# Relative Solve Times for 2x2x2 - 7x7x7



## Logiqx (Apr 30, 2014)

*Latest update (2020-02-13)*

Updated charts - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZnClqXZ1dHVvFIoBk0SCSl-5m34tV6mNtc2vldHhEXM/edit?usp=sharing

SQL - https://github.com/Logiqx/wca-stats/blob/master/sql/misc/relative_solve_times.sql


*Original Post*

I wondered if there might be a rule of thumb which can be used to calculate comparable solve times (e.g. 4x4x4 vs 3x3x3, 5x5x5 vs 4x4x4, etc). I decided to see what I could find out using the WCA data and I've producing the graph below using peoples best average in each event.

The horizontal axis splits everyone into "vigintiles" (20 groups, 5% in each) based on their ranking for a particular puzzle. For example: The green line (4x4x4 vs 3x3x3) tells us the top 5% in the 4x4x4 rankings take 4 times longer to solve a 4x4x4 than they do a 3x3x3, based on their best average for each event. Conversely the slowest 5% have a 4x4x4 average which is almost 7 times their 3x3x3 average.

Aiming for the ratio towards the left hand side seems like a good goal for people looking to improve at a specific event.

Here are some high-level ratios across the categories (2x2x2/3x3x3, 4x4x4/3x3x3, 5x5x5/4x4x4, 6x6x6/5x5x5, 7x7x7/6x6x6):

Min: 0.30, 4.04, 1.86, 1.98, 1.43
IQM: 0.39, 4.89, 2.03, 2.18, 1.57
Mean: 0.41, 5.01, 2.07, 2.20, 1.57
Max: 0.60, 6.79, 2.51, 2.58, 1.73

I've found this graph quite interesting so I figured one or two of you might like it as well!


----------



## Logiqx (May 1, 2014)

*Relative Solve Times vs Standard Puzzles*

Moving on from the original idea, I thought I'd also have a look at events such as one-handed, feet and blindfold. This chart compares OH / Feet / BLD times against the standard events.

Like the original chart (2x2x2-7x7x7), I've used peoples best average from the WCA data. For BLD events where averages aren't available (4x4 + 5x5), I've compared BLD single and sighted average.

Here are the high-level ratios across all of the categories (OH, Feet, 3x3 BLD, 4x4 BLD, 5x5 BLD):

Min: 1.62, 3.84, 3.03, 3.84, 3.56
IQM: 2.26, 10.81, 11.42, 12.22, 11.30
Mean: 2.36, 11.29, 12.11, 13.10, 13.09
Max: 4.04, 19.61, 24.28, 32.89, 37.24

Feet and BLD shows similar trends. The journey from novice to pro (right to left) is significant mountain to climb... thanks for the metaphor Noah.


----------



## mark49152 (Sep 30, 2014)

This is interesting, I'm surprised there have been no replies before.

Looking at 3x3 versus 4x4, I assume the vigintile is based on 4x4 ranking? So it might be reasonable to assume that those who focus on 4x4 are towards the left of the graph and those who neglect it or focus on 3x3 are towards the right of the graph. A good place to aim for a typical ratio without bias to either would be the middle, or a factor of 5x.

I've been wondering what my target should be for 4x4 and this answers it. My target for 3x3 is sub-20, so my target for 4x4 should be sub-1:40.

It's interesting how the 4x4/3x3 line is steeper than the others. I assume that means there's a lot of people who do 4x4 but who don't train it as hard as they train 3x3, which makes sense. On the other hand, those that do 5x5 tend to also do similarly well at 4x4 hence the narrower range of ratios.

It would be interesting to see lines based on the other vigintile - i.e. 4x4/5x5 as well as 5x5/4x4. I guess it wouldn't be a simple inverse since it would use a different ranking. Perhaps show the same line, 5x5/4x4, but for both 4x4 and 5x5 rankings, and see how they differ.


----------



## Logiqx (Sep 30, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Looking at 3x3 versus 4x4, I assume the vigintile is based on 4x4 ranking?



Correct. The 4x4x4 / 3x3x3 vigintiles are based on 4x4x4 rankings.



mark49152 said:


> So it might be reasonable to assume that those who focus on 4x4 are towards the left of the graph and those who neglect it or focus on 3x3 are towards the right of the graph. A good place to aim for a typical ratio without bias to either would be the middle, or a factor of 5x.



That's a good way of viewing it. There are definitely some highly ranked 4x4x4 people who aren't so highly ranked at 3x3x3. However... some people towards the left of the graph are also very good at 3x3x3 (e.g. Felix). It would appear that 5x is fairly "normal" and a reasonable target for most people with plenty of room for further improvement.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...onId=&years=&show=100+Persons&average=Average



mark49152 said:


> It would be interesting to see lines based on the other vigintile - i.e. 4x4/5x5 as well as 5x5/4x4. I guess it wouldn't be a simple inverse since it would use a different ranking. Perhaps show the same line, 5x5/4x4, but for both 4x4 and 5x5 rankings, and see how they differ.



I'll dig out my original workings later this week to and see how that looks.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 3, 2014)

I was curious how these stats related to relative sizes of cubes, so did the following calcs of pieces solved per unit time. The unit of time is one 3x3 solve, with factors for other order cubes estimated from the graph. I did not count fixed centres.

2x2: 8/0.33 = 24
3x3: 20
4x4: 56/4.5 = 14
5x5: 92/9 = 10.2
6x6: 152/18 = 8.4
7x7: 212/27 = 7.9

I was a bit surprised the slope wasn't steeper. Seems remarkable that on a 7x7 the pieces are solved as fast as one-third the rate of 2x2.


----------



## goodatthis (Nov 3, 2014)

Looks to me like I have "world class" relative solve times. My relativity factors (correct term?)

2x2/3x3: 0.32
4x4/3x3: 4.12
5x5/4x4: 1.85
6x6/5x5: 2.07
7x7/6x6: 1.38 

what at this tells me is that I need to practice 4x4 and 6x6 more


----------



## lerenard (Jan 8, 2015)

Would someone be willing to expand this to include more events? I would like to have a better idea of what my FMC results mean, and soon I'll be getting a pyraminx. I understand if it would be a lot of work, I just don't know how to do anything like this myself.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 3, 2015)

Logiqx said:


> Here are some high-level ratios across the categories (2x2x2/3x3x3, 4x4x4/3x3x3, 5x5x5/4x4x4, 6x6x6/5x5x5, 7x7x7/6x6x6):
> 
> Min: 0.30, 4.04, 1.86, 1.98, 1.43
> IQM: 0.39, 4.89, 2.03, 2.18, 1.57
> ...


I through I'd check this thread again to see how my times compare. I am uncannily close to the IQM for 2x2 and 4x4 - 0.38 and 4.82 respectively.

I officially suck at 5x5 - 2.31.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 28, 2016)

This is a slightly different angle, but the same idea. I took PB averages (except 4x4BLD, 5x5BLD, and FMC, which are single, single, and Ao3, respectively) and took the time (or moves for FMC) that fell at every 5%. The ratio at the bottom is 95th percentile divided by 5th percentile, to weed out the incredibly talented and unusually lackadaisical, and then give an idea of just how competitive the remaining 90% of competitors are. I think it is interesting that the lowest ratios are for big cubes: it would seem that mostly people who are reasonably serious about cubing will attempt big cubes. Perhaps there is a significant talent gap for blind solving?


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 28, 2016)

@One Wheel : Interesting, but I think 3BLD should be single too, since that's what competitors are ranked on during comp. Single and mean are kind of in conflict, since trying to get a fast single increases risk of a DNF mean.


----------



## Logiqx (Apr 29, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> This is a slightly different angle, but the same idea. I took PB averages (except 4x4BLD, 5x5BLD, and FMC, which are single, single, and Ao3, respectively) and took the time (or moves for FMC) that fell at every 5%. The ratio at the bottom is 95th percentile divided by 5th percentile, to weed out the incredibly talented and unusually lackadaisical, and then give an idea of just how competitive the remaining 90% of competitors are. I think it is interesting that the lowest ratios are for big cubes: it would seem that mostly people who are reasonably serious about cubing will attempt big cubes. Perhaps there is a significant talent gap for blind solving?



Thanks for sharing. With regards your ratios it is with noting that some events have more challenging cut offs and therefore anyone getting an average is by definition good at the event.

This can be clearly demonstrated with a simple example. Someone mid-way in the 3x3 rankings (30.9s) and someone midway in the 5x5 rankings (2:13.5) exhibit a significant skill difference.

It would be crazy to think to look at the 50% results for these events and conclude that 5x5 times are 4.5 * 3x3 times. The original study addressed this by comparing the performances of individuals.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> @One Wheel : Interesting, but I think 3BLD should be single too, since that's what competitors are ranked on during comp.



I can fix that later today.



Logiqx said:


> With regards your ratios it is with noting that some events have more challenging cut offs and therefore anyone getting an average is by definition good at the event.



My hope is that these numbers may eventually help with making cut-off times more cuber-centric. Rather than just using round numbers, like 2:00 for 4x4, 3:00 for 5x5, 4:00 for 6x6, etc., one might make cut-offs of 85th percentile, or 2:06, 3:17, 5:23, etc. Over time that might tend to skew (or correct the current skew) results a little slower, but aside from the relatively minor issue of competition schedules I'm inclined to like that change. The bigger the cube is the more the solve depends on logic rather than memorized algorithms, so in my book more people solving big cubes = better.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

Updated with 3BLD single instead of average.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

Logiqx said:


> It would be crazy to think to look at the 50% results for these events and conclude that 5x5 times are 4.5 * 3x3 times. The original study addressed this by comparing the performances of individuals.



The intention of this project, unlike the original project in this thread, is less about figuring out relative solve times and more about figuring out roughly where one might rank. If I went to a competition with 100 representative cubers I would probably end up ranked about 65 in 3x3, 85 in 4x4, and somewhere in the bottom 5 in 5x5. That's what I wanted to find out.


----------



## Logiqx (Apr 29, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> My hope is that these numbers may eventually help with making cut-off times more cuber-centric. Rather than just using round numbers, like 2:00 for 4x4, 3:00 for 5x5, 4:00 for 6x6, etc., one might make cut-offs of 85th percentile, or 2:06, 3:17, 5:23, etc. Over time that might tend to skew (or correct the current skew) results a little slower, but aside from the relatively minor issue of competition schedules I'm inclined to like that change. The bigger the cube is the more the solve depends on logic rather than memorized algorithms, so in my book more people solving big cubes = better.



You also need to consider the competitors who are unable to complete an average if you want to calculate what time a specific percentile tends to achieve. I suspect there are a lot of people how have entered 5x5 upwards who didn't complete an average and they need to be considered the bottom X percent.

As an aside, I know of people who've queried cut-off times (e.g. 2:30 cut-off for 5x5 being tough compared to 1:30 cut-off for 4x4) and the response was that cut-offs are purely for logistical reasons, reducing the length of time required to run the event. The cut-offs aren't chosen to allow X percent of the entrants to do an average.



One Wheel said:


> The intention of this project, unlike the original project in this thread, is less about figuring out relative solve times and more about figuring out roughly where one might rank. If I went to a competition with 100 representative cubers I would probably end up ranked about 65 in 3x3, 85 in 4x4, and somewhere in the bottom 5 in 5x5. That's what I wanted to find out.



You need to consider my point about people with a DNF average. Try running your analysis across the full range of participants but treating DNF average as a large number (e.g. 60 minutes). That way the bottom X percentiles will be attributed to the slow people and the people cable of completing an average will be at the top. This still isn't perfect though because cut-offs vary around the world and at different competitions.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 29, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Updated with 3BLD single instead of average.


Thanks!


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

Logiqx said:


> As an aside, I know of people who've queried cut-off times (e.g. 2:30 cut-off for 5x5 being tough compared to 1:30 cut-off for 4x4) and the response was that cut-offs are purely for logistical reasons, reducing the length of time required to run the event. The cut-offs aren't chosen to allow X percent of the entrants to do an average.



Fair enough, but it might be easier to explain X percent. The time limits are very frustrating to me as I try to get into cubing. I've already been forced to skip one competition because I didn't have any chance of making a cut-off (I could have done 2:10, or maybe even 2:00, but not 1:30 for 4x4). As someone who is getting involved in cubing at a relatively late age (29) I doubt I have any chance of ever being anything better than average, which come to think of it most people will never be better than average. I understand focusing an event on people who are better/more talented/more committed, but might it be a better policy to move toward limits on the number of competitors rather than time? This would most likely result in competitions having more local people compete, because it's easier to plan ahead and register early when you don't have to make significant travel plans. Obviously this wouldn't be a good idea for major national and international competitions, but smaller local events should be there to help get people involved, not just serve as proxy competitions between the top few percent of talent.



Logiqx said:


> You need to consider my point about people with a DNF average. Try running your analysis across the full range of participants but treating DNF average as a large number (e.g. 60 minutes). That way the bottom X percentiles will be attributed to the slow people and the people cable of completing an average will be at the top. This still isn't perfect though because cut-offs vary around the world and at different competitions.



You're probably right, that's just a lot more data to work with, and I was having some trouble with the large amount of data I had anyway. It might be better to run the numbers on each person's best competition, and weight incomplete averages as though they included 5 solves of the same average time as the 1 or 2 singles. I don't think it would be too hard to do that, but you're working with a massive dataset.


----------



## Logiqx (Apr 29, 2016)

@One Wheel: You might like to look at the "Older Cuber" thread where a lot of us oldies hang out. Actually... a lot of us are older than you and the participants in the thread provide inspiration + motivation.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 29, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I've already been forced to skip one competition because I didn't have any chance of making a cut-off (I could have done 2:10, or maybe even 2:00, but not 1:30 for 4x4).


I sympathise, because I came on here 5-6 months ago having a good old moan that I was years from reaching the 5x5 soft cut. Then I decided to make it a target, practised 5x5 like crazy to the exclusion of most everything else, and made cut at my next comp a few weeks later. It's not as hard as you think it is - it just takes a bit of determination.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Then I decided to make it a target, practised 5x5 like crazy to the exclusion of most everything else, and made cut at my next comp a few weeks later.



I learned Yau about 6 or 7 weeks ago, and started practicing 4x4 almost to the exclusion of everything else just over a month ago when I found out about the competition I will miss tomorrow. I haven't recorded DNFs, and I've done a reasonable number of untimed solves, but since I started Yau I have recorded times for 603 4x4 solves. After 50 solves my Ao12 was 3:29, so that's a reasonable approximation of where I started. My pb single in those solves is 1:44.16, and my current Ao100 is 2:17.76. Sure, it's possible to get there, but in the last month I've spent over 27 hours of cumulative solve time on 4x4 alone, probably closer to 30 hours, and I'm nowhere close to 1:30. I'll get there someday, I'm sure, but I'd like to compete sooner rather than later.


----------



## newtonbase (Apr 29, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I learned Yau about 6 or 7 weeks ago, and started practicing 4x4 almost to the exclusion of everything else just over a month ago when I found out about the competition I will miss tomorrow. I haven't recorded DNFs, and I've done a reasonable number of untimed solves, but since I started Yau I have recorded times for 603 4x4 solves. After 50 solves my Ao12 was 3:29, so that's a reasonable approximation of where I started. My pb single in those solves is 1:44.16, and my current Ao100 is 2:17.76. Sure, it's possible to get there, but in the last month I've spent over 27 hours of cumulative solve time on 4x4 alone, probably closer to 30 hours, and I'm nowhere close to 1:30. I'll get there someday, I'm sure, but I'd like to compete sooner rather than later.


I targeted hard cutoff for 4x4 in my first comp and scraped it. Tomorrow is my 4th comp and soft cutoff would still be a big PB but competitions are about much more than that. For me they are about socialising, learning, beating PBs and messing up blind solves. 
PS I'll also be missing 5x5 and OH cutoffs.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 29, 2016)

newtonbase said:


> they are about socialising, learning, beating PBs and messing up blind solves.



Fair enough, it's just that the nearest competitions to me are in Madison, WI, about 2 hours drive away, and I have 35-40 cows to milk at home before and after. I need something more than socializing to justify getting up at 3:00 AM instead of 5:00 or 6:00, and driving 4 hours.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 30, 2016)

@One Wheel : Keep plugging away at it and you'll get there in the end. I wasn't trying to compare our performance, I was just making the point that I got disheartened for the same reasons but with some effort made cut sooner than I thought possible. You can too. 

Regarding practice, have you timed your splits to figure where your weaknesses are? Have you thought of trying Hoya instead? Maybe your issue is not amount of time practising, but whether you're doing the right things.


----------



## One Wheel (May 2, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Regarding practice, have you timed your splits to figure where your weaknesses are? Have you thought of trying Hoya instead?




I'll give Hoya a shot soon. I feel like I'm right on the edge of cracking 2:00 with Yau. I'll probably get my list of times up to 1000 solves or consistently average under 2:00 first, then give Hoya a try.

As to splits, I timed a few a while back, and it turns out I'm bad at the things that it feels like I'm bad at: pairing cross edges, and to a lesser extent f2l/f3l. And my last layer is often painfully slow in execution. I timed those splits when I was running around 2:35, but I don't think I would learn anything new if I timed a few more. I would probably learn something by recording a few solves, but my camera set up consists of propping my phone against the stack of bills next to my computer. :-).


----------



## biscuit (May 2, 2016)

From an organizer's standpoint, it would be a terrible idea to do "first 40 people that sign up get to do 4x4" or something like that. It would achieve the exact opposite of what you're trying to fix, as the faster cubers are the ones that usually sign up first. The slower competitors usually sign up right at the end of registration. It also brings the issue of what if a faster competitor signs up late? Then do they just not get to compete? 

On top of this, it makes scheduling a (bigger) nightmare. When you have a cutoff, it allows you to make a reasonable guess. 
I get what you're trying to say, and I understand that it's just not very easy for you to get those times down, but it's just not feasible to switch. 

Best of luck!


----------



## mafergut (May 31, 2016)

I took a look at this thread some months ago when I started to take 4x4 seriously. I was averaging over 2min at 4x4 back then and around 19 at 3x3. Knowing that x4 to x5 was achievable gave me motivation. A couple months (and a better cube) later I'm now averaging around 1:30 so, possibly closer to my limit, which would now be 18.5 x 4 = approx 1:15. I think I can really make it in some more months practicing so I would, in theory, be able to get an average at a comp with a 1:30 hard cut. And I'm 46 years old with no special skills. So I'm sure you can do it, @One Wheel.

Now I came back to check what I should expect at 5x5 to 7x7. Surprisingly that would be:
5x5 = x2 (4x4) = 3:00 based on current 4x4 times, 2:30 based on current 3x3 times
6x6 = x2 (5x5) = 6:00 or even down to 5:00
7x7 = x1.5 (6x6) = 9:00 or even down to 7:30

I am now at around 4:00 average at 5x5 and have no experience at all speedsolving 6x6 nor 7x7 so I'm happy, as all this means plenty of PBs in the following months (as 3x3 PBs are rarer and rarer now, I think I'm reaching my limit there). I don't want to think about singles yet 

Thanks, Michael @Logiqx for the information. See you at the "oldies" thread


----------



## mjm (May 31, 2016)

This is amazing! I guess I'm good at 2x2 (.25 vs the .41 mean), I can't wait to check the others out.


----------



## mafergut (May 31, 2016)

mjm said:


> This is amazing! I guess I'm good at 2x2 (.25 vs the .41 mean), I can't wait to check the others out.


It can be interpreted like good at 2x2 or bad at 3x3. In my case I have a PB Ao100 of 5.5 at 2x2 and 18.5 at 3x3 which makes it 0.29 which is on the "relatively fast" side too. But I don't consider myself fast at 2x2, I think what happens is that I'm slow at 3x3 

This impression is also reinforced by the fact that, with 1:32 avg at 4x4 I'm at 4.97 ratio for 4x4 vs 3x3, which is already on the average but with just a few months of 4x4 practice against more than two years of 3x3.


----------



## mjm (May 31, 2016)

mafergut said:


> It can be interpreted like good at 2x2 or bad at 3x3. In my case I have a PB Ao100 of 5.5 at 2x2 and 18.5 at 3x3 which makes it 0.29 which is on the "relatively fast" side too. But I don't consider myself fast at 2x2, I think what happens is that I'm slow at 3x3
> 
> This impression is also reinforced by the fact that, with 1:32 avg at 4x4 I'm at 4.97 ratio for 4x4 vs 3x3, which is already on the average but with just a few months of 4x4 practice against more than two years of 3x3.



Haha, fair enough. I consider my 3x3 as my baseline, right in the middle. The more I improve at that, the more potential I have to pick a cube up after not using it for a while and be better at it. I've never really thought of myself as fast or slow on 3x3, but I think I am pretty fast for not knowing CLL on 2x2. Also, hey! Sub-19 is definitely not slow


----------



## mafergut (May 31, 2016)

mjm said:


> Haha, fair enough. I consider my 3x3 as my baseline, right in the middle. The more I improve at that, the more potential I have to pick a cube up after not using it for a while and be better at it. I've never really thought of myself as fast or slow on 3x3, but I think I am pretty fast for not knowing CLL on 2x2. Also, hey! Sub-19 is definitely not slow


I was just pulling your leg a bit, you know. By your signature I already could see you were way faster than I am but what I had not realized is that those 2x2 times are... with Ortega!!! Now I have to agree with you that you are nowhere near slow at 3x3 but you're pretty dang fast at 2x2. Also thanks, for an oldie like me, being sub-20 is already an achievement but there's still room for improvement.


----------



## One Wheel (Jun 1, 2016)

In round numbers I'm at:
2/3 = 0.28
4/3 = 3.54
5/4 = 2.3
6/5 = 1.8

Looks like relatively pretty good on 4x4, and I'm pretty sure I'm losing a lot of time on 5x5 to a bad cube.


----------



## Logiqx (Aug 31, 2016)

If you want to know how these statistics were produced, check out the following thread:

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/world-cube-association-single-person-view-wca-spv.62237/


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 17, 2016)

I'm not that good at big databases, but I would be really curious if anybody who actually knows how would be interested in updating the original numbers in this thread (not mine, which I'm convinced now are pretty useless). I'm interested to see if advances in cube design have had a measurable impact on relative times. a year - over - year comparison would be ideal, if possible.


----------



## ozie (Nov 17, 2016)

I've used the 100 best averages per year.

Base is 3x3 (100%).


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 17, 2016)

ozie said:


> I've used the 100 best averages per year.
> 
> Base is 3x3 (100%).


That's a simpler way of doing it. interesting that it seems the trend is actually opposite of what I would have expected on 5x5. Maybe 5x5 hardware is advancing at a relatively slower rate than other puzzles?


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 24, 2017)

Logiqx said:


> The original study addressed this by comparing the performances of individuals.


@Logiqx, does that mean that min=3.03 for 3BLD does not compare WRs, but that somewhere there is an individual whose 3BLD is 3.03 times their 3x3 and that is the best recorded ratio?

It would be interesting to know the average ratio for say the fastest 10% of 3BLDers, as opposed to the smallest 10% of ratios.


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 24, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> @Logiqx, does that mean that min=3.03 for 3BLD does not compare WRs, but that somewhere there is an individual whose 3BLD is 3.03 times their 3x3 and that is the best recorded ratio?



Min = 3.03 means the top 5% of blinders take 3.03 times longer than 3x3.

Well... they did at the time of the study.



mark49152 said:


> @LogiqxIt would be interesting to know the average ratio for say the fastest 10% of 3BLDers, as opposed to the smallest 10% of ratios.



This is what the reports show although I must have failed to explain it clearly.

The calculations can be summarised as follows:
1) Split the data into 20 groups (vigintiles) based on WCA ranking for the event being reported.
2) For each vigintile, calculate each individual's ratio then calculate the average across the individuals

The end is result is typical ratios for the top X% of competitors, based on their WCA ranking as opposed to people with the top ratios. I believe this is what you are after?


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 24, 2017)

Logiqx said:


> I believe this is what you are after?


Yes it is, thanks. Perhaps it was explained somewhere and I missed it, but I assumed the vigintiles were based on ratios since that's what the Y axis of the graph shows. In which case, the results might have been be skewed by e.g. mediocre BLDers who get a good ratio because they are even worse at 3x3, etc.


----------



## mafergut (Apr 17, 2017)

I was going to post this on the "oldies" thread but I thought it belongs here so...

I was comparing my 3x3 2H and OH times to see if I'm close or not to the expected times according to the statistical information compiled here by @Logiqx. The mean relative times seem to be 2.36x 2H for OH so, taking my PB Ao100 at 2H of 18.5 more or less the expected OH average would be 18.5 x 2.36 = 43,66. This was very close to reality until I retook OH practise this week and pushed it down to 41,05 Ao100.

Again, I have practised OH significantly less than 2H and I don't even know half of the OLLs OH but I do 2H so I'm a bit puzzled. I either am better at OH than 2H with much less practise or I just can lookahead better in OH due to the slower TPS which would point to lookahead being an important improvement point for me at 2H.

But taking as an example another of us oldies: David @muchacho. He's more or less as fast as I am in 2H at 18.8 Ao100 but he's a lot faster in OH with a 31.7 Ao100 last time I checked his PBs  That's around 1.6x factor, which would be among the best. Is this something that might have something to do with method? As David uses Roux, maybe the smaller move-count, paired with the slower TPS -> improved lookahead makes his OH times be closer to his 2H times?

By the way, congrats to @muchacho for those lightning speed OH times. I'm envious!


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Apr 17, 2017)

I generally think that if someone actually puts dedicated practice into OH, a 1.6x factor would seem about right. 
My OH times are about 3 times slower than my 2H times, which I think is quite slow (14 for 2H and ~42 for OH).
I think that a ZZ user may be able to get OH times closer to their 2H times more easily, as the method works better for OH. I'm no OH expert though so don't quote me on this.


----------



## muchacho (Apr 17, 2017)

Looking at official PBs from top OH solvers it looks it's usually close to 1.5, although Antoine Cantin's is lower than 1.4 (and 1.65 for Feliks Zemdegs).

I've done 43000 2H timed solves (around 50000 total) and 5000 timed OH (maybe 8000-9000 total), with similar practice I'm guessing it would be maybe 1.4 or so, although I think GuRoux practice OH frequently and his ratio is 1.5.

I see a lot of lightning fast OH times in the Roux Facebook Group competition, I'm usually at the bottom. BTW I'm the least efficient Roux solver ever


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 19, 2017)

This thread gets bumped from time to time, and I found my latest statistical analysis interesting. I think I'm relatively better at the stuff I practice. What's interesting to me is that, based on the chart on the first page of this thread, my relative 4x4/3x3 solve times are off the chart, literally, and better than average up through 6x6. In reality that reflects a lack of 3x3 practice more than anything else, but still interesting.

Ao100 for 2-4, Ao50 for 5-7
2/3 = 11.95/32.11 = 0.37
4/3 = 1:35.35/32.11 = 2.97
5/4 = 2:57.99/1:35.35 = 1.87
6/5 = 5:17.29/2:57.99 = 1.78
7/6 = 8:28.21/5:17.29 = 1.60

Going by best singles:
2/3 = 4.20/21.65 = .19
4/3 = 1:13.13/21.65 = 3.38
5/4 = 2:24.41/1:13.13 = 1.97
6/5 = 4:23.69/2:24.41 = 1.96
7/6 = 7:27.81/4:23.69 = 1.58


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 7, 2018)

@Logiqx - have you considered refreshing this to see if it's changed from 4 years ago?


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 7, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> @Logiqx - have you considered refreshing this to see if it's changed from 4 years ago?



Yes. I've considered it on several occasions.

Since you are interested, I'll do it some time soon.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 7, 2018)

Logiqx said:


> Yes. I've considered it on several occasions.
> 
> Since you are interested, I'll do it some time soon.


Yeah it's an interesting analysis and a good way of answering the "how fast should I be at X" questions that often come up. My guess is that the results won't be much different if recalculated today, but I'm curious anyway.


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 8, 2018)

*Updated stats (2018-10-08)*

I've re-generated the original charts and created a new chart for the non-cubic puzzles.

All of the statistics were generated using my "WCA SPV" project on GitHub.

I have attached the Excel spreadsheet for anyone who wants the actual numbers behind the charts (min, max, mean, iqm, etc).


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Oct 8, 2018)

Logiqx said:


> I've re-generated the original charts and created a new chart for the non-cubic puzzles.
> 
> All of the statistics were generated using my "WCA SPV" project on GitHub.
> 
> ...


The attachments don't work.


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 8, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> The attachments don't work.



I've just this minute edited the post since the labels on the x-axis were wrong.

If you refresh the page you should be able to access the new attachments.


----------



## Billabob (Oct 8, 2018)

Excellent work. Just curious - how do Megaminx times compare with 5x5 times?


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 8, 2018)

Billabob said:


> Excellent work. Just curious - how do Megaminx times compare with 5x5 times?



Good thought. I'll run that one through when I'm back home.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 8, 2018)

Good stuff, thanks. Looks pretty much the same, AFAICS. Except for the fast end of BLD, unsurprisingly!


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 8, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> Good stuff, thanks. Looks pretty much the same, AFAICS. Except for the fast end of BLD, unsurprisingly!



Little change overall. I was expecting the 6x6 ratio to have dropped but pretty much everything has improved at the same rate.

5BLD was the most noticeable change but I also switched the 3BLD graph to use PB single rather than mean..


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 8, 2018)

Logiqx said:


> 5BLD was the most noticeable change but I also switched the 3BLD graph to use PB single rather than mean..


Makes sense. I think 4BLD is the biggest advance, from 3.84 to 2.66 for the fastest, if I'm looking at the right numbers.

So, now I have some new personal targets, and they look even more ambitious


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 9, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> Makes sense. I think 4BLD is the biggest advance, from 3.84 to 2.66 for the fastest, if I'm looking at the right numbers.
> 
> So, now I have some new personal targets, and they look even more ambitious



Yes, I remembered incorrectly. 4BLD was the biggest change, followed by 5BLD.

I'd advise you to stop improving your sighted times if you're aiming for a good BLD ratio.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 10, 2018)

From my longest current averages in CSTimer: (Mean from spreadsheet, AoX)
2x2/3x3 = 0.37 (0.38, 100)
4x4/3x3 = 3.19 (4.89, 500)
5x5/4x4 = 1.73 (2.10, 500)
6x6/5x5 = 1.96 (2.21, 500)
7x7/6x6 = 1.38 (1.55, 100)
OH/3x3 = 1.74 (2.32, 100)
Feet/3x3 = 3.84 (11.40, 100)
Mega/3x3 = 7.10 (9.97, 500)

Ha! It's fun to find out I'm good at something, even if it's just because it's relative to 3x3, at which I apparently suck (29.72 Ao1000 is what these figures are based on). For the most part those are pretty nearly elite relative times, if I'm understanding the methodology correctly.


----------



## Pyjam (Oct 10, 2018)

See also: The Warp Scale


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 10, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> From my longest current averages in CSTimer: (Mean from spreadsheet, AoX)
> Ha! It's fun to find out I'm good at something, even if it's just because it's relative to 3x3, at which I apparently suck (29.72 Ao1000 is what these figures are based on). For the most part those are pretty nearly elite relative times, if I'm understanding the methodology correctly.



It is probably most insightful to look at the top 5% vigintile as opposed to the mean. You're a lot better than that for 4x4 and quite a bit better for 5x5.

IMO the figures are most useful to people who practice the events roughly evenly. I'm guessing you're not working hard on improving your 3x3 times and practice 4x4+ a lot more?



Pyjam said:


> See also: The Warp Scale



That's cool except that I'm slow... globally around warp 3.5 for most events.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 10, 2018)

Logiqx said:


> I'm guessing you're not working hard on improving your 3x3 times and practice 4x4+ a lot more?


 Yep. A little more 3x3 lately, though. A bit of 5x5, not enough time to do a lot of 7x7, not happy with my current 6x6, 4x4 progress is discouraging right now.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Oct 11, 2018)

Hm looks like I'm only relatively good at Squan (1.60 Squan/3x3) and Megaminx (4.47 Mega/3x3). Throwback to a few months ago when my Mega/3x3 ratio was 3.97, less than even Juan Pablo Huanqui's.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Feb 10, 2020)

It would be really interesting to see how those plots changed since 2018.
Does anyone happen to have the updated versions?


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 12, 2020)

Berkmann18 said:


> It would be really interesting to see how those plots changed since 2018.
> Does anyone happen to have the updated versions?



I'll look to do a refresh later this week.


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 13, 2020)

*Latest Stats (2020-02-18)*

Updated charts - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZnClqXZ1dHVvFIoBk0SCSl-5m34tV6mNtc2vldHhEXM/edit?usp=sharing

SQL - https://github.com/Logiqx/wca-stats/blob/master/sql/misc/relative_solve_times.sql


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 13, 2020)

Are these based on average within vigintiles? I was thinking I was just exceptionally (relatively) good at big cubes, then I realized my official results reflect that, so if it was calculated the way I’d understood the Min for 4/5/6 should be lower. 

Using my official results I come in at:
2x2/3x3: 0.409
3x3/4x4: 3.55
4x4/5x5: 1.62
5x5/6x6: 1.80
6x6/7x7: 1.50

My at-home global average is slightly better than that for 4x4 (3.30) but slightly worse for everything else. I haven’t checked other events.


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 16, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> Are these based on average within vigintiles? I was thinking I was just exceptionally (relatively) good at big cubes, then I realized my official results reflect that, so if it was calculated the way I’d understood the Min for 4/5/6 should be lower.
> 
> Using my official results I come in at:
> 2x2/3x3: 0.409
> ...



Yes. Averages are calculated within vigintiles.

e.g. Take the top 5% of 4x4x4 solvers and for each person calculate their ratio - 4x4x4 / 3x3x3. Calculate the average of all of those ratios to give the overall ratio for the top 5%. Repeat for every vigintile. Without exception the fastest 5% always have the best ratio (overall).

I do not report the minimum ratio of a single person either overall or within a single vigintile as it would be meaningless. For example, there is one guy with 5x5x5 PR average which is 35% of his 4x4x4 PR average.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 16, 2020)

Logiqx said:


> Yes. Averages are calculated within vigintiles.
> 
> e.g. Take the top 5% of 4x4x4 solvers and for each person calculate their ratio - 4x4x4 / 3x3x3. Calculate the average of all of those ratios to give the overall ratio for the top 5%. Repeat for every vigintile. Without exception the fastest 5% always have the best ratio (overall).
> 
> I do not report the minimum ratio of a single person either overall or within a single vigintile as it would be meaningless. For example, there is one guy with 5x5x5 PR average which is 35% of his 4x4x4 PR average.


How much more work would it be to add error bars? If it would be tough don’t worry about it, but if it’s easy I would be very curious.


----------



## Logiqx (Feb 16, 2020)

One Wheel said:


> How much more work would it be to add error bars? If it would be tough don’t worry about it, but if it’s easy I would be very curious.



I'll look at that next week. It might show something interesting.


----------

