[WR] FMC 19 moves Vladislav Ushakov @ PSU Open 2016

[Ksh13]

He is listed as one of the organizers of the competition, I guess that could help with it a little

That makes this basically confirmed to be fake in my eyes. We have found the solution in cube explorer, and he could easily get hold of the scrambles before the FMC attempt started since he was an organizer, and according to someone who could translate the reconstruction video it didn't really make any sense.

 

[Attila]

Assuming this is fake, any ideas on how he got hold of the solution?

He probably used some not allowed device.

 

[AlexMaass]

if you put this into cube explorer HTM, literally the first thing you will get is this solution, so I think this guy has cheated definitely

for people who want to copy and paste

Scramble: R' U' F R U2 R F2 D2 R' B2 R D2 B D' B' U2 F2 D2 R' B2 D' R' F' R' U' F

Solution: R' B' D2 R' U R U D F' R D2 R' U2 L' F2 U2 B2 U2 F2

either he had access or indirect access (like texting a friend or giving signals or something) to a computer to use cube explorer, or before the comp, since he's one of the organizers, he could've been trusted with the scrambles on his computer by the delegate and just copy and pasted it and went and put it into cube explorer before or on the morning of the competition

 

[Hssandwich]

The only problem is that it may be hard to disprove... The competitor (if they cheated) must have picked the solution carefully because most of it is easy to explain.

R' B' //square
D2 //does nothing, this is really the only illogical part
R' U R //another square
U //makes some pairs
D //avoids breaking up square when doing the next step
F' //roux block??
R D2 R' //makes square
U2 L' //fixes first layer
B2 D2 B2 D2 B2 //finish

 

[AlexMaass]

The only problem is that it may be hard to disprove... The competitor (if they cheated) must have picked the solution carefully because most of it is easy to explain.

yes he picked the first solution that cube explorer gave very carefully kek

 

[Pedro]

I'm no FMC expert, but the square built with the first 2 moves is broken midway through the solve. I guess it could be a coincidence that those first moves help with the rest of the solve, but that first block is never used...

 

[Hssandwich]

yes he picked the first solution that cube explorer gave very carefully kek

It may have been the first one, but it was one that you could explain, unlike any 19 move solution that revolved around inverses (like Marcel's 19), which you would have to spend a while working the logic out from the solution alone.

 

[xyzzy]

I'm no FMC expert, but the square built with the first 2 moves is broken midway through the solve. I guess it could be a coincidence that those first moves help with the rest of the solve, but that first block is never used...

This wouldn't be too weird by itself, I think. Once in a while I build blocks and give up on preserving it for the rest of the solve, or do EO in one direction and switch to EO in another. The 19-move solution is still sketchy, but this isn't a strong argument against its legitimacy.

 

[Daniel Lin]

The only problem is that it may be hard to disprove... The competitor (if they cheated) must have picked the solution carefully because most of it is easy to explain.

The WCA doesn't have to disprove it to not count it, right? do they?

 

[guysensei1]

The WCA doesn't have to disprove it to not count it, right? do they?

The 'explain your solution' regulation isn't violated in this case as he could explain the moves well. Besides, it's not impossible that someone may have unintentionally gotten the same result as cube explorer. So unless he admits it, it should be counted. Not saying this is legit, but regs are regs.

 

[Kit Clement]

The fact that he inserted *six* rotations into his solution may suggest that he was trying to obscure the fact that it was the first CE solution provided.

 

[RhysC]

Sigh, more dishonesty in the community. This is really what tears us apart.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Sigh, more dishonesty in the community. This is really what tears us apart.

You're probably right, but we don't know yet for sure.

 

[hamfaceman]

I think some of us may be overreacting a touch here. While I agree it's most likely some form of cheating, there's still no true concrete evidence showing it's fake.

 

[Sajwo]

he should be banned.. this way of cheating is way too obvious

 

[SenorJuan]

I'm with Kit C. on the cube rotations, someone of his experience wouldn't leave many in the final written solution. It's the kind of thing 'Posh-CFOP' amateurs like myself do.

 

[genericcuber666]

What's the lowest optimism move for an FMC scramble anyway? If there is one there should be.
This guy cheated there is no way he for the same as ce if it's 19 moves and each move has 24 possibilities thats 24^19 there is no way he coincidentally got that one solve

 

[Username]

This guy cheated there is no way he for the same as ce if it's 19 moves and each move has 24 possibilities thats 24^19 there is no way he coincidentally got that one solve

When doing FMC you don't apply random moves, but moves that you think will help you solve the cube

I do agree that it is a case of cheating.

 

[tseitsei]

Yeah.....

Why do people do this?
This is obviously cheating...
And very very stupidly done cheating too...

Did he really think that the community wouldn't
1. Write his solve without those cube rotations (which experienced FMC cubers don't usually even use so that is the first suspicious part)
2. See that the solution looks basically like a well known 2-phase computer solution (VERY suspicious)
3. Find out that the Cube Explorer, probably the most popular program for solving cubes, gives EXACTLY that solution as a first suggestion for that scramble. (Which basically proves that he cheated... At least IMO it does. Someone might disagree but yeah...)

 

[Yes We Can!]

The fact that he inserted *six* rotations into his solution may suggest that he was trying to obscure the fact that it was the first CE solution provided.

This is especially true for the start:
x2 R' F' y U2 z' [...]
I don't understand the purpose of the y before the U2. You could argue that he may have wanted to have better visual access to the next pieces, but then why did he do just one move and then rotate again right after that? As it stands, the y seems to serve the sole purpose of setting up the U2, which, incidentally, is not affected by a y rotation.