# 'Basic speed' and improvement theory



## Erik (Sep 14, 2008)

Hi,
I'd like to explain a theory about what I'd like to call basic speed. I think Ron mentioned something about this at Brussels Open and probably this is what he means.

I'm writing this now as I got approximatly the thousanth question of 'how long did it take you to reach...' and 'how long will it take me to reach...'

Everybody knows this last question can mostly never be answered within a more precise estimation than about 3 months to a year. We all know this has to do with the 'talent' (I'm not going to discuss the talent/motivation/skill thing here) of the cuber.

Now the exact question I got today was: 'how long did it take you to get sub-1 on 4x4'?
Going back in time, I started 4x4 approximatly after 2 months of cubing already. So it took me a long time to reach the sub-1 barrier because my 'basic speed' was still low when I started 4x4.

Another example, Yu Nakajima. He started 4x4 when he cubed much longer already and was fast at puzzles. He reached sub-1 very quickly, because his 'basic speed' was already much higher than mine when I started.

Now I think this is caused by the 'basic speed' of the cuber. No matter what puzzle you are practising from the beginning, it will improve your basic speed. For instance, if you gave me a new twisty puzzle, I would probably be able to solve it faster within 1 hour than a person new to twisty puzzles in a week. I say this is caused by my basic speed being higher than the new persons'.
This gives a new dimension in the horrific quality of the 'how long did it take you to get...' since it also has to do with your basic speed. You could say that your basic speed is also the speed that you start with when you begin with new puzzles.
Of course your basic speed consists of a couple of things:
- your fingerspeed
- your mental speed (lookahead)
- your ability to tackle new problems 
- your ability to apply known principles to new things
- other things you gained by experience

All of these are gained when you practise and play with cubes.

Finally I'd like to say that this is probably common sence too, but as far as I know; nobody ever wrote anything about this yet. Also, it would be nice to refer to basic speed too when you get the thousand and first question about how long it would take him to get sub-20...


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 14, 2008)

I always had some idea similar to "basic speed," but never really analyzed it so much. It's easy to notice that someone who already cubes a lot get faster at other puzzles quicker than the non cubist. Your description is great! I think this "basic speed" applies not only to cubing, but really any field in general.
The posts about 'how long it takes for me to get sub-20' are silly.


----------



## Erik (Sep 14, 2008)

Yes of course, this is also the case in sports.
For instance a 100m sprint pro. He would probably have less trouble learning to swim fast than a non-sportsman. Although in the case of hard physical sports instead of soft phyisical sports like cubing it is much more obvious.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Sep 14, 2008)

haha, very informative post, I love the idea and the awesome post xD


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Sep 15, 2008)

What a great cubing theory this is, I believe you are correct as well. But this basic speed thing doesn't work for 2 events of mine.

1: 3x3 Speedsolving - Because of my disability (only two finger on my right hand), I sometimes sort of loose the grip of the cube, and cannot do D' with a flick of my right ring finger (which I don't have). There's a few other things but I don't wanna get into that.

2: 3x3 OH - I favor OH since I have no disability, hence I am faster than cubers with similar speedsolving ratio times to mine because of a sort of ratio between events.
Example: My PBs (both nonlucky) - 12.62 3x3
15.98 3x3 OH
Some other person - 10.93 3x3
19.87 3x3 OH

(I just came up with something that seems to be about accurate since I couldn't find anyone who was about where I am).

P.S. - I know this post is kinda weird but please, don't be angered by it if it does anger you.

EDIT: One more thing I just thought of, I've heard that people with no sight can hear or smell better or something. Maybe since i have less fingers, my other hand makes up for that?


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 15, 2008)

While we're on the subject of improvement theory, my strategy for improving is and always has been the evolution algorithm. Basically I focus on one aspect of my speedcubing/blindfoldsolving/etc. at a time and change one small part of my method for one night, or multiple nights. I then evaluate the results of that with my normal averages. If the change is faster, or feels easier, etc. then I keep it and use that approach from that day forward. If I do not like the change I switch back to my old strategy and do not pursue the changed strategy any further.

The downside to this approach is it is slow, I took a long time to get sub-20 on average. But the upside is that you feel like you really are discovering and learning all on your own.

Obviously I also read the comments of others and incorporate those ideas. But in the absence of any new ideas I try to use the evolution algorithm to improve my cubing. I know this is somewhat unrelated, but hey the topic does have "improvement theory" in the title ;-)

Chris


----------



## Dene (Sep 15, 2008)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> P.S. - I know this post is kinda weird but please, don't be angered by it if it does anger you.



Why should anybody get angry? They'd have to be strange.

As for the basic speed idea, could we think of a more suitable name? Like "pre-ability" or something.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 15, 2008)

i totally agree with this explanation, my own experiences have proven it. since i did 5x5 for 3 months before i had ever seen a 4x4, i have always been sub-3 on 4x4. i guess the same could be said for magic, i reached sub 1.5 after about 30 minutes of practice because my turning speed was already good.

however, i am not sure why I am so much better at clock than everything else. the other great clock solvers(erik, dan cohen, gunji, matyas, stefan, etc) are miles ahead of me on other puzzles. maybe I am destined to be great at clock and just good at other stuff. i will keep practicing.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Sep 16, 2008)

Dene said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. - I know this post is kinda weird but please, don't be angered by it if it does anger you.
> ...



I dunno I just had the feeling someone might get angry for some reason


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 16, 2008)

Dene said:


> As for the basic speed idea, could we think of a more suitable name? Like "pre-ability" or something.


How about aptitude?


----------



## scottp45 (Sep 16, 2008)

hawkmp4 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > As for the basic speed idea, could we think of a more suitable name? Like "pre-ability" or something.
> ...



How about "physical ability? That would cover the fact that Emerson has two less fingers right?



EmersonHerrmann said:


> EDIT: One more thing I just thought of, I've heard that people with no sight can hear or smell better or something. Maybe since i have less fingers, my other hand makes up for that?


Maybe because since there is less sensory input to your brain, your brain can concentrate more on one signal? Sorry if I make no sense, I just think weird ><


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 16, 2008)

When we first got our V-cubes and posted our first horrible times just half an hour or so later at SveKub. Like:

Post 1 _I got my V-cubes =)_
Post 2 30 minutes later _25:33 on 7x7x7!!_

Some newbie asked "how can you learn to do them so fast??" 

Emerson: I can get angry if you like? >:-( <--(really really pissed)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 17, 2008)

"An aptitude is an innate, acquired or learned or developed component of a competency"


----------



## McWizzle94 (Sep 17, 2008)

scottp45 said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Your theory actually makes a lot of sense to me.

btw, your profile picture is cool


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Sep 21, 2008)

How long did it take you to get sub-15, Erik?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 21, 2008)

I agree with the idea of 'basic speed'. For example when I try to solve a new puzzle on the gelatinbrain computer simulator (assuming it isn't one of those ones that requires dozens of 40-move commutators), my first solve is already relatively fast, not because I'm good at that puzzle per se but because I know how to look for pieces quickly, make turns fast, and so on. It's definitely an interesting concept.


----------



## Neutrals01 (Sep 21, 2008)

I stopped practicing 3x3 for like 3 weeks...because that 3 weeks I spent time on 3x3 OH,4x4,5x5,pyramins and rubik's magic.. then few days ago started solving it again...3 weeks ago my pb average was like 33.57 or so..and usually get 34~36...then now..eventhough nvr practice for few weeks and got back solving..my average dropped to a pb average of 30.41 and easilly get average 31~33... so I guess the "basic speed" concept is very true...I obtain my basic speed from other puzzles and come back 3x3 and improved..


----------

