1. Originally Posted by Sebastien
So what? A bulldozer and a sledgehammer are both options to demolish a building. Still one option is obviously more effective than the other.
Yes, off course the bulldozer should be chosen. But this is not a good comparison in this case.

So you believe that trying 21 cubes is inconsiderate. Then explain me how Marcell can give such a clear explanation about why he chooses 21. His opinion must also be inconsidarate?

2. Guys, this isn't the place for such dull debates. You always have PMs.

3. I think that the record could be broken with a 21 cube attempt or a 29 cube attempt. It depends on the person. I was surprised that Maskow had done 29 at his last competition simply because he is more used to doing 27.

4. Originally Posted by Marcell
Sure, the demand of 100% accuracy seems like a big task, one that a solver would like to avoid. But then again, considering the number of the cubes that one has to get right it turns out to be the smaller issue...

What do you guys think?
First of all there is probably a difference between you and Mascow, as you always seem to be very accurate and as Mascow says himself that his accuracy is not too well.

But actually I'm convinced that the strategy should always be to attempt as many cubes as you can quite savely do within an hour to maximize the amount of point.

Let's confirm this with some math. Given X is your accuracy of doing a safety BLD solve (as you do it with every cube in MBF) and n is the amount of cubes you try.

The probability to get n/n is then easily given by X^n. The probability of getting at least (n-1)/n is n*X^(n-1)*(1-X) + X^n.

more general the probability of getting at least (n-m)/n is sum_{i=0}^m: binomial(n,n-i)*X^{n-i}*(1-X)^i

I assume that for trained MBFers X does not really depend from n, as long as n is a number of cubes that a MBFer can do quite savely within an hour. Marcell or Mascow (or others) please tell me if you feel different about this.

Assuming an accuracy of 0.95:

Probability for >= 21 points attempting 21 cubes = ~0.34
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 23 cubes = ~0.68
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 25 cubes = ~0.87
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 27 cubes = ~0.96
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 29 cubes = ~0.99

Assuming an accuracy of 0.9:

Probability for >= 21 points attempting 21 cubes = ~0.11
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 23 cubes = ~0.32
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 25 cubes = ~0.54
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 27 cubes = ~0.72
Probability for >= 21 points attempting 29 cubes = ~0.84

If someone finds an error in my approach, please tell me.

Originally Posted by Goosly
So you believe that trying 21 cubes is inconsiderate. Then explain me how Marcell can give such a clear explanation about why he chooses 21. His opinion must also be inconsidarate?
I didn't say 21 cubes is inconsiderate, but Thomas post hasn't shown any thinking in contrast to Marcell's. So Marcell's opinion is of course not inconsiderate, as he has given explanation how he has come tome his conclusion. I still think that he is on the wrong way as my analysis above might support.

Originally Posted by NSKuber
Guys, this isn't the place for such dull debates. You always have PMs.
How can this be a dull or inpropriate debate if we are evaluating MBF strategies for WRs in a thread showing an MBF attempt which would destroy the current WR by far if it would be done in competition?

5. Thanks for doing the calculations! They really speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Sebastien
I assume that for trained MBFers X does not really depend from n, as long as n is a number of cubes that a MBFer can do quite savely within an hour.
The thing is, 99% procent of my DNFs are simple, stupid mistakes, and I think this is because I can't concentrate for an hour as hard as it would be necessary to avoid these. So I do think X is dependent on n. I'm not sure though, some statistics would be nice. And I'm even less convinced at the moment that this dependence if so deep as to make up for the advantage that one gets by doing more cubes.

6. Sebastien's calculations seem logical, but I think the point of trying lesser cubes even though you can do more is to be safer. Sure you can do 21 cubes in ~40mins and 29 cubes in ~55mins, but that doesn't mean you can't take longer to do 21 cubes (extra reviews, turning more carefully, etc) just to be extra safe. A DNF in multi is pretty bad for points IMO and one should go for as high accuracy as possible, not trying as many cubes as possible to hopefully break the WR even with some DNFs.

Just my two cents, not that I'm any good at multi =P

edit: anyhow, the fact that Marcell did use lesser cubes as a strategy (plus the point I mentioned above, if it matters) already proves this is not an 'inconsiderate' suggestion at all, it IS worth considering.

7. Originally Posted by Sebastien
I assume that for trained MBFers X does not really depend from n, as long as n is a number of cubes that a MBFer can do quite savely within an hour.
Originally Posted by Marcell
And I'm even less convinced at the moment that this dependence if so deep as to make up for the advantage that one gets by doing more cubes.
that's what I wanted to say

8. I was very inspired from your video and decided to do some multiBLD for myself; result: 0/3

First cube was three twister corners, second cube I forgot the two first letters in my memo (so annoying, my memo was perfect besides from that), third cube was an execution error....

Anyways, congrats on your huge success and I hope to see you in Poland for euro 2012! I think you have a huge chance of beating the WR by then

9. So fun to see!! But a little depressing too....

10. sebastien: inconsiderate != not-well-thought-about. you mean the latter.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•