[WCA Regulations 2012] Mean of N for FMC

[Dene]

I am initially with Kirjava on this. There is no particular reason to object to this proposal as long as it isn't compulsory. The issue lies in the fact that very few competitions would bother with it. This in itself is not an issue, but then kinch2002 makes the point that it would be held at the major competitions. Would these competitions want to hold it? And more importantly, would the competitors be used to the format and be experienced enough in a mean of 3 format in competition situations for it to be fair to suddenly be thrown in the deep end at a major competition?

[Tim Reynolds]

As the person primarily responsible for the schedule for US Nationals, I can say that I'd have quite a bit of trouble trying to find room for another FMC solve. We're always very short-staffed during those events, and honestly my first thought would be just to throw out the second multi blind attempt to make room for it. Normally that's during the lunch break on the third day, and the other FM attempts I try to align with lunch breaks wherever possible. Big side events are hard to fit into the schedule, and it's hard to keep the main stage of the competition running through them. Adding an extra hour+ of that would be difficult.

I agree that this would be a good idea in theory, and would give a better reflection of who's actually the best at FM at the competition. However, I think that until we're more willing to limit the number and/or combinations of events people do, it will be very difficult to hold at any competition that's not being held specifically for the sake of getting a Mo3 for FM. Saying that competitors can choose between big cubes blind and fewest moves is tough because there's a lot of overlap in the people good at those events (at least from my observation in the US). I don't think there would be more than 2-3 American competitions per year that had Mo3 for FM. So at this point, I'm opposed to the idea.

[okayama]

Thanks a lot, Sébastien!

I'd like to share some existing posts in WCA-Regulations-2012.

How many times has FMC been held with "Best of 2" or "Best of 3"?

"Best of 2": many times.
"Best of 3": 10 times or so.

I prefer Median of 3 rather than Mean of 3.

Of course as long as the WCA has such a format.

We cannot easily hold multiple attempts for FMC considering a time table scheduling.

That is not a point to be discussed. If that is a problem, why is "Best of 2" legal
and "Mean of 2" illegal?
This change doesn't force organizers to hold 2- or 3-round (or more) FMC,
but just provides an option for organizers. If you don't have a time, you can
still choose "Best of 1."

How should we deal with decimal results?

See 9f3) in the WCA regulation.

I think we have to discuss: which should we choose, "Mean of 2" or "Mean of 3"?
Only one of these formats should be chosen, not both. It's not fair to compare
the results with "Mean of 2" and with "Mean of 3."

[hr.mohr]

With mean of 3 you can spend 3 hours, do a decent solution, break the wr and finish with a dnf and still loose the event. Man that would suck.

[TMOY]

Not sure about what you mean. The 1 hour time limit would still apply to each solve individually, so no WR-breaking solution found after 3 hours. And about the fact that you can get a WR single and a DNF mean, well, it may happen as well at any event using a mean or average format.

[hr.mohr]

Each attempt is 1 hour making a mean of 3 take 3 hours. My point is that you might filter out luck but then you would suffer more from a dnf.

Another thing:

There is no particular reason to object to this proposal as long as it isn't compulsory

That is not a good argument because it can also be used for mean of 100 as a format.

IMHO event formats should be a combination of properties that enable competition, balances skill/luck and at the same time are easy for organizers to implement. Using 3 hours for a single event and that's without counting the time to verify results is not a good idea.

[Erik]

I am not very sure what to think of this, although I am a BIG fan of FMC itself (I even plan to hold a competition with 6 attempts this summer).

Changing the preferred format to a "Mean of x" would mean that FMC takes at least 2 hours at a competition. Though I personally like the event, I am quite sure not a lot of organisers would want to spend that much time on FMC. Of course you could not follow the preferred format and still do a best of 1, but then the opportunities to have a result in the 'preferred format' are limited. One of the goals of a preferred format is that this format is the one used most of the time (imho).

With competitions lasting more than 12 hours a day already, I would feel forced to not compete in other events. Luck is partly an issue I agree, but look who's World Champion now it's far from a lucky draw. A mediocre CFOP solve with a PLL skip is mostly still longer than a good blockbuilding-solution with an insertion.


A preferred format of Best of 2 instead of best of 1 would still mean that you get more attempts, plus all results from all competitions would count for the rankings. In the 'mean of' format, only those few competitions that hold it would get the chance to get such a result.
(also: if you are satisfied after your first attempt, you can just skip the 2nd and relax with a 'best of' format)

[ASH]

To Eriks "only a few get the chance to get such a result":

Same holds for feet, doesn't it?
I guess the only comp I've been which held feet at all were nats and WC and I've been to 18 comps...

[Erik]

Yes it does, and it's not a good thing that it's so rarely held. You can have a whole new discussion about feet, but it would not be nice if this 'no chance to compete' thing would happen for another event like FMC too :S

[okayama]

I think

1. Add "Mean of X" as a possible format
2. Make "Mean of X" as a preferred format

are different points. Erik seems to discuss mainly the second one.
That doesn't deny the first point.

As for the first point, the question is simple: why is "Mean of X" illegal, whereas "Best of 2" and even "Best of 3" legal?