# How the 3.47 WR changes cubing



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

This is just my opinion.

So, as many of you know the 3x3 WR was beaten. It went from 4.22 to 3.47. This is a huge leap in a world record, and could change cubing forever.

First off, the WR was beaten by a Cuber who almost no one knew. Everyone thought Max/Feliks/Jay would get it, but did not. Is this important? Yes. Very much so. Why? Because it shows that people who, even though they are unknown can still achieve major accomplishments. I am inspired by this and makes me want to try harder to get a world record someday.

Secondly, 3.47 is an insane time, and may possibly be the peak of the 3x3 single WR. This is a disappointment to some, but also a challenge to others. Or, it may even cause some to stop 3x3 and practice different cubes (skewb, 4x4, Megaminx, etc.) This May be a good thing as cubing is mostly centered around 3x3, and it is good to get people to practice other events and have fun with not only 3x3, but also with other events. (Or if you think one day you can beat the 3x3 WR, then this is an amazing challenge for you. - Good Luck)

And for my third point I will be discussing how this affects world records. This has already been discussed by many, and only now has there been evidence of this happening, is that the 3x3 WR has gotten to a point where it is almost unbeatable. Is the WCA going to add a yearly record or something? If not, then the 3.47 WR could stay forever.

These were just my thoughts on what might happen, and could be completely different. I have no clue, but I am excited to see the future of cubing.


----------



## mencarikebenaran (Nov 25, 2018)

after this 3x3 WR happens, i super lazy to play 3x3 (two handed) anymore.

now i just play big cube and 3x3 one handed


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

weruoaszxcvnm said:


> after this 3x3 WR happens, i super lazy to play 3x3 (two handed) anymore.
> 
> now i just play big cube and 3x3 one handed


Yep, that’s what my point is. It’s getting too difficult to beat the WR and now people are switching to other events.


----------



## greentgoatgal (Nov 25, 2018)

I think if a cuber only draws motivation from their wish to beat some world record, they're going to crash and burn anyway. I don't think that's enough to be the sole motivation behind cubing.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

greentgoatgal said:


> I think if a cuber only draws motivation from their wish to beat some world record, they're going to crash and burn anyway. I don't think that's enough to be the sole motivation behind cubing.


Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. (Also, my motivation is not to beat a WR, it’s for fun because I love cubing, im just talking about world records in the sense that if someone were to try and achieve the world record, they may not be able to.)


----------



## deruk (Nov 25, 2018)

I was at the competition too and I am very dissapointed. I had the same scramble and solution but I dropped the cube and ended up getting a 7.


----------



## efattah (Nov 25, 2018)

The record used just 27 moves. Even the method I am developing (LMCF) which uses an average of 43 moves, only gets a 28 move solution 1 in 5000+ solves. The 3x3 record now not only requires incredible skill, but incredible luck too, since 27 moves is a crazy low amount for any method. Even at home. Let alone in a competition.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> First off, the WR was beaten by a Cuber who almost no one knew. Everyone thought Max/Feliks/Jay would get it, but did not. Is this important? Yes. Very much so. Why? Because it shows that people who, even though they are unknown can still achieve major accomplishments. I am inspired by this and makes me want to try harder to get a world record someday.


>Jay

Let's be fair here. Jay doesn't regularly get sub-6 averages the way Max and Feliks do. Also, Steve Cho was relatively unknown when he had the 4.59 WR single too, and I don't see you mentioning him at all (so arguably he's still unknown? lol).



Matt— said:


> And for my third point I will be discussing how this affects world records. This has already been discussed by many, and only now has there been evidence of this happening, is that the 3x3 WR has gotten to a point where it is almost unbeatable. Is the WCA going to add a yearly record or something? If not, then the 3.47 WR could stay forever.


World championships! Held once every two years, the winner gets to be crowned the world champion for two years until the next one.


----------



## Mr Cubism (Nov 25, 2018)

Also, this WR could easily have been (with no recorded proof) suspected and debated as legit or not legit (in endless speculations) if it was not randomly recorded. That lucky footage saved it all.

To prevent the lack of any documented WR proof in the future, an actioncam (or similar) could be mounted high up in a corner in the competition room just to get a visual proof?!


----------



## Escher (Nov 25, 2018)

I think if you've ever been fast enough to contest for the single, you want the average. I don't think it changes anything, if you really wanna be the best.


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 25, 2018)

The average world records truely indicates the best speedcuber, as luck has almost no effect in it. The WCA may also add consecutive means or averages, just taking in account the consecutive solves (like Ao12, Ao50 or Ao100)


----------



## Cefe origol (Nov 25, 2018)

A yearly record exists, In the WCA website change where it says "All Years" change it to "Only ____" but no one uses this stats. Still I think cubing has potential. If this is possible, I think the 3x3 single is far from dead. A 20 move solve with 12 tps is TPS, thats a 1.666 seconds, with modern cubes and this community growing I think it won't be long untill a sub 1.5.


----------



## Gomorrite (Nov 25, 2018)

Cefe origol said:


> A yearly record exists, In the WCA website change where it says "All Years" change it to "Only ____" but no one uses this stats. Still I think cubing has potential. If this is possible, I think the 3x3 single is far from dead. A 20 move solve with 12 tps is TPS, thats a 1.666 seconds, with modern cubes and this community growing I think it won't be long untill a sub 1.5.


Are you saying that a person can calculate in less than 15 seconds a solution as good as the current FMC WR and execute it at 12 TPS?


----------



## Sajwo (Nov 25, 2018)

Cefe origol said:


> A yearly record exists, In the WCA website change where it says "All Years" change it to "Only ____" but no one uses this stats. Still I think cubing has potential. If this is possible, I think the 3x3 single is far from dead. A 20 move solve with 12 tps is TPS, thats a 1.666 seconds, with modern cubes and this community growing I think it won't be long untill a sub 1.5.



well, I agree that 20 move solution is possible (take for example current WR and assume it could have additional oll skip), but I wouldn't say "won't be long" 



Gomorrite said:


> Are you saying that a person can calculate in less than 15 seconds a solution as good as the current FMC WR and execute it at 12 TPS?



without advanced technology involved humans will never be able to do that


----------



## Cefe origol (Nov 25, 2018)

Gomorrite said:


> Are you saying that a person can calculate in less than 15 seconds a solution as good as the current FMC WR and execute it at 12 TPS?


Yes I am. Feliks 4.22 had 38 moves and it wasn't even skip. seungboem's 4.59 had 30 moves. 3.745 has 27 moves. So it wouldn't be very rare to see a sub-25 move WR. In terms of TPS, WRs normally have around 7.5. Feliks 4.22 had 9.001 TPS. The UWR of TPS in a solve is of 12.68. It will probably take some time before a 12 TPS official solve is out, but Its humanly possible. I also think cubers like Feliks, Mats, Max, Lucas, Patrick Ponce, Nahm, and others will need to relearn inspection. In those 15 seconds, they should be able to onelook 2-3 pairs. This will be the solve:

8-12 moves for cross+2 pairs. At 9 TPS because this is being onelooked. Odds: Not a Clue
3 moves for 3rd pair. 3 for last pair. At 7 tps. Odds: 29.6 percent
6-8 move OLL. At 7 TPS.Odds:23 percent
PLL skip. Odds:1/72
Not get nervous. Odds:1/30(Its much less)
Giving us *at most* a 3.6.
The Odds of all of these happening is of 0.0003 percent per solve that passes step 1. 0.0015 percent per ao5. 0.005 percent per comp(3 rounds). Feliks went to 17 comps this year(10 months), so the odds per 3 months is 89.7 percent. This is if they pass step 1 but still, if their is a 1/100 probability, and 25 cubers try, it will take 13 months with current technology, because the WR broken yesteday, is almost 1 second below Telesforo 4.41 in 2013, In 5 years a simingly fake solve has turned into a far from WR solve.



Sajwo said:


> well, I agree that 20 move solution is possible (take for example current WR and assume it could have additional oll skip), but I wouldn't say "won't be long"
> 
> 
> 
> without advanced technology involved humans will never be able to do that


13 months isn't that long.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

Wow, all of you have excellent points here. I like what was said about the averages showing the skill of a Cuber. That’s what truly means everything. My point though (and I have not mentioned this previously) is that if a non Cuber was interested in starting cubing, then learned beginners decided to check out the world record. It may make them lose their motivation to cube.


----------



## Sajwo (Nov 25, 2018)

Gomorrite said:


> Are you saying that a person can calculate in less than 15 seconds a solution as good as the current FMC WR and execute it at 12 TPS?





Cefe origol said:


> Yes I am. Feliks 4.22 had 38 moves and it wasn't even skip. seungboem's 4.59 had 30 moves. 3.745 has 27 moves. So it wouldn't be very rare to see a sub-25 move WR. In terms of TPS, WRs normally have around 7.5. Feliks 4.22 had 9.001 TPS. The UWR of TPS in a solve is of 12.68. It will probably take some time before a 12 TPS official solve is out, but Its humanly possible. I also think cubers like Feliks, Mats, Max, Lucas, Patrick Ponce, Nahm, and others will need to relearn inspection. *In those 15 seconds, they should be able to onelook 2-3 pairs.* This will be the solve:
> 
> 8-12 moves for cross+2 pairs. At 9 TPS because this is being onelooked. Odds: Not a Clue
> 3 moves for 3rd pair. 3 for last pair. At 7 tps. Odds: 29.6 percent
> ...



Well, his point was that it's impossible to see whole <20 solution in inspection time. Besides that your probability calculations for last 2 slots are wrong , you can't also assume that there is only one possible way to achieve fast solve (for example xcross and 2 easy pair with LL skip could also result in ~3s solve) and you don't have enough data from top level speedcubers about their solves to even calculate the probability of ~3s solve


----------



## Cefe origol (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Wow, all of you have excellent points here. I like what was said about the averages showing the skill of a Cuber. That’s what truly means everything. My point though (and I have not mentioned this previously) is that if a non Cuber was interested in starting cubing, then learned beginners decided to check out the world record. It may make them lose their motivation to cube.


or may be twice as motivated. When I started out the world record was 5.25 and I avraged 12 minutes but I kept on practicing to see I could beat it. Many will quit, but others will see it as a challenge. As another example, the WR of cards memorization is in 13 seconds, but if I saw someone memorizing a deck of cards in 2 minutes, it will still be as impresive. Just because a 16 yo asian dude is better than you does not make you less impresive.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

Cefe origol said:


> or may be twice as motivated. When I started out the world record was 5.25 and I avraged 12 minutes but I kept on practicing to see I could beat it. Many will quit, but others will see it as a challenge. As another example, the WR of cards memorization is in 13 seconds, but if I saw someone memorizing a deck of cards in 2 minutes, it will still be as impresive. Just because a 16 yo asian dude is better than you does not make you less impresive.


Yes, I did mention that in my first post. I said others may quit, while some may take it at a challenge. It all depends on your personality.


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 25, 2018)

Cefe origol said:


> Yes I am. Feliks 4.22 had 38 moves and it wasn't even skip. seungboem's 4.59 had 30 moves. 3.745 has 27 moves. So it wouldn't be very rare to see a sub-25 move WR. In terms of TPS, WRs normally have around 7.5. Feliks 4.22 had 9.001 TPS. The UWR of TPS in a solve is of 12.68. It will probably take some time before a 12 TPS official solve is out, but Its humanly possible. I also think cubers like Feliks, Mats, Max, Lucas, Patrick Ponce, Nahm, and others will need to relearn inspection. In those 15 seconds, they should be able to onelook 2-3 pairs. This will be the solve:
> 
> 8-12 moves for cross+2 pairs. At 9 TPS because this is being onelooked. Odds: Not a Clue
> 3 moves for 3rd pair. 3 for last pair. At 7 tps. Odds: 29.6 percent
> ...



I agree that this WR is far from unbeatable, but some of this math is pretty far off. 

Let's eliminate the probability of nerves since that's so hard to estimate, just so we can get an idea of how many solves have WR potential. Given your other probabilities, we end up with a 0.000946 chance of a potential WR solve. I'm very skeptical of your 29.6% estimate for 2 three-move pairs in a row (and @Sajwo brings up some good points above), so let's be conservative and estimate a 0.0001 chance of a potential WR solve.

You can't add probabilities like you did in your post; the correct formula for the chances of a WR-potential solve is:
\[ 1-(1-P)^n \] where P is the probability of a given single solve having WR potential, and n is the amount of solves done. Let's say we want a 50/50 chance of a WR-potential solve. This would require: \[ (0.9999)^n=0.5 \]

Solving for n we get approximately 6931 solves.

This means, assuming each solve has a 0.0001 chance of having WR potential if done by a world class cuber (which is a very hard number to accurately estimate), 6931 official solves would need to be done by world class 3x3 solvers in order for there to be a 50% chance of one of these solves showing up. Additionally like you mentioned, they would have to control their nerves, which is definitely quite difficult to do.

I'd be surprised if this record is broken before 2020, but it's totally possible for it to be broken. These calculations make too many assumptions no matter what, since we can't account for improvements in hardware and solving methods. There's always a chance of someone coming up with a method that gets 30-move solves on average, and in that case, a 10TPS average solve would beat the record.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

DGCubes said:


> I agree that this WR is far from unbeatable, but some of this math is pretty far off.
> 
> Let's eliminate the probability of nerves since that's so hard to estimate, just so we can get an idea of how many solves have WR potential. Given your other probabilities, we end up with a 0.000946 chance of a potential WR solve. I'm very skeptical of your 29.6% estimate for 2 three-move pairs in a row (and @Sajwo brings up some good points above), so let's be conservative and estimate a 0.0001 chance of a potential WR solve.
> 
> ...


This made me think of something.

I forgot to mention that the solve was a Petrus solve. That’s really cool even though it was meant to be CFOP. If he had meant to do Petrus and didn’t get an EO skip, it still could have been a sub 5 time if he was good at EO. This just shows that CFOP is not always the best method.


----------



## Cefe origol (Nov 25, 2018)

Sajwo said:


> Well, his point was that it's impossible to see whole <20 solution in inspection time. Besides that your probability calculations for last 2 slots are wrong , you can't also assume that there is only one possible way to achieve fast solve (for example xcross and 2 easy pair with LL skip could also result in ~3s solve) and you don't have enough data from top level speedcubers about their solves to even calculate the probability of ~3s solve


*NO, *you just onelook the cross and 2 pairs. I also know that not every solve is the same but I'm giving an example.


----------



## alister (Nov 25, 2018)

Cefe origol said:


> So it wouldn't be very rare to see a sub-25 move WR



But has there ever been a sub-25 move WR? Seems kinda rare to me 



Cefe origol said:


> The UWR of TPS in a solve is of 12.68.



Feliks has had a 13.4 TPS solve from 2 years ago: 




And it would not surprise me if one of the top cubers has already managed to get a 14 TPS solve off camera. But yeah, I completely disagree with your theory about a sub 1.5 second solve though. If it ever happens, I don't think it will be soon.


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> This is just my opinion.
> 
> So, as many of you know the 3x3 WR was beaten. It went from 4.22 to 3.47. This is a huge leap in a world record, and could change cubing forever.
> 
> ...


Maybe the 3x3 average will become more recognized and sought after instead?


----------



## Cefe origol (Nov 25, 2018)

DGCubes said:


> I agree that this WR is far from unbeatable, but some of this math is pretty far off.
> 
> Let's eliminate the probability of nerves since that's so hard to estimate, just so we can get an idea of how many solves have WR potential. Given your other probabilities, we end up with a 0.000946 chance of a potential WR solve. I'm very skeptical of your 29.6% estimate for 2 three-move pairs in a row (and @Sajwo brings up some good points above), so let's be conservative and estimate a 0.0001 chance of a potential WR solve.
> 
> ...


1- I actually used that same equation, but I needed to change the probability a lot of times. Thats the reason why I added nerves, else after 4 comps my calculator said 100 percent. So I probably wrote something wrong or you don't know how to sum.
2-the 29.6 is actually wrong, thanks. Here is how I found it out. For the first pair their are 17 three-move cases:

R U R'
U R U R'
U2 R U R'
U' R U R'
R U' R'
U R U' R'
U2 R U' R'
U' R U' R'
F' U F
U F' U F
U2 F' U F
U' F' U F
F' U' F
U F' U' F
U2 F' U' F
U' F' U' F
(SOLVED)
Many wont consider all of these 3 moves, but I still do and counted the extra moves for the 3.6 time.
for both cases it is around 578(17*17*2) and the total cases are 32400. Giving us a total of 1.7 percent. 0.051 percent in total. 1358 times for a 50/50 chance.


----------



## Tabe (Nov 26, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Wow, all of you have excellent points here. I like what was said about the averages showing the skill of a Cuber. That’s what truly means everything. My point though (and I have not mentioned this previously) is that if a non Cuber was interested in starting cubing, then learned beginners decided to check out the world record. It may make them lose their motivation to cube.


Has anybody ever decided not to try track because Usain Bolt broke the 100m world record yet again? Of course not.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 26, 2018)

Tabe said:


> Has anybody ever decided not to try track because Usain Bolt broke the 100m world record yet again? Of course not.


I’m not saying that, all I’m saying is that new Cubers who already think that solving a cube is the most complicated thing in the world can’t even comprehend trying to get to 3.4, and with no help from friends may lose motivation quickly. (I did for a while, and it wasn’t until I decided to look up an advanced tutorial to start cubing again.)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 26, 2018)

I'd recommend not taking lucky singles too seriously, average is generally seen as a better indication of skill (though getting sub 4 on a good scramble still takes a lot of skill).

I'd also recommend making sure the main reason you cube is to have fun. It's a hobby. Not that going for WR is a bad thing, but if it's all you care about you're probably going to get bored easily, especially if you're just starting out.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 26, 2018)

Friendly reminder that 10 years ago, we all thought 7.08 was essentially unbeatable.


----------



## Dylan1919 (Nov 26, 2018)

I am supportive of this new contender however I feel bad for Feliks, Matts, Max and Jay because if they got that scramble they probably would of had a good chance as well.



Kit Clement said:


> Friendly reminder that 10 years ago, we all thought 7.08 was essentially unbeatable.



Yes, but now its down to 3 seconds and it is highly unlikely to be beaten by a margin.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 26, 2018)

Kit Clement said:


> Friendly reminder that 10 years ago, we all thought 7.08 was essentially unbeatable.


This. When I started cubing the WR was 5.66 and I thought it was unbeatable. Today it would rank him 59th.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 26, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> This. When I started cubing the WR was 5.66 and I thought it was unbeatable. Today it would rank him 59th.


Maybe one day people will get so skilled at 3x3 that we will be averaging 4 seconds. One day...

This also may never happen, I’m just saying that it could be possible.


----------



## AbsoRuud (Nov 26, 2018)

When I started cubing the WR was 4.22. I am never going to beat that. I'll probably never be sub 10. But that's beside the point. Cubing is fun. That's the whole point. If you get so good to the point where you can beat WRs, all the better. But it has never been my goal to beat the WR and it never will be. I'm happy when I am faster than me.


----------



## Sajwo (Nov 26, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Maybe one day people will get so skilled at 3x3 that we will be averaging 4 seconds. One day...
> 
> This also may never happen, I’m just saying that it could be possible.



Max has 4.99 ao12. It's certainly possible to get sub5 ao50 or ao100


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 26, 2018)

Well, I put all WR Singles on a graph (except Minh Thai's 22.95), and made an exponential reduction (which approximates the trend).
With the current trend, this record will probably be broken around the beginning of 2020. *I remind that it just uses probabilities with a very bad model!*
Here's the graph for those interested:


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 26, 2018)

Nice graph! I think it's fascinating that the graph seems to indicate that the 7.08 was actually more unexpected than the 3.47 is.


----------



## Gomorrite (Nov 26, 2018)

The 7.08 was 63% of the average WR at the time by Yu Nakajima, while this is one is 60% of Feliks Zemdeg's 5.80.


----------



## LightFlame_ (Nov 26, 2018)

imo, i bet this wr will stand for at least 5 years


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 27, 2018)

Dylan1919 said:


> Yes, but now its down to 3 seconds and it is highly unlikely to be beaten by a margin.



How do you calculate "highly unlikely" here? You could have said that any WR will be unlikely to be beaten because it's now so much lower and there's fewer times that could beat it.



LightFlame_ said:


> imo, i bet this wr will stand for at least 5 years



I'd bet a large sum of money that this is broken within 5 years in a heartbeat.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 27, 2018)

Kit Clement said:


> How do you calculate "highly unlikely" here? You could have said this at just about any WR that it will be unlikely to be beaten because it's now so much lower and there's fewer times that it could beat it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet a large sum of money that this is broken within 5 years in a heartbeat.


Yep, anything is possible. Who knows, a new, move efficient method may be developed. Or, a ZZ user or a Roux user may get a record and that could completely change the way people see other methods.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 27, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Yep, anything is possible. Who knows, a new, move efficient method may be developed. Or, a ZZ user or a Roux user may get a record and that could completely change the way people see other methods.


I seriously doubt a newer, more efficient method is necessary to beat this within 5 years. I believe continued very minor incremental improvement, combined with another lucky solve like this one, will be more than enough to beat it.

Edit: I just noticed that Max Park beat this at home by almost a third of a second just a little more than a month ago, according to his PB spreadsheet. Max is certainly capable of matching his home results in competition, so it's just a matter of him getting a lucky solve for him to beat this in competition. And there are certainly several other cubers capable of similar things, I'm sure.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Nov 27, 2018)

Any top cuber getting an OLL and PLL skip can probably beat it. Jay nearly did.


----------



## LightFlame_ (Nov 27, 2018)

David Zemdegs said:


> Any top cuber getting an OLL and PLL skip can probably beat it. Jay nearly did.


R.I.P. Jay. May he get better luck next time.


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 27, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> Well, I put all WR Singles on a graph (except Minh Thai's 22.95), and made an exponential reduction (which approximates the trend).
> With the current trend, this record will probably be broken around the beginning of 2020. *I remind that it just uses probabilities with a very bad model!*
> Here's the graph for those interested:View attachment 9738



Very cool graph with a lot of potential applications! You could use the x-distances from the trendline to show how ahead of its time a given record is (or how much potential to improve the record there still was at any given time). I find it interesting that according to this, the 4.22 actually was behind its time, especially since people found it pretty insane at the time.

I am always a bit wary of graphs like these, especially for extrapolation, but it seems pretty good for interpolation. How does this graph extend, say 10 years in the future?


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 27, 2018)

DGCubes said:


> Very cool graph with a lot of potential applications! You could use the x-distances from the trendline to show how ahead of its time a given record is (or how much potential to improve the record there still was at any given time). I find it interesting that according to this, the 4.22 actually was behind its time, especially since people found it pretty insane at the time.
> 
> I am always a bit wary of graphs like these, especially for extrapolation, but it seems pretty good for interpolation. How does this graph extend, say 10 years in the future?


*I will precise that:*
1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
*Anyway, here are the graphs for:*
3x3x3 Singles
3x3x3 Averages
2x2x2 Singles
2x2x2 Averages
*Singles are in red, averages in blue. It is interesting that only 3x3 single is currently the only one better than expected.*


----------



## Matt— (Nov 27, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> *I will precise that:*
> 1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
> 2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
> 3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
> ...


Nice graphs. What does “likely to be broken soon mean”? That could be in a month, or a year.


----------



## whatshisbucket (Nov 28, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> *I will precise that:*
> 1) This graph is recalibrated after each record, and I may choose to include a value for the current day with the last record (because it didn't change)
> 2) The reduction I chose was exponential, it seemed logical to me, but different reductions give different approximations
> 3) I don't think any prediction over 5 years from the last record (not from today!) is of any value, the trend seems to be slowing faster than what the graph shows
> ...


Hi i think these fits could be much better. In particular, it looks like you used a program that generate fits under the assumption that the data should asymptotically approach zero, which is ridiculous in this scenario. If you were to add a third parameter (a constant representing the asymptotic behavior of the data), you would be able to get much better fits (and potentially be able to predict about where the world record should stop getting better).


----------



## Julio974 (Nov 28, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Nice graphs. What does “likely to be broken soon mean”? That could be in a month, or a year.


"Likely to be broken soon" just means that the current WR is above the average and therefore is not expected to last.


whatshisbucket said:


> Hi i think these fits could be much better. In particular, it looks like you used a program that generate fits under the assumption that the data should asymptotically approach zero, which is ridiculous in this scenario. If you were to add a third parameter (a constant representing the asymptotic behavior of the data), you would be able to get much better fits (and potentially be able to predict about where the world record should stop getting better).


Also, I used MS Excel 2016, so I can't add a 3rd variable. The reduction isn't curved enough for realistically predict future world records (that's why I don't trust it after 5 years). I'll however try, in the future, to add a new point for the currrent WR at the current day (as it is still active). It should correct it a little bit.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 28, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> I seriously doubt a newer, more efficient method is necessary to beat this within 5 years. I believe continued very minor incremental improvement, combined with another lucky solve like this one, will be more than enough to beat it.
> 
> Edit: I just noticed that Max Park beat this at home by almost a third of a second just a little more than a month ago, according to his PB spreadsheet. Max is certainly capable of matching his home results in competition, so it's just a matter of him getting a lucky solve for him to beat this in competition. And there are certainly several other cubers capable of similar things, I'm sure.


I just realized Max got this PB on my birthday


----------



## Julio974 (Dec 1, 2018)

New graph, for skewb this time!
The transparent points at the end are just the current records (with excel's MIN and TODAY functions)
I doubled single and average this time, and for once I didn't round the records to the month but to the day. I may redo that for 3x3.
Both records seems likely to be beaten soon!


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 1, 2018)

efattah said:


> The record used just 27 moves. Even the method I am developing (LMCF) which uses an average of 43 moves, only gets a 28 move solution 1 in 5000+ solves. The 3x3 record now not only requires incredible skill, but incredible luck too, since 27 moves is a crazy low amount for any method. Even at home. Let alone in a competition.



Yes luck is incredibly embedded into the 3x3 single now.
Guess we have to focus on other events now yo.

The spotlight will gradually shift away from 3x3 and move to other events.


----------



## Ronxu (Dec 1, 2018)

Why yall gotta be so dramatic about it? It's just another WR that will probably stand for longer than most others. It's not that big of a deal.


----------



## CornerCutter (Dec 1, 2018)

Julio974 said:


> New graph, for skewb this time!
> The transparent points at the end are just the current records (with excel's MIN and TODAY functions)
> I doubled single and average this time, and for once I didn't round the records to the month but to the day. I may redo that for 3x3.
> Both records seems likely to be beaten soon!
> View attachment 9755


Nice graph! Could you make one for Pyraminx? 

Also, 7x7 would be really cool since Max has gotten unbelievable times.


----------



## u Cube (Dec 14, 2018)

3.47 isn't as Surprising as You Think
Okay, before I get a ton of hate, yes this is a very good result and is just as surprising as any other world record, but maybe a bit more. Honestly though, people are blowing this way out of proportion. The 3.47 is a big deal yet honestly it was bound to happen around this time. We actually have had two precursors to this world record, one being the 3.27 misscramble and Jayden's sub-4 fail cube drop. It was almost assured to happen soon that some decently fast cuber would get an easy scramble that isn't a lot of moves and can be executed with lightning fast speed. Also, there have been many people who have gotten sub-4s at home because naturally, people do more solves at home therefore they have a better chance of getting a lucky scramble and it just happened to occur in a comp this time. That's it....


----------



## pglewis (Dec 14, 2018)

I fully understand why 3x3 single is the one thing the media and a general audience are going to take any interest in but I've long wondered why the speedsolving community itself still seems to consider 3x3 single as the most holy WR rather than average. Give the modern fastest solvers enough scrambles and we were eventually going to see that mid 3 with a perfect storm.


----------



## sqAree (Dec 14, 2018)

While 3x3 single is a lot about luck, it still needs a lot of skill to be executed nicely. On top of that this WR isn't "just sub4", it's A LOT faster and there are not many people who have a time like that at home. Like, really not many.


----------



## u Cube (Dec 14, 2018)

pglewis said:


> I fully understand why 3x3 single is the one thing the media and a general audience are going to take any interest in but I've long wondered why the speedsolving community itself still seems to consider 3x3 single as the most holy WR rather than average. Give the modern fastest solvers enough scrambles and we were eventually going to see that mid 3 with a perfect storm.


precisely


----------



## pglewis (Dec 14, 2018)

sqAree said:


> While 3x3 single is a lot about luck, it still needs a lot of skill to be executed nicely. On top of that this WR isn't "just sub4", it's A LOT faster and there are not many people who have a time like that at home. Like, really not many.



Yeah, I should be clear that I'm not suggesting it's pure luck, I'm not going to sub 4 _any_ scramble . The size of the jump was definitely a shocker but going by the history graph it seems like we were due for another big jump. Also, being on the slower side, it's not much more insane to someone at my level than a "mundane" sub 6. It's so far beyond what I do I eventually just shrug and say "sure, why not?"


----------



## AidanNoogie (Dec 14, 2018)

The 3.27 was a setup, not a misscramble.


----------



## Loser (Dec 14, 2018)

3.27 was setup, also Jay failed a 3.9. A 3.47 when the closest we've gotten is something that could have been 0.5 seconds off. Yeah it's unexpected


----------



## White KB (Aug 17, 2022)

Matt— said:


> This is just my opinion.
> 
> So, as many of you know the 3x3 WR was beaten. It went from 4.22 to 3.47. This is a huge leap in a world record, and could change cubing forever.
> 
> ...


Sorry for the necropost, but I think after 3 1/2 years we're closer now than ever, with 4 sub-4 official solves, and even a 3.63 NAR WR2 from Max Park himself. We may break this before the end of 2023! I think this is a reasonable estimate since Max was only 0.16 seconds off, and we've also seen a sub-3 second single from Xu RuiHang (2.68). Although it was unofficial, it doesn't change that it is still the fastest solve on camera. Also, in a relay at North American Champs this year (I think it was NA Champs but I forgot), Matty Hiroto Inaba got an unofficial 3.08 single. Those last two were done in a competition setting, but they weren't official because they either weren't at a solving station or weren't during a valid round. We've gotten close so many times, and I think we may be closer than ever.


----------



## LBr (Aug 17, 2022)

Yushengs wr is the longest standing 3x3 single wr since the formation of the wca


----------



## ender9994 (Aug 17, 2022)

LBr said:


> Yushengs wr is the longest standing 3x3 single wr since the formation of the wca



EDITED: I misunderstood what you were saying...or I can't read. Either/or


----------



## baseballjello67 (Aug 17, 2022)

LBr said:


> Yushengs wr is the longest standing 3x3 single wr since the formation of the wca


No, Minh Thai has that record.


----------



## turtwig (Aug 17, 2022)

ender9994 said:


> It's not even the longest standing single right now.
> 
> View attachment 20444


He means it's the longest standing out of all the 3x3 single records. Previous 3x3 singles have stood for around 2 years at most.


baseballjello67 said:


> No, Minh Thai has that record.


Surely that was before the formation of the WCA though?


----------



## baseballjello67 (Aug 17, 2022)

turtwig said:


> Surely that was before the formation of the WCA though?


It still counts as an official (former) world record.


----------



## White KB (Aug 17, 2022)

baseballjello67 said:


> No, Minh Thai has that record.


That's a simple misunderstanding, since most people don't realize that the WCA was founded in 2004. He does hold the longest standing 3x3 record, but it was before the founding of the WCA.

EDIT: I know that some people will call me out on that because there were comps in 2003, but the official incorporation of the WCA occurred in 2004.


----------



## LBr (Aug 17, 2022)

baseballjello67 said:


> No, Minh Thai has that record.


Also, later in the 1980s, Marc Waterman got better than that lot and there is a video of him getting an 18:


----------

