[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[cashis]

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.

Optimal solution without misscramble=18
Optimal solution with scramble=18

And who know? Maybe feliks could have got an even better WR on the correct scramble. It doesnt matter, because its still random state.

 

[mDiPalma]

Optimal solution without misscramble=18
Optimal solution with scramble=18

And who know? Maybe feliks could have got an even better WR on the correct scramble. It doesnt matter, because its still random state.

As far as I know, Faz doesn't solve optimally. You can't say the solutions are the same difficulty just because their optimal solutions are the same. He uses CFOP.

There is definitive evidence to conclude that the mis-scramble supported a significantly easier cross solution for a Color-Neutral CFOP solver than the original scramble; read back a few pages in this thread. There is also definitive evidence to suggest that there were no OTHER mis-scrambles that would have provided any comparable advantage to Petrus/CFOP/or Roux solution styles.

And no, it wasn't random state...It was an adjustment on another random state scramble.


^^In the US, if someone in the govt does something morally/practically/or fiscally irresponsible, the media absolutely shreds them. But in the Speedsolving community, if the WCA makes an inconsistent, illegal ruling, the vast majority of cubers still blindly agree with them.

 

[Lchu613]

As far as I know, Faz doesn't solve optimally. You can't say the solutions are the same difficulty just because their optimal solutions are the same. He uses CFOP.

There is definitive evidence to conclude that the mis-scramble supported a significantly easier cross solution for a Color-Neutral CFOP solver than the original scramble; read back a few pages in this thread. There is also definitive evidence to suggest that there were no OTHER mis-scrambles that would have provided any comparable advantage to Petrus/CFOP/or Roux solution styles.

And no, it wasn't random state...It was an adjustment on another random state scramble.


^^In the US, if someone in the govt does something morally/practically/or fiscally irresponsible, the media absolutely shreds them. But in the Speedsolving community, if the WCA makes an inconsistent, illegal ruling, the vast majority of cubers still blindly agree with them.

There are so many things wrong with this post.

 

[mDiPalma]

There are so many things wrong with this post.

Okay, please identify them.

 

[biscuit]

As far as I know, Faz doesn't solve optimally. You can't say the solutions are the same difficulty just because their optimal solutions are the same. He uses CFOP.

There is definitive evidence to conclude that the mis-scramble supported a significantly easier cross solution for a Color-Neutral CFOP solver than the original scramble; read back a few pages in this thread. There is also definitive evidence to suggest that there were no OTHER mis-scrambles that would have provided any comparable advantage to Petrus/CFOP/or Roux solution styles.

And no, it wasn't random state...It was an adjustment on another random state scramble.


^^In the US, if someone in the govt does something morally/practically/or fiscally irresponsible, the media absolutely shreds them. But in the Speedsolving community, if the WCA makes an inconsistent, illegal ruling, the vast majority of cubers still blindly agree with them.

I'd like to point out again that FAZ realized the scramble and reported it. I fail to see how he cheated. I do agree that for FAZ it was a better scramble. But this is not method neutral because while you can define what CFOP is how do you know he exactly did cross, f2l, oll and pll. I would be surprised if there was not some advanced thing he did that makes it not strictly CFOP but almost CFOP. I don't know if that made any sense but I can't understand why you keep trying to point out things we have already given a explanation for.

 

[MTGjumper]

Cheating is unlikely too. Check

I wish I knew what your argument was here.

There is definitive evidence to conclude that the mis-scramble supported a significantly easier cross solution for a Color-Neutral CFOP solver than the original scramble.

3 move cross versus 4 move cross?

In the US, if someone in the govt does something morally/practically/or fiscally irresponsible, the media absolutely shreds them. But in the Speedsolving community, if the WCA makes an inconsistent, illegal ruling, the vast majority of cubers still blindly agree with them.

These situations aren't remotely comparable.

 

[mDiPalma]

I wish I knew what your argument was here.

You said "unlikely things happen all the time" in reference to my claim that this mis-scramble (and mis-scrambles in general) have a low likelihood.

And I said that "cheating is unlikely, too." They are both unlikely occurrences, but they can both happen, as you pointed out. Your argument applies to both sides.

3 move cross versus 4 move cross?

No.

3-move 2-gen cross

vs 4-move 3-gen cross

One is significantly easier, especially considering this is OH.

These situations aren't remotely comparable.

The Speedsolving Forum should buy a domain like MacDonaldsPettingZoo.com because this place is full of WCA sheep.

 

[BboyArchon]

I think someone should get a ban. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Pro94]

Thats because the misscramble resulted in a significantly easier solution

Easier solution, but it was still a valid state.
There's only one sentence about the easiness of the mis-scramble in WCA's post:

It is also of slight interest that the official scramble had a 4-move optimal cross on the U face, and the mis-scramble had a 3-move optimal cross on the B face.

It means that they did not care how it was easy; and this does not appear in the three motivations.

 

[qqwref]

A few separate points.

1) The start of the solve was easier than average, yes, but it's not easier than solves I occasionally get in practice, and I'm not even color neutral. Even if there was something fishy going on, this time is obviously not just a result of the scramble being easy.

2) I don't like the idea of giving a competitor a just-in-case extra solve in case of a record. It's inefficient and could create very unfortunate situations (e.g. the extra solve was even better, but it turns out the normal solve was correctly scrambled, so the extra doesn't count). Also, for record averages, would we redo the whole thing?

3) We shouldn't expect a competitor to know whether they got the right scramble or not. I'd like to avoid having to base a major decision on, essentially, whether the competitor can reconstruct their solve or whether there is a video. We really need some kind of alternate way to be able to check the scramble after the solve. Perhaps someone could set up a rig that takes a photo (or records a video) of each cube and scoresheet as it's going out, from a few angles. If there are any disputes or records, the scrambles could be accurately checked before the competition is even over.

 

[newtonbase]

This thread us getting crazy and potentially libellous.

 

[biscuit]

Perhaps someone could set up a rig that takes a photo (or records a video) of each cube and scoresheet as it's going out, from a few angles. If there are any disputes or records, the scrambles could be accurately checked before the competition is even over.

This. Even if it's just a camera on a tri pod and you put the score card plus cube in a specific place an rotate it a few times taking a picture. I guess there could be concern about retrieving the pictures especially at a big comp. There could also be concern on time but I don't think it would take that much time. I think some one should test it at a comp and give results. I don't think this could be added to the regs or anything but maybe as a suggestion. Maybe it would be a flop. Who knows.

 

[cubernya]

As far as I know, Faz doesn't solve optimally. You can't say the solutions are the same difficulty just because their optimal solutions are the same. He uses CFOP.

How else would you measure difficulty? You can't be method biased, so optimal length is the only way.

And no, it wasn't random state...It was an adjustment on another random state scramble.

Therefore, it is random state, is it not?

significantly easier cross solution

4 moves to 3 moves is "significantly easier"?

There is also definitive evidence to suggest that there were no OTHER mis-scrambles that would have provided any comparable advantage to Petrus/CFOP/or Roux solution styles.

You just contradicted yourself. If it doesn't provide a CFOP advantage, then what are you arguing for? Also, we must stay method neutral.

^^In the US, if someone in the govt does something morally/practically/or fiscally irresponsible, the media absolutely shreds them. But in the Speedsolving community, if the WCA makes an inconsistent, illegal ruling, the vast majority of cubers still blindly agree with them.

What the hell does this have anything to do with the US government and the media? What is inconsistent about the WCA's ruling? Illegal? There are no regs that specifically address a situation like this: they made their best call, and your arguments are contradicting and repetitive. Make up your mind.

The Speedsolving Forum should buy a domain like MacDonaldsPettingZoo.com because this place is full of WCA sheep.

You need to think about what you're saying. Look at everything we have, and then try to come up with a constructive argument rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[FailCuber]

lol my brother got the same scramble in 3 solves in a row. I think I've got one too. The scramblers are not careful with scrambles, so I've gotta say 10% are miss scrambles.

 

[mDiPalma]

How else would you measure difficulty? You can't be method biased, so optimal length is the only way.

It's around 3000 miles from NY to London. It's also around 3000 miles from NY to San Francisco. Are they both equally feasible to walk to? No. there's a @#%@#$% ocean in the way.

You can't compare solves based on optimal solve length because nobody solves cubes optimally. Stop acting dumb. You have to take into account all the viable methods (which I have in my program).

Therefore, it is random state, is it not?

No. The mis-scramble was A random state, but it was not Random State. Look up what random state is. It's when you pick a random (possible) cube state and generate a scramble to get there. Making a mistake in a "random state scramble" changes it to a "random move scramble," which is ILLEGAL under the regulations.

Again, think before you type.

4 moves to 3 moves is "significantly easier"?

a) it's 3 moves 2-gen vs 4 moves 3-gen. This is an OH solve. 2-gen is incredibly easier than 3-gen. Also it's 1-move less.
b) it doesn't even matter HOW MUCH EASIER the mis-scramble was. Even if it's only .00000001% easier, it's an unfair advantage, which directly contradicts the WCA's Mission Statement. No other competitors got this scramble.

You just contradicted yourself. If it doesn't provide a CFOP advantage, then what are you arguing for? Also, we must stay method neutral.

Again, read the thread. My program checked starts for Petrus/CFOP/and Roux to be as method-neutral as possible. There were no possible 1-move disparity mis-scrambles that gave a larger advantage (in any considered solution approach) than the mis-scramble that Feliks was provided. In easy words (because you seem to need them), "Feliks got the easiest 1-move mis-scramble."


I'm done arguing until someone comes out with a coherent argument in favor of keeping this solve. The last 5 pages of this thread are just me explaining obvious things to those too lazy to read the thread.

 

[adimare]

I'm saying...the odds of a mis-scramble are very slim in the first place (a fraction of percent)

You're giving the scrambler too much credit. I think it's more likely that he screwed up the scramble (which from what I've read happens way more than a fraction of a percent of times) than him looking up what single move miss-scramble would result in the easiest color neutral cross. Is your theory that he did this without Feliks's knowledge knowing that even if he got caught the WCA would probably let Feliks's time stand?

That being said. It is NOT silly to take into consideration solving methods when investigating possible foul play. If a ZZ solver gets a miss scramble where the edges are already oriented you shouldn't just brush it off because of this arbitrary notion that you have to stay method neutral when looking into issues like this one.

 

[Isaac Lai]

Can I point out that someone mentioned not long ago that the original scramble had a reasonably simple (at least it would have been for faz) XCross? Also, so many people have already proved that the misscramble WAS random state, so I don't understand why mDiPalma is trying to argue.

 

[biscuit]

In the case of cheating you do have to take into account methods. I have been convinced of that. What I am not convinced of is that any intentional cheating took place. Yes I understand that according to your program there is no better one move mis scramble. But what does the scrambler have to gain from it? If you say he was talking with FAZ that makes a bit more sense but can I remind you that FAZ NOTICED THE MIS SCRAMBLE AND TURNED IT IN! You still have yet to give me a good explanation for this. Heck you have yet to give me ANY explanation for this. Another thing I would like to stress is that the scrambler was under a lot of pressure and the scrambling station was under manned. Lets say he did cheat. When? I'm assuming as a scrambler you don't get the scramble until you sit down to scramble at which point you are on constantly scrambling. So when did he cheat?

EDIT: I mean to say when did he figure out the mis scramble?

 

[cubernya]

Can I point out that someone mentioned not long ago that the original scramble had a reasonably simple (at least it would have been for faz) XCross? Also, so many people have already proved that the misscramble WAS random state, so I don't understand why mDiPalma is trying to argue.

This. P.S. mDiPalma: I have read every single post in this thread (probably multiple times over too). I'm not arguing any more, since you refuse to accept what 99% of the community agrees upon.

As others have stated, it is obviously necessary to take into account methods in accusations of cheating. However, mDiPalma is the only one that adamantly stands by his accusations.

 

[qqwref]

It makes no sense to say "the misscramble WAS random state". It was not randomly chosen by a scrambling program, but was instead modified from a scramble that was, using human error.