[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[Please Dont Ask]

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

Which is what Feliks did, Right??
------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Feliks deserves the WR

 

[mpcuber1]

dammm...

 

[mDiPalma]

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

Just checked CN Roux 3x2x1 (24 possibilities) and Petrus 2x2x2 (8 possibilities). There were no mis-scrambles that resulted in blocks of <4 moves. The easiest start between CFOP/Petrus/Roux on ANY possible mis-scramble was the scramble that Feliks got...

Tell me again why the WCA let this one through? lol

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

That's wrong. I feel confident in saying that there has never been an optimal 3x3 solve in competition. 'Easy' has to do with human methods.

 

[PJKCuber]

watt

 

[Mollerz]

That's wrong.

No it isn't.

 

[(X)]

Could it be an idea to have it stated in the regs that extra scrambles should always be given in the case of records (WR/CR/NR)? If not, maybe an on-site reconstruction should be obligatory.

 

[tseitsei]

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.

This is IMO a very good idea. Takes just a little bit of extra time and can save huge amounts of work (and save us from this kind of controversies).
Extra solve is done whenever you do nr/cr/wr and that extra solve will NOT be used as your official result if all is done correctly. But if there is found to be a misscramble it will be replaced with that extra solve. Easy and simple

 

[APdRF]

So mdipalma, are you saying that the scrambler was trying over and over again until he found the 'easiest' solution for Feliks to break the WR? That's silly, better go play tennis.

 

[cashis]

doesnt matter if there's a method bias in this situation because the person solving the cube uses CFOP.

 

[mDiPalma]

So mdipalma, are you saying that the scrambler was trying over and over again until he found the 'easiest' solution for Feliks to break the WR? That's silly, better go play tennis.

I'm saying...the odds of a mis-scramble are very slim in the first place (a fraction of percent). And the odds that the mis-scramble is the EASIEST POSSIBLE MIS-SCRAMBLE for the method of the competitor (CFOP) is also VERY low. Combine those and you get a nearly impossible combination. The fact that this was the situation for the WR OH single should raise some questions.


In my opinion, the likelihood of (a) is comparable to that of (b).

(a) the scrambler accidentally mis-scrambled the cube, and the mistake just so happened to be EASIEST POSSIBLE MISTAKE.

(b) the scrambler had a program similar to mine, and intentionally mis-scrambled the cube to give the best possible "explainable" advantage to the competitor.


The WCA should not dismiss cheating as a possibility in every case (even when HIGHLY trusted competitors are involved). They seemed to have ignored this possibility in their statement.

 

[quickalt]

I'm saying...the odds of a mis-scramble are very slim in the first place (a fraction of percent). And the odds that the mis-scramble is the EASIEST POSSIBLE MIS-SCRAMBLE for the method of the competitor (CFOP) is also VERY low. Combine those and you get a nearly impossible combination.

How can you work out the odds of a misscramble?

 

[Ross The Boss]

This is IMO a very good idea. Takes just a little bit of extra time and can save huge amounts of work (and save us from this kind of controversies).
Extra solve is done whenever you do nr/cr/wr and that extra solve will NOT be used as your official result if all is done correctly. But if there is found to be a misscramble it will be replaced with that extra solve. Easy and simple

and if you break the record again on that extra attempt?

 

[mark49152]

Is there any theoretical basis to believe that a single wrong move (accidental, therefore random) during a random-state scramble would result in a solution that would on average have a shorter optimal solution, i.e. not be "fully scrambled"?

Let's define a wrong move as a wrong turn on the correct face, or an omitted move. Intuitively, the result would be the intended scrambled state but with 4 edges and 4 corners cycled. Now if the pieces cycled were randomly selected, those cycles could not "undo" any of the randomness of the scramble except purely by luck.

In practice of course, the cycled pieces are not randomly selected, as they are related by having been arranged around the same face at some point during the scramble. So my question really is, can that fact make a difference, and if so, why?

 

[MTGjumper]

I'm saying...the odds of a mis-scramble are very slim in the first place (a fraction of percent). And the odds that the mis-scramble is the EASIEST POSSIBLE MIS-SCRAMBLE for the method of the competitor (CFOP) is also VERY low. Combine those and you get a nearly impossible combination.

Unlikely things happen all the time.

 

[mDiPalma]

How can you work out the odds of a misscramble?

I'm not looking for an exact number. I'm saying it's low. Out of all Feliks' other official solves, how many of them have been un-detected mis-scrambles? I don't know, but it's probably low.

I solve on ctimer.co.uk which gives a display of what the cube should look like after each scramble. I can't remember the last time I mis-scrambled the cube (probably tens of thousands of solves ago). I expect that most competent cubers would have similar scramble success rates to me. This mis-scramble was the first scramble done that round; during which I'd expect the scrambler to take EXTRA precaution to assure the cube is correct.

In practice of course, the cycled pieces are not randomly selected, as they are related by having been arranged around the same face at some point during the scramble. So my question really is, can that fact make a difference, and if so, why?

It's tough to say, but...

Near the beginning of the solve, when all the pieces for a single cross/block are on the same side, a random move on that face has more significant impact on their end state.

Near the end of the solve, the pieces should theoretically be further apart on average, so a single random move would have less impact on their overall state.

Unlikely things happen all the time.

Cheating is unlikely too. Check

 

[biscuit]

Id just like to note that Feliks was the one that found the mis scramble and reported it. He also tried confirming with the scrambler to make sure it was correct. Just saying...

 

[Pro94]

Id just like to note that Feliks was the one that found the mis scramble and reported it. He also tried confirming with the scrambler to make sure it was correct. Just saying...

Also Grzegorz Prusak when he got SQ-1 WR single immedialty told to Lars that the scramble is his opinion was not correct. The record was accepted in a first moment and then changed to a DNF after finding the mis-scramble.
Just saying...

 

[cashis]

Also Grzegorz Prusak when he got SQ-1 WR single immedialty told to Lars that the scramble is his opinion was not correct. The record was accepted in a first moment and then changed to a DNF after finding the mis-scramble.
Just saying...

Thats because the misscramble resulted in a significantly easier solution

 

[mDiPalma]

Thats because the misscramble resulted in a significantly easier solution

Feliks' previous OH PB was 9.03. He set the WR at 6.88 seconds. That's an improvement of 2.15 seconds (24%). If that doesn't count as a "significantly easier solution" then I don't know what does.

 

[kcl]

Feliks' previous OH PB was 9.03. He set the WR at 6.88 seconds. That's an improvement of 2.15 seconds (24%). If that doesn't count as a "significantly easier solution" then I don't know what does.

Let's just ignore the fact that 9.03 was on a completely different scramble. A year and a half ago.