1. 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 30,000+ people from around the world today!
    Dismiss Notice

Why wont Kilominx w/others become an event?

Discussion in 'WCA Regulations' started by Nicky Steingraber, Sep 1, 2017.

  1. Aerma

    Aerma Member

    729
    218
    Apr 1, 2017
    Mewni
    It probably would have to be a single-time event, considering the scrambling...
     
    TipsterTrickster likes this.
  2. One Wheel

    One Wheel Member

    2,023
    1,013
    Feb 24, 2016
    Wisconsin
    WCA:
    2016BAIR04
    Mostly I Just want a stickerless magnetic gigaminx, sculpted or ridged of course, and I doubt that will happen if it's not an official event.
     
    TipsterTrickster likes this.
  3. Sion

    Sion Member

    590
    248
    Dec 13, 2015
    New York
    Here are puzzles I hope to someday become an event (actual new puzzles)

    -Kilominx (It is easier than mega, but is isn't as trivial in my opinion.)
    -Master pyraminx (PLEASE)
    -Astrolabacus (Don't ask me why. I just think it would be a fascinating event.
     
    TipsterTrickster likes this.
  4. I agree that Master Pyraminx would be awesome!
     
    TipsterTrickster likes this.
  5. xyzzy

    xyzzy Member

    1,174
    617
    Dec 24, 2015
    I don't understand this reasoning.

    Parity contributes a significant amount of variance to a square-1 solve for people who don't use CSP/CPP, so yeah, square-1 singles for non-CSP/CPP users is silly. On 444, parity is almost irrelevant unless you're super consistent with everything else. On 555 and up it contributes basically nothing to the variance. (I crunched the numbers for this a while back, but disclaimer: I might be remembering wrongly, and I don't know if my performance is representative of others'. This is all assuming intermediate-level alg sets like L2E are used.)

    For any puzzle beyond 444, getting lucky with parity is not fundamentally different from getting lucky with centres/edge pairing, except that it's often one of the last things you do in a solve and so it's the part you remember most vividly; the part you attribute good/bad times to. The easiest litmus test is to plot a histogram of your solve times for a puzzle with parity (squan, big cubes, even-order minxes): if it doesn't look multimodal, parity probably matters less than you think it does.
     
    kubnintadni likes this.

Share This Page