[WCA Regulations 2014] Scramble Filtering (new poll)

Discussion in 'WCA Regulations' started by Methuselah96, Jan 3, 2014.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. The ones specified in the current regulations (4b3b-4b3d).

    9.6%
  2. More than the +2 and solved positions, but not the ones in the current regulations.

    22.8%
  3. Just the solved and +2 positions.

    50.0%
  4. Just the solved position.

    9.6%
  5. None.

    7.9%
  1. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    Pros of scramble filtering (more than the +2 and solved positions):
    • Reduces chance of slower solvers getting ridiculously lucky and undeserved solves.

    The 2014 changes to the WCA Regulations included the addition of 4b3 (https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/48):
    Here is what would be filtered:
    Rubik's Cube: 19/43,252,003,274,489,856,000 (0.000000000000000043928601%)
    2x2x2 Cube: 385/3,674,160 moves (0.01047858558%)
    Pyraminx: 221,233/7,558,2720 moves (0.29270314696%)
    Skewb:7,1625/3,149,280 moves (2.27432937052%)
    Square-1: working on that

    Here is a discussion for filtering for more info: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wca-scrambler/3x_hN9Y4HCM
    This regulation was added in an effort to add transparency to the process that TNoodle uses to find random scrambles. This scrambling filter (except for Skewb and Square-1) has been in effect for a long time and was documented in the readme for TNoodle but was never addressed in the Regulations or Guidelines.

    This discussion was originally brought up in this thread but I thought a poll would be useful.

    Should there be scramble filtering for determining scrambles?
    If so, how should these limits be decided?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2014
  2. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,123
    21
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    I'm resigned to the fact that this probably won't ever change, but have to register my disdain at 4b3b, 4b3c and 4b3d - I truly believe we should not be doing this.
     
  3. uberCuber

    uberCuber Member

    3,921
    2
    Jun 24, 2010
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    WCA:
    2011THOM01
    Where did they even pull the numbers 7 (for pyraminx) and 11 (for square-1) from? Did they just make up some random numbers that sounded good to them?

    I also don't like these regulations.
     
  4. Erik

    Erik Member

    I strongly agree with this. Either go with a truly random position or (if you like to reason that even noobs can scramble so that there is not a 4 move solution) let random bypassers pick a position. Setting ANY filter is wrong therefore I think.
     
  5. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    Adding those regulations changed nothing. The minimum number of moves was already in place in TNoodle which is the only official WCA scrambling program. These regulations were added to inform the cubing community how the scrambles were being generated (https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/48). Here is a conversation about scramble filtering: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/wca-scrambler/3x_hN9Y4HCM

    If a random state was one move away would you want somebody who has no idea how to cube get the WR just because they could see one move in advance or would you give it to the people who actually know how to cube?
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  6. Escher

    Escher Babby

    3,362
    48
    Jul 23, 2008
    WCA:
    2008KINN01
    YouTube:
    RowanKinneavy

    Shame that when this change was enacted, I remember me and Kir posting several times in the relevant thread (I'll try to dig it up) trying to explain our reasoning and we didn't seem to be very popular.
     
  7. uberCuber

    uberCuber Member

    3,921
    2
    Jun 24, 2010
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    WCA:
    2011THOM01
    This has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with this scramble filtering.

    If a person has no idea how to cube, they wouldn't be trying to compete and would never see the scramble in the first place.
     
  8. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    Ok. If a person normally solves cubes in 50 seconds.
     
  9. uberCuber

    uberCuber Member

    3,921
    2
    Jun 24, 2010
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    WCA:
    2011THOM01
    Presumably such a person would not be able to start a stackmat timer, perform a move on their cube, and stop the timer in a faster time than every fast-ish cuber in the round. And if they did manage to, then good for them. Luck is inherent to cubing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  10. Erik

    Erik Member

    First of all: you know perfectly well that the chances of this are smaller than that I win the lottery 10 times on a day without rain in the Netherlands.
    And to answer your question: in that case that person would be lucky. Good for him, yay, much wow. But that is part of the game, we have averages of 5 to filter the skill.

    Imho a 1 move scramble and solution is no worse than a 4 move scramble and solution. Both extremely lucky and unbeatable on a 'harder' scramble.
     
  11. qqwref

    qqwref Member

    7,833
    23
    Dec 18, 2007
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA:
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube:
    qqwref2
    I told you guys! If the way scrambles are generated is defined by a bunch of code rather than by the regulations, changes will happen and you won't even know until someone feels like telling you, because the regulations will stay the same...
     
  12. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    For some reason I don't think the cubing community would be very happy with the 3x3 single record becoming unbeatable and would also defeat any purpose that 3x3 single record might have.

    Yes, it is EXTREMELY unlikely, so why not filter it?
    If averages of 5 are the real test of skill why do we even have singles?

    That is why we're adding these regulations now and not later.
    Although this information has been available in the readme for TNoodle if anyway ever bothered to look.

    I am curious as to how they chose these numbers as previously mentioned. The exceptions I get, but having 2 moves as a standard seems odd. I don't think two moves away on a 3x3 would be any harder than one move.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  13. Erik

    Erik Member

    This is already reality on 2x2.

    This logic does not make sense. Seriously.


    I really don't like the fact that this was almost conceiled and I'm glad it ended up in the regulations.
     
  14. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    But it doesn't have to be reality for other puzzles.

    Your logic is that it's so unlikely that we won't ever have to deal with it.
    My logic is that it would defeat the purpose of a single in the case that it did happen, so why we would let that position even have a remote possibility of being generated?
     
  15. Erik

    Erik Member

    You don't seem to understand what I'm saying:

    you think it's a problem that there is the chance of extreme luck and try to solve this with a filter.

    I say:

    - There is no problem. Luck is part of the cube.
    - A filter does not solve your self-created problem.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  16. Kirjava

    Kirjava Colourful

    6,123
    21
    Mar 26, 2006
    WCA:
    2006BARL01
    YouTube:
    snkenjoi
    I don't understand how people seem to think that 2 moves is silly and compromises the integrity of the event, but 4 moves is suddenly respectable.

    God's Number for 2x2x2 and Skewb is the same, the case distribution and number of states is very very similar, yet the scramble filter limits are completely different.
     
  17. Methuselah96

    Methuselah96 Member

    318
    0
    Jun 17, 2010
    WCA:
    2012BIER01
    I understand what you're saying.
    - I do not think luck should be the deciding factor of determining records.
    - A filter would certainly help.

    I created a poll for more discussion.
     
  18. Username

    Username Member

    3,399
    16
    Dec 15, 2012
    Finland
    WCA:
    2013JOKI01
    YouTube:
    TheUnknownCuber
    That pyra filter rules out about 6.4% of all possible positions. I don't like that.
     
  19. uvafan

    uvafan Member

    995
    1
    Apr 9, 2012
    WCA:
    2012LIFL01
    YouTube:
    uvafan173
    I agree. The pyraminx move filter is absolutely ridiculous. If someone gets a fairly lucky scramble and sets the WR single, it's just part of cubing... 7 moves is way too high.

    EDIT: In general, I also disagree with scramble filtering. It is totally unnecessary. Luck is an element in any sport, and eventually it won't really be WRs that matter because they will be broken very rarely, it will be the winner of head-to-head competitions such as worlds, and all competitors will have the same scrambles so...
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  20. ThomasJE

    ThomasJE Premium Member

    1,792
    2
    Dec 31, 2011
    England
    YouTube:
    ThomasJECubing
    Here is what I agree and disagree with:
    BLD events: Adds yet another element of luck. We don't need that.
    2x2: Agreed. This also means the single can still be broken.
    Pyraminx: Limiting solutions to 7 moves when God's number is 11 is too high. Maybe something like 5.
    Skewb: No idea
    Sq-1: No idea
    5x5, 6x6, 7x7: Kind of goes without saying.
     

Share This Page