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

[JustinTimeCuber]

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

true but that's just one bit of evidence you have to look at all the evidence

 

[Daniel Lin]

Lets add a new reg:

"The competitor's solution must not be directly derived from a computer-generated solution. Penalty: Disqualification of the attempt (DNF)"

 

[qqwref]

Lets add a new reg:

"The competitor's solution must not be directly derived from a computer-generated solution. Penalty: Disqualification of the attempt (DNF)"

Or: "The competitor's solution must be created entirely by the competitor, without help from other people or any electronic devices."

 

[DGCubes]

Lets add a new reg:

"The competitor's solution must not be directly derived from a computer-generated solution. Penalty: Disqualification of the attempt (DNF)"

Theoretically, a computer could generate pretty much any solution. It's an interesting premise, but it's really hard to define "computer-generated solution," and technically, any solution could be DNFed because of this regulation if it was even remotely suspicious.

 

[Cale S]

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

I like this idea (partially because it doesn't apply to me, but it seems reasonable)

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

Some beginners have trouble getting under the 80 move limit

and it wouldn't be disallowing rotations, just counting them as moves, and eliminating rotations would just be something else you need to try to optimize, which is what you spend an hour doing in FMC

 

[Loiloiloi]

Theoretically, a computer could generate pretty much any solution. It's an interesting premise, but it's really hard to define "computer-generated solution," and technically, any solution could be DNFed because of this regulation if it was even remotely suspicious.

That's where this thread is going, if you haven't noticed. The bandwagon is leading into a pitfall of blame.

 

[obelisk477]

yeah, let's add more regs, the reason he cheated is definitely because he wasn't clear on the regulations

 

[Daniel Lin]

yeah, let's add more regs, the reason he cheated is definitely because he wasn't clear on the regulations

yeah but the problem is we don't really have any evidence of him cheating (other than that his previous results were not that great). So the easiest way to disqualify him would be to dnf him for having a solution EXACTLY THE SAME as cube explorer

Theoretically, a computer could generate pretty much any solution. It's an interesting premise, but it's really hard to define "computer-generated solution," and technically, any solution could be DNFed because of this regulation if it was even remotely suspicious.

Yeah true, I guess. but it's the same for regulation E2e. How do you define "valid explanation"? In his case, most of his moves are logical (other than the D2 at the beginning and breaking some previous blocks).

 

[obelisk477]

The bit that I'll say in his favor, for argument's sake (because I think he's cheating), is that it's pretty impressive that he remembers the moves to the solution in order to make a video for it, if it was a solution that meant nothing to him.

 

[Daniel Lin]

How would counting rotations as moves help? It would work for this specific case, but someone could just use cube explorer and then not do rotations

I think the only possible answers are
1. making the scrambles harder to access
2. DNFing computer-generated solutions(even if it's a legit coincedence)

So anyway...... is this going to get counted or not?

 

[FastCubeMaster]

People have said, "He hasn't done an FMC in a while, so he could've improved dramatically."
I have no idea how this could be done, but maybe we should get him to a couple more FMC's to see if he is actually world class level. Even if he got between 22-26, it would make the 19 more believable. However if he gets 30's, it's most likely fake.

 

[Cale S]

People have said, "He hasn't done an FMC in a while, so he could've improved dramatically."
I have no idea how this could be done, but maybe we should get him to a couple more FMC's to see if he is actually world class level. Even if he got between 22-26, it would make the 19 more believable. However if he gets 30's, it's most likely fake.

You don't need to be sub-30 to get a 19 (not saying this is legit though)

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

You don't need to be sub-30 to get a 19 (not saying this is legit though)

in the same way that I could get a 4 single on 3x3, if I had a 3-move xcross, 2 free pairs, and a last layer skip

 

[Cale S]

in the same way that I could get a 4 single on 3x3, if I had a 3-move xcross, 2 free pairs, and a last layer skip

Tim Wong got a 19 but has like a 32 mean

 

[Daniel Lin]

if it isn't possible to change the regs he could still be DNFed for not giving a valid explanation, since parts of his solution don't make any sense. I think that's what the WCA is going to do

 

[guysensei1]

Yeah true, I guess. but it's the same for regulation E2e. How do you define "valid explanation"? In his case, most of his moves are logical (other than the D2 at the beginning and breaking some previous blocks).

I've been thinking about this as well. If his explanation for breaking the blocks was 'I did it for fun just to see what happens and got super lucky' does that count as a valid explanation?

 

[Niksson]

From a little discussion with the delegate of this comp I've found that he's pretty sure the solve is legit. He printed the scrambles himself (no one had access to them except Ilya, I'm sure of it despite the fact I didn't attend but who knows what could happen that day...) and he saw no rule breaks during attempt. He also thinks that this attempt should not be reviewed since it's legit.

 

[shadowslice e]

The thing about the computer generated solution worries me personally because sometimes I use SSC as an FMC option which can sometimes end up looking like a 2-phase solution especially if get 30-. Would this be permissable if I can show I do EO cancelled into CO, (usually CP is solved) then optimised dominoesque stuff if it came up on cube explorer or something?

 

[Goosly]

Would this be permissable if I can show I do EO cancelled into CO, (usually CP is solved) then optimised dominoesque stuff if it came up on cube explorer or something?

Of course, why wouldn't it? This thread is weird. Or funny. Or sad. I'm not sure yet.

 

[AlphaSheep]

From a little discussion with the delegate of this comp I've found that he's pretty sure the solve is legit. He printed the scrambles himself (no one had access to them except Ilya, I'm sure of it despite the fact I didn't attend but who knows what could happen that day...) and he saw no rule breaks during attempt. He also thinks that this attempt should not be reviewed since it's legit.

It is suspicious and should definitely be reviewed. I think people are jumping to conclusions assuming he had access to the scrambles. He didn't need to see the scrambles before the attempt to have cheated. There are other options such as quickly using a phone during the attempt which the delegate may not have seen. Even a perfect delegate can't watch everyone constantly for a full hour.

Until there's an investigation, no one can say if there was cheating or not. People can only say the solution looks very suspicious.