# I wish the cube took longer to solve....



## 4. (Nov 19, 2010)

Okay...
The new 3x3 WR is constantly getting lower and lower. Within a few years, possibly even months, the best time will be so fast that it's physically impossible to beat it. Thats why I wish the cube would take much longer to solve so there would be more room for improvement!


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 19, 2010)

I've always wondered what would happen once the limit is reached. Perhaps the community will transfer to be centred around a less developed puzzle, like 4x4x4. However, I guess people still enjoy 2x2x2, even when they're a second-ish away from the limit.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I've always wondered what would happen once the limit is reached.


 
Everybody gets a cookie?


----------



## TheMachanga (Nov 19, 2010)

4. said:


> the best time will be so fast that it's physically impossible to beat it.!



No, if someone got it, it's possible to beat it...even if it's just 0.01 seconds faster


----------



## Alcuber (Nov 19, 2010)

4. said:


> Okay...
> The new 3x3 WR is constantly getting lower and lower. Within a few years, possibly even months, the best time will be so fast that it's physically impossible to beat it. Thats why I wish the cube would take much longer to solve so there would be more room for improvement!


That's why Megaminx is awesome!


----------



## jiggy (Nov 19, 2010)

Switch your focus to a higher order cube, like 5x5 or 7x7.


----------



## Innocence (Nov 19, 2010)

It would be interesting to figure out what the physical TPS limit is, before your muscles start...not doing what they're supposed to do. (Wow, I'm brilliant with words.) That would probably be the limit, assuming the human brain doesn't have limits. (We've yet to find one.)

An average advanced 50 move solve...Would take 50 TPS to solve in one second. (Yay for stating the obvious.) This doesn't QUITE sound possible. In two seconds, 25... in 4 seconds, 12.5. So 2-3 second solves are definitely possible even by today's TPS standards, and with movecounts still lowering, and TPS still going up, it looks like we could possibly even go down to 1.5 second solves. And with Zeroing, well...Needless to say the limit might well be 0.


----------



## tke444 (Nov 19, 2010)

TheMachanga said:


> No, if someone got it, it's possible to beat it...even if it's just 0.01 seconds faster


 
well that might be seen as more of a stackmat situation. Now that more and more are getting quicker, it might just come down to what the stackmat says. Example, someone may solve the cube further away from the body or the timer than others which would slightly influence the time.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 19, 2010)

What do sprinters do?

They're converging against actual physical limits, without a possibility of "lucky cases."


----------



## JL58 (Nov 19, 2010)

Maybe it's time to define a new type of competition. How about 5 (or 10) cubes in a row with no inspection time? You get a table with 5 scrambled cubes, disclosed to you as the timer starts. The drawback is that you would need to come to the competition with 5 of your cubes, but this would give a longer time (likely more than 40 seconds for the best) to achieve it, with more chance to grow and beat the record. We would call this the *** category: Five From Scratch.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 19, 2010)

Wow! My TPS is slow compared to those numbers Innocence. On my fastest algorithm ( T-Perm ) I average 11.2 TPS.


EDIT: JL58, I have been thinking about that type of stuff for a while too. I think that could be a cool event.


----------



## Samania (Nov 19, 2010)

Yeah, but it would take a while before it would be physically impossible to solve.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 19, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> What do sprinters do?
> 
> They're converging against actual physical limits, without a possibility of "lucky cases."



Sorry but Scrubs style daydream took over my brain. New 100m WR, luckily the race started as he was falling from a plane.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> What do sprinters do?
> 
> They're converging against actual physical limits, without a possibility of "lucky cases."


 
No, they just get better shoes every year


----------



## Zubon (Nov 20, 2010)

As Lucas said, what about 100m sprinters. It doesn't seem to be a problem in their sport which is much more popular than ours. Also, in cubing, people come and go and there are always new competitors. If you look at how hard Faz practices, he has made amazing improvements but he is no way near any theoretical limit.

The 3x3x3 is the most popular puzzle BECAUSE it takes the shortest time to solve out of any cuboid puzzle without extra simplification like removing edge pieces (2x2x2). 4x4x4 is second popular because it only takes a little extra time but you get the added interesting reduction stage. Larger puzzles are not so popular because of their cost and long solving times without many extra solving techniques.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

Alcuber said:


> That's why Megaminx is awesome!


 
Hehe, I was actually thinking about the megaminx as I wrote the OP.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 20, 2010)

Ever heard of a 7x7?


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 20, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Ever heard of a 7x7?


 
no, but I've heard of a 7x7x7.


----------



## Chrish (Nov 20, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> no, but I've heard of a 7x7x7.


 
You've never heard of a square?


----------



## cyoubx (Nov 20, 2010)

Chrish said:


> You've never heard of a square?


 
Win. 
On topic: just because it's converging doesn't mean it reaches the limit. I also like the five cubes in a row idea, but I suppose that's like using the average and ignoring singles.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 20, 2010)

Human limit discussion?

No useful/interesting content in this thread -> moving along.



JL58 said:


> Maybe it's time to define a new type of competition. How about 5 (or 10) cubes in a row with no inspection time? You get a table with 5 scrambled cubes, disclosed to you as the timer starts. The drawback is that you would need to come to the competition with 5 of your cubes, but this would give a longer time (likely more than 40 seconds for the best) to achieve it, with more chance to grow and beat the record. We would call this the *** category: Five From Scratch.


 
I just wanted to say that I hope you're not serious.


----------



## JL58 (Nov 20, 2010)

Why not?


----------



## blakedacuber (Nov 20, 2010)

JL58 said:


> Why not?


 
cause its impracticle and a bit ridiculous

fun maybe but dont think it will EVER become an OFFICIAL event


----------



## BigSams (Nov 20, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I just wanted to say that I hope you're not serious.



Gotta agree with Kirjava here. Cubing events can be many things, but to make something official, not only do you have to show that this is a good option, you also have to show that no other option is better. i.e. that it's the best overall. And this... well, there are many other better ideas.


----------



## Kynit (Nov 20, 2010)

I am a huge fan of bigger cubes for exactly this reason. In my opnion, improving on a 30 second WR for 4x4 would be much more interesting than attempting a sub-5 on 3x3. Going with Lucas' analogy, perhaps it's because I'm a middle distance runner?


----------



## Nestor (Nov 20, 2010)

Maybe in a possible future after the singularity, having transfered our consciousness to artificial bodies, speed-cubing might be popular again as people use it as a benchmark to test their bodies. Imagine world records below 1sec on these...


----------



## JL58 (Nov 20, 2010)

I was not suggesting to have a *** instead of anything else. Just in addition of existing categories. I believe the regular 3x3x3 will stay the main event of any competition. I was just trying to find some other 3x3x3 event that could add more spice. By the way Kirjava, maybe you want to expand on your thinking. I was serious and still don't really understand your objection about ridicule and impracticality. Just very open to discuss - go ahead, I have a thick skin 

Another proposal is a relay event: a team of 4 (for instance) solvers. The first solver starts the timer. When the first cube is solved s/he touches the second cube with his/her cube, then and only then the second solver starts his/her solve. And so on until the last solver finishes and stops the timer.


----------



## Innocence (Nov 20, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> Wow! My TPS is slow compared to those numbers Innocence. On my fastest algorithm ( T-Perm ) I average 11.2 TPS.
> 
> 
> EDIT: JL58, I have been thinking about that type of stuff for a while too. I think that could be a cool event.


 
Like I said, I'm talking in a futuristic tense, and that's the BEST of the best.


----------



## mcciff2112 (Nov 20, 2010)

Records were made to be broken.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

cyoubx said:


> Win.
> On topic: just because it's converging doesn't mean it reaches the limit.


 
That's exactly what it means. There isn't always going to be room for improvement.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 20, 2010)

JL58 said:


> By the way Kirjava, maybe you want to expand on your thinking.


 
It's arbitary and silly.


----------



## JL58 (Nov 20, 2010)

Not much of an expansion here. Just a harsh opinion. Can't you do better than that?


----------



## irontwig (Nov 20, 2010)

No/Short inspection encourages stupid methods.


----------



## 4. (Nov 20, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> What do sprinters do?
> 
> They're converging against actual physical limits, without a possibility of "lucky cases."


 
Oh, and they also get better drugs every year


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 20, 2010)

This seems to be a relatively unexplored option, and I believe Melinda Green mentioned trying to make it an official event. Fellow UK Open 2010 competitors may have heard me mentioning it since I was a competitor (2nd!). It's a lot of fun and a different challenge, though at >10 mins it takes a bit long, but maybe the 2^4 will bridge the gap better. Just my thoughts on this.

Matt


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 20, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> It's arbitary and silly.


 
But the acronym is awesome.


----------



## riffz (Nov 20, 2010)

JL58 said:


> Not much of an expansion here. Just a harsh opinion. Can't you do better than that?


 
What's so special and thought out about the number 5 then?

Also I really hope you realize the humour in the acronym you used.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 21, 2010)

JL58 said:


> Can't you do better than that?


 
I don't need to. *You* need to.


----------



## HaraldS (Nov 21, 2010)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> This seems to be a relatively unexplored option, and I believe Melinda Green mentioned trying to make it an official event. Fellow UK Open 2010 competitors may have heard me mentioning it since I was a competitor (2nd!). It's a lot of fun and a different challenge, though at >10 mins it takes a bit long, but maybe the 2^4 will bridge the gap better. Just my thoughts on this.
> 
> Matt


 
yah make one irl and I will support you!


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 21, 2010)

This whole thread is like "Can't we extend 100 meters to 200 meters?". The answer is shortly that there's no reason to.



4. said:


> That's exactly what it means. There* is *always going to be room for improvement.


 
Fixed.


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 21, 2010)

4. said:


> That's exactly what it means. There *is* always going to be room for improvement.


 
Fixed.


----------



## Hiero (Nov 21, 2010)

The possible limit of a WR on the 3x3 would only really affect people who are trying to set a new WR, which excludes a high percentage of us. Even if this limit is reached one day it doesn't mean we wouldn't compete against each other or ourselves.


----------

