# The Future of Competitive Speedsolving (a discussion)



## Toquinha1977 (Aug 29, 2011)

Apologies in advance if this has been covered to death already. In that case, for the mods, please feel free to delete this post if it improves the overall quality of the forums. (That was not sarcasm. I was being serious.)

*The Future of Competitive Speedsolving (a discussion)*

Summary/Abstract for the TL;DR crowd:


Spoiler



With the likes of Feliks Zemdegs consistently dominating multiple records, and with the incremental nature in which these records are broken (ie: within fractions of a second), does this contribute to a declining interest in speedsolving in general? Has interest in speedsolving reached its peak, and are we seeing the downward end of the cycle?




After spending a couple weekends with some big names of cubing and having attended my first National level competition last weekend (Canadian Open 2011) and just attended a local competition (Vancouver Open Summer 2011), there's always talk about beating world records in any event, especially with some of the speedsolvers I see in competition. As the limits of physical human potential are reached, at a certain point, records will become essentially unbeatable.

I hear a lot of talk about constantly falling records and the effect it has on the speedsolving community. The general sense I get is that with the top records being repeatedly broken by one individual does not necessarily generate the same excitement as when it was someone new each time. 

While not to take away from the achievements of Feliks Zemdegs (who could very well be reading this), this has many parallels to other competitive endeavors, such as the world of professional sports. Take a consistently winning sports team such as the Wayne Gretzky era Edmonton Oilers or the Michael Jordan era Chicago Bulls. When standings are consistently dominated by one team, interest starts to wane and it's no longer such a big deal when the top ranked team continues to win, and towards the end of the team's reign, fans start cheering for the underdog. 

Up until Erik Akkersdijk's 7.08 record was broken, this was largely unprecedented in the world of speedsolving, as previously most records had some level of staying power, or were at least beaten by someone different each time. I don't know if it's a testament to the fact that many solvers are getting that much faster or if we're actually reaching the limits as far as speedsolving potential. And when top ranks are increasingly more and more difficult to attain, will there be any continued draw towards competitive speedsolving?

Indeed, short of someone who does not have autistic savant syndrome (_a la_ Daniel Tammet) being able to figure out the God's Algorithm, we quite possibly on our way to reaching the limit as to how fast we can go. Mechanical and physical limits will prevent a 3x3x3 from being solved in less than a second without setting it on fire due to the friction (unless they start making them out of metal), while barring mutation and enhancement (eg: smart drugs, genetic engineering, bionic enhancements), humans will be limited to how fast they can turn the thing. 

This is where the comparison between speedsolving and organized sports fails. Success in sports is dictated by many, many factors, most of which is determined the quality of your opponents. In speedsolving, while there are other opponents, the ultimate opponent is time. When we finally reach a WR 3x3x3 solve that is for all intents and purposes unbeatable, what next?

When the knowledge is available to everyone thanks to the Internet, we're also going to stop seeing large ranges in the top times, separated by hundredths or thousandths of a second (indeed, there are already three people tied for fastest 2x2x2 single solve, at 0.96 seconds). At that point, is it worthwhile to add one more significant digit? Should Speedstacks be redesigning their timing devices so that they can be measured by that level?

Despite what my age and official WCA stats indicate, I do enjoy speedsolving and intend to continue practicing and competing, if for nothing else but my own personal gratification. At the same time, I do lament what looks like the early signs of a decline of competitive speedsolving, although I also suggest with some hope that it may be merely cyclical in nature, much like disco (after all, the Rubik's Cube did toil in obscurity from the mid 80s to late 90s).


----------



## Hershey (Aug 29, 2011)

I was thinking about this one day, and I thought of the idea that after a record becomes unbeatable, maybe every year the WCA starts up fresh and instead of "world record holder" we will have "[insert year here] WR holder". The times from previous years get stored in some archive after that.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 29, 2011)

Everyone should practice their life out..

But that means speedsolving is like cup stacking in a way. Speed and dexterity(with quick recognition).

Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.


----------



## IamWEB (Aug 29, 2011)

There's always a way to get faster at a puzzle, you just have to be the first one to do it and effectively use it to be faster than everyone else. The dedication and will to this will decrease amongst speedcubers and we dive deeper and deeper into these techniques.

Basically, learning a bunch of algorithms and case recognition to optimize your solves. People are already doing this, but it be taken far beyond where it is now.

Also, incentive for the continuation of cubing aside from getting world records (or records in general) is to win competitions. Easier for some depending on who's attending.

Much more can be said, but I haven't the time to further discuss these matters.


Spoiler



lol


Edit: PLUS IT'S FUN and addicting.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Aug 29, 2011)

The number of competitions has increased massively since 2003. I stand corrected but I see no sign of the decline of competitive speedsolving. In fact I think the figures show it is increasing. Im sure Australians didnt give up swimming after Mark Spitz.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 29, 2011)

David, you make more sense than anyone else on these forums.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Aug 29, 2011)

Cubing and going to competitions doesn't have to be about winning or records. Unless you can get those sort of times at home, I wouldn't bother worrying about it at all.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 29, 2011)

I believe that there will be a spike in interest but a decline in "lifespan" for cubers. What I'm trying to say is, with all the resources (websites, videos, tutorials, hardware) out there at this time, almost anybody can be fast. This I feel is really appealing to people and spark an interest. In fact maybe they will even get sub-20 and faster. It's a great way to impress people. But despite this, a lot of people just don't put the time and effort to becoming *faster* or use *fewer moves* or just plain attending a competition. since they expect things and not having certain results. 

We have nubs coming into the community (not a bad thing to be a nub, we all were at point even faznub). They show a flare for cubing but *they expect instant gratification. * And when they don't get it, they just give up at times. Most nubs do.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2011)

I think cubing is becoming more like other competitive racing sports in that technique starts to be less important, and raw ability to be fast is the dominating factor.

In 2003-2005 or so, cubes were a lot stiffer, and instead of TPS ruling the day, cubing was about recognition and optimality. Even up to relatively recently you could get to world-class level without having incredible TPS. But nowadays everyone starts out turning fast, and that's all that really matters. You practice until you get good lookahead, and then your speed is entirely determined by your turning ability, and the fastest one wins. So, look at all the people who have sub-9 and sub-8 - that's the future. More and more of those, with pretty much the same style, always trying to turn slightly faster. And the people who do beautiful flowing smooth solves that max out in the 10-15 second range will get left more and more behind.

It kind of saddens me to see this progression (although I realize it's inevitable) because I remember when technique was still very important. Slightly so in 3x3 and 3OH, and much more so in the longer events like bigcubes. I had a huge respect for the top cubers back then - especially the top bigcubers - because I really got the feeling that they weren't just faster, but had a deeper understanding of the puzzles. One of the reasons I've been tending towards more difficult puzzles (including sims) is to recapture that feel, of a contest where the winner is the one with the best understanding of the puzzle. Anyway, in those days cubing felt like an exclusive club of people who had mastered something that was so difficult that most people immediately gave up on it - nowadays it feels a bit more like a bunch of 13-year-olds with fast fingers, and I think that's the trend for the future. The experts will always be there, but they will continue to get separated from the top people, and only get respect from inside the community.

EDIT: I remember this one anecdote that expresses my viewpoint pretty well. Sometime around when I started college, I remember Leyan Lo doing some slow turning solves for me, and it totally blew my mind that he could get sub-20s (pretty good for me at the time) going so slowly. This was pretty early (way before the youtube community) and I hadn't seen anyone do that before, and it really made the point that he was not just a faster version of me, but a real master of the puzzle. So the big difference is that a fast person back then would make me think "wow, he is really good at that", but a fast person now makes me think "wow, he turns really fast".


----------



## Bob (Aug 29, 2011)

I remember having conversations with Stefan Pochmann back in the day where we thought times of sub-1 on magic were IMPOSSIBLE. We also estimated the limits of Master Magic at about 2.5 seconds. We were way off. This holds true for most puzzles. Given enough time, almost any record will be broken.


----------



## teller (Aug 29, 2011)

In defense of Feliks, he does far more than just kill everything with TPS...his solves usually involve an x-cross and his F2L always looks "lucky" because of multi-slotting. That's not even mentioning the color-neutral edge or the various LL tricks. He can turn like a demon, but really...there's so much more! It's an exciting time to be a speedcuber if you're paying attention...


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2011)

Actually, I have to disagree with that. His official solves are generally pretty normal (although there is the occasional ZBLL and xcross), and sometimes he messes up and does an incredibly bad pair. Maybe the ones that have those tricks are the ones that have good times and end up being put on youtube?


----------



## IamWEB (Aug 29, 2011)

Once more and more people start maxing out their TPS, it's that deeper understanding of the cube that will give you in advantage.


----------



## Meep (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.


 
I'd say that technique can work decently well, actually.


----------



## Hays (Aug 29, 2011)

I know this post is probably geared more towards the small cubes; however, I would just like to say that big cubes have a looooong way to go before times are separated by only hundreths. Michal is the only one in the world capable of getting even close to sub 3 on 7x7, and I'm sure it is possible to average sub 3 with enough practice. Also, I don't see any reason why averaging sub 55 on 5x5 or sub 1:50 on 6x6 isn't possible.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2011)

Anything I've done on the sim can be done on a real cube with good enough hardware and TPS.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 29, 2011)

No offense to the OP, but I really disagree. I think now is the most exciting time to be cubing, compared to any year before. Records and times now are so much faster than all the times people used to say were impossible or highly unlikely, as Bob said in his post. Maybe it's also because I'm older, but I have more freedom to either travel to a competition, or just plain organize one, than I used to. There are so many advanced methods out there that anybody interested in theory has much more to learn than they could in 5 or 10 years if they're trying to master each method.

I learned a long time ago that if you compete outwardly (I will beat you, I will place in the top 10, I will beat a world record, I will make it to the final), that this is a very unhealthy way to be competitive. If you compete inwardly (I will get times in competition very close to the times I get at home, I will beat my competition personal best in my next competition, I will do better at the next competition than I did at the last competition), that this is a much healthier way to be competitive. The OPs post sounds like competing outwardly (beat Feliks, beat the WR), which I think is not only a terrible way to be competitive, but it leads to depression, anger, feelings of wanting to quit cubing, and it just plain sucks to think this way. I say that because I was competitive in this way a few years ago, and you really do start to feel that way bit by bit, and it only gets worse over time.

Simply put: don't compete outwardly - compete inwardly. For one, you'll have SO much more fun, and second you will still perform well in competitions (and you will feel good about meeting your personal goals at each and every competition as long as you train to meet them).

inb4-you're-just-slow-and-sour-grapes


----------



## teller (Aug 29, 2011)

Hardwick, that was brilliant! Preach it, brother!


----------



## BC1997 (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Everyone should practice their life out..
> 
> But that means speedsolving is like cup stacking in a way. Speed and dexterity(with quick recognition).
> 
> Good luck you slow solving look ahead freaks! If going slow doesn't work for 2x2 then why 3x3 lol.



That was quite the ignorant comment, the second part that is. Solving slow helps a lot, you don't have to slow solve every time. Doing calm solves every once in a while will help your TPS, look-ahead, and number of pauses. I average about 17 seconds and I managed to get a 12 second nl due to one fluid solve, so HA!


----------



## Toquinha1977 (Aug 29, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I learned a long time ago that if you compete outwardly (I will beat you, I will place in the top 10, I will beat a world record, I will make it to the final), that this is a very unhealthy way to be competitive. If you compete inwardly (I will get times in competition very close to the times I get at home, I will beat my competition personal best in my next competition, I will do better at the next competition than I did at the last competition), that this is a much healthier way to be competitive. The OPs post sounds like competing outwardly (beat Feliks, beat the WR), which I think is not only a terrible way to be competitive, but it leads to depression, anger, feelings of wanting to quit cubing, and it just plain sucks to think this way. I say that because I was competitive in this way a few years ago, and you really do start to feel that way bit by bit, and it only gets worse over time.
> 
> Simply put: don't compete outwardly - compete inwardly. For one, you'll have SO much more fun, and second you will still perform well in competitions (and you will feel good about meeting your personal goals at each and every competition as long as you train to meet them).
> 
> inb4-you're-just-slow-and-sour-grapes



No offense taken.

Sour grapes? I would _hope_ those that know me don't see me that way. As it is, I do agree with the sentiment that outward competition isn't particularly healthy (perhaps I should've used the words "self-improvement" rather than "self-gratification"), and have accepted that becoming the best at something comes with equal portions of effort, natural talent, and skill/knowledge, and if it starts taking over my life and making me depressed, I should probably try something else or adjust my attitude (or switch to single-player video games). I mean, I some pretty weak showings at my last two comps, only showing marginal improvements in 3x3x3, although I've shown some significant jumps in other areas, which has largely renewed my drive to do better (although my intent is to put more focus into OH, just to shake things up a bit, especially since I'm pretty sure that I peaked in 3x3x3)

As it is, most of this stems from hanging out with and a few of the bigger names of speedsolving over the past couple of weeks (must not name drop...must not name dro...Stefan Pochmann), people who have developed a lot of the techniques that speedsolvers today take for granted and whose printouts appear in my notebooks, as well as hearing some of the various whispers about WRs and Feliks actually turning into outright hostility (even on this board), which is largely in line with the sports analogy in the OP. Fans of the sport have been known to lose interest when there's a consistently dominant team. It starts being predictable. As to whether or not this can happen to competitive speedsolving, I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad thing, having one person dominate records and consistently beat them for almost a year, especially since Erik Akkersdjik held onto his record for about 2 years. However, I do wonder if there is any actual makings of "Familiarity breeds contempt" in today's competitive scene.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Aug 29, 2011)

Toquinha1977 said:


> the various whispers about WRs and Feliks actually turning into outright hostility



Can someone tell me what he has done wrong? And if one hears those whispers do you think you should perpetuate them or condemn them?


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 29, 2011)

About fans getting less interested, I agree. I remember at MSO2010 when Faz got his first world records, the thread didn't die for over a week, and when it was first posted, even though many in the US would've been sleeping, there were a few pages in under an hour. At Nationals over the past weekend when I wanted live results, I'd try to find the thread, and find it wasn't on the homepage. I think back in 2010 there were 7000 competitors tops? (my mind is saying way less, but that seems unbelievable). Last I checked my Dad was ranked at around 12, 000. So whilst interest in Faz's times may be falling, cubing is definitely getting more popular.

Edit: David, when you go to the footy, some people get pretty hostile to the other team. I think this is what he's saying, not that he's done anything wrong.


----------



## ARyder (Aug 29, 2011)

Toquinha1977 said:


> ...
> While not to take away from the achievements of Feliks Zemdegs (who could very well be reading this), this has many parallels to other competitive endeavors, such as the world of professional sports. Take a consistently winning sports team such as the Wayne Gretzky era Edmonton Oilers or the Michael Jordan era Chicago Bulls. When standings are consistently dominated by one team, interest starts to wane and it's no longer such a big deal when the top ranked team continues to win, and towards the end of the team's reign, fans start cheering for the underdog.
> ...


 
An interesting read but I respectfully disagree about waning interest 

I only ever watched NBL when Michael Jordan was playing - far from waning interest it generated interest in me and I dare say a host of others like me.

In Australia we have a super race horse - Black Cavier, probably the fastest horse on the planet - expected to win win win but far from waning interest - people who would never go to the races are packing in to see this horse run. 

The same applies to football (erh, soccer), Manchester United, Barcelona, etc are winning winning winning but that draws more people in not less. Losing and poor performances is what makes interest wane.

Lance Armstrong won 7 Tour De France races, again far from waning interest myriads of people were inspired to "get into it" because of him.

It seems to me people like to see extraordinary performances.

I'm not familiar with your Gretzky and Edmonton cases but I see truck loads of counter examples.

In the case of cubing, I'm no speedstar but I'm getting back into it because of none other than Mr F. Zemdegs.

Granted the opposition might be demoralised in all of the above examples and they might feel their own interest waning but I seriously doubt the paying public's interest is waning.

YMMV


----------



## stoic (Aug 29, 2011)

The sporting analogies only go so far surely...most sports fans aren't competing? They're sitting at home watching. Cubers on the other hand are at least sitting at home cubing if not actively competing. It's the cube we love, not the top cubers.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 29, 2011)

ellwd said:


> The sporting analogies only go so far surely...most sports fans aren't competing? They're sitting at home watching. Cubers on the other hand are at least sitting at home cubing if not actively competing. It's the cube we love, not the top cubers.


 
This is a good point. 
Personally, I'm (somewhat) losing interest in the 'big names' and watching top solves, though I don't really think this is entirely because of single-man domination (though it would definitely catch my interest if some 'no-namer' comes up and beats Faz). 
I think interest in the top solves are waning, as the world record for whatever event(s) (Faz's 3x3 is the easiest example) being beaten repetitively by the same person just loses some of the excitement. However, this doesn't mean interest in cubing as a whole is waning. I find more people are interested in breaking 'that time barrier' or getting new personal bests more than they are interested in watching/find out about top solves. I, for one, was jumping up and down in joy when I got my sub-8, but not even nearly the same effect got me when I saw Faz's sub-6 (though, holy cow, that's good). 

P.S. My sincerest apologies if my words are incoherent. I really shouldn't be up right now (it's 02:00).


----------



## stoic (Aug 29, 2011)

Is there also another reason why interest in WRs may have declined...the YouTube effect? I mean, one has to say Faz's achievements in 3x3 are simply staggering (easiest example, as above) but when he got his 5.66 I wasn't all that surprised - I'd already seen him go that fast on in practice on YouTube.

Conversely, if you're interested in the progression of WRs I think this is a really fertile time as numbers seem to be dropping fast and often (will we look back on this as a golden era?) but I personally cube for my own enjoyment, and as Phlippieskezer says, breaking personal bests.


----------



## irontwig (Aug 29, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Actually, I have to disagree with that. His official solves are generally pretty normal (although there is the occasional ZBLL and xcross), and sometimes he messes up and does an incredibly bad pair. Maybe the ones that have those tricks are the ones that have good times and end up being put on youtube?


 
Yeah, that's what I find quite fascinating about Feliks; the fact that he does very little different from (say) a sub-15 cuber but he's still far ahead in times.


----------



## Enter (Aug 29, 2011)

Cubing needs more VS battles cuber vs cuber to make things more interesting! Not only persuiting of world records. Cubing is much more it is the a way of life for many people including me!
ps the sub 10 cubers are not better cubers they are just faster!


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 29, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Yeah, that's what I find quite fascinating about Feliks; the fact that he does very little different from (say) a sub-15 cuber but he's still far ahead in times.



Could this be some sort of proof that *knowing* the advanced stuff makes the normal stuff so much easier that it improves your times?
Even in solves where you do not even use the advanced stuff?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 29, 2011)

TPS ~= APM


----------



## Escher (Aug 29, 2011)

If by 'competitive speedcubing' you mean 3x3, then yeah, I guess we'll see the top cubers tending towards 7.5ish averages being the best they can perform, with the outliers getting sub 7 regularly. There are various avenues that have yet to be explored in just 'CFOP', let alone other methods.

In the future I hope that our current idea of CFOP will be almost un-recognisable and need to be renamed 

In regards to many other puzzles, I think we have an extremely long way to go. While speedcubing might seem limited in our current meta, I'd hazard a guess that in as little as 3 years time we will see some seriously incredible barriers being broken, in terms of efficiency, not just raw time.

Also lol ya TPS/APM comparison.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 29, 2011)

Cubing still has soooo far to go. This is still a very exciting time. There is still so much variety at the moment, people use different methods, in those methods people use different algs, use different finger tricks etc. Later down the line (after a lot more experimentation) these things will be ironed out, there will be a set way to hold and turn the cube, specific algs for every part of the solve that everyone will learn, then things will boil down to just flat out how quickly can you do it. But that is a long way off. Also currently people are breaking world records left right and center, and I really can't see that slowing down. As long as people are posting scary fast times on youTube, there is still a lot of potential to reach in comps.


----------



## stoic (Aug 29, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Later down the line (after a lot more experimentation) these things will be ironed out, there will be a set way to hold and turn the cube, specific algs for every part of the solve that everyone will learn, then things will boil down to just flat out how quickly can you do it.


 
Do you really think so? That's quite a depressing thought in a way. Wouldn't it be amazing if someone came along right now and blew the doors off CFOP with a sub-6 Petrus solve (or whatever)? I'd rather see cubing as analogous to a sport like say motor racing where you can have different driver/chassis/engine/driving style combinations racing within fractions of a second of each other. There are plenty of drivers with historically unorthodox styles who have been fast.


----------



## riffz (Aug 29, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Actually, I have to disagree with that. His official solves are generally pretty normal (although there is the occasional ZBLL and xcross), and sometimes he messes up and does an incredibly bad pair. Maybe the ones that have those tricks are the ones that have good times and end up being put on youtube?


 
Yea, I get that feeling more and more. He does all sorts of interesting stuff in walkthrough solves, but after going through all of the reconstructions, most of his competition solves seem pretty normal. However, I think one thing that's not always obvious in reconstructions is how far he looks ahead during inspection.

That said, it's pretty much just a lethal combination of lightning recognition and lookahead, combined with crazy TPS.


----------



## Toquinha1977 (Aug 29, 2011)

This discussion has pretty much outpaced my original expectations (refer to first sentence and message to moderators), especially given my limited exposure to the competitive scene (only one competition outside my local area, zero competitions outside my country), so thanks for the great comments from everyone. 

I would like to apologize for my somewhat alarmist tone in the OP, as doomsayers do tend to be a drag to be around (ClimateChangePeakOilFinancialMarketCrash!). And of course, Feliks has done nothing "wrong" to necessarily warrant an apparent backlash...it's like everything that becomes popular after a long time. It happened to The Beatles, it happened to James Cameron's _Titanic_, and it happens to most of our politicians (although that's likely for different reasons entirely).

I'll admit that a lack of a sub20 avg doesn't lend myself to a ton of credibility in speedsolving circles, so thanks for actually taking this seriously.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 29, 2011)

ellwd said:


> Do you really think so? That's quite a depressing thought in a way. Wouldn't it be amazing if someone came along right now and blew the doors off CFOP with a sub-6 Petrus solve (or whatever)? I'd rather see cubing as analogous to a sport like say motor racing where you can have different driver/chassis/engine/driving style combinations racing within fractions of a second of each other. There are plenty of drivers with historically unorthodox styles who have been fast.


I definitely agree that the diversity of methods makes the speedcubing world much more interesting than everybody oing the same thong. The problem is that it is very hard if not impossible to explain it to the aforementioned 13 year olds; when you try to tell them that there is more than just CFOP; they generally only answer "hey I want to be fast you know", not realizing that these two statements are not contradicting each other at all.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I learned a long time ago that if you compete outwardly, that this is a very unhealthy way to be competitive. If you compete inwardly, that this is a much healthier way to be competitive.


I agre, but on the other hand it's also sad that the people who aren't super fast at 3x3 get almost no recognition or respect. I think a lot of more experienced cubers get the feeling that they've spent all this time, done all this stuff, and yet nobody really cares or is impressed. So then you feel like you need to get faster at 3x3 but you can't, and so on. And I don't really know if there's a fix to this.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2011)

qqwref said:


> sad that the people who aren't super fast at 3x3 get almost no recognition or respect


 
Don't know about respect, but recognition is very easy to get. Take Jorghi for example.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 29, 2011)

While these stabs are justified, they're getting off topic.
Non-speed and non-SpeedSolving.com acts can also get you recognized.

Case: Will Smith.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 29, 2011)

Toquinha1977 said:


> No offense taken.
> 
> Sour grapes? I would _hope_ those that know me don't see me that way. As it is, I do agree with the sentiment that outward competition isn't particularly healthy (perhaps I should've used the words "self-improvement" rather than "self-gratification"), and have accepted that becoming the best at something comes with equal portions of effort, natural talent, and skill/knowledge, and if it starts taking over my life and making me depressed, I should probably try something else or adjust my attitude (or switch to single-player video games). I mean, I some pretty weak showings at my last two comps, only showing marginal improvements in 3x3x3, although I've shown some significant jumps in other areas, which has largely renewed my drive to do better (although my intent is to put more focus into OH, just to shake things up a bit, especially since I'm pretty sure that I peaked in 3x3x3)


 
I wasn't necessarily referring specifically to you with that sour grapes comment, it's more that I can see that as a counterpoint to my argument. And yes, as you said sometimes in competition you only make marginal improvements. I think you should still be excited about these as well, and it would seem that you agree.



qqwref said:


> I agre, but on the other hand it's also sad that the people who aren't super fast at 3x3 get almost no recognition or respect. I think a lot of more experienced cubers get the feeling that they've spent all this time, done all this stuff, and yet nobody really cares or is impressed. So then you feel like you need to get faster at 3x3 but you can't, and so on. And I don't really know if there's a fix to this.


 
Yes I can see what you mean. I often feel that way looking at the semi-final results of a large competition. All the people who just barely do not qualify for the final tend to have very impressive times. Perhaps they got nervous on a solve (making a "slow" solve one of their counting solves) or something similar. I guess people will just have to learn to either move on to a new category, or to feel pride in their performances even if they perceive that others don't give them recognition (or only their close, core group of friends give them recognition). I definitely took the former approach. I used to be somewhat competitive in 3x3x3 speedsolving (circa 2005), but I since was eclipsed so much so that I just moved onto other categories (BLD cubing). This was probably because, at the time, I was competing outwardly and not inwardly. I'm not saying that it was a decision made for good reasons, but I am glad that I did make the decision, because now I enjoy BLD cubing very much (and I compete inwardly now, which I feel is healthier for me).


----------



## Jaycee (Aug 29, 2011)

qqwref said:


> nowadays it feels a bit more like a bunch of 13-year-olds with fast fingers


 
Hmph. I'm 13 and averaging 20!  :/


----------



## JackJ (Aug 29, 2011)

Jaycee said:


> Hmph. I'm 13 and averaging 20!  :/



Exactly his point.


----------



## Jaycee (Aug 29, 2011)

JackJ said:


> Exactly his point.


 
But exactly how many younger cubers (16 or less), are actually fast enough that we know who they are?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2011)

20 seconds isn't fast, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of your PLLs are. I'm not saying every young nub is going to be solving quickly, but it really does seem like almost all of them get obsessed with how fast they can do the T-perm or whatever, and from there it's really only a matter of practice (which few will actually put in, though) to get your sub-10 average.


----------



## Cubetastic (Aug 29, 2011)

To me, right now it seems that all the advancements in cubing are coming from the cubes themselves not really from the cubers, im not saying people arent improving, but the amount of advancements with the guhongs and lubix is amazing


----------



## Jaycee (Aug 29, 2011)

Well, my TPS isn't insanely fast (Averaging ~3.2 on most solves I've reconstructed), but yes, a few of my PLLs are fairly decent. Right now I'm focusing on learning full OLL and getting better PLL algs, and once that's done it'll be fingertrick drilling to improve my LL times. So I guess you're correct in saying that us younger ones tend to focus on TPS, but a few of us do realize that it's look-ahead and recognition that makes or breaks our times. I'm certain if I work on intuitive F2L I'd be much faster.
Sorry if I came off as whiny there, I saw the 13-year old comment and was taken aback at first. >.>

EDIT : Didn't mean to get so off-topic. :/


----------



## Hershey (Aug 29, 2011)

Cubetastic said:


> To me, right now it seems that all the advancements in cubing are coming from the cubes themselves not really from the cubers, im not saying people arent improving, but the amount of advancements with the guhongs and lubix is amazing


 
8.84 avg of 12 and 7.63 avg of 5 done with Alpha V.
7.38 avg of 5 and 5.72 single done with Haiyan Memory.

You really don't need a Dayan cube to get amazing times. These "advancements" can be done with $11 3x3s (and you can mod an Alpha V by yourself).


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 29, 2011)

In one of faz's videos he promotes fast f2l turning instead of going slow and looking ahead.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Aug 29, 2011)

Hopefully the "future of speedcubing" (mainly 3x3) does not necessarily become the "future of CFOP", which it seems to be becoming. I don't think any other method has been explored nearly as much as they should be. After people learn LBL, all I really imagine currently happening is young kids typing "Rubik's cube World Record" into the Youtube search query, seeing Faz's videos (and calling the method Fridrich, which is still "correct" by popular agreement, although CFOP is more precise), and thinking that his method is the fastest and best there is. The similarities between LBL and CFOP makes it an easier transition than from LBL to Roux or Petrus or any other method. What if someone actually took Rouz or ZZ took its limits and found that it is faster than what CFOP currently is, although by a matter of hundredths of a second on average, or case recognition or whatever it may be?

In short, I don't know much about the future competitive speedcubing, and I totally agree with Chris Hardwick's first post in this thread, too. No one knows what the future will be, but we can certainly take a guess. However, I for one desire a more diverse speedcubing community(in terms of what methods cubers use), since it's already pretty obvious that it's growing. Maybe we'll be surprised by what we find when we see people take a deeper look into different methods, techniques, theories, etc.

Since it is impossible to try to foresee the future, we should focus some of our efforts in trying to direct the future. To help diversify the community, and to direct newcomers (newbs), it would be cool if we had some type of "Featured Method of the Week" sort of thing on the Home page of these forums. For example, one week it could be Petrus, and it could give a short history of how it started, its origins, notable users of the method, or simply a redirect to the Wiki page for that method. This shouldn't be limited to just 3x3 methods, but to BLD, 4x4 K4, Gigaminx, Pyraminx, Clock, etc. (sorry if it's not applicable to some of these puzzles, which I'm not familar with, but I'm guessing they might be). That way, newcomers will get a small peek at some other method before they take the plunge and commit to CFOP or some other more popular method.

We should not be afraid of the words "intuitive" or "blockbuilding". Just an idea and some thoughts.


----------



## Hershey (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> In one of faz's videos he promotes fast f2l turning instead of going slow and looking ahead.


 
Really? I thought Feliks' lookahead is great?


----------



## Thompson (Aug 29, 2011)

soon everyone will know all last layer cases so obviously thats going to make people faster


----------



## David Zemdegs (Aug 29, 2011)

In terms of recognition, why is there little mention of the 21 other people who currently have world records and in some cases are breaking their own records regularly too (e.g. 7x7 or 5x5bld)?


----------



## michaelfivez (Aug 29, 2011)

Probably because 3x3 is the 'main' event and that feliks has an very big lead in that event as well as having (former) wr's in events that are also popular (big cubes popularity> sq one,....)


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 29, 2011)

fazdad said:


> In terms of recognition, why is there little mention of the 21 other people who currently have world records and in some cases are breaking their own records regularly too (e.g. 7x7 or 5x5bld)?


 
Your son's 3x3 world record is simply the easiest example to use, and 3x3 is also the most popular and probably most followed event there is. I don't imagine there to be any other real reason. We're by no means trying to insult Feliks or undermine the accomplishment of his world records, here. It's just the easiest one to point to.

It's like in the OP, it says "with_ the likes_ of Feliks Zemdegs dominating..." meaning there indeed are others.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 29, 2011)

Recognition isn't look ahead!


----------



## michaelfivez (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Recognition isn't look ahead!


 
He means recognition as in 'giving credit to'...


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 29, 2011)

michaelfivez said:


> He means recognition as in 'giving credit to'...


 
... If I was referring to him I would have quoted him.

But all you guys are living the lookahead myth!


----------



## JyH (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> ... If I was referring to him I would have quoted him.
> 
> But all you guys are living the lookahead myth!


 
Faz is too. You're the only that's not living the "lookahead myth".


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> But all you guys are living the lookahead myth!


 
Really, you have no clue what you're talking about. Faz has crazy-good lookahead, _and_ he has excellent recognition. Do you honestly think he uses algorithms for every portion of his solve? Besides, look at his world record videos. He actually pauses at OLL/PLL a lot more than he does during F2L (even though it's still like... 0.5 seconds, if). He probably has better look ahead than he does case recognition.

I think it's safe to say you're sure living the "100% algorithmic solution" myth.

P.S. Sorry for the initial post I made. Realise it's offensive. Seems like a mod consequently deleted it.


----------



## Hershey (Aug 29, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> But all you guys are living the lookahead myth!


 
Kirjava isn't turning very fast, yet he still got a 1:22.93 5x5 single?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq3MkBlwAnA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL


----------



## Jungleterrain (Aug 30, 2011)

fazdad said:


> In terms of recognition, why is there little mention of the 21 other people who currently have world records and in some cases are breaking their own records regularly too (e.g. 7x7 or 5x5bld)?


 
You have to realize that Feliks is an inspirational force for a lot of new cubers to start out. Therefore, most of the new cubers know who he is, PLUS 3x3 is the main event at most WCA events and speedcubing in general. A majority have a 3x3 here in the forums, and I would imagine they practice it more than most of their other puzzles. Almost everyone here in the forums is familiar with your son, and I think that's a good thing. He's a role model for the new cubers


----------



## tozies24 (Aug 30, 2011)

Here might be a reason why people jump to the conclusion that the Fridrich Method is "the best method". 

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Road_to_Sub-15_Second_Averages 

Now that we have seen other methods get to sub-15, there could be an expansion to this page, or the page could be moved so it isn't on the front page of the wiki.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 30, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> Here might be a reason why people jump to the conclusion that the Fridrich Method is "the best method".
> 
> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Road_to_Sub-15_Second_Averages
> 
> Now that we have seen other methods get to sub-15, there could be an expansion to this page, or the page could be moved so it isn't on the front page of the wiki.


 
I also think a reason why new cubers automatically assume they should use CFOP is because of BadMephisto's "how to become a speedcuber" video. In which, he basically says that none of the top cubers use Roux, Petrus, or ZZ and said methods shouldn't be used in actual competition.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

Well.. if you can't beat faz with an equal method then he will always be better than you.


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 30, 2011)

> Well.. if you can't beat faz with an equal method then he will always be better than you.



A brick is a brick. But a wall is just a lot of bricks.


----------



## HelpCube (Aug 30, 2011)

a small kitten said:


> A brick is a brick. But a wall is just a lot of bricks.


 
I don't quite understand, but that was beautiful


----------



## David Zemdegs (Aug 30, 2011)

HelpCube said:


> I don't quite understand, but that was beautiful



Pink Floyd?


----------



## RussianWhiteBoi (Aug 30, 2011)

Going back to the first post,


Toquinha1977 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> With the likes of Feliks Zemdegs consistently dominating multiple records, and with the incremental nature in which these records are broken (ie: within fractions of a second), does this contribute to a declining interest in speedsolving in general? Has interest in speedsolving reached its peak, and are we seeing the downward end of the cycle?


 I don't think so. No one has yet discovered God's Algorithm, and that will surely take many years. Of course, there will probably be a barier for the 3x3, but like someone has already mentioned, big cubes have a long way to go. And so does blind and FM


----------



## Hershey (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Well.. if you can't beat faz with an equal method then he will always be better than you.


 
So you think CFOP is better than any other method just because Feliks uses it? You really are ignorant.


----------



## cubeslayer (Aug 30, 2011)

I look forward to the day when the speed cubing limits for the 3x3 are reached ( and I believe that day has come. Faz truly outdid himself with the official 5s solve). But, the " speed solving" focus will likely shift towards the bigger puzzles more--and that's exciting.


----------



## RaresB (Aug 30, 2011)

a small kitten said:


> A brick is a brick. But a wall is just a lot of bricks.


 
Can you explain what you mean I'm actuly interested and it's stuck on my mind. But ot I don't think it's not over I mean look at it so far records keep on being set and broken.


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 30, 2011)

Oh don't worry about what I said. I was just philosophizing with Jorghi.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

ZZ doesn't have much of an advantage. Cfop is nice and simple enough to finish a lot of your solve during inspection, and you can block build the start easily. ZZ might be good if eoline could be sub 1....

Roux is good but nobody does it color neutral?


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> ZZ doesn't have much of an advantage. Cfop is nice and simple enough to finish a lot of your solve during inspection, and you can block build the start easily. ZZ might be good if eoline could be sub 1....
> 
> Roux is good but nobody does it color neutral?


 
Wow, you're ignorant. Have you ever even tried ZZ? Thing is, EOline can be sub-1'd. ZZ also has the advantage of all the edges already being oriented in the last layer making for easy OLL/COLL. ZZ also has what's possibly the sexiest F2L ever. Using just R, U, L with absolutely no cube rotations is seriously underrated. 

Also, being colour neutral generally only saves around 2 - 3 moves on average. Solving Roux saves around 15 moves on average (relative to CFOP - many Roux solvers average 45; many CFOP solvers average 60). 
(There are colour neutral Roux-solvers out there, btw, just not many)
Both methods can also make a lot out of pre-inspection.

Really, there's no way to prove which of our current methods are the best. It's more the cuber, at the moment (and if it ever comes down to methods, they will be separated by very little).


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

Movecount isn't everything. Why make 2 big blocks when f2l is soo much simpler .


And mathematically you can find an un harmed f2l pair during inspection 60% of the time. There is more to it than just moves.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Movecount isn't everything. Why make 2 big blocks when f2l is soo much simpler .
> 
> 
> And mathematically you can find an un harmed f2l pair during inspection 60% of the time. There is more to it than just moves.


 
Two 3x2x1 blocks is simpler than doing full F2L. It's stupid to even suggest otherwise. 

And obviously movecount isn't everything. I never said it was. 
Solve time is dependent on movecount and TPS, so it still is a factor. 15 less moves is consequently still a pretty damn big deal. That being said, fast TPS is also quite important (though, my TPS sucks and I'm almost sub-15). Also, that unharmed free pair is extremely useful in Roux as well. It's no better for CFOP than it is for Roux to find a free pair. 

Also - it's been posted earlier in this forum - being colour neutral saves very few moves on average.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 30, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Could this be some sort of proof that *knowing* the advanced stuff makes the normal stuff so much easier that it improves your times?
> Even in solves where you do not even use the advanced stuff?


 
I definitely agree with this line of thinking. This reminds me of something that Chris Hardwick said back when he was learning ZBF2L. He said that the concentration necessary to be able to lookahead to and recognize the ZBF2L case quickly made normal CFOP solving seem much easier than before, and by extension, making lookahead better.


----------



## Jungleterrain (Aug 30, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I definitely agree with this line of thinking. This reminds me of something that Chris Hardwick said back when he was learning ZBF2L. He said that the concentration necessary to be able to lookahead to and recognize the ZBF2L case quickly made normal CFOP solving seem much easier than before, and by extension, making lookahead better.


 
So it's possible that the more you know, the easier everything you knew before gets?

And I realize we're getting off topic here.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Cfop is nice and simple enough to finish a lot of your solve during inspection, *and you can block build the start easily*.


 


Phlippieskezer said:


> Solving Roux saves around 15 moves on average (relative to CFOP - many Roux solvers average 45; many CFOP solvers average 60).


 


Jorghi said:


> Movecount isn't everything. *Why make 2 big blocks when f2l is soo much simpler* .



lolJorghi. Don't you think you're contradicting yourself here ?


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

Ok.. But why are you guys acting like roux is the legendary solution.. Its just a different form of cfop.. Build, preserve, build.. Then fixing orientation and permutation.

The only decent step is the first, second block..
That is where all the efficiency is from.


We need a fully new way of thinking not ollcp or zbll, or 2gll.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi, do you actually know what CFOP stands for?


----------



## Escher (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Ok.. But why are you guys acting like roux is the legendary solution.. Its just a different form of cfop.. Build, preserve, build.. Then fixing orientation and permutation.


 
CFOP is not the root of all methods...


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

Yes. Do you realize the vast similarities. EOline is just a small example of new solving.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Yes. Do you realize the vast similarities. HTA is just a small example of new solving.


 
HTA, what's that?


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> HTA, what's that?


 
HTW


----------



## Escher (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Yes. Do you realize the vast similarities. EOline is just a small example of new solving.


 
Don't talk down to me. Do you realise the limitations of the puzzle?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2011)

ZZ is closer to CFOP than Roux is.


----------



## Hershey (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi, how old are you and how long have you been cubing?


----------



## Meep (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Ok.. But why are you guys acting like roux is the legendary solution.. Its just a different form of cfop.. Build, preserve, build.. Then fixing orientation and permutation.
> 
> The only decent step is the first, second block..
> That is where all the efficiency is from.
> ...


 
They're not acting like it's the legendary solution, they're just making a point.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2011)

lol people think god's alg would be useful for speedsolving


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 30, 2011)

cubeslayer said:


> I look forward to the day when the speed cubing limits for the 3x3 are reached ( and I believe that day has come. Faz truly outdid himself with the official 5s solve).


 
You can't seriously think Feliks' 5.66 is the limit for 3x3. Plenty of people have had solves below that, and in the future Feliks and others will most definitely pass it officially.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 30, 2011)

Please bring the discussion back on topic or this thread will be closed.


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 30, 2011)

waffle=ijm said:


> I believe that there will be a spike in interest but a decline in "lifespan" for cubers. What I'm trying to say is, with all the resources (websites, videos, tutorials, hardware) out there at this time, almost anybody can be fast. This I feel is really appealing to people and spark an interest. In fact maybe they will even get sub-20 and faster. It's a great way to impress people. But despite this, a lot of people just don't put the time and effort to becoming faster or use fewer moves or just plain attending a competition. since they expect things and not having certain results.
> 
> *We have nubs coming into the community (not a bad thing to be a nub, we all were at point even faznub).* They show a flare for cubing but they expect instant gratification. And when they don't get it, they just give up at times. Most nubs do.


 
Thank you for pointing out that we were all nubs once and people should stop flaming nubs that have just joined the forum. Its not exactly a warm welcome.

On topic: I think speedcubing may not reach a peak for a long, long time. The amount of information, software, and connection to other cubers is to vast for it to just suddenly decline. Its only been going 8 years.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

Yeah, I think the smaller puzzles might meet "limits" in times (i.e. 2x2 and Magic seem to be there/close already), but the bigger puzzles/BLD will still be going on for a while, since I think it's safe to say we haven't met the human limit for things like big cubes, for example.


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Movecount isn't everything. Why make 2 big blocks when f2l is soo much simpler .
> 
> 
> And mathematically *you can find an un harmed f2l pair during inspection 60% of the time.* There is more to it than just moves.


 
Is this true? I am not saying you're wrong, it just seems weird. I dont seem to get them 60% of the time.


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> Is this true? I am not saying you're wrong, it just seems weird. I dont seem to get them 60% of the time.


 
Then you aren't color neutral.


----------



## Toquinha1977 (Aug 30, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Please bring the discussion back on topic or this thread will be closed.


 
I'll do my best.

While 5.66 isn't necessarily the "limit", there are physical and mental limits, which are as of yet undetermined. Someone's already designed a robot capable of solving a Rubik's Cube in 12 seconds from any position, which could theoretically go faster if using the most optimal solution, but is currently limited by the hardware (processor speed, the fact that it's mechanically made out of Lego, which would mean it could fly apart if it went too fast). 

As a minor aside, I am curious as to what would happen if individuals with specific mental traits (eg: Aspergers Syndrome, Autistic Savant Syndrome), physical mutations (eg: fully functional polydactyly), or enhancement (off-label use of ADHD medication like Adderal or Ritalin) were able to benefit from those things as far as speedsolving is concerned. We hear about individuals who have severe psychological deficits that prevent them from leading normal lives (eg: don't learn to talk until they turn 8 years old), yet have bizarre abilities like being able to memorize a phone book and create an accurate map of a city from a single helicopter fly-over. 

If records were made by such individuals, would they start doing the Barry Bonds thing where they put an asterisk next the person's name? Or would they start testing people for ritalin, making peeing in a cup mandatory at all WCA competitions?

Another minor aside...I contacted number cruncher Daniel Tammet (look up _The Boy with the Amazing Brain_ on YouTube) and asked him if he would be able to use his mathematical abilities to determine optimal solutions for the 3x3x3 (or any other puzzle), and sadly he's never actually had an interest in them, so he couldn't tell me.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 30, 2011)

I have asperger's, and have an extreme memory. It's all execution mistakes in BLD. I never said a word until 4 when I had to have speech haha

I doubt they would put a * next to their name, there's just no point. 

Also, I'm surprised Daniel never had an interest in the cube, it seems as though he would have at some point.


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Then you aren't color neutral.



I am colour neutral actually. And that has nothing to do with the probability of getting an F2L pair straight after cross. So dont say things that aren't true.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 30, 2011)

Actually it is true. If you are color neutral, thr odds of finding a CE pair during inspection is what Jorghi said, around 60%


----------



## qqwref (Aug 30, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Ok.. But why are you guys acting like roux is the legendary solution.. Its just a different form of cfop.. Build, preserve, build.. Then fixing orientation and permutation.


AHAHAHA LMFAO WOW


PS: I think Roux can be almost exactly as fast as Fridrich, at least in 2h solving. I think in 5-10 years we will see world-class Roux solvers who are on par with the top CFOPers.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 30, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> I have an extreme memory.


 
Can you describe that a bit more?


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 30, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Actually it is true. If you are color neutral, thr odds of finding a CE pair during inspection is what Jorghi said, around 60%


 
Not after cross because then you have picked your colour lul.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Can you describe that a bit more?



theZcuber 
Premium Member 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date May 2011 
Location *I forgot* 
Posts 518


----------



## Jorghi (Aug 30, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> Not after cross because then you have picked your colour lul.


 
... Do you understand we said during inspection? So after nothing.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

qqwref said:


> PS: I think Roux can be almost exactly as fast as Fridrich, at least in 2h solving. I think in 5-10 years we will see world-class Roux solvers who are on par with the top CFOPers.


 
Similarly, I think there soon (as in, 5-10 years, so not too soon, mind you ) will be a number of world-class ZZ solvers, both OH and 2H. 

PS: Totally off-topic, but: I want to see the OH WR be broken by a Roux solver now. That would be so awesome. 

PSS: Guys... We're straying off topic again (as am I).


----------



## IamWEB (Aug 30, 2011)

3x3x3 still has a ways to go with limit-reaching. 2x2x2 could advance a bit more.



Cubenovice said:


> Stefan said:
> 
> 
> > Can you describe that a bit more?
> ...


 
XD


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

IamWEB said:


> 3x3x3 still has a ways to go with limit-reaching. 2x2x2 could advance a bit more.


 
Well, in terms of 2x2 singles, I don't think it's going to go very far. There are already 3 people sharing the WR single. The average is also already very low, though I guess that could certainly improve, though probably not by much.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 30, 2011)

Eventually someone will get a 0.5ish 2x2 single.

Also: eventually someone will get a 3-4ish sq1 single. Sufficiently easy scrambles definitely do pop up.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 30, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> Well, in terms of 2x2 singles, I don't think it's going to go very far. There are already 3 people sharing the WR single. The average is also already very low, though I guess that could certainly improve, though probably not by much.


 
What's to stop us from getting a ridiculously lucky scramble, say 1 move from solved? Is there anything in the regulations that provides for removing such a scramble? I know that a number of years ago, a very short scramble (3 moves, if I remember right?) was removed by someone very respected (was it Ron? I don't remember), which kept the record from being ridiculously low years earlier. I would think with a 1-move-from-solved scramble, we'd easily see sub-0.5, and probably sub-0.3.

Does the random-state generator for 2x2x2 prevent a solved cube?


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Aug 30, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> What's to stop us from getting a ridiculously lucky scramble, say 1 move from solved? Is there anything in the regulations that provides for removing such a scramble? I know that a number of years ago, a very short scramble (3 moves, if I remember right?) was removed by someone very respected (was it Ron? I don't remember), which kept the record from being ridiculously low years earlier. I would think with a 1-move-from-solved scramble, we'd easily see sub-0.5, and probably sub-0.3.
> 
> Does the random-state generator for 2x2x2 prevent a solved cube?


 
So, it's essentially just going to be up to luck to give us a nice scramble in order to beat the world record...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 30, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> So, it's essentially just going to be up to luck to give us a nice scramble in order to beat the world record...


 
That's why I guess I'd prefer to see some sort of arbitrary limit as to the minimum number of moves from solved. Since we're using a random state generator, it wouldn't be that hard to do that - especially with 2x2x2.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> That's why I guess I'd prefer to see some sort of arbitrary limit as to the minimum number of moves from solved. Since we're using a random state generator, it wouldn't be that hard to do that - especially with 2x2x2.



I suppose there is something like a minimum length included in the WCA scramblers but even set at 7 HTM this could give ridicolous scramble...
How about getting a 2x2x2 that is Sune way from being solved and how are you ever going to prevent this?

Delegates hand-picking the easy / well known alg cases out?
oh wait, delegates should not look into the scrambles as they typically are competitors...


----------



## cubernya (Aug 30, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> theZcuber
> Premium Member
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Join Date May 2011
> ...



LOL that's a good explaination. 

I don't really know how to describe it, I can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes, remember small changes others would't be able to find, etc. 
If you really want more depth, PM me and I'll try my best to explain it (it's complicated)


----------



## Cheese11 (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Eventually someone will get a 0.5ish 2x2 single.
> 
> Also: eventually someone will get a 3-4ish sq1 single. Sufficiently easy scrambles definitely do pop up.


 
But they might pop up with someone that doesn't realize it.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 1, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> I suppose there is something like a minimum length included in the WCA scramblers but even set at 7 HTM this could give ridicolous scramble...
> How about getting a 2x2x2 that is Sune way from being solved and how are you ever going to prevent this?
> 
> Delegates hand-picking the easy / well known alg cases out?
> oh wait, delegates should not look into the scrambles as they typically are competitors...



I think the possibility of stupid easy scrambles for 2x2 should just be accepted. It's a part of the puzzle. And really, with 2x2 there isn't an effective way to draw a line that wouldn't just result in competitors receiving nothing but the hardest positions. We are getting close enough to physical limit with the puzzle as it is. The same goes for Pyraminx.


I'm not going to bother making any statement regarding the future of 3x3 solving. Not only does it not interest me anyway, but predictions of all kinds regarding 3x3 are made so often, and any prediction I could make myself would likely end up with myself sounding dumb, either now, or in a year.
As for bigcubes, I definitely believe we have a long way to go. My feeling on this, a feeling shared by Stachu as shown in his 4x4 FMC thread, is that we just do not have the greatest speedsolving methods that we should be able to come up with. Not that I think we do for 3x3, but I think there is much farther to go with bigcubes. They are just not as well explored as the 3x3 is. I do not see improvement at bigcubes halting any time soon.




theZcuber said:


> Actually it is true. *If you are color neutral*, thr odds of finding a CE pair during inspection is what Jorghi said, around 60%


 
Whether you are color neutral or not does not affect the scramble.... The probability of a scramble having a corner-edge pair is exactly the same either way. (This comment is just as much directed at Jorghi as it is you.)



theZcuber said:


> I don't really know how to describe it, *I can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes*, remember small changes others would't be able to find, etc.
> If you really want more depth, PM me and I'll try my best to explain it (it's complicated)


 
I did that with the first 50 decimal places of pi four years ago. I still remember them perfectly today. And yet remembering memo for a single 3x3BLD is still difficult for me sometimes.... >:S


----------



## cubernya (Sep 1, 2011)

Pi isn't just a random number. I memorized that to around 500 digits in an hour


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 1, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> *Pi isn't just a random number.* I memorized that to around 500 digits in an hour


 
It is still a string of digits that seems perfectly random to someone who hasn't looked at it before. 

But anyway, I wasn't saying that trying to act like I have a better memory than you. It was more of a random vent about the fact that I fail at remembering BLD memo even though I still remember those pi digits after four years. 
And regardless it would be pretty dumb to take a memory "feat"(lol) that I randomly did in a 7th grade math class, and act like it in any way represents the way my brain works right now 

EDIT: K, I just helped go off topic. I won't post about this again.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 1, 2011)

Yeah Chris warned us about going off topic. Lets stop this discussion about my memory now


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> So, it's essentially just going to be up to luck to give us a nice scramble in order to beat the world record...


It's been up to luck for a long time.



Cheese11 said:


> But they might pop up with someone that doesn't realize it.


So we wait for another one. I said "eventually"  And remember, everyone in a round gets to try the same scramble, so you just need one person with decent turning abilities to get lucky.



uberCuber said:


> My feeling on this, a feeling shared by Stachu as shown in his 4x4 FMC thread, is that we just do not have the greatest speedsolving methods that we should be able to come up with. Not that I think we do for 3x3, but I think there is much farther to go with bigcubes. They are just not as well explored as the 3x3 is. I do not see improvement at bigcubes halting any time soon.


Personally I've investigated a whole bunch of methods (for speed) and I think Reduction (and Yau for 4x4 only) is pretty much near the limit of how fast the puzzle can be solved by a human. Over time people are going to discover more little tricks like they did for F2L, but I think the basic approach will remain the same.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> So we wait for another one. I said "eventually"  And remember, everyone in a round gets to try the same scramble, so you just need one person with decent turning abilities to get lucky.


 
Perfect example of this is 2x2 single. There's a reason why Erik, Rowe, and Vincent were able to get under a second, aside from being phenomenal at 2x2. There's luck involved, and as we see here, it tends to go around at infrequent intervals (1.75 years the first time the record was tied, and 0.5 years the second).

Going back to young cubers pushing for TPS, I can't agree more. As one of the "younger cubers" as I am under sixteen, it really pains me to see people solving super fast with huge pauses. It's what I did, and I regret it. When you do that, you just have to wait and hope the gaps get shorter. It wasn't until I slowed my turning a little bit and actually watched the pieces move and noted what was transpiring in regards to the other pieces that I fully understood what "look-ahead" was.
Additionally, some look-ahead can be instantaneous. During OLL, the pi case for corners can be any of six different cases. For a good number of those cases, I can start the alg for the OLL and from what I remember of the permutation of the corners, predict corner permutation for PLL. It's little things like this that help one better understand a puzzle. As Sarah Strong's signature says/said, it's not just about look-ahead. It's also about know-ahead.


----------



## macky (Sep 1, 2011)

I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in qq's and others' posts regarding the younger cubers. This is our Eternal September. Some related readings: by me and by Vincent Sheu. As for Feliks, the reaction to his dominance is one motivation for Nakajima's comeback...look for it in the interview to come.

At the same time, as I've written elsewhere, I think that this new cubing style and the evolution in hardware have suggested and made possible previously unexplored lines of investigation in speedcubing theory. It's an exciting time as ever to be a developer.


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Also: eventually someone will get a 3-4ish sq1 single. Sufficiently easy scrambles definitely do pop up.


 
This is something that bothers me. Should there ever be a point where we should step in and say it was too easy? My last two averages of 100 had a 2 and 3 second solve in respectively, with ~6 slice solutions. These were scrambles that people who averaged 30 plus seconds could've got sub-10 on. Maybe we need a random state scrambler...


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 1, 2011)

I do not think that scrambles should be filtered unless they are solved (completely or +2).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I do not think that scrambles should be filtered unless they are solved (completely or +2).


 
I'm just curious, what's your reasoning behind this choice?

I guess this could be worded that the puzzle must be scrambled into an unsolved state. Is that your reasoning? I guess that makes it non-arbitrary, which is nice. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't pick an arbitrary value instead, and it would still be reasonable. Say, a minimum of 3, 4, or 5 moves from solved.

The current WR for 2x2x2 singles is something like 4 moves from solved (for at least one of them), right? So it seems like it would be a little unfair to make the minimum number of moves from solved higher than that now. I'm not looking for a very large number; I could be persuaded to agree with Kirjava, but my gut feeling is that a few moves away would be nicer.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 1, 2011)

I definitely agree with Thom. Basically anything that isn't solved (2+ moves away from being solved) should be accepted.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 1, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I guess this could be worded that the puzzle must be scrambled into an unsolved state. Is that your reasoning? I guess that makes it non-arbitrary, which is nice.



Of course.



Mike Hughey said:


> But I don't see any reason why we couldn't pick an arbitrary value instead, and it would still be reasonable. Say, a minimum of 3, 4, or 5 moves from solved.



There are some 7 move scrambles that would be kept that would be considered easier than 5 moves scrambles that would be removed.



Mike Hughey said:


> The current WR for 2x2x2 singles is something like 4 moves from solved (for at least one of them), right? So it seems like it would be a little unfair to make the minimum number of moves from solved higher than that now. I'm not looking for a very large number; I could be persuaded to agree with Kirjava, but my gut feeling is that a few moves away would be nicer.



I don't see what the problem is in the first place. If it comes down to whoever can execute two moves the fastest when that case comes up, so be it.

This issue only really affects 2x2x2 single, which is (and always will be) regarded as something that relies heavily on luck.


----------



## BruceCubing28 (Sep 1, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> LOL that's a good explaination.
> 
> I don't really know how to describe it, I can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes, remember small changes others would't be able to find, etc.
> If you really want more depth, PM me and I'll try my best to explain it (it's complicated)


 
i have a few things to say. firstly theZcuber thats not a good memory. i also have aspergers. i can memorise several hundred digits in a few minutes. i also have some other wierd "talents" that im not going to go into.

ok stay on topic luke...
as too reaching the limit of speed. a cfop hybrid will be the fastest method. eventually it will become impossible for humans to solve the cube faster. i agree that we are quickly approaching that time. as to how fast we can go is anyones guess.
but as for people still being intrested in speedcubing 5 years or more from now. i cant see why people wouldnt be. i will still be interested. also dont forget that the ammount of cubers on wca for 3x3 has pretty much doubled in the past 2 years. how many of that amount are still cubing is unknown.
well my fear is that cubing will become another "fad" that everyone does.


----------



## cubernya (Sep 1, 2011)

> firstly theZcuber thats not a good memory



Really? I can honestly remember my 3OP memo from around a week ago (my only successful solve)


----------



## Jorghi (Sep 1, 2011)

Too bad look ahead is limited by recognition xD

And there is a difference between short and long term memory


----------



## BruceCubing28 (Sep 1, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Really? I can honestly remember my 3OP memo from around a week ago (my only successful solve)


 
"i can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes" <i was referring to that.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Sep 1, 2011)

Some stats:

Number of competitors per year (only counted once)

2003: 91
2004: 205
2005: 549
2006: 844
2007: 1497
2008: 3020
2009: 5102
2010: 6295
2011: 5422 (so far)


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 1, 2011)

BruceCubing28 said:


> i can memorise several hundred digits in a few minutes.


 
Next meetup/comp I'm teaching you BLD, with numbers as the memo system. You can sub 1 Yperm and Tperm, so I'll teach you Old Pochmann. Now, 1 cube = about 20 digits (though some pieces can't be covered with one digit so maybe 30 digits. Then we'll move onto multi.... oh the possibilities.(ps you have no say in your learning.)


----------



## Jungleterrain (Sep 1, 2011)

fazdad said:


> Some stats:
> 
> Number of competitors per year (only counted once)
> 
> ...


 
And that's only the people in competitions. How many that actually speedsolve around the world? I've never gone to a competition.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 2, 2011)

I think it's interesting that so soon after the discussion here on easy scrambles, my copied version of the official scrambler generated this for the first 2x2x2 scramble for the weekly competition this week.


Spoiler



2x2x2
1. R2 F' R' U2


----------



## Johan444 (Sep 2, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> This is something that bothers me. Should there ever be a point where we should step in and say it was too easy? My last two averages of 100 had a 2 and 3 second solve in respectively, with ~6 slice solutions. These were scrambles that people who averaged 30 plus seconds could've got sub-10 on. Maybe we need a random state scrambler...


 
From what I've understood, delegates do step in and remove scrambles that are too easy. Depending on who you have as a delegate will decide if a scramble will be removed or not.

This arbitrary removal of scrambles is bothering (understatement) me too. Obvious reasons.

It would be appreciated if someone could point out what rule this is based off. Is it existent?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 2, 2011)

To my knowledge, the only time a delegate has stepped in and removed a scramble was done several years ago, and I think it was Ron who did it (I'm not sure about this - I can't remember, but I know it was a 2x2x2 scramble). As far as I can tell, there are no provisions in the rules allowing a delegate to do this now, so it really should not be allowed under the current rules. Am I wrong?


----------



## Pedro (Sep 2, 2011)

You're right, Mike.

Delegates are not allowed to do that. Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"

I thought about it and while it was a lucky scramble, it could have happened to anyone, anywhere. Also, how do we know something similar didn't happen yet?

Since the scramble was generated by cubeexplorer, makes no sense to remove it just because it was easy. If it was a speed 3x3 scramble, it wouldn't be that easy.

My point is: different solving methods/events have different definitions of luck. How are we going to rule this? A scramble like that is easy for bld, but not for speed of FM solving. A cross almost done, but not aligned, is easy for speed, but not for bld.

If a 2-move 2x2 scramble pops up, what are going to do? It is a state of the puzzle, so it's valid. 2x2 single doesn't mean much anyway (Erik has single WR but only 24th avg).


----------



## riffz (Sep 2, 2011)

Pedro said:


> Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"


 
:O Was that your NR?


----------



## jonlin (Sep 3, 2011)

I'll give you something to think about. Fazrulz has broken the barrier of 6 seconds. No one else has ever done that before. Honest, I actually saw 5.36 lucky scramble and thought, whoa! this kid is beast! (N0 0ff3ns3 im a kid. i was trying to find that 5.66 official scramble and found it. I was really impressed because he could get under 6 seconds no one else has been ever acheving that(only on lucas garron's scramble).

Is his time one thing that we should be excited, or just give up with it altogether?:confused:


----------



## TMOY (Sep 3, 2011)

What point are you trying to make exactly ? Yeah, some random guy got a sub-WR single on a lucky solve. Great news. It has only happened about a zillion times so far.


----------



## Hovair (Sep 3, 2011)

Whats so bad about feliks. He is just a talented speedcuber. He has maybe broke limits but That doesnt mean that we can to. If more people Practise like feliks then maybe speedcubing could maybe last forever


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 3, 2011)

Hovair said:


> He has maybe broke limits but That doesnt mean that we cant to.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 3, 2011)

jonlin said:


> I'll give you something to think about. Fazrulz has broken the barrier of 6 seconds. No one else has ever done that before.


Nobody's done it before _in competition_. Actually, a lot of people have done sub-6 and even sub-5 with some luck, and quite a few other fast people have done sub-6 without luck. As far as 3x3 goes, Feliks is way ahead of others in competition, but he is not the only one who can perform like that in practice.

In fact, I think one of Feliks's big advantages over other fast cubers is that he doesn't do as badly in competition. I know of people who can sub-8 avg12 at home but struggle to even get a sub-10 average officially.


----------



## Cheese11 (Sep 5, 2011)

Hovair said:


> If more people Practise like feliks then maybe speedcubing could maybe last forever



I don't think it matters how fast someone is, anyone could lose interest in cubing.


----------



## Cheese11 (Sep 5, 2011)

Pedro said:


> Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"


 
So just a JPerm then te corners were done?


----------



## Hershey (Sep 5, 2011)

Hovair said:


> He is just a talented speedcuber. He has maybe broke limits but That doesnt mean that we can to.


 
Are you saying that none of us can match or rival Feliks? GRRRRR!
This is exactly what Nakaji wanted to change in the community (we shouldn't have the negative attitude that no one can match Feliks). If Feliks can get like 7.5 average or less, than so can we. He is a human after all.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 5, 2011)

Hershey said:


> He is a human after all.


 
In theory. 

But, yeah, I agree. He is talented, though.


----------



## Hershey (Sep 5, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> In theory.



:fp


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 5, 2011)

Hershey said:


> :fp


 






Surely you realise I was being sarcastic? I put the winking smiley there for a reason. >.<


----------



## Hershey (Sep 5, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> Surely you realise I was being sarcastic? I put the winking smiley there for a reason. >.<


 
I just hate the "Feliks is not a human" jokes.


----------



## Toquinha1977 (Sep 5, 2011)

Sure, Feliks is more than likely human, and just happens to be extremely exceptional at what he does. One thing I also realize is that cubing involves a lot fewer people than organized sports, as there are probably more people involved in one competitive sport world wide than there are cubers, so yeah, the next Feliks is probably out there. He/she just hasn't picked up a cube yet.

But as it grows, the rules will probably have to get a lot stricter, much like professional sports. I'm not really looking forward to a time when they a list of banned substances for cubers, which could include ADHD medication (Ritalin, Concerta, Adderal, etc., which would suck if the cuber actually did have a legitimate prescription for ADHD medication), supplemental boosters (omega 3 supplements, ginkgo, ginseng), and caffeine. Mind you, while solving in a Starbucks, my times were getting progressively worse and worse the more coffee I drank.


----------



## evogler (Sep 7, 2011)

21 of the top 25 official averages were recorded this year. 2 people recorded sub7's in the last couple of weeks. This seems to me like a particularly exciting time for speedcubing.


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 7, 2011)

Feliks also got a sub-7 in the last few weeks >_>


----------



## Joël (Sep 7, 2011)

I only read the first post, but I'd like to share my thoughts on this.

I don't think for a moment that the progress is going to come to a halt anytime soon. Obviously, the progress is slowing down, which is only natural when approaching a limit. I think there are many methods/variations unexplored (by unexplored I mean there are not 1000's of people who have been doing it, the same way regular CFOP has been "explored"). I've seen a continuing 'evolution' in the CFOP methods and algs (more and more tricks for special cases) that are used, and I have no reason to expect this to stop.

I also don't think that we have seen the best possible speedcube yet. Technologically speaking, there are good possibilities unexplored (like linking cubes to computers to analyse solves/sessions, and make practice sessions more efficient), and I have no reason to believe that they will stay unexplored. I expect technological improvements to continue to help speedcubers get better.

I don't really get why getting closer to the limit should somehow be a sign that there is going to be a decline in speedcubing. There does seem to be a decline in the popularity in cubing (based on google trends), but I don't see why this should be related in the WR becomming harder to beat.

Anyway, those were my 2 cents. Back to work! 

When I started cubing, the WR was 12.11 for a single solve (Macky ). Everybody knew it could be done faster, but most people at that time agreed that sub-10 averages were probably not possible for humans... At the time, I agreed too. That's why I am not going to make any predictions about what's possible.


----------



## Arkwell (Nov 27, 2011)

Just like tennis and the wood racket one of these days when we use Carbon Fiber cubes with built in timers and Friction ratings rather than Lube we will be talking about the days when Feliks used to use a plastic cube that he had to lube himself to get a 5.66. Cubing will have it's ups and downs but walk down any street in any country with a cube in hand and you'll be asked if you can do it and how fast. Competitions will go up and down but I can't see a time where everyone will lose interest and no one will want to know 'who's the fastest'.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 28, 2011)

Toquinha1977 said:


> Sure, Feliks is more than likely human, and just happens to be extremely exceptional at what he does. One thing I also realize is that cubing involves a lot fewer people than organized sports, as there are probably more people involved in one competitive sport world wide than there are cubers, so yeah, the next Feliks is probably out there. He/she just hasn't picked up a cube yet.
> 
> But as it grows, the rules will probably have to get a lot stricter, much like professional sports. I'm not really looking forward to a time when they a list of banned substances for cubers, which could include ADHD medication (Ritalin, Concerta, Adderal, etc., which would suck if the cuber actually did have a legitimate prescription for ADHD medication), supplemental boosters (omega 3 supplements, ginkgo, ginseng), and caffeine. Mind you, while solving in a Starbucks, my times were getting progressively worse and worse the more coffee I drank.


 
I don't think tatcaffeine will be bannd anytime soon. If it is, peopl ecan drink caffeine without everyone knowing very easily.


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 28, 2011)

fastcubesolver said:


> I don't think tatcaffeine will be bannd anytime soon. If it is, peopl ecan drink caffeine without everyone knowing very easily.


 
You and your Mountain Dew addiction. 

I have to be properly caffeinated to cube well.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Nov 28, 2011)

Specs112 said:


> You and your Mountain Dew addiction.
> 
> I have to be properly caffeinated to cube well.


 
 Me and Rowe.


----------

