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

[porkynator]

In my opinion this is fake.
I tried to comment the solve, but I don't know his language so I can't understand what he says.

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

x2 R' F'

Ok, perfectly fine.

y U2 z F' L F

Uhm what? Why not just R'? I know sometimes it's better not to do the obvious thing, but those 3 extra moves don't seem to help at all.
And why the hell do you do y before U2 or z before F?

R L D'

This step makes sense, although in the video he does the first move as a continuation of the preceding step, which seems illogical.

z F D2 F'

You really don't like that block you built with the first 2 moves, do you?

U2 x' U' y F2 R2 F2 R2 F2

The rotations don't make any sense. Why the last y? You can do F2 R2 F2 R2 F2 but not R2 B2 R2 B2 R2?

I would like to know what he says during the video. He seems to talk quite a lot about the first block and its obvious making, but then he destroys it a few steps later. And does he mention the fact that everything is oriented at some point?

So my reasons for believing this is fake are:

• Cube Explorer or not, this is a Kociemba solve.
• He does a move (U2 in second step) whose only purpose seems to be destroying the first block while making the second.
• He doesn't use the first block at all in his reasoning (or so it seems).
• Useless and not intuitive rotations.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

6 rotations in a 19 move solve seems kinda sketchy to me. When I do FMC I sometimes maybe use like 2 rotations tops and I average 45.

 

[AlexMaass]

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.

also, I have a feeling if you look at his past FMC solutions (he has a like 30 single and 37 mean) there might not be a ton of these rotations, which would make it even more suspicious because why do all of these rotations on this solution?

Also, what is the deal with using Kociemba in FMC? I've never heard about it being used in FMC until now, so I'm guessing it isn't really anything viable for humans to use for FMC, just computers.

 

[Torch]

Perhaps the reason someone might add useless rotations is to keep someone who glanced at their solution sheet from immediately knowing how good the solve was.

I still think this is cheating, however.

 

[shadowslice e]

Also, what is the deal with using Kociemba in FMC? I've never heard about it being used in FMC until now, so I'm guessing it isn't really anything viable for humans to use for FMC, just computers.

Well, I have heard of it but it is not very common. There's a pdf somewhere that discusses the use of thistlethwaite or similar along with all the other methods but I'm still confused as to why there's blockbuilding in a kociemba solve

 

[tseitsei]

Well, I have heard of it but it is not very common. There's a pdf somewhere that discusses the use of thistlethwaite or similar along with all the other methods but I'm still confused as to why there's blockbuilding in a kociemba solve

Read porkynators post above.

He nicely points out that the blockbuilding in this solve is nothing like any human would do it. There are too many moves that seemingly do just nothing or are even counter-intuitive...

And why there is blockbuilding at all is that Kociemba is a 2-phase algorithm and the last phase will probably be considerably shorter if you can already create some blocks during the first phase so the total solve will be shorter that way even if the first phase was a little bit longer because of creating those blocks.

 

[porkynator]

Also, what is the deal with using Kociemba in FMC? I've never heard about it being used in FMC until now, so I'm guessing it isn't really anything viable for humans to use for FMC, just computers.

My point was that this is, IMHO, a bad attempt at masking a Kociemba solve by describing your solution in block-building terms (assuming this is what he does in the video; it definitely looks like that from the gesture).

 

[genericcuber666]

so its fake but there isnt really anything we can do...
if they take away his wr then someone else can do it only solution organisers cant do fmc which wont happen

 

[DGCubes]

so its fake but there isnt really anything we can do...
if they take away his wr then someone else can do it only solution organisers cant do fmc which wont happen

Not necessarily. The most important piece of information we can get at this point (assuming it is fake) is how he actually did it. There are many ways this could have been done (for example, there's a big difference between having the solution pre-made before the attempt and doing it in CE during the attempt), and once we find out when and how he did it, we should try to crack down on this type of offense more in the regulations and at competitions themselves.

 

[Jaysammey777]

only solution organisers cant do fmc which wont happen

Delegates don't always allow organizers access to scrambles pre-comp. and even during the comp, fmc scrambles can easily be kept outside of the scrambles for other events. So organizers have no worries

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

yes I'm calling hax ban him and everyone he knows permanently from every event

ok but yeah I think it's probably fake and the wdc should look into this and if he did it he should definitely face consequences.

 

[Loiloiloi]

You guys should really give him the benefit of the doubt, there's a real Salem situation breaking out here, let's not burn the witch quite yet.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

You guys should really give him the benefit of the doubt, there's a real Salem situation breaking out here, let's not burn the witch quite yet.

ok it seems pretty remarkably obvious

1) His comp PB is 30 for single and 35.33 for mean.
2) The solution seems very suspicious. There's not even a seeming methodology to it. It seems like a computer generated algorithm that can be explained by blockbuilding. He apparently didn't really like the first block he made.
3) What is with the cube rotations? Really? 6 of them? In a 19 move solve? What's really weird is the y rotation before a U move (illogical), and the z rotation before an F move.
4) He's listed as an organizer of the competition. That would possibly give him access to the scrambles.

It's not necessarily cheating, it is just really, really, suspicious. I'm saying that there's a 95% chance or greater that this turns out to be fake.

 

[turtwig]

I'm not saying that I doubt that this solve is fake, it probably is, but if he just used Cube Explorer, than why did he have 6 rotations in his solution?

 

[Hssandwich]

I'm not saying that I doubt that this solve is fake, it probably is, but if he just used Cube Explorer, than why did he have 6 rotations in his solution?

To try to disguise the fact that he was using it, it's not too hard to put rotations into a solution (especially when you have an hour to do it).

 

[Cale S]

I didn't even notice the rotations, that pretty much gives it away that it's fake along with the suspicious solution, his previous results, and the fact that he was the organizer. There's no reason to use any rotations, and using 6 in places that are completely unnecessary is clearly an attempt to hide an illegitimate soluton.

 

[qqwref]

A crazy thought someone brought up at my last competition: what if we made rotations count as 1 move for FMC purposes? It would function as a small penalty for people who use rotations, to try to get people to avoid them, but also helps prevent things like this, where someone adds rotations to obscure what they really did. Of course, then maybe this guy would have a 25 and nobody would care enough to look into it. Interesting tradeoff.

So unless he admits it, it should be counted. Not saying this is legit, but regs are regs.

Haha what? If he can explain his solve we should allow it even when there's a lot of evidence he didn't find the solution legitimately? I'd rather have several people unfairly lose legit but suspicious solves, than have the WR be gotten with cheating.

 

[turtwig]

Haha what? If he can explain his solve we should allow it even when there's a lot of evidence he didn't find the solution legitimately? I'd rather have several people unfairly lose legit but suspicious solves, than have the WR be gotten with cheating.

Exactly, anyone that's half-decent at FMC could just say that a computer solution was smart blockbuilding (like in this case).

 

[LHCBlackHole]

A crazy thought someone brought up at my last competition: what if we made rotations count as 1 move for FMC purposes?

I think beginners would have a very hard time writing down a solution without inserting rotations in it. Myself inclued.

 

[WACWCA]

ok it seems pretty remarkably obvious

1) His comp PB is 30 for single and 35.33 for mean.
2) The solution seems very suspicious. There's not even a seeming methodology to it. It seems like a computer generated algorithm that can be explained by blockbuilding. He apparently didn't really like the first block he made.
3) What is with the cube rotations? Really? 6 of them? In a 19 move solve? What's really weird is the y rotation before a U move (illogical), and the z rotation before an F move.
4) He's listed as an organizer of the competition. That would possibly give him access to the scrambles.

It's not necessarily cheating, it is just really, really, suspicious. I'm saying that there's a 95% chance or greater that this turns out to be fake.

I agree with most of this but we can't count it out because of past results and PBs because his only other solve this year was DNF, so he easily could've gotten much better this year without us knowing