• 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!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Why wont Kilominx w/others become an event?

Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
882
Likes
267
Location
Mewni
WCA
2015MANN01
#61
I'd love to see that, the argument I've heard against it is time, mostly scrambling. I've figured out a basic design for a mechanical scrambler that could likely be built for <$100, and alleviate that problem (although it would still likely take 2-3 minutes to execute a full scramble), but that hasn't been built yet. One good thing about gigaminx is the lack of parity means that it shouldn't be a problem to base rankings on single times.
It probably would have to be a single-time event, considering the scrambling...
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
648
Likes
274
Location
New York
#63
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.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,334
Likes
766
#65
One good thing about gigaminx is the lack of parity means that it shouldn't be a problem to base rankings on single times.
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.
 
Top