[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

[cashis]

How about some of this (Love you Stefan)
and some of this (And Thom)

You can look at this thread for some name slinging. (I don't care who started it, you don't fight fire with fire.)

The Force Cube thread was a good one before it got taken down.

Call me jaded, but ever since I've been here I've known that cubers "keep it real". Honestly, I prefer it that way.

Yeah you can keep it real or whatever and still be nice. But I digress. Whatever dude, you do you

 

[AustinReed]

Whatever dude, you do you

Thanks bae

 

[qqwref]

If bob smith were to get such a scramble, it would be a case very much similar to Grzegorez Prusak's Square-1 solve, where the difference in difficulty between scrambles was way too large for the WCA to be able to consider the solve as 'legal'.

Heh, at least Grzegorz Prusak was one of the best Square-1 solvers at the time... I can't say the same for Andrea Santambrogio, whose solve was *not* removed despite obviously being incredibly easy.

 

[kirtpro]

The competition functioned normally, just as any other.
The scrambles weren't handed out publicly or randomly.
The scramblers didn't have a laptop with them generating mis-scrambles.
There was no intent to deliberately give a mis-scramble.

No one cheated.

 

[Pro94]

Heh, at least Grzegorz Prusak was one of the best Square-1 solvers at the time... I can't say the same for Andrea Santambrogio, whose solve was *not* removed despite obviously being incredibly easy.

Well the scramble was right and it was a legal state, so why should it be removed?
Also there were other cases of an extremely easy scramble (not removed) in Square-1 (Example: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=CachanOpen2011&allResults=1#sq1).

The competition functioned normally, just as any other.
The scrambles weren't handed out publicly or randomly.
The scramblers didn't have a laptop with them generating mis-scrambles.
There was no intent to deliberately give a mis-scramble.

No one cheated.

Not at all:

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

 

[APdRF]

The future solution for this is: if you scramble, take care and do it well. If you are lazy about scrambling/checking/whatever, let someone do it well for you.

 

[tseitsei]

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

As I said already in my post:

that extra solve will NOT be used as your official result if all is done correctly.

That will be just like doing sub-NR/CR/WR solve when practising at home or warming up for the comp. It will not be official except if there has been a misscramble in one of your official solutions. Simple

 

[Pro94]

The problem with comparing a solve by faz and a solve by bob smith is that for bob smith, a 30 second solver, to get 6.88, he would need something ridiculous like a double xcross and LL skip. Faz can get 6.88 on a legit scramble, albeit with a bit (but not a ridiculous amount) of luck. If bob smith were to get such a scramble, it would be a case very much similar to Grzegorez Prusak's Square-1 solve, where the difference in difficulty between scrambles was way too large for the WCA to be able to consider the solve as 'legal'.

But how can we decide if a scramble is "resonably" easier than another one?
For example: just a pair of F2L insert in a certain way can change the whole solve, let image a mis-scramble even if at the beginning it looks like the same difficult of the original.

I still repeat that two rules were not followed:
1. If there's a mis-scramble the puzzle must be re-scrambled in a correct way (4g);
2. If there's a dispute it must be solve before the next round (2n1).

For the first one there's no doubt that there was a mis-scamble. For the second, Feliks tried to talk with the delegate but it happened only at the end of the competition.

Doesn't matter if these rules can be strictly, they are still rules and they cannot be ignored.

 

[Tim Major]

The argument that this wasn't random state is ridiculous. It is random state selected by the scrambler in conjunction with the scrambler error. Do you wish to invalidate all solves pre-random state scrambler? What about all Megaminx solves when the "amazing, super official" scrambler can't even reach all states?

Anyway, I personally believe the record should stand, but stop arguing with mDiPalma by quoting his arguments and dismissing them with broad statements like "dese arguments are stoopid lol" and "mDiPalma should be banned" which are doing well to weaken the argument for keeping this official. When one side gives good, ordered points and the other proceeds to personally attack the other side, which argument sounds stronger then? Instead, attack holes in his arguments like "wca didn't even consider cheating" which he obviously knows, since he was obviously included on all board discussions about the matter. Attack the actual arguments, argue properly or stay out of this thread

 

[Faz]

I've refrained from reading or posting too much here so as to not get involved, but I'd like to disagree with one fundamental point (amongst many others) - that the mis-scramble was easier and resulted in an easier solve.

I find the argument regarding the easiest cross solution pretty silly - I hope that most speedcubers understand that the difficulty of the cross is by no means an overall measure of the difficulty of a scramble.

I speedsolved the original scramble yesterday for the first time, just for hypothetical purposes. Yes, I'd seen the scramble before, but only for the purposes of attempting to reconstruct & comparing the two scrambles.

Spoiler

B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2 // original scramble
y' U L F' u' R' // cross
y R U' R' // 1st pair
y U2' R' U' R2 U R' // 2nd pair
U2' y R U' R2' U R2 U R' // 3rd and 4th pair
U' F U R U2' R' U' R U R' F' U2' /1LLL or OLLCP, whatever you want to call it

5 move cross, 8 move x-cross, 22 move F2l, 34 move solve.

B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2 // mis-scramble
z2 // inspection
D' R' D // cross
x U' z U' R U R U' R' U // 1st pair
z' R2 U' R' U R U R // 2nd pair
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

3 move cross, 11 move x-cross, 29 move F2L, 42 move solve.

 

[joey]

rekt

 

[Ronxu]

I've refrained from reading or posting too much here so as to not get involved, but I'd like to disagree with one fundamental point (amongst many others) - that the mis-scramble was easier and resulted in an easier solve.

I find the argument regarding the easiest cross solution pretty silly - I hope that most speedcubers understand that the difficulty of the cross is by no means an overall measure of the difficulty of a scramble.

I speedsolved the original scramble yesterday for the first time, just for hypothetical purposes. Yes, I'd seen the scramble before, but only for the purposes of attempting to reconstruct & comparing the two scrambles.

Spoiler

B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R' D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2 // original scramble
y' U L F' u' R' // cross
y R U' R' // 1st pair
y U2' R' U' R2 U R' // 2nd pair
U2' y R U' R2' U R2 U R' // 3rd and 4th pair
U' F U R U2' R' U' R U R' F' U2' /1LLL or OLLCP, whatever you want to call it

5 move cross, 8 move x-cross, 22 move F2l, 34 move solve.

B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2 // mis-scramble
z2 // inspection
D' R' D // cross
x U' z U' R U R U' R' U // 1st pair
z' R2 U' R' U R U R // 2nd pair
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

3 move cross, 11 move x-cross, 29 move F2L, 42 move solve.

/thread

 

[Faz]

/thread

Lol definitely not - I think the entire debate is around whether mis-scrambled solves should be validated by the WCA. Pointing out that regulation 4g was broken in this case doesn't really help - I'm sure it is broken countless times at every competition (unintentionally, of course).

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

I think the case-by-case basis on which they are currently handled is a reasonable solution. It is absolutely impossible to identify all, or even a small percentage of mis-scrambles, and so I disagree with simply DNFing any mis-scrambles that are recognised post competition.

Obviously we want to minimise the number of mis-scrambled cubes in competitions, and so we need to identify the causes of mis-scrambles (laziness, rushing, etc), and come up with solutions to fix them.

I'll try to force myself to stop posting

 

[mDiPalma]

I find the argument regarding the easiest cross solution pretty silly - I hope that most speedcubers understand that the difficulty of the cross is by no means an overall measure of the difficulty of a scramble.

Writing down 2 arbitrary solutions to 2 different scrambles as a basis for comparison of their difficulty is "pretty silly" too.

What about this solution to the mis-scramble? I'm not color neutral, nor do I use CFOP, but I came up with this one.

B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2 // mis-scramble
F2 L2 F2 U' L' U x // xcross (6)
U F' R U' R' U F2 R' F // multislot 2 pairs (9)
U2 R // drag in the last pair (2)
L U F (U2 R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R) F' L' // OLLCP (13)

6 move x-cross, 17 move F2L, 30 move solve.

Now, if you told us that you "speedsolved the actual scramble OH" and got 6.88 or less on your first try, I would be convinced that the actual scramble was easier than the mis-scramble. And in which case, you should be pretty pissed at the scrambler and delegate for not giving you the real scramble, because that would have avoided all of these argument AND would have resulted in a faster WR for you.

 

[Ranzha]

Writing down 2 arbitrary solutions to 2 different scrambles as a basis for comparison of their difficulty is "pretty silly" too.

Now, if you told us that you "speedsolved the actual scramble OH" and got 6.88 or less on your first try, I would be convinced that the actual scramble was easier than the mis-scramble. And in which case, you should be pretty pissed at the scrambler and delegate for not giving you the real scramble, because that would have avoided all of these argument AND would have resulted in a faster WR for you.

By what standards are you measuring easiness? You seem to argue that the misscramble was inherently easier because it provided an easier cross solution. You cannot forget that it was Feliks' own skill that rendered him able to get 6.88 on that misscramble, along with other potential confounding factors (e.g. lighting, timing, location, cube orientation under the cube cover, nervousness).

To get pissed at the scrambler and the Delegate won't solve anything. The suspicion that the puzzle was scrambled incorrectly was conceived after anything could have been rectify the misscramble. Until then, no one--not the scrambler, not Feliks, not any other person present--had the notion that the 6.88 was questionably legitimate.

As Feliks said, and as I would like to reiterate until it gets through your skull, is that regardless of how airtight we (competitors, volunteers, staff, organisers, Delegates) we want to make Regulations/procedures, there will always be errors. It's our job to find out the causes and work to prevent those causes in the future. With regard to the Board's decision, this situation was identical to another situation, and for the Board to decide something differently than before may have raised more eyebrows.

The only person who had control over the misscramble was the scrambler, who posted earlier in this thread and clearly had no intent of fudging results. Even if he checked the cube, saw it was incorrect, and sent it out anyway, how was he to know the misscramble would be easier/luckier/a future WR? Would the scrambler had the time to check the easiness of the misscramble? I wouldn't think so. Would using a program as you described and programmed be discreet and go unnoticed? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Pro94]

With regard to the Board's decision, this situation was identical to another situation, and for the Board to decide something differently than before may have raised more eyebrows.

Wrong.
WCA did not take in consideration the easiness of the mis-scramble to take his decision, but provided other three points.
So tell me what are the differences between this case and that one where Grzegorz was involved (don't use easiness as one of your arguments).

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

You say this like they intentionally gave him a misscramble.

Isn't that what he's arguing about? Or what he said earlier in the arguemenet?

 

[mDiPalma]

By what standards are you measuring easiness? You seem to argue that the misscramble was inherently easier because it provided an easier cross solution. You cannot forget that it was Feliks' own skill that rendered him able to get 6.88 on that misscramble, along with other potential confounding factors (e.g. lighting, timing, location, cube orientation under the cube cover, nervousness).

It provided an easier cross. It provided an easier X-cross. Beyond that point, the solve depends significantly more on the solving approach than the scramble to speculate further.

To get pissed at the scrambler and the Delegate won't solve anything. The suspicion that the puzzle was scrambled incorrectly was conceived after anything could have been rectify the misscramble. Until then, no one--not the scrambler, not Feliks, not any other person present--had the notion that the 6.88 was questionably legitimate.

I didn't say that WE should be pissed at the delegate/scrambler. I said, that in the event that Faz really would have gotten a 6.87 (or less) OH WR on the legit scramble, Faz should be disappointed that the regulations that require scramble accuracy weren't followed as they are explicitly written.

And if you wait too long to rectify the mis-scramble via awarding another solution attempt (as in this case), then just assign a DNF because it's the fair thing to do. This attempt is in direct violation of at least 7 Regulations. And nobody else got this scramble.

As Pro said a while back in this thread, 2 wrongs don't make a right: an illegal ruling on an illegal attempt is a silly outcome for the majority of the Speedsolving community to sit content with.

This competition should have been scheduled 6 weeks earlier, because this would have made a good WCA Board April Fools Joke.

As Feliks said, and as I would like to reiterate until it gets through your skull, is that regardless of how airtight we (competitors, volunteers, staff, organisers, Delegates) we want to make Regulations/procedures, there will always be errors. It's our job to find out the causes and work to prevent those causes in the future. With regard to the Board's decision, this situation was identical to another situation, and for the Board to decide something differently than before may have raised more eyebrows.

I don't know the history of rulings on similar attempts, but I do know one thing: doing something illegal in the past is NO decent precedent for doing the same thing in the present.

If it's the Board's job to "find the causes and work to prevent the causes in the future," then why did they not increase regulations to ensure scrambling accuracy since these historical events took place?

Obviously, the Board isn't doing their "job" (as you put it), but we already knew that.

The only person who had control over the misscramble was the scrambler, who posted earlier in this thread and clearly had no intent of fudging results. Even if he checked the cube, saw it was incorrect, and sent it out anyway, how was he to know the misscramble would be easier/luckier/a future WR? Would the scrambler had the time to check the easiness of the misscramble? I wouldn't think so. Would using a program as you described and programmed be discreet and go unnoticed? I wouldn't think so.

We don't know what was going through the scrambler's head, and testaments made in this thread are not to be taken automatically as legitimate. Speedsolving users don't pledge an Oath before they write comments. That 4.41 WR dude from a few years ago wrote comments that were universally considered dishonest.

The only thing we do know is that the scrambled cube that Feliks solved was not the WCA generated Random-State scramble. That is a violation of regulation 4b. Because there is no 4g1 for 3x3x3, there is no legal support to NOT assign a DNF to this attempt.

 

[Ranzha]

Wrong.
WCA did not take in consideration the easiness of the mis-scramble to take his decision, but provided other three points.
So tell me what are the differences between this case and that one where Grzegorz was involved (don't use easiness as one of your arguments).

Wrong.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1216&p=6341

It provided an easier cross. It provided an easier X-cross. Beyond that point, the solve depends significantly more on the solving approach than the scramble to speculate further.

The further you attempt speculate, the less your argument holds. The solve depends entirely on individual solving approach. This approach is not necessarily concrete for a single competitor.

I didn't say that WE should be pissed at the delegate/scrambler.

I didn't say WE either.

And if you wait too long to rectify the mis-scramble via awarding another solution attempt (as in this case), then just assign a DNF because it's the fair thing to do. This attempt is in direct violation of at least 7 Regulations. And nobody else got this scramble.

Why should the competitor have to suffer from a procedural error? This is my biggest qualm.

As Pro said a while back in this thread, 2 wrongs don't make a right: an illegal ruling on an illegal attempt is a silly outcome for the majority of the Speedsolving community to sit content with.

In what way exactly was this ruling illegal? This isn't quite clear to me, and I'd like if we can clarify this.

This competition should have been scheduled 6 weeks earlier, because this would have made a good WCA Board April Fools Joke.

rude.

purely negative contribution to the discussion.

I don't know the history of rulings on similar attempts, but I do know one thing: doing something illegal in the past is NO decent precedent for doing the same thing in the present.

See the link above. See the reasoning.

If it's the Board's job

I never said that. I said it's our job. To clarify, the community's job.

to "find the causes and work to prevent the causes in the future," then why did they not increase regulations to ensure scrambling accuracy since these historical events took place?

How would you propose to do this? You can't just say "we need more regs" without attempting to look into what would go into making such a regulation change. You can help enact that kind of change, but you seem to care more to misreading and misinterpreting forum posts.

Obviously, the Board isn't doing their "job" (as you put it), but we already knew that.

Again, I didn't say that. Learn to read.

We don't know what was going through the scrambler's head, and testaments made in this thread are not to be taken automatically as legitimate. Speedsolving users don't pledge an Oath before they write comments. That 4.41 WR dude from a few years ago wrote comments that were universally considered dishonest.

The only thing we do know is that the scrambled cube that Feliks solved was not the WCA generated Random-State scramble. That is a violation of regulation 4b. Because there is no 4g1 for 3x3x3, there is no legal support to NOT assign a DNF to this attempt.

You raise a fair point. However, why should Feliks suffer for something out of his control?

 

[mDiPalma]

Wrong.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1216&p=6341

That was also illegal.

Please identify the regulation that allows the WCA Board to dismiss consideration of (and directly contradict) the WCA Regulations in their rulings. I can't seem to find it.


Edit: The only thing I can find is this:
8f) If WCA Regulations are not correctly observed during a competition, the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts.

It doesn't say anywhere that the Board can accept attempts that directly violate regulations. That would be a dumb regulation anyway.