# World Record limit fo 3X3?



## Camilo Chapman (May 30, 2016)

*Hi guys. Just wondering when you thing the world record for rubik's cube will get to it's limit.*


----------



## willi pilz (May 30, 2016)

3.4 feliks PB in comp.(2017)
never been beaten until 2027. Just my guess


----------



## Dene (May 30, 2016)

9th of October 2145.


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 30, 2016)

21st of May 2019
2.98


----------



## tx789 (May 30, 2016)

Tomorrow.


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 30, 2016)

tx789 said:


> Tomorrow.


No competitions tomorrow


----------



## DGCubes (May 30, 2016)

Couple hundred years. Something sub-1.


----------



## Speedy_2233 (May 30, 2016)

impossible


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 30, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> Couple hundred years. Something sub-1.


Well gods number is 20, and the highest TPS is 12... Highest possible might be like 15. And looking/thinking takes time, I don't think sub 1 is possible.

Edit: never mind, I just realized gods number being 20 doesn't mean someone can't get a lucky case and sub-20 move solution with some crazy future method


----------



## IAmEpic2004 (May 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> Well gods number is 20, and the highest TPS is 12... *Highest possible might be like 15*. And looking/thinking takes time, I don't think sub 1 is possible.


 I can get 15

(Jk, I know you mean 1.5. At least, I think so.)


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 30, 2016)

does anybody know what the average optimal solution for the 3x3 is? I can't find it anywhere
I'm guessing 17 or 18 moves 
But optimal solutions are harder to fingertrick so you can't spam tps

I think the absolute limit for 3x3 is sub 3 single and maybe sub 5 average


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 30, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> does anybody know what the average optimal solution for the 3x3 is? I can't find it anywhere
> I'm guessing 17 or 18 moves
> But optimal solutions are harder to fingertrick so you can't spam tps
> 
> I think the absolute limit for 3x3 is sub 3 single and maybe sub 5 average


If you mean mathematical average, I have no idea. If you mean most commonly occurring, 18 is about 67%, 17 is about 28%, 19 is 3.5%, and 16 is 2.5%


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 30, 2016)

IAmEpic2004 said:


> I can get 15
> 
> (Jk, I know you mean 1.5. At least, I think so.)


Why would I mean 1.5 turns per second? That's not very much


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> If you mean mathematical average, I have no idea. If you mean most commonly occurring, 18 is about 67%, 17 is about 28%, 19 is 3.5%, and 16 is 2.5%


If thats the case then on average it would be
18*.67+17*.28+19*.035+16*.025
which is 17.885


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> Why would I mean 1.5 turns per second? That's not very much


He thought you meant the total time to solve it, because 20 moves/12tps~1.5seconds


----------



## Jbacboy (May 31, 2016)

Yes the world record is the limit fo 3x3


----------



## One Wheel (May 31, 2016)

Sometime in the next 30 years somebody is going to come up with a reliable method of one-looking a near-optimal 3x3 solution. It won't be me, but I predict a sub-3 single and around a 4.8 average is the limit.


----------



## BenBergen (May 31, 2016)

Theoretically, a sub-1 WR for 3x3 is feasible. The WCA regulations state that,
"An official scramble sequence must produce a random state from those that require at least 2 moves to solve (equal probability for each state)." 
This means that at competitions it's possible for a scramble as low as two moves to pop up! I'm fairly certain that if a 2,3 or 4 move scramble were to be generated for a comp, people would be able to one look the solve and sub-1 for 3x3 would happen. Of course given that there are 4.3 x 10^19 possible permutations of the Rubik's cube and less than 50 000 that have an optimal solution of 4 moves or less, the probability of this happening in the next 100 years is probably less you winning the Powerball every week for the rest of your life. But hey, it's possible!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 31, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> Well gods number is 20, and the highest TPS is 12... Highest possible might be like 15. And looking/thinking takes time, I don't think sub 1 is possible.
> 
> Edit: never mind, I just realized gods number being 20 doesn't mean someone can't get a lucky case and sub-20 move solution with some crazy future method


Lucas Etter has gotten a 20 tps J perm, it's on his YouTube channel.


----------



## gyroninja (May 31, 2016)

BenBergen said:


> Theoretically, a sub-1 WR for 3x3 is feasible. The WCA regulations state that,
> "An official scramble sequence must produce a random state from those that require at least 2 moves to solve (equal probability for each state)."
> This means that at competitions it's possible for a scramble as low as two moves to pop up! I'm fairly certain that if a 2,3 or 4 move scramble were to be generated for a comp, people would be able to one look the solve and sub-1 for 3x3 would happen. Of course given that there are 4.3 x 10^19 possible permutations of the Rubik's cube and less than 50 000 that have an optimal solution of 4 moves or less, the probability of this happening in the next 100 years is probably less you winning the Powerball every week for the rest of your life. But hey, it's possible!


Except TNoodle is used to generate scrambles and it throws out scrambles with short optimal lengths (<13? IIRC).


----------



## shadowslice e (May 31, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> If you mean mathematical average, I have no idea. If you mean most commonly occurring, 18 is about 67%, 17 is about 28%, 19 is 3.5%, and 16 is 2.5%


I don't have time to go through and work out the exact average but this page on kociemba's website goes into detail for a lot of scrambles.


----------



## Loiloiloi (May 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Lucas Etter has gotten a 20 tps J perm, it's on his YouTube channel.


Yeah but no one is ever going to have solves that match algorithmic TPS. Pretty sure Chris Olson gets nearly 20 TPS on a few PLLs, considering he sub-1s every PLL except F


----------



## Sajwo (May 31, 2016)

I think that the limit for 3x3 WR is 3 seconds. Maybe 3.5


----------



## IAmEpic2004 (May 31, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> Why would I mean 1.5 turns per second? That's not very much


Oh sorry, I thought you meant the total time to solve


----------



## Competition Cuber (Mar 8, 2018)

How fast do you think that the limit for 3x3 WR single is?

My prediction is about sub-1.5


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Mar 8, 2018)

Sub 2.3


----------



## RedJack22 (Mar 8, 2018)

Competition Cuber said:


> How fast do you think that the limit for 3x3 WR single is?
> 
> My prediction is about sub-1.5


There, in my opinion, is no way the 3x3 single could get below that! I think the lowest it could be would be about 2.5 seconds


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 8, 2018)

Well iirc tnoodle scrambles are min 13 moves optimal so possibly 1 second if we go for a few million years


----------



## Competition Cuber (Mar 8, 2018)

Well a T perm is 14 moves, and feliks did one in 17 TPS, soooo.....


----------



## Ronxu (Mar 8, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Well iirc tnoodle scrambles are min 13 moves optimal so possibly 1 second if we go for a few million years


Not the case anymore. 2 minimum.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Mar 8, 2018)

The limit is somewhere between 0-0.3, under current regs.


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 8, 2018)

CyanSandwich said:


> The limit is somewhere between 0-0.3, under current regs.



0.06-0.3*

(A6b1)


----------



## teboecubes (Mar 8, 2018)

When our species has achieved interstellar travel and inadvertently sends a signal to the aliens, they’ll discover the Rubik’s cube, which, with their evolved appendages, will be able to turn at extreme TPS, and with their quantum supercomputer-like intelligence, will be able to find an optimal solution in a fraction of the 15 second inspection period allowed by the WCA, and will be able to solve the 3x3 in less than the 0.38 robot WR.

just a possibility


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Mar 8, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Sub 2.3



To add to this. I don't mean this in a mean or discriminative way. But I do believe it will be set by somebody who has a small "disibilty." People that have these often have unusual skills. Like extreme pattern recognition, an ability to learn full 1LLL, insane TPS.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Mar 9, 2018)

DGCubes said:


> 0.06-0.3*
> 
> (A6b1)


True 
I don't have a stackmat, but someone could easily prove the upper bound is 0.15 or something.

With the right hardware and a scramble like U D you could get it almost as fast as just a timer start/stop.


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 9, 2018)

CyanSandwich said:


> True
> I don't have a stackmat, but someone could easily prove the upper bound is 0.15 or something.
> 
> With the right hardware and a scramble like U D you could get it almost as fast as just a timer start/stop.



Just using the YueXiao that was lying on my desk, I was able to get 0.225 within a couple tries with the scramble U' D.

Doing a just-over-45-degree E layer move to scramble (which is technically okay), I was able to get it down to 0.154 (I also got a 0.113 with a really shady timer stop).

So your guess was right; so far we have bounds of [0.06, 0.15] for the limit of 3x3 single, lol. Interestingly, I've found that it's best to do these scrambles one-handed, keeping the other hand on the timer. So, if one of these scrambles ever showed up, the 3x3 WR could be done OH.


----------



## Mr.Roux86 (Mar 18, 2018)

About the whole TPS thing, I think we might have futuristic cubes that allow us to turn very fast. If someone had a 15 move solution with a 20-23tps? Sub 0.75


----------



## One Wheel (Mar 18, 2018)

Mr.Roux86 said:


> About the whole TPS thing, I think we might have futuristic cubes that allow us to turn very fast. If someone had a 15 move solution with a 20-23tps? Sub 0.75


The limitation on TPS is more due to human physiology than cube hardware, I think.


----------



## tnk351 (Mar 20, 2018)

It's going to be something like 0.008 or something like that.
Only if you use 1gll.


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 20, 2018)

tnk351 said:


> It's going to be something like 0.008 or something like that.
> Only if you use 1gll.


1-Generator Last Layey is not the term you want to use. 1gll is just the AUFs


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> 1-Generator Last Layey is not the term you want to use. 1gll is just the AUFs


For a time of 0.008, I suspect he did mean 1gll. If you have to turn more than one side of the puzzle, there's no way you could get a time that fast.

Of course, that would require a rule change, since:
4b3) Specification for a scramble program: An official scramble sequence must produce a random state from those that require at least 2 moves to solve (equal probability for each state).


----------



## Nicky Steingraber (Mar 22, 2018)

I Think atleast a mid 1 single in 20-40 years
Just think, we are discovering new methods/algs almost every day 
so in like 20 years there could be a method where instead of solving the cube everytime in 50-70? moves with cfop 
we could have a method where we solve it in at least 20 - 30 moves and TPS will already be insane by then and 
Cubes still are atleast 10 - 15 years until running out of designs, Not only that people can maybe even get lucky scrambles on 3x3 solving in like 14 moves or something


----------

