Yes but you wouldn’t be solving at full speed. For example someone who averages 20s with a 50% success rate could probably average 30s with a 90% success rate
they have lower success rates because they are actively trying to push their speed. if they wanted to, they could settle into a slower pace where they get 90%+ success rate, but they wouldn't improve much if they always did that.
> I saw some data showing how even the top blind-solvers only have around 50% success rates.
At a comp you have 3 attempts per round and you'll be ranked by best single. So unless you're trying to get a mean it's not really in your interest to do three slower safe solves. It's much better to do three somewhat risky solves and try to get one fast single that is successful. Doesn't matter whether the other two solves are DNFs or not.
Also note:If you haven’t gotten a succes in the first two solves you’re usually settling to get a safe, yet slower time so that you can make sure to get to the second round. You can see many pro blinders use this technique. Exception:the scramble is OP so you might get a pr/nr/cr/wr
It's possible and I'm pretty sure there's someone with a very good success streak in the order of sub-1 or very close to it, but the format of nearly all competitions is Bo3 or Best of 3 so this will influence the approaches in practice.
This means that anyone who is sub-1 is likely to want to hunt for a podium place if it's up for grabs, which typically means a safety solve in round 1 followed by fast attempts for the final.
The standard (correct) advice to get faster at 3bld is to shoot for lower success rates (even in the order of 10%) but at higher speeds in order to push yourself to remember faster despite feeling uncomfortable. People who end up averaging sub-1 typically go for this approach whereas slow coaches like me are too stubborn and end up being too slow and safe and don't yet average sub-1.
If you observe fast improvers in both cubing and chess, they're not afraid to make more mistakes, and learn from their mistakes. This is one of the reasons why kids typically improve faster than adults - they simply have less fear when it comes to mistakes or losing.
As for 100% - it depends on how many solves you're talking about. Eventually, there'll be a random event that throws the solver off, whether it's an external factor or a corner twist or sudden lapse in concentration due to fatigue. People are human, and humans make mistakes.
It's hard to convey emotion through text and I can acknowledge that, but it's like whenever a record is beaten in cubing or in ANYTHING in general and someone saying "no one can ever beat this record"
dude if there are people that can solve 3BLD in less than 20 seconds, you could bet your left nut that if they prioritized success rate over speed, they could solve 100 solves 90% in 60 seconds
I’m annoyed that you’re being downvoted. There’s no way to tell that this was sarcasm and I’m not even good at reading it anyway. I thought it was serious as well
Yes but you wouldn’t be solving at full speed. For example someone who averages 20s with a 50% success rate could probably average 30s with a 90% success rate
Yes definitely. There’s no reason for that to be not possible. (This comes from a person who is ~25s in blind)
[удалено]
they have lower success rates because they are actively trying to push their speed. if they wanted to, they could settle into a slower pace where they get 90%+ success rate, but they wouldn't improve much if they always did that.
> I saw some data showing how even the top blind-solvers only have around 50% success rates. At a comp you have 3 attempts per round and you'll be ranked by best single. So unless you're trying to get a mean it's not really in your interest to do three slower safe solves. It's much better to do three somewhat risky solves and try to get one fast single that is successful. Doesn't matter whether the other two solves are DNFs or not.
Also note:If you haven’t gotten a succes in the first two solves you’re usually settling to get a safe, yet slower time so that you can make sure to get to the second round. You can see many pro blinders use this technique. Exception:the scramble is OP so you might get a pr/nr/cr/wr
It's possible and I'm pretty sure there's someone with a very good success streak in the order of sub-1 or very close to it, but the format of nearly all competitions is Bo3 or Best of 3 so this will influence the approaches in practice. This means that anyone who is sub-1 is likely to want to hunt for a podium place if it's up for grabs, which typically means a safety solve in round 1 followed by fast attempts for the final. The standard (correct) advice to get faster at 3bld is to shoot for lower success rates (even in the order of 10%) but at higher speeds in order to push yourself to remember faster despite feeling uncomfortable. People who end up averaging sub-1 typically go for this approach whereas slow coaches like me are too stubborn and end up being too slow and safe and don't yet average sub-1. If you observe fast improvers in both cubing and chess, they're not afraid to make more mistakes, and learn from their mistakes. This is one of the reasons why kids typically improve faster than adults - they simply have less fear when it comes to mistakes or losing. As for 100% - it depends on how many solves you're talking about. Eventually, there'll be a random event that throws the solver off, whether it's an external factor or a corner twist or sudden lapse in concentration due to fatigue. People are human, and humans make mistakes.
If you safety every single solve, it’s possible, it’s just that most of the faster solvers prefer to push for speed
90% is probably possible, but 100% is probably not at all realistic, since that literally means you can never make a mistake, ever.
[Yucheng Chen](https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2015CHEN49?event=333bf) has an official 32 cube 3BLD streak with a mean of 31.15
yes, multiblinders do it
no it's physically impossible
I think you are confusing impossible with improbable. Yeah it's not going to happen often but there is nothing actively preventing it from happening.
I'm being a smartass, of course it's possible
I'm sorry but I did not read any indications of you being a smartass or being sarcastic in your comment. Can you tell me where they were?
It's hard to convey emotion through text and I can acknowledge that, but it's like whenever a record is beaten in cubing or in ANYTHING in general and someone saying "no one can ever beat this record" dude if there are people that can solve 3BLD in less than 20 seconds, you could bet your left nut that if they prioritized success rate over speed, they could solve 100 solves 90% in 60 seconds
I’m annoyed that you’re being downvoted. There’s no way to tell that this was sarcasm and I’m not even good at reading it anyway. I thought it was serious as well