[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[MTGjumper]

Our regulations are far more clear and concise than some big gaming tournaments with cash pools exceeding $100,000.

Since I'm not into competitive gaming, care to give some examples?

 

[biscuit]

Our regulations are far more clear and concise than some big gaming tournaments with cash pools exceeding $100,000.

ok you would know a lot better then I would. The one thing about the gaming tourneys though is there is a built in win. If the game says you win then you win

 

[supercavitation]

ok you would know a lot better then I would. The one thing about the gaming tourneys though is there is a built in win. If the game says you win then you win

Unless of course, there's some sort of glitch, and it's not clear how it affected the game. Which is very similar to the case we have right now.

 

[biscuit]

Unless of course, there's some sort of glitch, and it's not clear how it affected the game. Which is very similar to the case we have right now.

Yeah that would be a very similar situation. Does it happen often?

 

[cashis]

let's not argue about something that's not gonna change. I think the scrambling system works fine how it is. there's always gonna be misscrambles, and as long as we do our best to prevent them, it's okay when it slips.

 

[cubernya]

Yeah, and that isn't what happened here is it?

No. The optimal solution for both cubes (correct and incorrect) is 18 moves.

Here's an idea to toss around: in an event that a reconstruction cannot be made (or other questionable circumstances), have the person do an extra solve that doesn't count. This would allow the board to exclude to fact that the solve would become a DNF, and could easily replace it with an official solve done at the competition.

 

[frogmanson]

No. The optimal solution for both cubes (correct and incorrect) is 18 moves.

Here's an idea to toss around: in an event that a reconstruction cannot be made (or other questionable circumstances), have the person do an extra solve that doesn't count. This would allow the board to exclude to fact that the solve would become a DNF, and could easily replace it with an official solve done at the competition.

I think this was my idea from a while back. Here's the post with different wording.

Idea: If you set some sort of record, you get an extra sixth solve that isn't accounted for in the average, but if one solve in the average is found to be a DNF for some reason, then that extra solve can be used instead of the DNF solve in the calculation of the average (at the discretion of the WCA board). Sort of an advantage over other cubers, though, but it's no different from getting an extra solve if the DNF were found during the competition. This extra solve wouldn't be entered into the database or count for anything unless some sort of retroactive action were taken to cause the record-setting average to be DNF'd. The extra solve would be a floating solve used only as a contingency.

EDIT: By 'DNF' I mean some sort of misscramble situation or any other type of situation that would have elicited an extra solve in the first place.

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...erturn-official-records&p=1026745#post1026745

 

[Mollerz]

Since I'm not into competitive gaming, care to give some examples?

League of Legends (LCS, World Championships etc.) have a lot of issues with regards to bugs during the game, and the procedure taken when they happen. Sometimes games get remade from scratch which a LOT of people disagree, with, but when they don't get remade, there's the other side of the argument and loads of people hate the fact it was not remade.

ok you would know a lot better then I would. The one thing about the gaming tourneys though is there is a built in win. If the game says you win then you win

And this is the other thing. Usually the regulations are down to the team and equipment. There are a relatively small amount of regulations in place for things was not caused by the team. In the case of the WCA, we have a lot of reliance on the delegate, scramblers, judges, performing their duties perfectly. And THEN it is down to the competitor.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with our regulations, and we have a board in case of situations such as this one, to make final decisions, and we know they will discuss it for a long time and most importantly be consistent. The regulations can always be improved, but creating regulations for extremely niche scenarios is not beneficial, it just obfuscates the rules and makes them unnecessarily complex for the masses.

For the gaming tournaments it is usually down to the tournament organisers and they have to make the decision very quickly and they are very inconsistent, which is why I think our regulations are better, even if only slightly.

 

[Isaac Lai]

No. The optimal solution for both cubes (correct and incorrect) is 18 moves.

Here's an idea to toss around: in an event that a reconstruction cannot be made (or other questionable circumstances), have the person do an extra solve that doesn't count. This would allow the board to exclude to fact that the solve would become a DNF, and could easily replace it with an official solve done at the competition.

But this would cause even more controversy if for example someone set a record on that solve.

 

[cubernya]

But this would cause even more controversy if for example someone set a record on that solve.

True, but it's either that or the current situation. At least the suggestion would be clearly defined in the regs (and not just for records)

 

[DizzypheasantZZ]

No. The optimal solution for both cubes (correct and incorrect) is 18 moves.

Here's an idea to toss around: in an event that a reconstruction cannot be made (or other questionable circumstances), have the person do an extra solve that doesn't count. This would allow the board to exclude to fact that the solve would become a DNF, and could easily replace it with an official solve done at the competition.

I totally agree with this and I think it should have happened in this situation.

 

[Myachii]

I just find it funny that his second fastest solve was just over double that of his WR xD

 

[Ranzha]

I totally agree with this and I think it should have happened in this situation.

Why?

That has never ever been done before. The current Regulations do not account for it.

 

[yoinneroid]

Why?

That has never ever been done before. The current Regulations do not account for it.

I actually asked for this for this once last year for one of my 4x4 attempt, which otherwise would have given me an asr single and average

 

[Ranzha]

I actually asked for this for this once last year for one of my 4x4 attempt, which otherwise would have given me an asr single and average

Is that even legal?

 

[yoinneroid]

Is that even legal?

I doubt the scramble that I receive is correct anyway as it is way too easy, so I asked the delegate if I can get an extra scramble in case I was right. After the 6 solves, it turns out the first scramble I received is indeed a misscramble. I'd rather do it this way than take the risk of a possible DNF.

The problem here is that it is not possible for Feliks to recognize that it was a misscramble, as it is not obviously easier. Heck, there is a possibility for him to get even faster solve in the original scramble, who knows?

 

[Please Dont Ask]

What if the misscramble was even harder than the original scramble.
This scramble was too easy and Feliks understood it was a misscramble.
What if the misscramble was even harder

 

[mDiPalma]

FYI: I ran the original scramble (B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2) through wcaTOOLKIT and it spit out the 3 easiest mis-scrambles for CFOP. Out of all the possible scrambling mistakes the scrambler could have made, the official mis-scramble for the 6.88 WR popped out with the easiest CFOP start (3 moves, 2-gen). This cross solution was also the one that Felik's used.

Just something to think about when considering the possibility that this scramble was intentionally performed incorrectly to give an advantage to the competitor...

On following scramble with disparity at move 8: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B [B]R[/B] D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2
B-cross solved via
U' L' U

On following scramble with disparity at move 18: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' [B]F[/B] L' B2
U-cross solved via
L' U R

On following scramble with disparity at move 19: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 [B]L2[/B] B2
U-cross solved via
F' U R

 

[Mollerz]

FYI: I ran the original scramble (B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2) through wcaTOOLKIT and it spit out the 3 easiest mis-scrambles for CFOP. Out of all the possible scrambling mistakes the scrambler could have made, the official mis-scramble for the 6.88 WR popped out with the easiest CFOP start (3 moves, 2-gen). This cross solution was also the one that Felik's used.

Just something to think about when considering the possibility that this scramble was intentionally performed incorrectly to give an advantage to the competitor...

On following scramble with disparity at move 8: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B [B]R[/B] D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2
B-cross solved via
U' L' U

On following scramble with disparity at move 18: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' [B]F[/B] L' B2
U-cross solved via
L' U R

On following scramble with disparity at move 19: B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 [B]L2[/B] B2
U-cross solved via
F' U R

This is method bias. Also the scramble can be generated with TNoodle, unlike some your program will undoubtedly find.

 

[Ranzha]

What if the misscramble was even harder than the original scramble.
It was too easy and Feliks understood it was a misscramble.

But it's impossible to objectively measure easiness or hardness of a scramble unless you do it by optimal depth.