Turning Speed vs. Efficiency: What Actually Makes You Faster
Published by System Administrator
The Speed Paradox
One of the most counterintuitive lessons in speedcubing is that turning faster doesn't always lead to faster solve times. Many intermediate cubers focus obsessively on increasing their turns per second (TPS), believing that raw hand speed is the path to improvement. In reality, the world's fastest solvers often turn at a moderate pace — their speed comes from efficiency (fewer total moves) and continuity (no pauses between moves).
Consider this example: Solver A turns at 8 TPS but uses 65 moves with 5 seconds of total pause time. Solver B turns at 5 TPS but uses 50 moves with 1 second of total pause time. Solver A's solve time is 65/8 + 5 = 13.1 seconds. Solver B's solve time is 50/5 + 1 = 11 seconds. Solver B is faster despite turning 37% slower. This demonstrates the fundamental principle: solve time = (total moves / TPS) + pause time.
Where Efficiency Comes From
Cross Efficiency
An optimally planned cross averages 5-6 moves. A reactively solved cross averages 8-10 moves. That's a difference of 3-4 moves — approximately 0.5-1 second at competition TPS. Planning saves moves without requiring faster hands.
F2L Efficiency
Efficient F2L solutions use fewer moves per pair by exploiting already-paired pieces, using empty slots for setup, and choosing optimal insertion angles. An efficient F2L averages 28-32 total moves compared to 35-42 moves for an inefficient F2L. This 7-10 move difference translates to 1-2 seconds of time savings.
Specific efficiency techniques include: using back-slot insertions to avoid whole-cube rotations, recognizing when a U2 before insertion reduces total moves, and learning alternative F2L solutions for common cases that are shorter than the standard approach.
Algorithm Selection
For OLL and PLL, different algorithms solve the same case with different move counts and finger trick friendliness. Sometimes a 12-move algorithm with smooth finger tricks is faster to execute than a 10-move algorithm with awkward movements. The optimal algorithm for you depends on your finger trick strengths.
Where TPS Matters
TPS does matter — it's not irrelevant. But it matters most during algorithm execution (OLL and PLL), where you're performing memorized sequences at maximum speed. During these phases, high TPS directly reduces execution time because the moves are predetermined and require no decision-making.
During cross and F2L, however, excessive TPS can actually hurt performance. Turning too fast during F2L leaves insufficient time for lookahead, creating long pauses between pairs that negate the speed gains. The optimal F2L TPS is the fastest speed at which you can maintain continuous lookahead — typically 4-6 TPS for advanced cubers, not the 8-10 TPS they use during algorithms.
The Concept of "Flow"
The ideal solve has a quality called "flow" — a continuous, rhythmic sequence of movements with no visible starts and stops. A flowing solve at moderate TPS looks effortless and feels smooth to the solver. A jerky solve at high TPS looks chaotic and feels stressful.
Flow comes from three factors: (1) lookahead that eliminates pauses, (2) efficient solutions that minimize unnecessary moves, and (3) ergonomic algorithm choices that avoid awkward transitions between moves. Developing flow should be a higher priority than increasing TPS for any cuber who averages above 12 seconds.
Practical Advice
- For sub-20 solvers: Focus 70% on efficiency and lookahead, 30% on TPS. Your biggest time gains come from planning and continuity, not faster hands.
- For sub-15 solvers: Balance shifts to 50/50. At this level, you need both solid efficiency and competitive TPS.
- For sub-10 solvers: Every fraction of a second matters. TPS becomes increasingly important, but only after efficiency is already optimized.
Track your move count using a smart cube or by reviewing reconstructions. If your average solve uses more than 60 moves, there are significant efficiency gains available that will improve your times without any increase in turning speed. Focus on reducing move count first, then work on TPS once your solutions are efficient.