Should +2s count as world records?

MentosCubing

MentosCubing

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
22
Location
Everywhere, except your field of vision
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't see this ever happening in the near future, but whatever.
Okay, so the current 3x3 world record is 4.73, right? What if someone gets a 2.71, but it's a +2, so it makes 4.71? Should that count as a world record, because according to the WCA regulations, that was technically his time? Or should that not count, because the WCA is not always going to be the deciding factor, and he didn't technically solve the cube according to the standards of most non-cubers? I can only see this happening on bigger cubes and maybe megaminx, but I just used 3x3 as my example because I could think of the WR time off the top of my head. Tell me what you think!
 
I honestly think that it should not count, except maybe for 7x7 because that doesn't make that much of a difference and it took a ton of effort to get there, so I should give it to them. I just think that since the cube is not completely solved, that should not be thought og as a world record time (but if this does happen on 3x3, congratulations on solving a cube in what would have been about 2.72 seconds, had it not been for the +2! I think you might deserve the title just for that, but no one else deserves to lose it to something like that and it shouldn't technically count - just like many of you deserve more YouTube subscribers but you don't get them because logic.)

sqAree said:
It actually happened already, precisely with Megaminx. Juan Pablo's most recent WR single was a +2.

I don't really see why this should be discussed. Even non-cubers can easily see that it doesn't take longer than 2 seconds to do one move.
Click to expand...
There's no way to know that for sure, but that's aside the point.
I think this is open to discussion because they didn't actually fully earn the title of WR holder. Even though it doesn't take two seconds to do a single move, the WCA decided that a two-second penalty is what you should get for not completely solving the cube, and I agree. Since they did not actually solve the cube, they can't say they solved a 3x3 in 2.7 seconds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why wouldn't it be?
As far as I know, the WCA doesn't record whether or not a solve was a +2. Thus, any knowledge of +2s are unofficial.
After a solve has been entered into the database, that is the time it is. If that time is the world record, then it is the world record. Also consider that there are other reasons to +2 aside from 90 degrees off. Over inspection, and placing the cube on the timer also result in a +2.

What you are really asking (as far as I understand) is should the WCA records count as records?
My answer, is yes.
 
Last edited:
I'm just referring to the classic my-cube-has-one-move-left-but-I-already-stopped-the-timer +2 that would actually get you a +5 in You Can Do The Cube competitions organized by Rubik's.
Yes, I'm aware that you say that obviously could have been a 2.71 solve, in my hypothetical situation above. But it wasn't. So should it count? I'm still not entirely convinced.
 
Yes, they definitely should count, and they already have counted many times. The current MBLD WR also had a +2, although that is sort of a strange case. Imagine if Feliks got a 4.71+, and the WCA is like, "Yeah, see, that counts as a 4.71, but it doesn't count as a world record because you were unable to solve the cube with no penalties in that time." It just doesn't seem right at all. Would he still be ranked #1 in the world, but it wouldn't be considered a record on the Records page? Or would his solve be practically equivalent to a DNF? If that's the case, it would have been beneficial for him to wait 0.03 more seconds so the solve wouldn't ever be considered a WR.

MentosCubing said:
Iexcept maybe for 7x7 because that doesn't make that much of a difference
Click to expand...

Exceptions like these are too event-biased and should never be used in my opinion. If a rule isn't strong enough to apply to every event, it's not a good rule.
 
I guess that makes sense, but I think I'm looking at it the wrong way. Honestly I see nothing wrong with the situation you described above that you said didn't seem right, because in other competitive things like cubing, that would make complete sense. If you went to a competition for something completely different (suppose it was speed stacking, but I can't verify the regulations for this because I can't find them), then an attempt that was not entirely complete but close enough to just get a time penalty would probably not count as a WR because they didn't technically finish. I think the reason you are looking at cubing any differently is because every solve has a different scramble and there are a lot of ways to go about solving the cube, and such variety makes us think of it differently than things that are exactly the same every time, like track and field or swimming.
 
Cale is right. WR shouldn't be treated differently than any other result. This is just a re-run of the age-old argument about whether one move away should be +2 or DNF.
 
Yeah, if some solves with +2s count and some don't, that seems like an illogical argument to me. If you're arguing to eliminate +2 alignment penalties entirely because the cube technically isn't solved, then that argument has some merit to it (although I'm still personally not for it).

All in all though, I think a WR with a +2 is even more impressive than one without, to be honest.
 
Should solves with +2's count in general? No, of course not. But we are too far along now to fix it. Look back at the video of the 1982 WC - when cubes were not perfectly aligned, they consulted Erno Rubik himself to validate the solve.

A lot of these numbers are just arbitrary: +2 penalties for everything (even though not all pentalities are equal), 15 second (+2) inspection. Why not have +Pi penalties? Or +9 halves? What about +10%? Or +e*Pi% of the mean of the other solves in the average? I think the best way to eliminate this arbitrariness would be to remove inspection time and all misalignment penalties completely. But nobody wants that.
 
GenTheThief said:
Why wouldn't it be?
As far as I know, the WCA doesn't record whether or not a solve was a +2. Thus, any knowledge of +2s are unofficial.
After a solve has been entered into the database, that is the time it is. If that time is the world record, then it is the world record.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. +2s are penalties that are just added, so if the final result is a record, it should be considered one. After all, WCA made it on their own and the person getting the solve also deserves it.
 
Okay. I guess most people disagree with me, and that's fine. You missed my point a little bit, and generalized my question a bit further than I intended, but for entirely different reasons (that sounds so mature) I have come to a realization that you are right, but not necessarily for these reasons.
I have been thinking about this more, and not getting emails whenever someone posted to this thread for some reason, and I have realized that if the WCA can decide how much inspection you can get and how you and the cube must be positioned to start and what timers you can use and everyone totally accepted that because those are genuinely good regulations, then they can decide that +2s should count just as much as a normal solve, even if that should make or break a world record.
This is not to say that your reasoning has not helped me come to this conclusion. In fact, as I wrote that, I realized that you are entirely correct (well, most of you). Yes, if that is their solve time, and it is below the world record, it is a world record. I feel so stupid now, but that's okay because I know I'm actually not stupid because I had to look at the problem at a different angle before I realized that I was incorrect. Even so, looking back at my original posts above, now I do feel stupid because I wrote those less than two days ago and they would be great "Reacting To My Old Posts" content if that was a thing.
Just a lesson to people out there, it's okay to be incorrect. (Not very fun that way though.)

Even so, if any of you have compelling evidence that agrees with my original claim, I would be happy to hear it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CubeLite
  • Poll Poll
Should I count 3x3 PBs if they were with One Handed scrambles?
2
Replies
20
Views
2,633
Spencer131
Spencer131
precompsubwr
Should you count a PB if it's a misscramble?
Replies
2
Views
589
bldcuber314
bldcuber314
cube100
What should be the average move count of a sub 12 cuber?
Replies
6
Views
2,466
Coolster01
Coolster01
C
Should methods actually be disciplines?
Replies
6
Views
409
Cassiopaia
C
iguana
What skewb should I buy?
Replies
11
Views
574
Puzzle Maniac
Puzzle Maniac
Back
Top