[NAR] Lucas Etter - 7.13 Rubik's Cube Average

[JustinTimeCuber]

Agree totally. Pushing this, though, does this mean that (filter-legal) misscrambles are also always ok?

well, since they are not completely random, they aren't inherently ok. Although a T perm is filter legal, the board wouldn't accept a 1.03 WR that was a "misscramble" of a T perm. It can't give an obvious advantage.

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

well, since they are not completely random, they aren't inherently ok. Although a T perm is filter legal, the board wouldn't accept a 1.03 WR that was a "misscramble" of a T perm. It can't give an obvious advantage.

16 move optimal rule?

 

[NeilH]

16 move optimal rule?

Isn't it 13?

 

[Ronxu]

Isn't it 13?

It's 2.

 

[Goosly]

But it's all arbitrary. The scrambles, before we see them, are essentially the same (in that they are random and acceptable states). This is further evidenced by our acceptance of groups at all. If we didn't believe they were fair on a fundamental level, we wouldn't allow it. The heats are also arbitrary.

I agree, everything is random. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the situation I described in my previous post does happen. After that round, B notices he got the same 4 scrambles as A, but the 5th one was different. He goes to the delegate and asks why. The delegate says: 'Yeah, but eveything is random, so it could've been the other way around: you getting an easy scramble and WR. Therefor it's totally fine.'

Should B be satisfied with that answer?

(I assume you'll say yes, but I disagree. A and B should get the same scrambles. Until yesterday, I didn't even know they could get different ones.)

 

[TDM]

It's 2.

I thought the official scrambler filtered anything <13 moves, even though the regulations only say 2. Can't remember where I heard that though.

 

[Bindedsa]

I agree, everything is random. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the situation I described in my previous post does happen. After that round, B notices he got the same 4 scrambles as A, but the 5th one was different. He goes to the delegate and asks why. The delegate says: 'Yeah, but eveything is random, so it could've been the other way around: you getting an easy scramble and WR. Therefor it's totally fine.'

Should B be satisfied with that answer?

(I assume you'll say yes, but I disagree. A and B should get the same scrambles. Until yesterday, I didn't even know they could get different ones.)

I don't see your point. Should I be satisfied that I missed out some ridiculous 2x2 scramble because I was put into a different group. Actually it's unfair that I did not get a 4 move scramble, Rami got one just because he went to a competition that I did not.

 

[EMI]

I agree, everything is random. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the situation I described in my previous post does happen. After that round, B notices he got the same 4 scrambles as A, but the 5th one was different. He goes to the delegate and asks why. The delegate says: 'Yeah, but eveything is random, so it could've been the other way around: you getting an easy scramble and WR. Therefor it's totally fine.'

Should B be satisfied with that answer?

(I assume you'll say yes, but I disagree. A and B should get the same scrambles. Until yesterday, I didn't even know they could get different ones.)

Yes, everyone should get the same scrambles if possible, so the conditions are as equal as possible for everyone. But it's just as "unfair" to be in a different group / heap / whatever with different scrambles.

Edit: ninja'd

 

[Myachii]

Lucas talked to me a couple weeks ago asking about the 5th solve, and I told him it was fine. Not sure what caused the delay in uploading from then until now. Also, what explicit regulation do you believe is being ignored by this?

There isn't a specific regulation that is being broken, but breaking rules/predetermined structure of a competition is setting a bad example. Who's to say somebody can't a friend to scramble, and have that friend select the best scramble from the group (best being related to either easy cross or easy first block etc.) and let their friend use that scramble?

Regulations are for overall rules that must be followed by all competitions, but if an individual competition sets rules that don't conflict with the regulations, these should be followed by all competitors.

Also, don't forget Lucas got his second fastest solve on this scramble, so it was highly likely that being given the wrong scramble gave him an advantage.

 

[Kit Clement]

There isn't a specific regulation that is being broken, but breaking rules/predetermined structure of a competition is setting a bad example. Who's to say somebody can't a friend to scramble, and have that friend select the best scramble from the group (best being related to either easy cross or easy first block etc.) and let their friend use that scramble?

Regulations are for overall rules that must be followed by all competitions, but if an individual competition sets rules that don't conflict with the regulations, these should be followed by all competitors.

Also, don't forget Lucas got his second fastest solve on this scramble, so it was highly likely that being given the wrong scramble gave him an advantage.

In the case of this competition (as well as large competitions like US Nationals), groups are only changed when a delegate has told the scramblers to switch groups. Old scramble sheets are put away/minimized and the new ones are brought out. Barring the scramblers going clearly against the delegate's orders (in a rather obvious fashion, too), there is no way this can happen.

And yes, potentially, Lucas could have potentially gained some advantage, but we really can't measure this or say this in any reliable way. The group switch was made to proceed with the flow of the competition, and whether the change happened before or after does not change the fact that Lucas was receiving a scramble that was not influenced by anyone that was conspiring on behalf of Lucas.

 

[DGCubes]

The way I see it, scrambles are so random that it shouldn't matter which one anybody gets. Honestly they could just give everyone different scrambles and most times and podiums would probably be about the same. I solve on green cross using CFOP, for example, so if I'm supposed to be given a scramble where a white-solver just got WR (but I get the scramble for the next heat), I wouldn't have been able to solve on white anyway. Even if I could, I doubt the two of us would've seen the same F2L cases and even use the same algs for OLL and PLL. Getting good times is making use of the scrambles you're given. Just a thought.

Anyway, congrats to Lucas on NAR! Sub-7 next?

 

[Myachii]

In the case of this competition (as well as large competitions like US Nationals), groups are only changed when a delegate has told the scramblers to switch groups. Old scramble sheets are put away/minimized and the new ones are brought out. Barring the scramblers going clearly against the delegate's orders (in a rather obvious fashion, too), there is no way this can happen.

And yes, potentially, Lucas could have potentially gained some advantage, but we really can't measure this or say this in any reliable way. The group switch was made to proceed with the flow of the competition, and whether the change happened before or after does not change the fact that Lucas was receiving a scramble that was not influenced by anyone that was conspiring on behalf of Lucas.

Thank you for your response, I suppose there really is no way to determine the "easiness" of a scramble.

 

[(X)]

You're the best Lucas!

 

[NeilH]

I thought the official scrambler filtered anything <13 moves, even though the regulations only say 2. Can't remember where I heard that though.

I heard from somewhere during felik's OH 6.88 controversy