[Proposal] Pyraminx Scramble filtering should be 6 turns.

[Carrot]

4b3c) Pyraminx and Skewb: The (random) state must require at least 7 moves to solve.​

Above should be changed to:

4b3c) Pyraminx and Skewb: The (random) state must require at least 6 moves to solve.​

Reason: Current world record was with a 6 move solution.

 

[Cale S]

I think that either 6 move scrambles should be allowed, or the 6 move WR should be disqualified. It's not fair to have an official WR that doesn't follow the current regulations.

 

[Sajwo]

[...]the 6 move WR should be disqualified[...]

this

 

[tseitsei]

I think that either 6 move scrambles should be allowed, or the 6 move WR should be disqualified. It's not fair to have an official WR that doesn't follow the current regulations.

Well this wouldn't be fair either... The current wr was done under fair conditions following all the regulations (that were official back then) of the wca. You can't just go and take peoples records away from them. THAT is unfair if anything.

Also scramble filtering should be 6 moves (or less) because it's not fair that wr is easier scramble than anyone can ever get again either...

 

[Carrot]

I think that either 6 move scrambles should be allowed, or the 6 move WR should be disqualified. It's not fair to have an official WR that doesn't follow the current regulations.

A lot of regulations has changed over time, so if that is really your opinion I get that you also want to disqualify all blindsolves pre-2008 due to lack of paper being held between the competitor and the cube; You also want to disqualify stickerless cubes that were used in blindsolving while that was OK; You also want to disqualify all attempts where the cube was covered by a paper (hiding the puzzle) instead of something bigger (that covers the puzzle from all angles). That was just a few examples, I think it's reasonable to allow results that were good at the time being unless the changes are drastical (like multi blind)

 

[vd]

According to numbers on wikipedia, about 1 in 15 random positions is solvable in 6 or less moves. To me, it seems complete non-sense to go for 7 moves limit. I kinda feel that even 6 moves is quite a lot, still disabling more then 1 in 100 positions... Just my opinion though.

 

[XTowncuber]

Limit should be 6. 7 would probably be ok too, but with the WR already being 6 we should go with that.

 

[DrKorbin]

9i3) If the WCA Regulations for an event are changed, existing regional records stand until they are broken under the new WCA Regulations.

As for the filtering limit, idc.

 

[qqwref]

According to numbers on wikipedia, about 1 in 15 random positions is solvable in 6 or less moves. To me, it seems complete non-sense to go for 7 moves limit. I kinda feel that even 6 moves is quite a lot, still disabling more then 1 in 100 positions... Just my opinion though.

We're throwing away 1 in 15 random positions?! Change the filter limit for sure.

 

[uberCuber]

According to numbers on wikipedia, about 1 in 15 random positions is solvable in 6 or less moves. To me, it seems complete non-sense to go for 7 moves limit. I kinda feel that even 6 moves is quite a lot, still disabling more then 1 in 100 positions... Just my opinion though.

We're throwing away 1 in 15 random positions?! Change the filter limit for sure.

To clarify, the wikipedia numbers disregard tips, but the WCA limits do not.


But seriously, it's dumb for the limit to be set at a higher number than the current WR: For 2x2, the current WR is the entire reason why the number 4 is the limit. :rolleyes:

 

[scottishcuber]

But seriously, it's dumb for the limit to be set at a higher number than the current WR: For 2x2, the current WR is the entire reason why the number 4 is the limit. :rolleyes:

Which begs the question as to why it's currently at 7.

 

[Carrot]

Which begs the question as to why it's currently at 7.

Long story (almost) short: Someone said that this should also apply for Pyraminx, Someone then pointed out Yohei Oka had a 7 move solution on his 1.93 World Record, someone else thought that was the standing WR, then they released the 2014 regs, people pointed out the WR was 1.36 with a 6 move solution, a few people apologised and a fifth guy locked the matter and said with a 1 in ~350 chance of happening it's not important enough for a fast regulation update, hence it could wait till 2015 reg changes or something.

E: Kirjava, thanks, I was looking for that discussion!

We're throwing away 1 in 15 random positions?! Change the filter limit for sure.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ing-(new-poll)&p=938516&viewfull=1#post938516

You proved it to be 1 in ~342

 

[Kirjava]

WCA board said they'd change it to 6 then never did

 

[JustinJ]

WCA board said they'd change it to 6 then never did

#WCAconspiracy mounting