# The AfterMath of Speedcubing



## YrMyKnight (Nov 15, 2011)

Contents 

Introduction

Limits of speedcubing

The future

Credits section


*Introduction*

This thread is going to predict what will happen to speedcubing many years from now.
Our current 3x3 world record is set by Feliks Zemdegs of 5.66 secs (SINGLE) 7.64 (Average)
I did a lot of research before making this thread and I hope you guys respect that.
Note : Feliks Zemdegs make you wanna quit cubing and take up fishing -,-
And I'm mainly talking about CFOP in this thread.

*Limits of speedcubing*

_ Any algorithmic set which can be performed by a human must be limited to a couple of hundreds at most thousands of algorithms. These algorithms need to be performed in a fast manner without too much thinking. This puts limits on the amount of time needed to solve the cube. If there was a hypothetical person who could see the shortest or the almost shortest algorithm right away in the beginning (which is quite improbable), he or she would need about 2 seconds, provided the farthest position is around 20 face moves at the twist rate of 10 moves per second. Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 5 seconds (the average time). One should totally abandon the concept of a record time since it has very little informational value. If somebody messes up the cube carelessly, one can take advantage of it and solve the cube in a few seconds. Therefore, for comparing purposes, I suggest to use an average of 10 consecutive times. For my system, I defined the concept of a modified record: I discarded record times whenever more than one stage was skipped during the cube solving. By skipping a stage, I mean: placing the four edges using less than 3 moves, too much luck for the four blocks (in the second layer), skipping the orientation of 8 cubicles from the last layer, skipping the permutation part in the last layer. For the first two layers, it is hard to estimate the probabilities, but the last layer can be calculated exactly. The probability that after solving the second layer, the last layer will have the correct color is 1/216, and the probablity that after orienting the cubes in the last layer one will not need to permute them, is 1/72. So, for example, if the last layer got assembled by chance right after the second layer, I discarded the time since the probability of that happening is too small: 1/(216*72)._
-Jessica Fridrich

Even now. Getting below 10 seconds would take numerous amount of effort and time.

First, the secret of achieving amazingly short times is not just the algorithms themselves. After all, a system will never solve the cube. Humans do! Probably the most important factor is dedication and a lot of practicing. As you may notice, some positions in the last layer have several algorithms associated with them. I alternate between them to minimize turning the cube as a whole, thus cutting on time.
So, what is the best system for speed cubing? I do not think that there is such thing as the best system. One system may better fit one person, other system may be more natural for somebody else. I believe that any system which is worked out into sufficient perfection is good. We should not be comparing systems but cubists. Those certainly are comparable.

Things needed to get below sub-7
No delays between Algorithms
Finger Shortcuts
Multiple Algorithms
Fast twisting
Hardwork


*The future*

What will happen after a few decades?
Will the record time remain the same or will it be broken?
It will be broke of course!
According to the times on the past decade, none has ever stayed longer then a year. (With exceptions)
As stated in the_ limits of speedcubing_, it takes a lot of effort to get under sub-10.
What will it take to get under sub-5?

Here is my aftermath.
Place the four edges from the first layer
Time taken - Less then one second
Average number of moves - Under 5 

Place four blocks each consisting of one
corner from the first layer and a corresponding
edge from the second layer. (F2L)
Time taken- two seconds
Average number of moves- 5x4 = 20

Simultaneously orient the corners AND edges
so that the last layer has the required color 
(one algorithm out of 40).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves- 9

Simultaneously permute the 8 cubes in the
last layer without rotating corners or flipping
edges (one algorithm out of 13).
Time taken - 1 sec
Average number of moves - 12

All together = 46 moves = 46 divide 5 = At least 9 moves per sec. Not to mention the cube rotations. but . . .
Nothing is impossible.


*Faster twisting does not have to mean shorter times*

One needs to be especially dextered to be able to solve the cube that fast (in 5 seconds). I would be lying to say that some dexterity is not important, but I insist that an average person possesses the necessary dexterity to solve the cube in really short times. I believe that almost everybody can achieve the twisting speed of 4 twists per second. Remember, all you are required to do is to learn a finite set of algorithms perform quickly. This relates to the important issue of adjusting algorithms for your hands. So why is it possible that faster twisting speed may bring you longer times? By performing the moves really fast, one deprives him/herself of the [important] knowledge of what is actually happening to the cube. After performing an algorithm, one is then suddenly thrown into a new position and needs some time to decide which move to choose next. If you had turned the cube just little slower, you could actually see what is happening to the cube, and choose the best next move during the last couple of moves of the previous algorithm. If you compare the times: fast turns + delay between moves and slow turns + shorter delays, you will find out that the second summation may be shorter! Another argument for the second alternative is that it is very hard to turn the cube really fast, and one often encounters "stuck" cubicles, or breaks the cube to its atoms. This can slow you down as well as frustrate.

Oh will, this is the end of my research. I will update it when my mind has ideas. 
Credit section will be filled later.


----------



## YrMyKnight (Nov 15, 2011)

Placeholder for credit section. 
Will be edited when I have time


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 15, 2011)

YrMyKnight said:


> Things needed to get below sub-7
> *Finger Shortcuts*
> 
> Here is my aftermath.
> ...


 
I don't see how cutting my fingers short will get me sub 7...

You do know that only 6% (29% if CN) of crosses can be solves in under 5 moves, do you?


----------



## bamilan (Nov 15, 2011)

Future is not CFOP...


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

I greatly appreciate the effort you put into that post. Well done. Also thank you for structuring it.
Now cause you did that I keep wanting to correct it like it's a submitted essay.
Few things, it's kinda funny seeing the old school terminology (that I pressume you got from Fridrich), saying the last layer has the correct colour sounds weird now, better to say 'is correctly orientated', similarly finger shortcuts should be finger tricks, and 'twisting' is more commonly called 'turning'. Also when talking about individual pieces we tend to say 'cubies' (instead of 'cubes' or 'cubicles').

In your conclusion I think the logic went the wrong way... "All together = 46 moves = 46 divide 5 = At least 9 moves per sec." It should be structured that 9tps is known to be possible, and so if you have the average movecount of 45, the time should be 45/9 to get the final time of 5 seconds, since it's the time that is your conclusion not the turn speed.

Also "none has ever stayed longer then a year. (With exceptions)". If there are execptions you can't really say 'none' as it's too definite.

Anyway, well done. I've seriously seen first year university essays that weren't as well structured.



bamilan said:


> Future is not CFOP...


 
Interesting. You think Roux, ZB, or an as yet uninvented method?
I'd hazard a guess that a flavour of CFOP will be used by the top guys, maybe including a more formalised OLLCP set, and maybe multislotting will be more common.. But lots of work still needs to be done.


----------



## Chrisalead (Nov 15, 2011)

I agree with bamilan, I think in the future someone will invent a new method more powerfull to solve the cube faster than with CFOP or Roux. Wait and see ^^.


----------



## YrMyKnight (Nov 15, 2011)

This is my first long thread, didn't do so well I guess


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Nov 15, 2011)

YrMyKnight said:


> This is my first long thread, didn't do so well I guess


 
I think you did well. people just try to make it even better with suggestions and opinions. Don't think so hard of yourself


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

YrMyKnight said:


> This is my first long thread, didn't do so well I guess


 
No, you did great! I really wish more new threads were presented like this.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

> Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at 5 seconds (the average time).



On the other hand, from 2003 (or earlier?) to 2010 (or later?) her page said this:



> Since the assumption for this estimate will probably be unrealistic for many years to come, I estimate the limit for speed cubing at *10-12* seconds (the average time).



From http://web.archive.org/web/20100330181904/http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html, the newer http://web.archive.org/web/20100611140317/http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/hints.html is currently not available.


----------



## bamilan (Nov 16, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Interesting. You think Roux, ZB, or an as yet uninvented method?
> I'd hazard a guess that a flavour of CFOP will be used by the top guys, maybe including a more formalised OLLCP set, and maybe multislotting will be more common.. But lots of work still needs to be done.


 

Not really Roux or ZB or Petrus or any existing method. If you have a case like OLL or PLL, the optimal algorithm for those is just 1 or 2 moves less than the speed versions.
So for a random position the move optimal solution is <20 and the speed optimal one would be <25 (?). It does not matter if it is 1 look or 2-3-4 looks. If they are speed-optimised algorithms, no matter if somebody else can find the optimal solution, cause the optimal one consists hard move sets and you can solve the cube faster with the speed optimized versions.
And a method which uses only 25(?) moves can be really fast. Current CFOP users use 6-look and ~50 moves. If it is 25 moves and lets say 3-look, together it'll be the half of the time as CFOP needs.
Current fast guys averages around 8-9 seconds, so with a method like that the cube can be solved in 4-5 seconds on average.
25 moves in 5 seconds is far away from 9tps.

(I don't really think current methods have a long future. They can be shortcutted on several ways, but that is just not enough)


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2011)

Em, when dealing with a last layer, the finger friendly algs may be a few move longer than the optimal ones... but if you were to learn the optimal OLL and PLL algs, it would still just be 78 algs. That doesn't really translate to talking about solving the whole cube, unless you're meaning working out a finger friendly version of all 43 quintillion cases. Computers that do simplified sub-optimal solutions still use processing power that is way beyond a human limit, remember those cases set up and solve many pieces at once, while it's still rare for anyone to do even two F2l blocks at once. Though you may have a point that there could be a speed method closer to the Thistlethwaite and Kociemba methods, by constantly reducing the cube groups... but the current human versions of those have crazy movecounts. It will be exciting to see where things go in the future.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 16, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Though you may have a point that there could be a speed method closer to the Thistlethwaite and Kociemba methods, by constantly reducing the cube groups... but the current human versions of those have crazy movecounts. It will be exciting to see where things go in the future.



Movecount is not crazy at all.
With Human Thistlethwaite 40 - 60 HTM is pretty normal.
When learning some new algs you can orient/ solve corners more efficient

But the drawbacks are:
- too many looks
- double layer turns
- In the end game the edges are all over the cube which suck for recognition.

I *don't* see any new methods taking over from what we already have.
The future is just in optimising F2L / first blocks and learning more LL algs (and being able to recognise them fast enough --> practise)


----------



## YrMyKnight (Nov 16, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> But the drawbacks are:
> - too many looks
> - double layer turns
> - In the end game the edges are all over the cube which suck for recognition.
> ...


 
Agreed.


----------



## s3rzz (Nov 16, 2011)

I fish on the regs jerk


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Movecount is not crazy at all.
> With Human Thistlethwaite 40 - 60 HTM is pretty normal.



Really? that's pretty cool.
Anyway, I agree with you, I think the future is either CFOP with Multislotting + OLLCP, or Roux with KCMLL.


----------



## rk960925 (Nov 16, 2011)

lol when is the human limit going to be reached.....


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 16, 2011)

rk960925 said:


> lol when is the human limit going to be reached.....


 
It won't....
(Probably like 4 seconds)


----------



## bamilan (Nov 16, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Em, when dealing with a last layer, the finger friendly algs may be a few move longer than the optimal ones... but if you were to learn the optimal OLL and PLL algs, it would still just be 78 algs. That doesn't really translate to talking about solving the whole cube, unless you're meaning working out a finger friendly version of all 43 quintillion cases. Computers that do simplified sub-optimal solutions still use processing power that is way beyond a human limit, remember those cases set up and solve many pieces at once, while it's still rare for anyone to do even two F2l blocks at once. Though you may have a point that there could be a speed method closer to the Thistlethwaite and Kociemba methods, by constantly reducing the cube groups... but the current human versions of those have crazy movecounts. It will be exciting to see where things go in the future.


 
OLL and PLL were just example. If the optimal solution is 11 moves for some OLLs and PLLs, and you can make it fingerfriendly in 13 moves, then an optimal-20-move position can be done fingerfriendly in 25 moves. It isn't about humans can find it or not. In few years they will.
Thistlethwaite and Kociemba methods are not the ones I'm talking about.

"That doesn't really translate to talking about solving the whole cube, unless you're meaning working out a finger friendly version of all 43 quintillion cases."
You can solve the cube in 50 moves using finger friendly algorithms, did you learn all the 43 quintillion cases? So why would should you learn all cases if you were to solve the cube in 25 moves using only finger friendly moves?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 17, 2011)

Sorry, but your average move counts for F2L and cross are way off. 20 moves for F2L pairs would be difficult going for the shortest solution, never mind a speedsolve at 9 TPS. And under 5 moves for cross is impossible to average, like Cubenovice said. Otherwise, not a bad job, well written.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 17, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> 20 moves for F2L would be difficult in FMC...


Difficult for someone like me, yes, but for the experts, I'd say they average significantly under 20 moves. I realize you were just trying to make a point through hyperbole, but I would like to point out that for fewest moves, 20 moves for F2L is considered pretty poor by the experts. I suspect most of the best people at fewest moves actually throw away any 20 move F2L they find (unless it has an OLL or PLL skip, or something similar), figuring there's no way it's good enough to bother with. (For them, any complete solution over 30 moves is essentially equivalent to a DNF.)

But I still agree that 20 moves for F2L while speedsolving seems pretty difficult to imagine at the moment, barring any new discoveries.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 17, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Difficult for someone like me, yes, but for the experts, I'd say they average significantly under 20 moves. I realize you were just trying to make a point through hyperbole, but I would like to point out that for fewest moves, 20 moves for F2L is considered pretty poor by the experts. I suspect most of the best people at fewest moves actually throw away any 20 move F2L they find (unless it has an OLL or PLL skip, or something similar), figuring there's no way it's good enough to bother with. (For them, any complete solution over 30 moves is essentially equivalent to a DNF.)
> 
> But I still agree that 20 moves for F2L while speedsolving seems pretty difficult to imagine at the moment, barring any new discoveries.


 
Sorry Mike, I wasn't making myself clear. I meant fewest moves using the CFOP method, as in planning out pairs, cancelling moves, using extended crosses, etc. Using petrus would be relatively easy, so I changed it as most people relate to Petrus when they think of FMC.


----------

