoo (Oct 7, 2008)

Why is everyone calculating the best possible solution using CFOP? Why is everyone assuming that it's the ultimate speed method? How can we assume that any of the methods we know is the ultimate speedcubing system? What if we have to look at the cube in a different way, and abandon all current assumptuions on fast techniques, to (possibly) develop a method with say moves around 40 on average and recognition as fast, or even faster, than in fridrich. Maybe this system, possibly a highlyu developed variation, would allow faster moves too, as the grip is optimized. I'm an optimist, and think that we can do it always faster. (what's the amount of time least shorter than 7.08 seconds? And after that? There's an infinite number of possible tomes bethween 7.08 and 7.07 seconds.)


----------



## Rabid (Oct 7, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> .2 - look for pieces
> .2 - look for pieces
> .2 - look for pieces
> .2 - look
> .3 - look



You can delete _all _look ahead. Theoretically all the algorithms are lined up during inspection.


----------



## tim (Oct 7, 2008)

ooveehoo said:


> There's an infinite number of possible tomes bethween 7.08 and 7.07 seconds.)



Officially i count 0 possible times.


----------



## CAT13 (Oct 7, 2008)

It would take a lot of practice to get less than 9 sec. average. Using nonlinear progression or whatever you call it, There would be a point where it would take years to progress at all. So really we will never know, because the cuber would die before they got to sub 8 or whatever average. sub 7, sub 6, whatever, I just don't think that the human life span is long enough to get that much practice.


----------



## Dene (Oct 7, 2008)

ooveehoo said:


> Why is everyone calculating the best possible solution using CFOP?



They aren't...


----------



## MistArts (Oct 7, 2008)

Rabid said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > .2 - look for pieces
> ...



Try doing a speed BLD with 15 second memo.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 7, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Rabid said:
> 
> 
> > Kurzeja said:
> ...



Lucas Garron? No, Frank Morris, LOL.

Here is my guess:
hi-games.net

Current high scores, or even possibly faster done on a real cube.
This may require much new cubing technologies. Faster custom made cubes, cubing drugs, broken timers, timers built into the cube, cubing while travelling through a wormhole...


----------



## Kurzeja (Oct 8, 2008)

Rabid said:


> Kurzeja said:
> 
> 
> > .2 - look for pieces
> ...



I think there should always be some kind of pause even for just repositioning the hands and if look ahead during the algs wasn't enough.

But you are right. Theoretically there should and there could be no pause.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 8, 2008)

Kurzeja said:


> I don't know about other puzzles and methods, but I think that the limit for 3x3x3 CFOP average is 7.2 seconds. (Of course if we have the person with the fastest lookahead and fingers)
> .2 - Pick up and drop
> .8 - cross + slot
> .2 - look for pieces
> ...



The last layer can be shaved down a lot. I can hit sune in about .8x. And that's me, a still not great cuber. I can get H perm in about 1.2. Get someone with the turning speed of Jason Baum, Andrew Kang, Harris Chan, Yu Nakajima etc and that can be even faster.

Going back to Jason. His 6.71 was with full ZB, so take ZB method into account.

.2 - pickup
.8 X cross
.3 look
.4 second slot
.3 look
.4 third slot
.3 look
.6 last slot using ZB F2L
.3 look
.6 LL using ZBLL


4.3x Unrealistic, yes. But, get an easy scramble. X cross, 2 preserved pairs, ZB F2L finished by like, R U R', then an easy ZBLL case. It CAN technically be done.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Oct 8, 2008)

does ANYONE besides Jason use ZB?

and does anyone know all of it?!?!


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 8, 2008)

Hadley4000: We are talking about averages
ThePizzaGuy92: Yes (at least the Z in ZB does), No one as far as I know (yet)


----------



## Hadley4000 (Oct 8, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Hadley4000: We are talking about averages
> ThePizzaGuy92: Yes (at least the Z in ZB does), No one as far as I know (yet)




Ah. I was speaking purely as a single full step.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 8, 2008)

This topic has been brought up many times. I'm sure it was even talked about in the 80s. Probably even all of what I type below has been said before.

First people thought you couldn't solve it in 1 hour, then less than one minute.

A few years ago people thought 12 seconds would be almost impossible, Jessica Fridrich herself thought 10 seconds was probably the limit.

Maybe there is a way to calculate the limits. Is there anyone here that is knowledgeable about the speed limit of human muscles and can use that knowledge plus the layer turn distances to find a real speed limit based on the number of moves someone uses on average?

That would be a lot to analyze and there are some problems...such as when performing R'UR'F, for most people that is a smooth motion...they don't do each turn one at a time, adjust their hand back to the "cube holding" position, then move their hand to the right position to do the F turn.

And thinking time...


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 9, 2008)

Where did you read/hear that "Jessica Fridrich herself thought 10 seconds was probably the limit" ?

She doesn't mention it http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html#limits

And why do you think the Fridrich Method (CFOP) is the method that should be used to reach the limits?


----------



## Neroflux (Oct 9, 2008)

wait, are we talking about pure fridrich full step? no x crossing techniques, multislotting or edge control right?


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 9, 2008)

No, we are talking about the fastest limits. Not Fridrich limits.
We are also talking about averages. Not about lucky/single solves.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 9, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Where did you read/hear that "Jessica Fridrich herself thought 10 seconds was probably the limit" ?
> 
> She doesn't mention it http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html#limits
> 
> And why do you think the Fridrich Method (CFOP) is the method that should be used to reach the limits?



What do you mean, she doesn't mention it? From that section:



> ... I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 10-12 seconds (the average time).



Admittedly, this is a little out of context, but in context, what she is saying is that unless someone can see a near-optimal solution during inspection, this is the limit. So I think it was perfectly reasonable for someone to say, "Jessica Fridrich herself thought 10 seconds was probably the limit".

She really doesn't address here the possibility that another sub-optimal method might come along that could beat hers.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 9, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you read/hear that "Jessica Fridrich herself thought 10 seconds was probably the limit" ?
> ...


:confused: I must have been reading blindfolded because I read it 3 times and couldn't find an actual time-limit.:confused:


----------



## Athefre (Oct 9, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> And why do you think the Fridrich Method (CFOP) is the method that should be used to reach the limits?



I don't, _I_ was just talking about the limits of the Fridrich method and I guess I should have said so.

I use Roux BTW.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Oct 9, 2008)

You must have been, Arnaud >.>
A quick scan of that page gave me-
"These algorithms need to be performed in a fast manner without too much thinking. This puts limits on the amount of time needed to solve the cube. If there was a hypothetical person who could see the shortest or the almost shortest algorithm right away in the beginning (which is quite improbable), he or she would need about 5 seconds, provided the farthest position is around 20 face moves at the twist rate of 4 moves per second. Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 10-12 seconds (the average time)."


----------



## niKo (Oct 14, 2008)

I believe sub-7 average is definitely possible, possibly sub-6.

Reasoning:

ZZF2L Looks promising, because if all edges can be oriented sub-1, then a rotationless F2L yielding about 1 second per pair, perhaps less, with practice, sub 5 F2L times seem not that far out of reach.

ZBLL solving the LL in one algorithm seems the best solution for now. With practice, and the whole system learned (Jason Baum ftw), maybe ~1 second per alg is a possibility.

That comes to about 6.

-niKo


----------



## Stefan (Oct 15, 2008)

Yeah and if all algs are simply done in 0.8 seconds, then sub5 average is possible. Go figure!


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 15, 2008)

This topic is pointless. 
Yeah, if people have perfect cubes and recognition, and turn at an average of 15tps, 3-4seconds is possible using CFOP.


----------



## Cyber (Oct 23, 2008)

Garmon said:


> 20 move solve, 8 moves per second so 3 seconds, plus picking up and putting down so 4 seconds!
> But really, anything lower than 7 be it lucky or not seems insane. I think it will be over a year till 7.08 will be broken.


This is kinda good but no1 can identify all of these millions situation training for during human life and 15sec inspect...

Anyway it can be possible to do more that 8 moves per sec  much more 

I think sub 6sec is kinda limit!


----------



## Tox|k (Oct 24, 2008)

I won't pose any hypotheticals - to many of those - but why not get someone with really good dexterity to execute the algorithms back to back?

With Fridrich for example: do a cross alg, then 4 F2L slotting algs, then an OLL, and finally a PLL. Ideally using average length algorithms of course. Since the cube doesn't need to be solved - it's just the algs back to back - it should give one an idea of how fast the moves may be performed. It would sort of be a benchmark, kind of like a PLL time attack.


----------



## Cyber (Oct 24, 2008)

Tox|k said:


> I won't pose any hypotheticals - to many of those - but why not get someone with really good dexterity to execute the algorithms back to back?
> 
> With Fridrich for example: do a cross alg, then 4 F2L slotting algs, then an OLL, and finally a PLL. Ideally using average length algorithms of course. Since the cube doesn't need to be solved - it's just the algs back to back - it should give one an idea of how fast the moves may be performed. It would sort of be a benchmark, kind of like a PLL time attack.


U think that some1 has that kinda of dexerity already? it can go further


----------



## finalfantasy2012 (Nov 5, 2008)

Just putting in my two cents. The full ZB method seems very close to impossible to master to me. Truthfully, there are a lot of algs, 500+? Yes I do think that all of these can be memorized with a lot of hardwork from the cuber. But still to recognize a LL case at lightning speed to recieve times such as sub-5 seconds it would in my mind again be very close to impossible. You must recognize a OLL+PLL case instantly then remember the alg for it. Me myself never have been able to go to a competition can't say for experience but cubers have told me that with the pressure of a competition it is already hard to remember algs. Maybe it's possible to master this method, just extremely unlikely. Ok well then that's my two cents, feel free to oppose my views.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 5, 2008)

Tox|k said:


> With Fridrich for example: do a cross alg, then 4 F2L slotting algs, then an OLL, and finally a PLL. Ideally using average length algorithms of course.


Why not have a few practiced solves?
"Overall," tip 7.

As far as I know, practiced (normal) scrambles don't get much below sub-10.

Craig also once did a study on practiced scrambles for a statistics project.


----------



## ManuK (Nov 5, 2008)

finalfantasy2012 said:


> Just putting in my two cents. The full ZB method seems very close to impossible to master to me. Truthfully, there are a lot of algs, 500+? Yes I do think that all of these can be memorized with a lot of hardwork from the cuber. But still to recognize a LL case at lightning speed to recieve times such as sub-5 seconds it would in my mind again be very close to impossible. You must recognize a OLL+PLL case instantly then remember the alg for it. Me myself never have been able to go to a competition can't say for experience but cubers have told me that with the pressure of a competition it is already hard to remember algs. Maybe it's possible to master this method, just extremely unlikely. Ok well then that's my two cents, feel free to oppose my views.



Yeah,500+ algs seems a lot.It will surely take much longer to master.Probably 1-2 years?.I have so far been to one competition. I was quite nervous(had horrendous times,back then).My fingers were trembling when i picked up the cube and i managed to screw up the cross and there was lots of "locking-in",but never forgot the algorithms.I don't think you ever forget you algos.(assuming you have it "visually" or as some ppl say in the "muscle memory" and are practising ).

Though, i think in competitions, ur recognition times for PLL's/ OLL's and look-ahead could be affected.


----------

