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

[Laura O]

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?

There is nothing to be worried about. Rules like "Solutions must not be derived from a computer-generated solution" will never be added to the regulations. Pretty much every solution can be generated by a computer. If you have decent block-building skills, nearly all of your blocks could be seen as "computer-generated", so this kind of regulation would be pretty pointless.

anyway, the WDC is already investigating in this case.

 

[Niksson]

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.

Can't disagree on that. But still, he is sure that the WR is legit and some of our community thinks that all of you posting are just jealous XD
IMO this solution need to be reviewed by WDC because this definetely looks something suspicious
EDIT: and it's already being reviewed, so I think we need just wait for decision rather than discussing it further

 

[shadowslice e]

Of course, why wouldn't it?

Mainly because it looks like a computer generated 2-phase solution sometimes so i don't want to be the subject of a witch hunt like this. Maybe I just shouldn't break any records . I was mainly pointing out that there are methods which could be used to generate a solution which looks like Kociemba's algorithm.

This thread is weird. Or funny. Or sad. I'm not sure yet.

I'm going with sad for either outcome. Sad if falsely accused, sad if cheating.

 

[Goosly]

Mainly because it looks like a computer generated 2-phase solution sometimes so i don't want to be the subject of a witch hunt like this. Maybe I just shouldn't break any records .

If you get a WR, add some random rotations, just for fun.

 

[guysensei1]

If you get a WR, add some random rotations, just for fun.

And transform some moves into wide moves too. Add some more suspicion for fun.

 

[pyr14]

and this record got accepted.

 

[AlphaSheep]

and this record got accepted.

I wouldn't say "accepted". It seems to be pretty standard that results are published as soon as possible and then get changed if necessary once the investigation is complete.

 

[AlexMaass]

I wouldn't say "accepted". It seems to be pretty standard that results are published as soon as possible and then get changed if necessary once the investigation is complete.

they didn't do this with the still being decided on Square-1 average WR, not exactly sure why

 

[TheDubDubJr]

they didn't do this with the still being decided on Square-1 average WR, not exactly sure why

The difference here is being that one of the incidents changes the entire round while the other incident only changes a single persons result.

 

[AlexMaass]

The difference here is being that one of the incidents changes the entire round while the other incident only changes a single persons result.

ah this explains it, though I would say the square-1 incident affects only 4 people's results, but that is multiple while this is a single person's result, but I see what you are saying, thanks!

 

[Attila]

I think,there are some similarities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_chess#Cheating_with_technology

 

[AlexMaass]

I'm curious how many possible 19 movers there are, I was running this on a separate computer but it seems the computer restarted or something, anyone have a really powerful computer to do this?

 

[shadowslice e]

I'm curious how many possible 19 movers there are, I was running this on a separate computer but it seems the computer restarted or something, anyone have a really powerful computer to do this?

The 20 moves suffice paper says there are "about 1.5x10^18" positions.

They also say it would take a 4 core 2.8GHz computer roughly 1.1 billion second to reproduce the proof (~35 CPU years)

 

[DGCubes]

The 20 moves suffice paper says there are "about 1.5x10^18" positions.

They also say it would take a 4 core 2.8GHz computer roughly 1.1 billion second to reproduce the proof (~35 CPU years)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Alex, but I think he was talking about how many 19-movers are possible for this particular scramble.

 

[AlexMaass]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Alex, but I think he was talking about how many 19-movers are possible for this particular scramble.

yep, this would also be interesting to have a very very rough (no idea how rough so that makes it quite rough lol) of how many x length possible solutions there would be for a scramble in general

google pls give me supercomputer : p

 

[qqwref]

anyway, the WDC is already investigating in this case.

Great.

But still, he is sure that the WR is legit and some of our community thinks that all of you posting are just jealous XD

Honestly, this just makes me think the delegate was working with the WR holder to help him cheat. It sounds like he is trying to cover it up and make people stop looking closely.

 

[xchippy]

How would he be able to use cube explorer in the competition without someone noticing? Or somehow getting the scrambles before the round? It's not that he would be able to cheat. You can't just DNF someone for trying out random stuff and having it work, if that's what he did

 

[porkynator]

How would he be able to use cube explorer in the competition without someone noticing?

Using a smartphone?

Or somehow getting the scrambles before the round? It's not that he would be able to cheat.

See this post. He was one of the organizers. He may have printed the scrambles some time before the attempt.

 

[turtwig]

You can't just DNF someone for trying out random stuff and having it work, if that's what he did

If it's suspicious to the point that it was probably cheating, I think we can. There's no way to be absolutely sure that he cheated unless he admits it, but if we only DNF people who admit to cheating, anyone could get away with cheating.

 

[biscuit]

Using a smartphone?

See this post. He was one of the organizers. He may have printed the scrambles some time before the attempt.

Unless there was a SERIOUS procedural error, then there is no reason that any organizer should have access to any scrambles unless they are scrambling a round. And not till the start of the round.