# Speedcubing - What are the limits?



## rubikmaster (Sep 30, 2012)

Every year we keep setting new records and every year we find many more cubers with amazing talent. Cubers are getting faster and faster every day. Where does it stop? What do you think? 

I decided to do a bit of searching on the forums before posting this thread and I saw a similar thread to this which was posted about 4 years ago and people were wondering when will we reach the sub-10 mark. It seemed as if it was almost impossible back then and now, just 4 years later, we have 7 second averages. Currently, 5 second averages seem impossible to us, but who knows, it could happen in just about 5 or 6 years, maybe even sooner. My question is what do you think are the limits? How much can we practice and improve the dexterity of our fingers, the speed of our thoughts, the capacity of our memory, the speed of our eyes? 

Will future generations have much better capabilities than us? But then again evolution is a very slow process and cubing might even "die out" within a few decades, just like it did back in the 80's but this time it wouldn't come back 15-20 years later (I don't really know when the cube lost and gained it's popularity again so correct me if I'm wrong). It may even die in 10-15 years forever leaving no crazy new world records. But just how much can we practice and how much can we improve our capabilities? How far can we go with new and faster cubing methods? How many algorithms can we memorize for solving the cube? Will there be cubers one day averaging sub-5, sub-4?! Not just with 3x3. How far can we go with BLD, big cubes, feet solving, one-handed, etc.? 

Well, I don't know the answer to these questions and you probably don't know the answer either. But I would just like to see your thoughts and predictions about this? I will also put up a poll on how far you think we can go with 3x3. I'm a pretty realistic person so I think the furthest we can go with 3x3 averages is sub-7, maybe sub-6 in 10 or 20 years but no further than that. So tell me, what do you think about all of this? I find this a very interesting topic so I would really like to see what you have to say about this.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 1, 2012)

No lower than sub 6. If we create a really good method with easy reconition and no more 100 algs that could be really fast. I only believe that cubing will grow because more and more people are starting to realize that this is not impossible and how easy and how much fun this is. I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.


----------



## rubikmaster (Oct 1, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> No lower than sub 6. If we create a really good method with easy reconition and no more 100 algs that could be really fast. I only believe that cubing will grow because more and more people are starting to realize that this is not impossible and how easy and how much fun this is. I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.



I completely agree with you.


----------



## Escher (Oct 1, 2012)

Personally, I think that Roux will become the method of choice for extreme-speed in around 3-4 years. The lower move-count average is just too powerful when it comes to the limits of turning speed and lookahead, vs CFOP. The added fact that LSE can be viewed as a wholly intuitive step that can be built on with years of experience and practise without learning any 'new' algorithms makes it so good compared to simply learning more and more '1LLL' cases like CFOP. I would expect that 9tps is around the limit for Roux, along with a roughly 45 average move count.

For other events, I actually think BLD single is fairly close to the speed limit - sub 20 might be possible for an insane few. Maskow is showing how ridiculous multi-BLD can be so I don't pretend to know how far that can go. I reckon a 10s average for OH is pretty reachable in time. Larger cubes are still too limited by technology to really know, and I think the same probably goes with Megaminx (the new Dayan should be exciting)... In short, cube technology can get much, much better to really know.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 1, 2012)

Well, since "sub-6" means anything below 6, I would definitely agree that we can never get lower than sub-6.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 1, 2012)

I agree with everything Escher said, with the exception that I hope (and want to expect..) an entirely new method step up for 3x3.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 1, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> Well, since "sub-6" means anything below 6, I would definitely agree that we can never get lower than sub-6.



The sub-5.99 category is lower than the sub-6 category.


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 1, 2012)

Didn't some people do some tests showing that using average movecounts for certain methods (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, etc) and I specifically remember them saying that sub4 on CFOP (60-65 average HTM) would actually start to melt the plastic?

i.e., ~12+ tps = no more plastic cube


----------



## Hunter (Oct 1, 2012)

That would be interesting to see. People would have to cool their cubes before every sub-4 solve as to let them warm up in those 4 seconds without melting. xD


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm going to guess that 3x3 averages will not get below 5.01 seconds (so 5.01-5.99 range.) Feliks has shown that singles in that range are easily achievable, even with NL solves. 

While I am partial to CFOP, Roux probably is the way of the future, unless there is a method that exceeds even that, but the only one I could imagine would be Snyder, but I'm not aware of how well that one is.

In short, it'll be interesting to see the progress that we make.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 1, 2012)

the limit is 0.0000000000000... ...00000001 well it more likey to be 1 maybe there is none those 4x4+ has more to improve on maybe (the world record is 3x slower than 3x3)


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 1, 2012)

Stefan said:


> The sub-5.99 category is lower than the sub-6 category.



:fp The sub- 6 is sub -5.99
sub- 7 is 6.00-6.999
sub-6 is 5.00-5.99
sub-5 is 4.00-4.99
and so on


----------



## Akiro (Oct 1, 2012)

I'd say no lower than 5 sec averages.



ducttapecuber said:


> The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.


I don't agree. They still pop sometimes and I think that it's possible to create a 3x3 that really never pops.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 1, 2012)

already1329 said:


> There is no sub-5.99 category.



There sure is.



ducttapecuber said:


> :fp The sub- 6 is sub -5.99
> sub- 7 is 6.00-6.999
> sub-6 is 5.00-5.99
> sub-5 is 4.00-4.99
> and so on



Don't see what you're trying to say. Clarify?

And no, sub-x means below x, for example 3.14 is sub-6.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 1, 2012)

Akiro said:


> .I don't agree. They still pop sometimes and I think that it's possible to create a 3x3 that really never pops.



My Guhong v2 has never popped! Well if there ever is to be a better cube its not going to be by much, not like a Rubik's brand to a Guhong v2 instead its probably going to be like Guhong v1 to Guhong v2. There is difference yes, enough to notice yes, but not that jurstic.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 1, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> My Guhong has never popped! Well if there ever is to be a better cube its not going to be by much, not like a Rubik's brand to a Guhong v2 instead its probably going to be like Guhong v1 to Guhong v2. There is difference yes, enough to notice yes, but not that jurstic.



My Guhong V1 pops occasionally. My Zhanchi has never popped on me though.


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 1, 2012)

my zhanchi pops. With and without torpedoes


----------



## tx789 (Oct 1, 2012)

Stefan said:


> There sure is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




THere a sub 5.548978904 category just sub 6 is significant one sub 30 sub 20 sub 15 sub 10 sub 9 sub 8 sub 7 sub 6 ect are ones on 3x3
but sub 17.3 isn't that significant


----------



## F perm (Oct 1, 2012)

I'd say it's at about 2, which I derive from the rough calculation of 10 tps and 20 moves, but this is the max, and could never be surpassed.


----------



## Dene (Oct 1, 2012)

sub2


----------



## JasonK (Oct 1, 2012)

This thread demonstrates why I think "sub-x" needs to be used less...

On topic: I don't see how there can be a true 'limit', if someone gets to it, do you really think it'd be impossible to get 0.01 seconds faster? I think it's more a case of improvement getting slower and slower, with tiny improvements always being possible but becoming crazily rare and difficult.


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 1, 2012)

F perm said:


> I'd say it's at about 2, which I derive from the rough calculation of 10 tps and 20 moves, but this is the max, and could never be surpassed.



I dont think 20 moves is achievable. What i fidn realistic though is

-better cubes
-more tps (like 12 or so)
-better methods, less moves (full ZBLL? i think either way sub40 on average is possible, if not even lower) -Roux/Petrus as future's methods? maybe a complete new one? (Triangular Francisco! :O)


----------



## cubecraze1 (Oct 1, 2012)

Petro Leum said:


> I dont think 20 moves is achievable. What i fidn realistic though is
> 
> sub40 on average is possible, if not even lower



iirc 5bld averages around 40 moves a solve?


----------



## brunovervoort (Oct 1, 2012)

I think it will take 1-2 years until Feliks, 5BLD, Mars or someone else will get a sub 6 average of 12.


----------



## already1329 (Oct 1, 2012)

Stefan said:


> There sure is.



Not in the poll.


----------



## Mnts (Oct 1, 2012)

In BLD solves I believe sub-20 will be posible if there will be developed 5cycle method to solve 4 pieces at once.


----------



## irontwig (Oct 1, 2012)

Mnts said:


> In BLD solves I believe sub-20 will be posible if there will be developed 5cycle method to solve 4 pieces at once.



That sounds highly unlikely; all 3-cycles are fairly easy to work out, while 5-cycles are not and there's a crapton more of them.


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 1, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> iirc 5bld averages around 40 moves a solve?



Yeah, but thats with roux, and with "perfect" roux you cant just do an algorithm less and save 5 moves everytime.... always CMLL+EO in one alg maybe...but i guess ~35 with optimised roux will be the limit. while with Petrus/ZZ there will be people using full ZBLL someday, i promise  (too bad the F2L of cfop/ZZ is pretty inefficient, so roux/petrus will most likely win the game)



brunovervoort said:


> Mars



You are not talking about the roman god of war, i suppose.


----------



## JasonK (Oct 1, 2012)

Mats maybe?


----------



## vd (Oct 1, 2012)

Events that will be really interesting to watch in next years will be 5x5 BLD and MultiBLD. For some people like Maskow, 40 cubes in Multi or sub4 times in 5x5 BLD are indeed possible with huge amount of practice. 
I believe we will see sub5 3x3 average being achieved, but sub4 looks just too insane.


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 1, 2012)

With blind and bigcubes I think there's definitely room to improve.


----------



## userman (Oct 1, 2012)

I agree with you.

One will always be able to get lucky, hell, one could get 5 lucky solves in a row.


----------



## RNewms27 (Oct 1, 2012)

Mnts said:


> In BLD solves I believe sub-20 will be posible if there will be developed 5cycle method to solve 4 pieces at once.





Spoiler











No 5-cycles here.


----------



## vd (Oct 1, 2012)

RNewms27 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but such a scrambler occurs once in thousands of cases. And its very unlikely that some of top BLDers will meet such a scrambler in a competition, even if they will attend MANY competitions.


----------



## Dacuba (Oct 1, 2012)

Jessica Fridrich once estimated the limits of speedcubing to be on an average solve of 5 seconds, and she said that many years ago. That was imo the best speedsolving-limit prediction ever made by anyone.


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 1, 2012)

Let's all just remember that an optimal 5-cycle is likely the same number of moves as two 3-cycles perhaps with a cancellation.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 1, 2012)

Dacuba said:


> Jessica Fridrich once estimated the limits of speedcubing to be on an average solve of 5 seconds, and she said that many years ago. That was imo the best speedsolving-limit prediction ever made by anyone.



Uh...

Until at least 2010, her site said 10-12 seconds. Yeah, awesome prediction.


----------



## Dacuba (Oct 1, 2012)

Oh, well, uhm...

I'm cubing since 2010 so I think you can understand my failure ;-)


----------



## rubikmaster (Oct 2, 2012)

I think we're geting pretty close to the limit with 2x2, also close with 3x3 but I believe we can get a lot faster in BLD and with big cubes. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff we can improve on.
Here are my rough predictions for the year 2020 for averages, not singles:
2x2 - 1.4
3x3 - 5.2
OH - 8.5
4x4 - 24
5x5 - 45
6x6 - 1:30
7x7 - 2:10
3x3 MBLD - 42/50 (I know it seems crazy but, yeah that's my prediction.)

I can't really predict the BLD times right now, but I'm sure we will be quite faster. Please post your predictions for 2020 because I would really like to see your predictions.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 2, 2012)

rubikmaster said:


> 3x3 MBLD - 42/50 (I know it seems crazy but, yeah that's my prediction.)


Uhh... Hasn't this already been beaten? Unofficially of course, but still...

EDIT:http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?38727-Maskow-Multiblindfold-72-77-(old-style)


----------



## rubikmaster (Oct 2, 2012)

Tyjet66 said:


> Uhh... Hasn't this already been beaten? Unofficially of course, but still...
> 
> EDIT:http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?38727-Maskow-Multiblindfold-72-77-(old-style)



Yeah, but in competition you only have one hour to memorize and solve all the cubes.


----------



## rtmoose (Oct 16, 2012)

i saw a video where these guys made a cube solving robot that solved the cube in <5 seconds, it looked at all six sides and solved in one sequence of moves...

if a machine cant do it faster than that, I highly doubt a human being could


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Oct 21, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> No lower than sub 6. If we create a really good method with easy reconition and no more 100 algs that could be really fast. I only believe that cubing will grow because more and more people are starting to realize that this is not impossible and how easy and how much fun this is. I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.



well, i heard the dayan 6 is coming out...


----------



## WBCube (Oct 22, 2012)

rtmoose said:


> if a machine cant do it faster than that, I highly doubt a human being could



GDCuber has a video of a 4.64 solve I believe. And it could have been around a second faster if he did the OLL with his left hand. It's definitely possible with a lucky enough scramble


----------



## applemobile (Oct 22, 2012)

I will put money on 4x4 reaching sub 20. But not with any reduction based methods, they are too inefficient, I think a big shake up will happen in the big cube world once some new methods get going.


----------



## teomacuber (Oct 22, 2012)

My predictions:
(single)
2x2 - 0.4
3x3 - 3.9
OH - 7.5
4x4 - 19.0
5x5 - 42.0
6x6 - 1:25.0
7x7 - 2:10.0
3x3 BLD - 18.0
4x4 BLD - 2:00.0
5x5 BLD -4:30.0
Pyra: 1.30
Mega: 35.0
WF: 20.0
FM: 16
Square1: 6.5
Clock: 3.0 
3x3 MBLD - 45/45


(average)
2x2 - 1.3
3x3 - 4.9
OH - 8.5
4x4 - 25
5x5 - 48
6x6 - 1:25
7x7 - 2:05
Pyra: 2.0
Mega: 43.0
WF: 26.0
Square1: 10.0
Clock: 4.5


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 22, 2012)

teomacuber said:


> My predictions:
> (single)
> OH - 7.5
> Pyra: 1.30
> 3x3 MBLD - 45/45



Those can be wayyy faster imo.
maybe
OH - mid to high 6 is my guess
Pyra: 0.6
3x3 MBLD - 60 cubes.


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 22, 2012)

teomacuber said:


> My predictions:
> (single)
> 2x2 - 0.4
> 3x3 - 3.9
> ...



Those have already been beaten unofficially. Maybe 2x2 average, feet average and fewest moves too.


----------



## AndersB (Oct 22, 2012)

2020 predictions(average):

2x2: 1.6
3x3: 4.8
4x4: 25
5x5: 45
6x6: 1:35
7x7: 2:20
OH: 7.4
FT: 27
Pyra: 2.5
Mega: 38
Sq-1: 8.5
Clock: 4.8

Single events:
3bld: 17
4bld: 1:40
5bld: 4:00
Mbld: 60/60 in <60 ;-) 
FMC: 18


----------



## rubikmaster (Oct 22, 2012)

It would be interesting if someone made a graph of the whole cubing progress through the years. Maybe we would be able to make more accurate predictions. But, maybe it wouldn't really help at all, I mean all the future progress of cubing pretty much depends on just developing new and better methods now.


----------



## Evan Liu (Oct 22, 2012)

rubikmaster said:


> It would be interesting if someone made a graph of the whole cubing progress through the years. Maybe we would be able to make more accurate predictions. But, maybe it wouldn't really help at all, I mean all the future progress of cubing pretty much depends on just developing new and better methods now.


See this and this.


----------



## applemobile (Oct 23, 2012)

I think next year the record for the magic will be, Lulz, no more magic. Your event is bad and you should feel bad.


----------



## WBCube (Oct 23, 2012)

applemobile said:


> I think next year the record for the magic will be, Lulz, no more magic. Your event is bad and you should feel bad.



It's kind of weird to know that whatever the record is at the time the magic event dies will be the official record forever


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 23, 2012)

WBCube said:


> It's kind of weird to know that whatever the record is at the time the magic event dies will be the official record forever



i think speedstackers should take over the magic and mastermagic as events, as it fits their niveau.


----------



## rubikmaster (Oct 23, 2012)

Petro Leum said:


> i think speedstackers should take over the magic and mastermagic as events, as it fits their niveau.


 
Great idea! I think solving Magic would fit speedstackers much better.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 7, 2021)

it's funny to see what people thought back in 2012 and the records now


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 7, 2021)

I think that even sub-2 could be possible eventually


----------



## PCCuber (Jun 7, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> it's funny to see what people thought back in 2012 and the records now


I like the fact that they believed cubes would melt in order for a sub-4 single.
They also predicted 5-style @abunickabhi .


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 7, 2021)

ducttapecuber said:


> I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.


Do I really need to say anything about this or does it speak for itself?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 7, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Do I really need to say anything about this or does it speak for itself?


Please elaborate. I don't quite understand it. That 2012 language is basically Shakespearean English.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 7, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Do I really need to say anything about this or does it speak for itself?


i checked the facts and magnets weren't even invented until 2015


----------



## Waffles (Jun 7, 2021)

I was looking through the predictions. WHY ARE THEY ACTUALLY SO ACCURATE?????


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 7, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> i checked the facts and magnets weren't even invented until 2015



"You lie" - Sun Tzu, Art of War


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 8, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> View attachment 16014
> "You lie" - Sun Tzu, Art of War


"he never said that and even if he did, it isn't true." - a liar


----------



## Megaminx lover (Jun 8, 2021)

teomacuber said:


> My predictions:
> (single)
> 2x2 - 0.4
> 3x3 - 3.9
> ...


The estimates from 8 years ago- whether they have been met or not
2x2 - 0.4- No (?)
3x3 - 3.9- Yes (2018)
OH - 7.5- Yes (2015)
4x4 - 19.0- Yes (2018)
5x5 - 42.0- Yes (2016)
6x6 - 1:25.0- Yes (2017)
7x7 - 2:10.0- Yes (2017)
3x3 BLD - 18.0- Yes (2017)
4x4 BLD - 2:00.0- Yes (2016)
5x5 BLD -4:30.0- Yes (2017)
Pyra: 1.30- Yes (2017)
Mega: 35.0- Yes (2016)
WF: 20.0- Yes (2018)
FM: 16- Yes (2019)
Square1: 6.5- Yes (2017)
Clock: 3.0- No (Only 2021)
3x3 MBLD - 45/45- Yes (2018)
Wow a lot of these have been broken by 2019.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 8, 2021)

Ickathu said:


> Didn't some people do some tests showing that using average movecounts for certain methods (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, etc) and I specifically remember them saying that sub4 on CFOP (60-65 average HTM) would actually start to melt the plastic?
> 
> i.e., ~12+ tps = no more plastic cube


uhh..idk if this is true anymore I guess(sub 4 fullsteps are possible and exist)


----------



## Yepala (Jun 8, 2021)

This is gold


----------

