Red Bull Rubik's Cube World Championships
- Thread starter lejitcuber
- Start date
kprox1994
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 592
- Location
- Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
- WCA ID
- 2017PAAR01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I think it would be cool if the RCA was like the Harlem Globetrotters to the WCA being the NBA. The RCA would just be for run to watch nonserious events and the WCA is for serious competition.
Sai Ashish Vure
Member
I really agree with DG here on the fact that cubing is a community for uniqueness and not competition. I would LOVE to see a final round that has 2 solvers face of solve by solve. Like Worlds 2013. This 1v1 is just too much. What I hate more is the fact that we have to use Rubik's Brand Cubes instead of our own ones.
theawesomecuber
Regular
Now that I think the dust has settled, I'm going to try to give an unbiased (lol) analysis of both competition formats, and which one is better for cubers and spectators. I'll first bring up every game mode (event) of the Red Bull competition, then follow up with some other thoughts.
Speed Cubing:
- 1v1, first to 3 victories moves on: I think 5 solves is fine, though in a format like this, I think it might make sense to have more solves to win in later rounds of the competition. I'll elaborate on the 1v1 format later.
- Vague amount of inspection: I find it odd they don't mention how much inspection the competitors have, seems rather important. Maybe there's no limit and speed cubing is just speedBLD now
. Probably not haha.
Fastest Hand:
- 1v1, first to 2 victories moves on: Best of 3 is way too few solves. This competition will be over in like 2 minutes for anyone decent.
- No inspection: I'll talk about this later on, but for now I want to bring up how little sense this makes. Why does Speed Cubing have inspection but this doesn't? Are they trying to emphasize how fast your hand is moving? Isn't your hand moving faster in Speed Cubing? I don't understand the inconsistency.
Rescramble:
- 1v1, first to 1 victory moves on: 1 solve is no way to measure skill, this is awful from a competitive point of view. From the spectator's point of view, this isn't really a problem, but still, a competent Rescramble solve will be pretty impressive, I think this competition would benefit by showcasing it more.
- This seems like an interesting event for a spectator if the competitors have no idea how to do it, like in this video. Seeing the competitors ponder and struggle over trying to figure out how to get the colors to the right place is exciting. However, competitors are not stupid. This is obviously really easily done with any BLD method, meaning that ordinary BLD cubers would look back and forth between both cubes, and experienced BLD cubers would quickly memorize the scrambled cube, then execute many moves until boom, the cubes are matched. This isn't as exciting as watching the competitors think hard. Obviously, memorizing the scramble with one look would be incredibly impressive, but I think a simple BLD solve would be even more impressive, because the end result is the familiar fabled solve position. Overall, I think it's interesting but not well thought out, which isn't surprising considering who is organizing this competition. (oops my bias is out a bit)
And some thoughts on more specific subjects.
Inspection:
I'm seeing a perplexing amount of people arguing that removing inspection time would make sense. As an experienced cuber, let me lay down my reasoning for inspection being a genius addition to the sport of cubing. Firstly, and most obviously, inspection reduces the effects of luck. A massive factor in no inspection solves is whether the pieces you want are right in front of you. This is removed with inspection, where you have time not only to find your pieces, but to deal with ugly situations. Secondly, and I think more importantly, consider the flow of a solve with inspection. You find out your first moves, then during those moves you plan out what the next moves will be, then during those moves you plan the next moves, and so on. Now remove inspection. A solver will be so overwhelmed at the start that his solve, the start especially, will be incredibly choppy. This is because you didn't have the time at the start to plan out your moves, meaning that each move you do is only solving whatever pieces you were lucky enough to see first, further leading to a decrease in consistency. For these reasons, an inspection period benefits the solver by removing luck and improving consistency.
1v1 Format:
Now there are obvious concerns mentioned above that this format measures skill differently from average, which is more accepted as a good way to measure skill. In reality, there's no objectivity to this, especially when you only have 3 or 5 solves. I honestly have no real issue with this format, as long as they don't use a single elimination system, which would be plain unfair. An idea I had is to have everything leading up to the finals or semi-finals or whatever be with this 1v1 system, then have the rest of the rounds be singles, where a competitor sits down and does his solves. I honestly think that the latter system might be better for the spectator. I'm imagining a commentator doing analysis on the times they're getting and the anticipation of someone needing to get a sub 8 time or something in order to podium. I don't think the difference between the two is that significant, just an idea I had.
Rubik's Speedcube:
"The Red Bull Rubik’s World Championship is managed by Red Bull Mind Gamers independently of Rubik’s Brand Ltd. As a measure of legal transparency and compliance, Red Bull has acquired a license to use Rubik’s Intellectual Property in professional speedcubing via the Rubik’s Cube Speedsolving Association." From the RCSA blog post. I guess part of the terms of the license was limiting the freedom of choice of the competitors. Obviously, I think this is stupid, I'm mostly upset that Rubik's has to be part of our community in any way, they don't represent our interests.
Thanks for reading this behemoth.
Speed Cubing:
- 1v1, first to 3 victories moves on: I think 5 solves is fine, though in a format like this, I think it might make sense to have more solves to win in later rounds of the competition. I'll elaborate on the 1v1 format later.
- Vague amount of inspection: I find it odd they don't mention how much inspection the competitors have, seems rather important. Maybe there's no limit and speed cubing is just speedBLD now
. Probably not haha.Fastest Hand:
- 1v1, first to 2 victories moves on: Best of 3 is way too few solves. This competition will be over in like 2 minutes for anyone decent.
- No inspection: I'll talk about this later on, but for now I want to bring up how little sense this makes. Why does Speed Cubing have inspection but this doesn't? Are they trying to emphasize how fast your hand is moving? Isn't your hand moving faster in Speed Cubing? I don't understand the inconsistency.
Rescramble:
- 1v1, first to 1 victory moves on: 1 solve is no way to measure skill, this is awful from a competitive point of view. From the spectator's point of view, this isn't really a problem, but still, a competent Rescramble solve will be pretty impressive, I think this competition would benefit by showcasing it more.
- This seems like an interesting event for a spectator if the competitors have no idea how to do it, like in this video. Seeing the competitors ponder and struggle over trying to figure out how to get the colors to the right place is exciting. However, competitors are not stupid. This is obviously really easily done with any BLD method, meaning that ordinary BLD cubers would look back and forth between both cubes, and experienced BLD cubers would quickly memorize the scrambled cube, then execute many moves until boom, the cubes are matched. This isn't as exciting as watching the competitors think hard. Obviously, memorizing the scramble with one look would be incredibly impressive, but I think a simple BLD solve would be even more impressive, because the end result is the familiar fabled solve position. Overall, I think it's interesting but not well thought out, which isn't surprising considering who is organizing this competition. (oops my bias is out a bit)
And some thoughts on more specific subjects.
Inspection:
I'm seeing a perplexing amount of people arguing that removing inspection time would make sense. As an experienced cuber, let me lay down my reasoning for inspection being a genius addition to the sport of cubing. Firstly, and most obviously, inspection reduces the effects of luck. A massive factor in no inspection solves is whether the pieces you want are right in front of you. This is removed with inspection, where you have time not only to find your pieces, but to deal with ugly situations. Secondly, and I think more importantly, consider the flow of a solve with inspection. You find out your first moves, then during those moves you plan out what the next moves will be, then during those moves you plan the next moves, and so on. Now remove inspection. A solver will be so overwhelmed at the start that his solve, the start especially, will be incredibly choppy. This is because you didn't have the time at the start to plan out your moves, meaning that each move you do is only solving whatever pieces you were lucky enough to see first, further leading to a decrease in consistency. For these reasons, an inspection period benefits the solver by removing luck and improving consistency.
1v1 Format:
Now there are obvious concerns mentioned above that this format measures skill differently from average, which is more accepted as a good way to measure skill. In reality, there's no objectivity to this, especially when you only have 3 or 5 solves. I honestly have no real issue with this format, as long as they don't use a single elimination system, which would be plain unfair. An idea I had is to have everything leading up to the finals or semi-finals or whatever be with this 1v1 system, then have the rest of the rounds be singles, where a competitor sits down and does his solves. I honestly think that the latter system might be better for the spectator. I'm imagining a commentator doing analysis on the times they're getting and the anticipation of someone needing to get a sub 8 time or something in order to podium. I don't think the difference between the two is that significant, just an idea I had.
Rubik's Speedcube:
"The Red Bull Rubik’s World Championship is managed by Red Bull Mind Gamers independently of Rubik’s Brand Ltd. As a measure of legal transparency and compliance, Red Bull has acquired a license to use Rubik’s Intellectual Property in professional speedcubing via the Rubik’s Cube Speedsolving Association." From the RCSA blog post. I guess part of the terms of the license was limiting the freedom of choice of the competitors. Obviously, I think this is stupid, I'm mostly upset that Rubik's has to be part of our community in any way, they don't represent our interests.
Thanks for reading this behemoth.
Last edited:
Zerksies
Regular
I love the idea of no inspection times, but they both get the same scramble. And they do a race to 5-9 games. In a tournament style of double elimination
I love the idea of no inspection times, but they both get the same scramble. And they do a race to 5-9 games. In a tournament style of double elimination. You get 100 competitors in a qualifier take the players with the top 32 times then go to a double elimination tournament. Everyone seems to be held up on "their" times an PB's.Now that I think the dust has settled, I'm going to try to give an unbiased (lol) analysis of both competition formats, and which one is better for cubers and spectators. I'll first bring up every game mode (event) of the Red Bull competition, then follow up with some other thoughts.
Speed Cubing:
- 1v1, first to 3 victories moves on: I think 5 solves is fine, though in a format like this, I think it might make sense to have more solves to win in later rounds of the competition. I'll elaborate on the 1v1 format later.
- Vague amount of inspection: I find it odd they don't mention how much inspection the competitors have, seems rather important. Maybe there's no limit and speed cubing is just speedBLD now
Fastest Hand:
- 1v1, first to 2 victories moves on: Best of 3 is way too few solves. This competition will be over in like 2 minutes for anyone decent.
- No inspection: I'll talk about this later on, but for now I want to bring up how little sense this makes. Why does Speed Cubing have inspection but this doesn't? Are they trying to emphasize how fast your hand is moving? Isn't your hand moving faster in Speed Cubing? I don't understand the inconsistency.
Rescramble:
- 1v1, first to 1 victory moves on: 1 solve is no way to measure skill, this is awful from a competitive point of view. From the spectator's point of view, this isn't really a problem, but still, a competent Rescramble solve will be pretty impressive, I think this competition would benefit by showcasing it more.
- This seems like an interesting event for a spectator if the competitors have no idea how to do it, like in this video. Seeing the competitors ponder and struggle over trying to figure out how to get the colors to the right place is exciting. However, competitors are not stupid. This is obviously really easily done with any BLD method, meaning that ordinary BLD cubers would look back and forth between both cubes, and experienced BLD cubers would quickly memorize the scrambled cube, then execute many moves until boom, the cubes are matched. This isn't as exciting as watching the competitors think hard. Obviously, memorizing the scramble with one look would be incredibly impressive, but I think a simple BLD solve would be even more impressive, because the end result is the familiar fabled solve position. Overall, I think it's interesting but not well thought out, which isn't surprising considering who is organizing this competition. (oops my bias is out a bit)
And some thoughts on more specific subjects.
Inspection:
I'm seeing a perplexing amount of people arguing that removing inspection time would make sense. As an experienced cuber, let me lay down my reasoning for inspection being a genius addition to the sport of cubing. Firstly, and most obviously, inspection reduces the effects of luck. A massive factor in no inspection solves is whether the pieces you want are right in front of you. This is removed with inspection, where you have time not only to find your pieces, but to deal with ugly situations. Secondly, and I think more importantly, consider the flow of a solve with inspection. You find out your first moves, then during those moves you plan out what the next moves will be, then during those moves you plan the next moves, and so on. Now remove inspection. A solver will be so overwhelmed at the start that his solve, the start especially, will be incredibly choppy. This is because you didn't have the time at the start to plan out your moves, meaning that each move you do is only solving whatever pieces you were lucky enough to see first, further leading to a decrease in consistency. For these reasons, an inspection period benefits the solver by removing luck and improving consistency.
1v1 Format:
Now there are obvious concerns mentioned above that this format measures skill differently from average, which is more accepted as a good way to measure skill. In reality, there's no objectivity to this, especially when you only have 3 or 5 solves. I honestly have no real issue with this format, as long as they don't use a single elimination system, which would be plain unfair. An idea I had is to have everything leading up to the finals or semi-finals or whatever be with this 1v1 system, then have the rest of the rounds be singles, where a competitor sits down and does his solves. I honestly think that the latter system might be better for the spectator. I'm imagining a commentator doing analysis on the times they're getting and the anticipation of someone needing to get a sub 8 time or something in order to podium. I don't think the difference between the two is that significant, just an idea I had.
Rubik's Speedcube:
"The Red Bull Rubik’s World Championship is managed by Red Bull Mind Gamers independently of Rubik’s Brand Ltd. As a measure of legal transparency and compliance, Red Bull has acquired a license to use Rubik’s Intellectual Property in professional speedcubing via the Rubik’s Cube Speedsolving Association." From the RCSA blog post. I guess part of the terms of the license was limiting the freedom of choice of the competitors. Obviously, I think this is stupid, I'm mostly upset that Rubik's has to be part of our community in any way, they don't represent our interests.
Thanks for reading this behemoth.
ComputerGuy365
Regular
This isn't what cubing was meant to be. Rubik's are trying to make it a spectator sport when it clearly is not. The community likes it as it is. They're trying to jam the square peg in the circular hole.
Hey, I'm trying
I almost hit sub-2 on 5 yesterday
Zerksies
Regular
As i have said have you ever really watched a cubing competition? It's boring as hell. And I've been doing this for a decade. A race format would make this interesting.
theawesomecuber
Regular
As I explained, I think no inspection time is an awful idea, but the rest of what you explain would be perfectly fine for a competition.
Cubing isn't a spectator sport because it is not entertaining to watch. Especially from the point of view of someone who doesn't cube. Sure, it might be impressive to look at for a bit, but trust me, no one wants to sit down and watch a whole competition of cubers moving their hands fast for a while until the cube is solved.
Every popular sport is intuitively interesting. Football (in the states) has a humongous audience because it is filled with bursts of interesting action, where anything could happen. You can track individual players with ease, and make informed predictions about what could happen, even without a background in Football.
I think a general rule of thumb about whether a sport could have a large audience is if interesting commentary is possible. As an example that relates to me specifically, rock climbing competitions are able to have fascinating commentary, since commentators can talk about the different possible routes and what the setters intended and so on. I can't imagine a cubing competition could have commentary deeper than talking about the background of the cubers and the times they're getting, but during the action itself, the solve, there's nothing to say since you can't track where they're at.
Obviously, the intention of trying to make cubing more of a spectator sport is the money, but from the perspective of the cubing community, I don't think having spectators would be beneficial. If we want to introduce new people into the community, I honestly think the best thing to do would be to put montages on YouTube for more competitions.
turtwig
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 700
Maybe that's why people like Zerksies are suggesting that it may be a good idea to have race formats.
I agree that cubing isn't as good for spectating as some sports like soccer, for the reasons you have mentioned. However, we can look at other sports, such as the 100m dash. It is similar to cubing in several ways, it's quick, there's no interaction between the players, and it's just a race to see who does something the fastest. As far as I can tell though, the 100m dash is quite a popular event to watch (at least every 4 years at the Olympics), so I think it's safe to suggest that cubing can entertain in a similar way.
Wait, so are non-cubers supposed to enjoy watching us cube or not?
Rafael Paulino
Regular
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2017
- Messages
- 61
- Location
- Pasig City, Philippines
- WCA ID
- 2017PAUL06
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I'm trying to be unbiased but yeah.
I think this a very big step for cubing. Since Red Bull is endorsing this and Red Bull is a really big company, I think cubing will become more known to the public. But is this what Rubik's wants the public to see??? I see people who compete for prizes and bragging rights other than normal comps where most people go for fun. If Rubik's did do this with the WCA and stopped suing everyone, it would work out.
I think this a very big step for cubing. Since Red Bull is endorsing this and Red Bull is a really big company, I think cubing will become more known to the public. But is this what Rubik's wants the public to see??? I see people who compete for prizes and bragging rights other than normal comps where most people go for fun. If Rubik's did do this with the WCA and stopped suing everyone, it would work out.
Regarding inspection time, consider that there are already several events that don't allow inspection. While these are not WCA events they are well known. Two examples are the Guinness record for the most 3x3's solved in one hour (around 375 cubes by Mats Valk). The other is the Guinness record for most cubes solved underwater (8 by Kevin Hays). Both of these allow you at best to inspect only the first cube and the rest are done on the fly with no inspection. Mats is probably currently the best cuber in the world with no inspection if you watch his Guinness video, it appears he loses only around 1.5 seconds by not having inspection. For a while I was training to beat the underwater record and so I was also practicing without inspection. Certain methods fare better than others. ZZ is probably the worst method if you don't have inspection because of EOLine.
My personal opinion is that 3x3 should have both a category with inspection and another one without inspection. In fact, one could even argue for a 'genius' category that allows 1 minute of inspection. This is incredibly exhausting (to see that far ahead), but it would actually make for a marvelous display of skill, as with 1 minute some advanced cubers might be able to see (for example ) the entire F2L in the inspection.
My personal opinion is that 3x3 should have both a category with inspection and another one without inspection. In fact, one could even argue for a 'genius' category that allows 1 minute of inspection. This is incredibly exhausting (to see that far ahead), but it would actually make for a marvelous display of skill, as with 1 minute some advanced cubers might be able to see (for example ) the entire F2L in the inspection.
FastCubeMaster
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Messages
- 1,318
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
- WCA ID
- 2015PEAR02
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Please, everyone
Ronxu
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Location
- Kirkkonummi, Finland
- WCA ID
- 2010RONK01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
We need fewer events, not more.
One Wheel
Legend
First: why?
Second: ok, get rid of trivial events: 2x2, skewb, pyraminx, and clock all require some skill to learn how to solve, but within any given quintile or so of rankings the differences are probably 80-90% (maybe more) due to dexterity and luck, not puzzle solving skill.
applezfall
Veteran
TRIGGERED
Ronxu
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 629
- Location
- Kirkkonummi, Finland
- WCA ID
- 2010RONK01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Worlds was 4 days and they still couldn't manage to fit more than 2 rounds of quite a few events. Adding skewb was a mistake but removing it now wouldn't make sense. Clock and feet should go for reasons that people have gone over multiple times. 5BLD doesn't really make sense to me. Very few people compete in it and the same people who are good at it are also good at 4BLD. Big cubes have a similar problem but at least people compete in them.
One Wheel
Legend
I understand that people like more attempts to set records and personal bests, but if the result of a competition, but if the purpose of a competition is to determine a champion, and the results are not dependent on luck, subsequent rounds are really unnecessary.
As far as your points on events: agreed on skewb, unless there was serious consideration of cutting events, in which case it should be on the list. I haven't learned 4BLD and 5BLD yet, but I know that 4BLD has the issue of choosing an orientation whereas 5BLD is more rapid rote tracing and memorization. Feet also adds more than "it's fun": on a spectrum from rewarding dexterity to rewarding efficiency in solving 3x3, regular speedsolve and OH are fairly close together at the dexterity end of the spectrum. FMC is obviously at the extreme efficiency end of the spectrum, and feet is nowhere close to FMC, but it does reward efficiency (and dealing with poor visibility) significantly more than 2H or OH does.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,932
- Location
- Indianapolis
- WCA ID
- 2007HUGH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
It is quite possible to choose orientation on 5BLD too; several of us do it regularly. But I admit I don't know if any of the fast 5BLD people choose orientation.
I only ever choose from the 6 easy orientations, but I know François Courtès chooses from all of them. It's actually one of the most fun things about 5BLD for me, when it's useful for a given solve.
I only ever choose from the 6 easy orientations, but I know François Courtès chooses from all of them. It's actually one of the most fun things about 5BLD for me, when it's useful for a given solve.
Similar threads
