[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[tseitsei]

At Indian Nationals 2014 there was an incident involving a mis-scramble. Here are the details:
- For the fourth solve of the Combined First round, Akash Rupela (2012RUPE01) received the cube state obtainable by applying the following scramble: F2 L' U' R U' L' B R' L2 F L' F2 B2 U2 F2 L' F2 U2 L; when he should have received this scramble: F2 L' U' R' U' L' B R' L2 F L' F2 B2 U2 F2 L' F2 U2 L. It is highly likely that the scrambler made a mistake on the fourth move.
- Akash proceeded to solve the cube in a time of 6.91 seconds.
- The procedural error was noticed after the competition was over, and the attending delegate suggested that the time be disqualified.
- Akash himself agreed to the suggestion, as he esteemed that the error had resulted in an easier solution.
- The time was disqualified with the Board's consent.

However, the Board has come to feel this was not a correct decision. We now believe that the time should have been accepted for the following main reasons:
- This incident stemmed from an involuntary error that neither the scrambler nor the competitor designed to provide an advantage.
- The resulting cube state is a valid cube state by WCA regulations.
- A competitor should not suffer due to procedural errors.

We apologize to Akash for the unfair removal of his solve time, and thank him for the correct way in which he has handled this whole affair. We also take this opportunity to urge scramblers to make use of the scrambled state image accompanying the scrambles. The obvious goal of such images should not need to be emphasized.

Similar situation and the time accepted as valid. So should Feliks' time.

My two cents - a significant advantage was presented to Feliks over other competitors in that he received a PLL skip on a scramble (that no-one else received) and achieved a WR. Unless one of the 7 other competitors achieved a similar skip on the original scramble (which is a 9% chance?)

I disagree here. The "easiness" of the scramble is IMO determined by how easy the start is (cross+1) after that there are so many ways to solve the cube that getting a PLL skip is just as likely with any scramble. It just depends on if you happen to choose the right order/alg to solve all the earlier steps. Feliks could have just as well gotten a PLL skip on the original scramble even tough nobody else did... I mean if the original scramble would have been 8 move optimal cross and Feliks' scramble would have been a 3-move xcross I would agree that a significant advantage was presented. But in this case I think there is no significant advantage...

 

[Ollie]

My bad!

So congrats to Feliks, most likely x)

 

[giorgi]

who cares about skips and lucky cases and why WCA should care if it was lucky or not. I mean not everybody does same process in solving as Feliks and there are other lots of approaches solving a cube (even if it is misscrambled cube)which will not lead to Pll skips.

 

[kinch2002]

My bad!

So congrats to Feliks, most likely x)

(9:34:14 PM) Mollerz: I think we schooled him kinch2002 :3
Hehehe at least you can learn from your delegates

 

[tomatotrucks]

My solve on the original scramble.

1 - Nobody changed the scramble on the sheet, it was simply a mistake made by the scrambler in Feliks' solve.

2 - If anyone's interested, you can hear Faz and friends talking about the record in the video.

 

[cashis]

At no point is the validity of a scramble based upon which method the solver uses. A bad scramble for CFOP may be a good one for Roux, and a bad scramble for ZZ may be an easy one for CFOP.

easier for him. sorry, lol

 

[Ranzha]

Who would do this checking? The scramblers already have checked, so it can't be them. The runners -- it seems to deviate a bit from the runners job, and obviously the competitors shouldn't be checking the scramble. I think the judges should have some way of checking whether the cube in the box has been scrambled correctly by the scramblers. I don't know how this would be done, however, as the competitors might catch a glimpse of the scrambles.

It's necessary to note that "runner" is not an articulated role in the WCA Regulations.

if the mis-scramble was significantly easier than the intended scramble,

then "rescramble" or "DNF," in my opinion.

As Laura O and others have said, define "easier".

As someone mentioned before, as long as the scramble has an optimal solution of (13+?) then it should stick.
This should be the only criteria in my opinion.
Just to play devil's advocate, there is one question I have to ask.
No other competitor had the opportunity to try this scramble, so wouldn't this be considered an 'advantage', since one competitor receives the unintentional benefit of a scramble that would yield a record breaking result?

Competitors having more knowledge and expertise with regard to solving cubes quickly will have an 'advantage'. It is impossible to say whether Feliks' scramble gave him an advantage over the other competitors since we cannot replicate the results and cannot quantify objectively the easiness of any valid scramble.

But a duo camera that check two side of the scramble would work.

I see a lot of people arguing for the use of technology to check scrambles. Is anyone sold on the efficiency of such a system?
In my opinion, the best solution is the least intrusive on how competitions are run presently. Such a technologically adapted system has yet to persuade me.

You either DNF every mis-scramble or you let the board decide. There is not really anything else that can happen.
EDIT:When I say let the board decide I am talking about deciding if the scramble is too unfair and anything else that is subjective

The are many misscrambles that could go unnoticed. DNFing every misscramble is impossible to enforce.

Edit: I'm not sure how I ended up quoting posts from pages and pages ago; I thought they were some of the most recent posts.

 

[joshsailscga]

In regards to the discussion on whether or not the scramble was inherently easy, I followed Brest’s reconstruction of the solve using my own cube, until halfway through the 3rd pair insertion. Brest shows:
y U R U2' R' U' R U2' R' // 3rd pair
R' U2' R // 4th pair
U' R U2' R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // COLL
U' // AUF
for the solve after the second pair, while I stopped reading and proceeded to complete the solve in this manner:
y U R U2’ R’ U’ R U’ R2 U // 3rd pair
R2 U2 R’// 4th pair
U2 Chameleon OLL
U2 G1-perm
U2
That’s just the order in which I noticed the 3rd and 4th pairs and I would have done this execution in a speedsolve even if my solution had been identical to Feliks’ up to that point.
Moral of the story (which reiterates what many have already said), the scramble is not what gives a skip, the execution is.

 

[Shane724]

In regards to the discussion on whether or not the scramble was inherently easy, I followed Brest’s reconstruction of the solve using my own cube, until halfway through the 3rd pair insertion. Brest shows:
y U R U2' R' U' R U2' R' // 3rd pair
R' U2' R // 4th pair
U' R U2' R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // COLL
U' // AUF
for the solve after the second pair, while I stopped reading and proceeded to complete the solve in this manner:
y U R U2’ R’ U’ R U’ R2 U // 3rd pair
R2 U2 R’// 4th pair
U2 Chameleon OLL
U2 G1-perm
U2
That’s just the order in which I noticed the 3rd and 4th pairs and I would have done this execution in a speedsolve even if my solution had been identical to Feliks’ up to that point.
Moral of the story (which reiterates what many have already said), the scramble is not what gives a skip, the execution is.

Yes, Feliks used Zeroing to force the PLL skip during the cross, as he often does.

 

[Dene]

I mean if the original scramble would have been 8 move optimal cross and Feliks' scramble would have been a 3-move xcross I would agree that a significant advantage was presented.

An 8 move optimal cross? That would indeed be a shocking situation.

 

[joshsailscga]

Yes, Feliks used Zeroing to force the PLL skip during the cross, as he often does.

Ahh...everything becomes clear now

Dene, your official 5x5 single is the same as my 4x4 single, down to the 1/100 second.

 

[biscuit]

As Laura O and others have said, define "easier".

Competitors having more knowledge and expertise with regard to solving cubes quickly will have an 'advantage'. It is impossible to say whether Feliks' scramble gave him an advantage over the other competitors since we cannot replicate the results and cannot quantify objectively the easiness of any valid scramble.

As I have said when something is objective then it should be up to the board or at least the delegate. Something at this level should be decided by the board. That being said if they have to talk about every single mis scramble that comes to the attention of the community then that's a problem. So I do think there should be some thing as a "first line defense" aka some new reg.

 

[minime12358]

I just wanted to weigh in really quickly on the PLL skip---was it really one? I personally know that last layer alg, as it is a really simple 2GLL. I'm sure Feliks knows far far more LL algs than I know. I didn't see faz say whether or not he forced the PLL skip or not.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

Current WCA records.

It looks like it is official!

 

[joshsailscga]

Current WCA records.

It looks like it is official!

Video time

I just wanted to weigh in really quickly on the PLL skip---was it really one? I personally know that last layer alg, as it is a really simple 2GLL. I'm sure Feliks knows far far more LL algs than I know. I didn't see faz say whether or not he forced the PLL skip or not.

It's also the standard OLL alg for that case (even for 2-look); also Feliks said on Twitter it was a PLL skip.

 

[Jimmy Liu]

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=CanberraAutumn2015

It's been confirmed, congrats!

 

[Logiqx]

I'm glad to hear that it's been sorted out now. Congrats to Felix on that epic single!

The OH single WR (6.88) is now only 63.3% of the WR average (10.87).

The WR average for 2H is currently 6.54 so let's hope for an official 4.14 single from Faz some time in the future.

 

[notfeliks]

Glad to hear it's been confirmed. Truly amazing that 7.xx was skipped over entirely. Can't wait for the impending video.

 

[pyr14]

yay. now i wants to see vid cause i was too busy judging another person.

 

[Please Dont Ask]

Gr8