• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

Tyson

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
640
Location
Burlingame, CA, USA
WCA
2004MAOT02
Moral of the story:
How about we not cheat at all?

Sure. I, myself, am just going to sit here, enjoying my cake, glad that I can't read Spanish. It saves me a lot of time that I can't read Spanish.

Well, I could if I tried. I guess it saves a lot of time by pretending I can't. I have to go. My pet potato battery is calling me fat.
 

rubikaz

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
58
WCA
2005ANGO01
Hello, I am Carlos (from rubikaz). Do you know the famous clock scrambles? You can see them here:

http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=134785#p134785

Superti (Javier Tirado) have explained why that scrambles are very lucky, there are some skips in the 5 scrambles. I have calculated the probability of getting that 5 skips (if we suppose that the scramble generator is a random one) and the result that I have obtained is:

1/1.981.355.655.168

About this:

"Mr. Pino has been cooperative with this process, and the WCA finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of records for anyone other than himself."

I do not know what Sebastian Pino told to the WCA members but he have said it:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085
(...)
Adentrándome en el veredicto, no me declaré culpable, no reconocí lo irreconocible, no dije que había hecho trampa, porque nunca la he hecho. Deben tener muy malos planes de comprensión lectora en Suecia, porque lo que acepté fue que hubo irregularidades en los scrambles del WR average, porque nadie debió haber participado con esos scrambles, pero yo no los manipulé.
(...)
Después de ser notificado en reiteradas oportunidades de apocalípticas sanciones que podrían caer sobre la comunidad chilena, se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.

He says that he is innocent, that the clock scrambles should have been changed but he did not manipulated them (and it was what he said to the WCA board).

He also says that the WCA board told him that if he did not accept his suspension, then all the Chilean community would be punish.

And about cuberos.cl, it is true that they have banned several users that think that Sebastian Pino cheated (I do not know if they insulted or not, but I think that they did not).
 
Last edited:

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Stefan, I think your reply was very rude and patronizing. I don’t know that it happens infrequently, no one can really say for sure. I was attempting to voice my opinion and I got slapped down in doing so. Thank you very much.

Yeah, sorry, I just can't stand the word "proof" being used with such levity.

Yeah, and we know how good Stefan is at shooting to different targets.

(reads...) What? I have no clue what you're talking about.

(5 hours later, doing other stuff) Oooooohhhhh! Right. LOL.

In my defense, I don't usually get up at 9am, give me a break.
 

rubikaz

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
58
WCA
2005ANGO01
I highly, highly doubt this.

I also doubt it. I am going to translate the exact words:

Sebastian said:
Se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.

translation said:
They offered me to accept a penalty in order to remove the doubts about the whole country. Literally they asked me if I preferred to make things easier for the country or to make things easier for me.
 

Bryan

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
1,296
Location
Rochester, MN
WCA
2007LOGA01
On the mornings of my competitions, I'm extremely busy. Scrambles are usually generated sometime in the week before the competition, and only saved on my computer's local drive (this is why I'm crap at posting scrambles later). And trying to have multiple people on the thing does add some complexity, because for some competitions, it's me running most of it.
 

legolas

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
1
Some time ago I could see the scrambles and I can assure you that:

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IS A CHEAT

It was only a matter of time knew the truth and thankfully it has. I have participated in many championships and I know perfectly this modality.

Congratulations David Woner and Yu Sajima.

WCA thank you very much.

Ernesto (Spain)

3 medals at world championships
1 European Championship
4 national championships
11 opens
1 European Record

I think I know what I'm talking about
 
Last edited:

tehmaxice

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
33
WCA
2009MAGN02
I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.
Rare events happen all the time, and as you may have heard: statistics can fool juries
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rubikaz

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
58
WCA
2005ANGO01
I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.

The probability is 1 against 1981355655168 (almost 2 european billions).

How much is it? For example the probability of solve the cross in the first layer and get 4F2Lskip+LLskip is 1 against 418037760 (smaller than 1000 millions).
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Can you show us the calculation as well, please?
Yeah, I was going to complain, but my browser crashed. I'm getting only about one in [3 million].
And more like one in [20 thousand] if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).

His calculation is the probability that a set of clock scrambles has exactly the same positions (and sides) matching centers as in these scrambles. I wish we could somehow get people around here to stop trying to estimate the likelihood of something unusual that occurred by over-constraining the specification. In this case, it's not a justifiable estimate. [Read below. Apparently that's not what was being calculated. Though I still think it's a bit unreliable to try to calculate exact numbers for this.]
(If anyone would like to respond "Who cares? It's still really unlikely!" here, it's only likely to lower my respect for your reasoning capabilities and ability to gather and interpret evidence.)
(As some wise guy once said, it's extremely unlikely that Feliks's WR solve would have had exactly the scramble and solve it did – but it did.)

Edit: Was too busy pointing out how far off the first calculation was to check the one I ended up posting. In any case, easy clocks are even more likely than I first suggested.
 
Last edited:

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm getting only about one in two billion. And more like one in two million if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).

For what exactly?

If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:

Code:
Easy side:          2.551119% (1 in 39.20)
Easy clock:         5.037156% (1 in 19.85)
Five easy clocks:   0.000032% (1 in 3083707.48)

Code:
for $a (0..11) {
  for $b (0..11) {
    for $c (0..11) {
      for $d (0..11) {
        $easy++ if !$a&&!$b
                || !$b&&!$c
                || !$c&&!$d
                || !$d&&!$a;
        $all++;
      }
    }
  }
}

$easySide = $easy/$all;
$easyClock = 1 - (1-$easySide)**2;

printf "Easy side:        %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easySide,       1 / $easySide;
printf "Easy clock:       %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easyClock,      1 / $easyClock;
printf "Five easy clocks: %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * ($easyClock**5), 1 / ($easyClock**5);
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
For what exactly?

If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:

Code:
Easy side:          2.551119% (1 in 39.20)
Easy clock:         5.037156% (1 in 19.85)
Five easy clocks:   0.000032% (1 in 3083707.48)
Ah, oops. I made a typo right before adjusting the calculation, and skipped a sanity check for that one because I didn't treat it as important enough for the post. Embarrassing, because that's exactly what I'm telling people to be more careful about.

Anyhow, I agree with you, since I used the same calculations, and the easy side probability comes out the same:
Code:
Count[Tuples[Table[Range[12],{4}]],Alternatives@@(RotateRight[{12,12,_,_},#]&/@Range[4])]/12^4

529/20736

(Also, counting diametrically opposite, I get 3.71%, 7.30%, 0.000207% respectively)

Edit: By the way, did you know that skipping 5 faces on a single clock solve is about as likely as an OLL skip? (1/236 vs. 1/216)
 
Last edited:
Top