What puzzle do you think the WCA should add next?

[Laura O]

If someone with a good knowledge of the regulations and experience doing team BLD could come up with some standardized rules for an official proposal then that'd be cool. Otherwise the event list is fine.

Such a proposal has been written some time ago (see http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?25818-The-Team-BLD-discussion-thread!). I didn't look into detail, but I don't think it's much work to adapt this for the current regulations.

Although I love TeamBLD and it would be cool to have it as an official event, I don't think it makes sense to keep records for it. It depends a lot on the skills of your partner, so you actually could "hire" a good caller or executer to get good results. I don't think there is a fair and reasonable way to rank the results.

 

[Stefan]

Although I love TeamBLD and it would be cool to have it as an official event, I don't think it makes sense to keep records for it. It depends a lot on the skills of your partner, so you actually could "hire" a good caller or executer to get good results. I don't think there is a fair and reasonable way to rank the results.

We could list just people's best result (like we do in every other event). So if A+B are the #1, then others wouldn't get a ranking by hiring A or B (unless they beat the result of A+B). Would also prevent the same few great people clogging the ranking (my original reason for the idea).

And if you do want to allow duplicate mentions, there are the "100 Results" and "1000 Results" options (again like we do in every other event).

 

[Ranzha]

Why, what's unfair about starting at different times?

Retention loss over time.

 

[Hssandwich]

2BLD would be fun, also 2MultiBLD.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

15 Puzzle because regulations on judging/penalties and all can be simple to write up.

 

[Ranzha]

15 Puzzle because regulations on judging/penalties and all can be simple to write up.

We'd need a scrambler, preferrably random-state.

@everyone who's suggesting other 2x2 events: No.

 

[DrKorbin]

We'd need a scrambler, preferrably random-state.

Easy.

 

[Stefan]

Retention loss over time.

Are you thinking about a forced significant pause between planning and execution? Why would we have that? Just start when you're ready to go, same as in every other event.

Also, since you're doing it all in your head, a break would allow you to repeat exactly that over and over again, probably *improving* retention.

@everyone who's suggesting other 2x2 events: No.

2x2 marathon (42 cubes).

 

[Ranzha]

Are you thinking about a forced significant pause between planning and execution? Why would we have that? Just start when you're ready to go, same as in every other event.

Also, since you're doing it all in your head, a break would allow you to repeat exactly that over and over again, probably *improving* retention.

I'm talking about an unforced significant pause. Starting when you're ready to go is difficult to group judge if enough competitors want to go at the same time. (It also makes my original suggestion invalid.)
I suppose the retention loss argument can only really be used if it becomes an issue when put in practice.

2x2 marathon (42 cubes).

:fp

 

[henrysavich]

15 Puzzle because regulations on judging/penalties and all can be simple to write up.

I'd like to see 15 puzzle as well, but I think the biggest issue in regulating would be the solved state, because not everywhere uses the arabic numeral system.

The WCA would have to make an official list of all the allowed numeral systems, which could get extensive if we want to be really inclusive. And if that regulation is put in place, judges at international competitions would have to know at least the most common ones.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

I'd like to see 15 puzzle as well, but I think the biggest issue in regulating would be the solved state, because not everywhere uses the arabic numeral system.

The WCA would have to make an official list of all the allowed numeral systems, which could get extensive if we want to be really inclusive. And if that regulation is put in place, judges at international competitions would have to know at least the most common ones.

Anything that presents a visual representation of the numbers might work, but most 15 puzzles everywhere use the solved state anyway [Mainly because that is how it comes]

We'd need a scrambler, preferrably random-state.

@everyone who's suggesting other 2x2 events: No.

It would be easy, but scrambling should not be in notation, but instead in Solve-To-Scrambled state. That is what Ben and I normally do when using a physical 15 puzzle.

 

[AvGalen]

Or you could just not allow competitors to bring turnable cubes in.
It's very easy to turn a cube without the cube making a distinct noise while turning.

Also, I don't know if there's been a proposed system for judging SpeedBLD once the time is up. To create truly fair conditions, each solver would have to go at the same time. At a large enough competition, it will be incredibly difficult to staff this. The only situation I can foresee is staggered starting times, off by a few minutes in "heats". Once the first heat finishes the memorisation phase, staff judge the timed phase, and record results. Shortly afterward, the second heat finishes the memo phase and gets judged for the timed phase, et al. (Lucas?)



Hi

Before we start discussing problems about having too many speedblinders...could we maybe have a discussion first if there would currently be any competition scheduled that would have > 3 people present that can even do it?

Wild idea:
Why don't we try 5-in-a-row or 12-in-a-row for 3x3x3 once?
Benefits: Effects of single solves influencing the average is greatly reduced. inspection becomes a strategy. Having multiple people doing a race like this in a final is more exciting to watch.
Negatives: Doesn't match current results, requires competitors to have multiple cubes

 

[Stefan]

I'm talking about an unforced significant pause. Starting when you're ready to go is difficult to group judge if enough competitors want to go at the same time. (It also makes my original suggestion invalid.)

If it's unforced, i.e., if the cuber could start but chooses to pause (at least that's how I meant it), then it's their own fault. Anyway, I can't imagine this being a problem, as probably few people would try it. Especially if we have a time limit of 10-20 minutes (I think that was the range discussed last time I saw it).

 

[Randomno]

For an event 2x2 - 4x4/5x5 relay.

For a new puzzle one of the morph puzzles (e.g. pyramorphix, mastermorphix).

Wasn't sure if I had posted here...

I guess the morph ones sounds good, but I think 3x3x2 might be more worth adding.

 

[MikamiHero]

I really like the Siamese Cube. I still have the one I made back in 2008.

They're quite fun puzzles to solve.

 

[TMOY]

Before we start discussing problems about having too many speedblinders...could we maybe have a discussion first if there would currently be any competition scheduled that would have > 3 people present that can even do it?

Depends on your definition of "can do it". Everybody who can do a blindsolve can compete in speedblind by just doing a regular BLD and timing the execution.

 

[AvGalen]

Depends on your definition of "can do it". Everybody who can do a blindsolve can compete in speedblind by just doing a regular BLD and timing the execution.

Good point! With the execution speed of some people now I don't think speedblinders will be much faster than normal blinders. The normal blinders will only use 15 seconds to "inspect" while the speedblinders will need "a dozen minutes" only to be a few seconds faster at most. This basically makes speedblind even more of a non-event in my eyes

 

[MennoniteCuber1]

3x3x4 and other rectangular puzzles

 

[Jimmy Liu]

4x4 fewest moves and 4x4 one-handed please!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ranzha]

Wild idea:
Why don't we try 5-in-a-row or 12-in-a-row for 3x3x3 once?
Benefits: Effects of single solves influencing the average is greatly reduced. inspection becomes a strategy. Having multiple people doing a race like this in a final is more exciting to watch.
Negatives: Doesn't match current results, requires competitors to have multiple cubes

Negatives: Much higher rate of potentially misplacing cubes, requires a lot more scrambling time (for 12-in-a-row). Relays could become the most difficult kind of events to hold simply because of handling all the puzzles, not to mention that scrambling tables might have to grow