# What do you think is the absolute human limit of 3BLD?



## randomtypos (May 1, 2013)

This question is primarily directed towards people who have achieved sub30. I am curious as to what you guys have to say. Do you guys think 5 second memo is possible? 10 second execution? 5-cycles? What is there left to improve? Is it possible to memo edges and corners at the same time?


----------



## antoineccantin (May 1, 2013)

Sub-15 is possible.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 1, 2013)

Anything is possible so long as Marcell and Maskow don't stop bld.


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

25 second average is probably the best possible, at just over 1.5 seconds per cycle and just under 10 second memo on average. I think people could read the cube in 5-7 seconds on average, but I'm not sure how close memo times will actually get to this. sub-15 official single could probably happen with LOLscramble. 

Also, 5-cycles won't be faster since iirc optimal 5-cycles are usually just pairs of 3-cycles cancelled into each other.



TheNextFeliks said:


> Anything is possible so long as Marcell and Maskow don't stop bld.



And don't forget the other Marcin lol.


----------



## Czery (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> And don't forget the other Marcin lol.



Marcell, Marcin and Marcin. 

We need an epic blind showdown between the three of them.


----------



## Coolster01 (May 1, 2013)

Marc.... FTW!!!

I said 16:
4 second insane memo
12 second execution


----------



## kunparekh18 (May 1, 2013)

Don't forget Noah  :3


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Don't forget Noah  :3



My execution still has a loooooong way to go lol.


----------



## randomtypos (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> My execution still has a loooooong way to go lol.



Is it your turn speed or are your cycles not optimal yet?


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

randomtypos said:


> Is it your turn speed or are your cycles not optimal yet?



Both. TPS used to be a bigger problem. Now I think the cycles are slowing me down more.


----------



## randomtypos (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Both. TPS used to be a bigger problem. Now I think the cycles are slowing me down more.



Hmmm I see. I'm just starting on figuring which edge comms to use.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Also, 5-cycles won't be faster since iirc optimal 5-cycles are usually just pairs of 3-cycles cancelled into each other.



Ville once fit in M' U M U' into a solve.


----------



## Ollie (May 1, 2013)

This could be an interesting neuroscience question. It depends on (and relates to) what the upper limits are on how quickly information can be perceived, encoded and recalled (not to mention what the physical limits of dexterity are and the quality of the method used.) When I have time (and can be bothered) I'll look up some studies.


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Ville once fit in M' U M U' into a solve.



Do you think anyone could do this somewhat consistently at the TPS of the fastest people? An easier way to save a cycle might be to incorporate some more freestyle like solving isolated cycles with comms etc.


----------



## Ollie (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Do you think anyone could do this somewhat consistently at the TPS of the fastest people? An easier way to save a cycle might be to incorporate some more freestyle like solving isolated cycles with comms etc.



I also wonder how a 'savant' might fare at 3BLD if he/she had the interest. I feel that memorizing huge numbers of 4-move 5-cycles such as M' U M U' in all possible permutations (and beyond) may not be beyond a 'genius.'


----------



## sneaklyfox (May 1, 2013)

Don't forget someone could maybe develop a better and faster BLD method.


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Don't forget someone could maybe develop a better and faster BLD method.



This is something that I have thought a lot about, and perhaps this post will look very stupid in 5 years, but I'm not sure how a faster method could exist.

2 things are fundamentally true about BLD:

1. You have to examine each piece during memo.
2. You have to solve every unsolved piece during execution.

3-style allows you to examine each piece as quickly as you can, and then executes in under 1 piece per second for a fast solver. I really don't see an entirely new method allowing for faster execution but not slower memo. I think the way upwards is to make better use of the techniques we already have. For example, you could occasionally spot easy 5-cycles like Ollie pointed out, or maybe even sometimes solve an edge and corner cycle simultaneously. People could also memorize algs that both twist corners and flip edges or ones that flip/twist pieces while solving parity. Maybe an entirely new method could work, but there are certainly still ways to improve what we have.


----------



## hubingjushi (May 1, 2013)

5.55


----------



## CubeRoots (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> 25 second average is probably the best possible, at just over 1.5 seconds per cycle and just under 10 second memo on average. I think people could read the cube in 5-7 seconds on average, but I'm not sure how close memo times will actually get to this. sub-15 official single could probably happen with LOLscramble.
> 
> Also, 5-cycles won't be faster since iirc optimal 5-cycles are usually just pairs of 3-cycles cancelled into each other.
> 
> ...



I'm suprised you think 25, I mean, we're almost there now!


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Maybe an entirely new method could work, but there are certainly still ways to improve what we have.



I've had thoughts about a reduction based system. Something like;

Reduce to some given state via some set of steps -> use translation matrix based on exec during steps taken (this table will probably be huge and the biggest issue) to convert initial memo into current state memo. -> X-look reduced state.

You are solving more things then usual with each alg. The matricies are pre traced so to not add an overhead to memo.

This is 1 phase reduction - 2 phase may be more feasible.


Solving methods are so good these days that ideas for completely new ones that could be better become quite abstract.


----------



## Marcell (May 1, 2013)

If we could memo piece positions instead of tracing cycles, we wouldn't have to constantly turn the cube around while memoing, which could save seconds.

Also, Kirjava's idea sounds very interesting.


----------



## Noahaha (May 1, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> I'm suprised you think 25, I mean, we're almost there now!



I mean global average for one person, not WR single.


----------



## antoineccantin (May 1, 2013)

Who knows. Someone could just be really good at tracking pieces and be able to sub-10 speedBLD memo, then use a speed efficient method for execution.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 1, 2013)

<M,U>-gen 5-cycles


----------



## Ollie (May 1, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> <M,U>-gen 5-cycles



This is awesome, but what's the probability of getting a 5-cycle from that list in a typical 3BLD solve?


----------



## A Leman (May 1, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> <M,U>-gen 5-cycles



Wow. thanks. I may go through some of that for fun sometime. 

I personally can't judge what a limit would be. I think 3style is already very good and differences now could just come from an easy scramble, solving isolated cycles, or just being really comfortable with a memo method.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 1, 2013)

Ollie said:


> This is awesome, but what's the probability of getting a 5-cycle from that list in a typical 3BLD solve?



The probabilty that one 5-cycle is MU-generated is 1/66 = (10*8*6*4) / (22*20*18*16). You can also do setups to these cases.
On the other hand, 3-cycles are mostly intuitive and easy to learning, but I see no logic in these algs for 5-cycles.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 1, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I mean global average for one person, not WR single.



so do I! Marcell appears to be low 30s maybe sub 30 global


----------



## irontwig (May 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I've had thoughts about a reduction based system. Something like;
> 
> Reduce to some given state via some set of steps -> use translation matrix based on exec during steps taken (this table will probably be huge and the biggest issue) to convert initial memo into current state memo. -> X-look reduced state.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I can't see how this would be feasible at all.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2013)

why?


----------



## A Leman (May 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> why?



How would this be faster than cycles? It would require pauses during execution and a serious amount of thinking. I have thought about this for a couple hours and I am also wondering how such a method could be learned intuitively. I can memo edges faster now than I could prepare something like a 2 look lse. Also, How would a reduction method like this be memorized? As you can probably notice, I am very skeptical about your Idea, but your ideas are normally very interesting(even if they will never happen).


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2013)

A Leman said:


> How would this be faster than cycles?



Lower movecount, potentially less memo.



A Leman said:


> It would require pauses during execution and a serious amount of thinking.



Why would it require pauses during execution? Translation matrix ensures minimal thinking required. 

Think before you conject.



A Leman said:


> I have thought about this for a couple hours and I am also wondering how such a method could be learned intuitively.



It wouldn't be.



A Leman said:


> I can memo edges faster now than I could prepare something like a 2 look lse.



Fail to see the relevance.

Please be aware that this is purely suppositional.


----------



## blah (May 1, 2013)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Ville once fit in M' U M U' into a solve.


I remember this.


----------



## Cubo largo (May 1, 2013)

I think it's possible with insane memo and an absurd TPS


----------



## blackzabbathfan (May 1, 2013)

I said sub-13. It might be a while but 4 second memo with sub-9 second execution might just be possible.


----------



## irontwig (May 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> why?



I just can't see a way to use a reduction based approach that would be both "light weight" enough and faster than 3-style.


----------



## nlCuber22 (May 1, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> description of redux based system



An incredibly sweet idea, but will anybody take action and actually see if it has potential to be a better method than the ones we already have? (inb4 y not u feg)

Also know that I think it definitely could be, based on what little I know about 3bld.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 1, 2013)

Reduction sounds interesting, any specific ideas you have thought of that might work? I think this thread might turn into a discussion on new theoretical BLD methods.

I looked at 5-cycles before briefly, but I had more important things to work on. I was planning to get back to it soon. I was planning to learn the cases of DF and the U layer edges, which have the first or last two targets on the UF and UB pieces (but probably not those with both targets on U, that's a really easy 3-cycle case while the others are considerably more awkward). Might help with some awkward cases and I think they will be the easiest to consider setups to as well.

More on topic, I'd guess the limit would be low 20s average.


----------



## evogler (May 2, 2013)

I imagine the very, very fastest people would have an advantage of a few seconds due to TPS? Not that the top bld people are slow by any means (Mr. Zalewski has #93 3x3 average), but if Marcell (best 3x3 average 13.29) and Feliks could have a baby, that person might do some damage...


----------



## Noahaha (May 2, 2013)

evogler said:


> I imagine the very, very fastest people would have an advantage of a few seconds due to TPS? Not that the top bld people are slow by any means (Mr. Zalewski has #93 3x3 average), but if Marcell (best 3x3 average 13.29) and Feliks could have a baby, that person might do some damage...



I agree. I think a lot of people get into BLD because they are not so fast at 3x3.


----------



## A Leman (May 2, 2013)

evogler said:


> I imagine the very, very fastest people would have an advantage of a few seconds due to TPS? Not that the top bld people are slow by any means (Mr. Zalewski has #93 3x3 average), but if Marcell (best 3x3 average 13.29) and Feliks could have a baby, that person might do some damage...



I would agree about the tps part, but inheritence does not usually work that way. It's is more like a statistical regression towards the mean.


----------

