• 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!

Time Limit For Multi!!!

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
It's not a dilemma at all. You don't HAVE to win multibld. When someone does a large number of cubes you have to decide if it is worth more for you to miss a few events or to try to beat them. I'm sorry but unless you can convince the competition organizers to devote an entire day to just multibld that is going to be how it works. Besides, Tim, you are seriously mistaken if you think people would hold it against you if you chose not to attempt the 31 cubes. Having done 24 once is already impressive, and if you quit now you would still be considered one of the best multiblders in the world for many years to come.

I have sympathy for you guys but you seriously have to realize that VERY few people are any good at multibld, and that it takes a VERY long time. If Tim or Dennis or Rowe or Ryosuke want to have a decent attempt you have to set aside well over an hour just for that one event, and that's for one person! You might care a lot about multibld but other people might not be willing to delay the competition for well over an hour (which is the only way you would make sure to not miss events), especially if you are not going for a WR. I agree that you should be able to do as many cubes as you feel capable of, but you have to plan around the fact that if you take a very large amount of time on your multibld attempt you must by necessity miss other events. It's simply not feasable to delay a competition that much, and multibld is a ridiculously time-intensive event.

Of course there are alternatives. You could have a speed multiple blindfold event, like in memory competitions, where you have to multi as many cubes as you can in an hour, and the only thing counting is the number of solved cubes at the end (unsolved cubes are just worth 0 - you're supposed to try as many as you possibly can). Or, if your competition's organizer really loves multibld, perhaps you could convince them to have a separate day with just multibld so that you do not miss anything. Or maybe multibld could be a non-competition event, where any attempt is valid as long as you can get an official WCA delegate to observe and approve it (like with Guinness World Record attempts).
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,831
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Or maybe multibld could be a non-competition event, where any attempt is valid as long as you can get an official WCA delegate to observe and approve it (like with Guinness World Record attempts).

I don't do Multi yet. But I think if your attempt is rediculously long, that's a good idea.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok, I've missed a lot in this thread, even from this afternoon, but here are my thoughts to the responses:

A WR is supposed to mean something. As Dennis and Mike said, they both think Tim is amazing, and he's very fast. That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...
 

Mike Hughey

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
11,305
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
SS Competition Results
YouTube
Visit Channel
That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...

Exactly! I have absolutely no hope of ever getting a 3x3x3 BLD or 4x4x4 BLD world record, and almost no hope of a 5x5x5 BLD world record, but honestly, I could get lucky tomorrow if there were a competition then for multiBLD, and potentially set the world record. And there's no way I'm good enough to deserve that. If I did it, it would still be true that Tim is way better than me. Like I say, I'm not sure what format would fix it, but I can say that I don't think the current situation is very ideal. Fortunately, right now the ideal person holds the world record, though.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok, I guess I'll post my format idea for multiple BLD, but the thing is, it will change the event completely, forcing the old records to be archived.

Instead of having an undetermined number of cubes, we have preset quantities, i.e. 3, 5, and 10 cubes. You are only allowed to solve this many cubes, and you have to do it faster than others doing that same amount. I know that some of you object to this as being completely different from what is already the event, and I agree. This makes it more representative of 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 BLD, as they are respectable tiers in BLD solving. The event is called 3x3 multiple blindfold, and that's exactly what it is, solving multiple 3x3s while blindfolded. This "new" format allows for more comparable times, and still allows "novices" to compete.

I mentioned this idea to Tyson, and he said he actually thought of it when multi was first being made official. This way, the event is still "speed"cubing based, and still accomplishes the goal of the event name.
 

Mike Hughey

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
11,305
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
SS Competition Results
YouTube
Visit Channel
Dan, I think given a choice between that and Tim's "hour cards-equivalent" approach, I'd prefer Tim's approach. So how many cubes can you solve in x time, instead of a set number of cubes. The more I think about it, the more I like the "hour cards" idea. I didn't realize until today that in memory sports, for the hour cards event, everyone gets an hour to memorize and then 75 minutes to recite them. So maybe something similar could be done here - an hour to memorize and then another hour to execute. Of course, in practice, this would almost always add up to about an hour and twenty minutes total time, since no one would need a full hour to execute. But you'd have the extra forty minutes to execute in case you're trying to recall that last memory location you're struggling with.

I think this would be a great event, and would appeal to me more than just solving a set number like 5 or 10 cubes.

It would be complex strategy, but another option would just be how many you can solve in an hour, and you have to decide when to stop memorizing and start executing. That would also be an interesting approach. Again, I think I like that better than the set number of cubes idea.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
1,366
Location
Brockville, Ontario
YouTube
Visit Channel
Of course i still think that people who dedicate lots of time to this should not have just a predetermined time limit for all their hard work, i still havent seen an answer yet in why we have to do THAT? also Rowe who doesnt have an account on here has someting to say that he wanted me to get out so ill post it here for him. and no im not LIEING he really told me to say this and it is copied and pasted WORD by WORD.

Rowe
vvvvvvvvvvvv

"ok guys...lets stop talking about changing mutlibld, and talk a bout how we can FIX it. MULTIPLE BLINDFOLD is DOING AS MANY CUBES AS YOU CAN BLINDFOLDED. u might as well just not call it this anymore if we keep changing the rules. me and dennis and mondo are not as fast as tim, but it was never a speed event, dennis mondo and I dedicate a good deal of our cubing time to mutlibld, and changing it every few months just ****es us off. Why? cuz were PRACTICING THE NUUUUUMMMBERRRR of cubes. what do u think is more impressive. doing 100 cubes....or 10 cubes in 10 minutes. which is more fun? solving 100 cubes or doing 10 in 10 minutes? whats more fun? humping a tree or a cactus? u see my point? , changing the rules to steer the event in a complete opposite direction is completely dumb cuz all it does is dissapoint some cubers who dedicate so much time and effort to solving as many cubes as they possibly can, and this limit will only make people ****ed and NOT happy."
 
Last edited:

Simboubou

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
108
Location
France
WCA
2007BOUR01
i think they should give you 10 minutes for each cube you are attempting. so someone attemptin 8 cubes would have 80 minutes, or 1 hour 20 minutes to complete their solves. based on the records of tim haabermass(24 attempts in 136 minutes, 5:40/cube), rowe hessler(30 attempts in 264 minutes, 8:48/cube), dennis strehlau(10 attempts in 97 minutes, 9:43 per cube), and ryosuke mondo(18 attempts in 130 minutes, 7:13 per cube) 10 minutes per cube seems to be a fairly reasonable limit for the higher multiblinds. besides, every other event gets 10 minutes to solve each puzzle(except fm), why shouldnt multiblind get 10 minutes per puzzle?

You are right. And by the way, this is the way it work right now :D
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
This has raised an interesting point of possibly splitting multi-BLD into two, or maybe even three events. Taking the ideas of 1: as many as possible (current); 2: as many as possible within a time limit (Tim's idea); 3: a certain amount of cubes as fast as possible (Mr. Cohen's idea).
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I've had idea #3 well before this topic :p I think I said something about it in #rubik a while ago - I have been keeping a list of the fastest 3 times I have heard of for every number of cubes in multibld. I never thought anyone would want to do it as an official event because the number of cubes is arbitrary and it makes way too many events if you include a reasonable number of possibilities (just like computer NxNxN cubes), but it makes a really good unofficial record category. I was planning that this "speed multibld" would be one of the starting things in my alternative unofficial world records page, but I never got around to making it... I could still set up the page if anyone's interested. But again it wouldn't make a good official event to do X 3x3 cubes BLD any more than it would be a good official event to solve X 3x3s in a row.

Besides, I know that there are many ways to interpret the idea of multibld, but we really do not need so many official BLD events. The fact is that the main component of BLD is the memory sport aspect of it. No matter how many totally different BLD events you make, I feel that they will be dominated by the same group of people who have trained their memory. If someone who is very good at 4x4 learns 5x5, they have to learn different techniques, and the skill doesn't really translate. (There is lots of evidence for this; many people have been very fast at one of these cubes but mediocre or even slow at the other.) But take someone who is very fast at 4x4 BLD and teach them 5x5 BLD - they'll be world class in a week, because all they have to do is memorize a bit more and learn to cycle +centers. Once you can turn a puzzle into cycles, memorize a large amount of data, and create commutators quickly, you can basically do any blindfold event well to the point where it doesn't even really matter what puzzle you're doing, as long as you have a mathematical understanding of it. I've spent enough time on gelatinbrain to know that if you have the sufficient number of 3-cycles and parity fixes any puzzle becomes easy and virtually equivalent to any other puzzle as far as solving is concerned. The point is that the four BLD events we have do pretty well at ranking people's BLD skill, enough that we don't really need three different types of multibld, especially when you know that the same people will win them all without practicing them separately. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the same person who can do 20 cubes faster than anyone else will also be able to do the most number of cubes in an hour. So I'd say to pick one type of multi - and like Dennis and Rowe have said the best kind is the kind whose goal is to do as many cubes as you can. That's how multi has been since the 1980s and that's what distinguishes it from other BLD events.
 
Last edited:

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't really see the purpose of this limit, the only thing that may cause trouble without a limit is that the competitor will miss other events, but that's his own choice! If he wants to break the WR for multi I'm sure he'd be willing to comply with this. Of course maybe there should be A time limit, but imho it should just be the beginning and ending time of the total competition.
Who proposed this limit anyway? :confused:
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
913
Location
Germany
Dan, I think given a choice between that and Tim's "hour cards-equivalent" approach, I'd prefer Tim's approach. So how many cubes can you solve in x time, instead of a set number of cubes. The more I think about it, the more I like the "hour cards" idea. I didn't realize until today that in memory sports, for the hour cards event, everyone gets an hour to memorize and then 75 minutes to recite them. So maybe something similar could be done here - an hour to memorize and then another hour to execute. Of course, in practice, this would almost always add up to about an hour and twenty minutes total time, since no one would need a full hour to execute. But you'd have the extra forty minutes to execute in case you're trying to recall that last memory location you're struggling with.

I think this would be a great event, and would appeal to me more than just solving a set number like 5 or 10 cubes.

It would be complex strategy, but another option would just be how many you can solve in an hour, and you have to decide when to stop memorizing and start executing. That would also be an interesting approach. Again, I think I like that better than the set number of cubes idea.


But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:

59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!

Greetins...Dennis;):)
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
913
Location
Germany
I've had idea #3 well before this topic :p I think I said something about it in #rubik a while ago - I have been keeping a list of the fastest 3 times I have heard of for every number of cubes in multibld. I never thought anyone would want to do it as an official event because the number of cubes is arbitrary and it makes way too many events if you include a reasonable number of possibilities (just like computer NxNxN cubes), but it makes a really good unofficial record category. I was planning that this "speed multibld" would be one of the starting things in my alternative unofficial world records page, but I never got around to making it... I could still set up the page if anyone's interested. But again it wouldn't make a good official event to do X 3x3 cubes BLD any more than it would be a good official event to solve X 3x3s in a row.

Besides, I know that there are many ways to interpret the idea of multibld, but we really do not need so many official BLD events. The fact is that the main component of BLD is the memory sport aspect of it. No matter how many totally different BLD events you make, I feel that they will be dominated by the same group of people who have trained their memory. If someone who is very good at 4x4 learns 5x5, they have to learn different techniques, and the skill doesn't really translate. (There is lots of evidence for this; many people have been very fast at one of these cubes but mediocre or even slow at the other.) But take someone who is very fast at 4x4 BLD and teach them 5x5 BLD - they'll be world class in a week, because all they have to do is memorize a bit more and learn to cycle +centers. Once you can turn a puzzle into cycles, memorize a large amount of data, and create commutators quickly, you can basically do any blindfold event well to the point where it doesn't even really matter what puzzle you're doing, as long as you have a mathematical understanding of it. I've spent enough time on gelatinbrain to know that if you have the sufficient number of 3-cycles and parity fixes any puzzle becomes easy and virtually equivalent to any other puzzle as far as solving is concerned. The point is that the four BLD events we have do pretty well at ranking people's BLD skill, enough that we don't really need three different types of multibld, especially when you know that the same people will win them all without practicing them separately. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the same person who can do 20 cubes faster than anyone else will also be able to do the most number of cubes in an hour. So I'd say to pick one type of multi - and like Dennis and Rowe have said the best kind is the kind whose goal is to do as many cubes as you can. That's how multi has been since the 1980s and that's what distinguishes it from other BLD events.

Thanks for this post man, you got the point, really!

Greetins..Dennis;):)
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
913
Location
Germany
I don't really see the purpose of this limit, the only thing that may cause trouble without a limit is that the competitor will miss other events, but that's his own choice! If he wants to break the WR for multi I'm sure he'd be willing to comply with this. Of course maybe there should be A time limit, but imho it should just be the beginning and ending time of the total competition.
Who proposed this limit anyway? :confused:

Thanks Erik...I think exactly the same way you did!
If you miss other events, because you want to reak the WR, who cares, you have to come up with that...
And the limit can be the time limit of the competition, cause the screen in front of the person is "the judge" and the real judge (wich can change every 30 min or so) can judge many multi-bld-cubers at the same time...

Greetings...Dennis;):)
 

Mike Hughey

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
11,305
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
SS Competition Results
YouTube
Visit Channel
But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:

59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!

Greetins...Dennis;):)

Huh. I didn't realize that. Pretty neat.

I guess I'm changing my mind. I'm starting to agree more with Rowe's attitude. I don't think we can ever really "fix" multiBLD to make it more practical for organizers and make everyone happy, so why not just leave it alone. It is what it is. Tim has an advantage right now over the rest of us in that he can do a very large multiBLD and still have time to do other events in a competition, while the rest of us need to skip most of the other day's events to do one. And since he can do them faster, he can practice more in a given amount of time, so he'll only get better. Someday someone like Rowe will get 40 cubes in 5 hours or so, and then Tim will get motivated to try again and do it in less than 4. And of course everyone will get faster the more they practice.

And I don't think that the other BLD events (3x3x3 to 5x5x5) are ultimately dominated by being memory sport as much as qqwref thinks they are (and masterofthebass has sometimes implied). The fact is that 3x3x3 BLD doesn't require that fancy of a memory method to do well, and there are now bunches of people that can memorize quite fast. The best 3x3x3 BLD solvers are now those who can execute fast. Perhaps when the record was around 2 minutes, it was all about memorization, but now it's primarily a cubing event, not a memory event. And I think that 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 will eventually get that way as well, as people get better at them. So then that leaves multiBLD as our one event that is truly primarily a memory sport. And I think it makes sense to keep one such event around, since it is fascinating to outside observers.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok, well first off, Mike's idea I find works well, for a bunch of reasons.

In response to Rowe and Dennis, multi BLD doesn't necessarily mean solving as many cubes as you can blindfolded, it means solving multiple cubes. For the same reason that someone can attempt 2 cubes and it is still called multi BLD. I think the reason for a time limit of some sort, is because without it there's absolutely no way a WR can be compared to another person. For example, lets say rowe got his 30/30 at Armonk. I personally think that the only reason why he got it was because he took much more time memorizing than tim, who got 24. In every other BLD event, the face that you memorized slowly makes you absolutely bad at the event. I don't think that Rowe's 30/30 and Tim's 24/24 would be comparable at all, therefore making the ranking pointless. Then, if Ryosuke comess along and gets a 50/50 in 8 hours, there's no way I would compare that to the previous WR. I'm sure that all of the top guys, with enough time, can all do 100 cubes. This doesn't really prove to be competitive, as the WR can just be based off of who has a competition where they decide to spend much more time than others. Unlike other events, multi BLD is the only event where there is no consistency between competitors and how they go about doing their attempt. In speed events, it makes absolutely no difference where the event is being held, because they are completely analogous to each other in every way. For mutli, no 2 attempts are ever alike, because one could take 5 hours and the other can take 20 minutes. In order for a WR of a certain amount of cubes to be legitimately compared to another result, there has to be some consistency for the event. Otherwise there is no point in giving people WRs for different amounts of cubes, there should be records for each individual amount, as they are comparable to themselves only.
 

ExoCorsair

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
1,717
WCA
2007CHOI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.

So, i'm forced to miss other events if i want to win multi bld?

Yes, people already miss other events for big cube BLD, why shouldn't multi-BLDers? It's a choice you make; the organizers don't have to accommodate a small number of people when there are many others that want to speedsolve.

Either that or get faster at multi-BLD so that you don't miss any events. :)

Like qqwref said, it's not a dilemma at all.

A WR is supposed to mean something. As Dennis and Mike said, they both think Tim is amazing, and he's very fast. That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...

How do you determine if someone "should have the WR"? There are several people that are really good at each event, so what makes one person special enough that they "should have the WR"? All I can say to that is bull----.

And your analogy is completely flawed. Speedsolving events and multi-BLD are completely different. Multi-BLD cares about accuracy first, not time. It's far more impressive for someone to solve 100/100 cubes in eight hours than it is for someone to solve 25/25 in two hours. I always thought that that was the point of the event.

9f16) For the Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is lower than 0, the solve is disqualified.
If competitors have the same result, then the order is based on total time (lower is better).

Which makes me wonder why the time limit was proposed in the first place. It appears to me like it defends Tim's WR until Ryosuke or Rowe get to a competition. :rollseyes:

Besides, with the scoring system, someone could attempt 24/25 and just pick the 24 easiest cubes and solve them in under 2:15 to take the WR. :rolleyes:
 

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
What do you think about blindfolded events (especially multi-blind) becoming part of memory-sports instead of speedcubing?
All events (except mbf and fmc) are focussed on speed, even the regular blindfolded events. MBF has become so popular and reached such a high level lately (1 year ago I was 7th of the world with 2/2 in >25 minutes ;)) that I can understand that the regulations have problems keeping up. No other WR has ever made a leap like 10/10 to 24/24 and it doesn't seem that the limit has been reached, especially because perfection is no longer required. Just imagine you are organising a tournament, all the top mbf-ers are there and they all want to do 100 cubes (1000 minutes, so 16h 40m). If I was organising that tournament I wouldn't want to say no, but at the same time it would be incredibly hard to make it possible.

Besides, with the scoring system, someone could attempt 24/25 and just pick the 24 easiest cubes and solve them in under 2:15 to take the WR. :rolleyes:
That's wrong. 24/25 would be a maximum score of 23 so even if you do it in 1 second, you still don't have the WR. That is exactly why the current scoring system works. Otherwise someone could try 25/250 cubes and do only the "easy ones". Under the current rules that would be a maximum score of -200 which pretty much means "if you do this you are stupid".


P.S. I wouldn't mind 1000 minutes for a FMC-attempt while I am watching those crazy mbf-ers solve hundreds of cubes ;)
 
Last edited:

tim

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
1,692
Location
Karlsruhe, Germany
WCA
2007HABE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.

So, i'm forced to miss other events if i want to win multi bld?

Yes, people already miss other events for big cube BLD, why shouldn't multi-BLDers? It's a choice you make; the organizers don't have to accommodate a small number of people when there are many others that want to speedsolve.

Either that or get faster at multi-BLD so that you don't miss any events. :)

Like qqwref said, it's not a dilemma at all.

Nice, no one gets what i'm trying to say. It's not my decision.

It's far more impressive for someone to solve 100/100 cubes in eight hours than it is for someone to solve 25/25 in two hours. I always thought that that was the point of the event.

Yes, because it's the same time per cube...

But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:

59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!

Greetins...Dennis;):)

Sources? It's not a discipline in official memory sports competitions
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
913
Location
Germany
What do you think about blindfolded events (especially multi-blind) becoming part of memory-sports instead of speedcubing?
All events (except mbf and fmc) are focussed on speed, even the regular blindfolded events. MBF has become so popular and reached such a high level lately (1 year ago I was 7th of the world with 2/2 in >25 minutes ;)) that I can understand that the regulations have problems keeping up. No other WR has ever made a leap like 10/10 to 24/24 and it doesn't seem that the limit has been reached, especially because perfection is no longer required. Just imagine you are organising a tournament, all the top mbf-ers are there and they all want to do 100 cubes (1000 minutes, so 16h 40m). If I was organising that tournament I wouldn't want to say no, but at the same time it would be incredibly hard to make it possible.

The time limit would be the time of the competition, no competition is like 16 hours...and then, the organizer just says: well, you ave time, untill the competition ends and if you want to sit there for the whole competition time...THEN DO IT!

Greetings...Dennis;):)
 
Top