Older cubers discussions

[SpartanSailor]

New Yuxin 7x7M arrived today.... Looking forward to playing with this one now too.... I believe my previous fastest time (that I’ve ever timed) was 19+ minutes. At that time frame, it wasn’t worth timing. The weekly forum comp has a one-time participation of 23 min! Hopefully, I can bring that down a minute or two with a good cube and some improved bigger cube techniques.

Edit to add:
I actually did an Ao5 for the first time ever.... took over an hour with scrambling times and everything. Single: 10:18. A05: 11:08.

That took forEVER... I’m thinking of doing the relays tomorrow 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and for the first time 2-7. That’s going to take the better part of an hour if I can find the time. 2-7 alone, assuming I can PB EVERYTHING along the way, will be pushing 24 minutes! But, it’s a fun way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon—except tomorrow is not a lazy Sunday. Anyway, I am loving this new Yuxin 7x7M. I have no doubt that I can improve a lot over the next couple months just with the weekly competition. My eyes were going crazy looking at the last two edges trying to figure out how to align them to do the various edge-flip-swaps.

 

[openseas]

Last summer comp @ DFW, 1st day,

5BLD DNF but two 3BLD success today.
I almost got sub 2 mean. 1:59, 2:01 DNF, 1:39.

Tomorrow, 4BLD, MBLD, and 3BLD final round. It's tough to compete big and multi while organizing a comp- I'll just try 3 cubes in 10min.

Hope to break 4BLD DANG streak...

 

[SpartanSailor]

Last summer comp @ DFW, 1st day,

5BLD DNF but two 3BLD success today.
I almost got sub 2 mean. 1:59, 2:01 DNF, 1:39.

Tomorrow, 4BLD, MBLD, and 3BLD final round. It's tough to compete big and multi while organizing a comp- I'll just try 3 cubes in 10min.

Hope to break 4BLD DANG streak...

You had 4 attempts at 3BLD? That strikes me as unusual...

next time we see each other, I’ll have a ton of questions for your about hosting/organizing a comp. I would like to run a comp, but beyond the standing “venue” type issues, I have a few questions about how to go about doing so. I know the time limits are important to keep the comp from being forever long. I’m thinking of doing fewer events with more generous limits than are normal in the area.

There are a LOT of very fast cubers in my local area so the limits are adequate and still get many people through. I would like to have a comp with generous limits on the non-3x3 events to encourage more people to try different events. But if you are new to bigger cubes and/or BLD events, our local cutoffs are too tight to make it fun to “try” to get more involved.

For example, 2:00 is a typical cutoff for 5x5. That’s so beyond the ability of 99% of cubers that come out to weekend comps, but because we have about 50 people locally that attend every comp and can do it under 2 min, it seems reasonable. But Patrick Ponce and people of that caliber are the “locals”... WR and NR holders... not a lot of room for the newbie to give it a go. It’s just not worth even trying when you KNOW you can’t even possibly make the cutoff. Furthermore, it’s not even something that someone new to larger cubes can easily attain—making it out of reach to get new people involved.

 

[openseas]

You had 4 attempts at 3BLD? That strikes me as unusual...

next time we see each other, I’ll have a ton of questions for your about hosting/organizing a comp. I would like to run a comp, but beyond the standing “venue” type issues, I have a few questions about how to go about doing so. I know the time limits are important to keep the comp from being forever long. I’m thinking of doing fewer events with more generous limits than are normal in the area.

There are a LOT of very fast cubers in my local area so the limits are adequate and still get many people through. I would like to have a comp with generous limits on the non-3x3 events to encourage more people to try different events. But if you are new to bigger cubes and/or BLD events, our local cutoffs are too tight to make it fun to “try” to get more involved.

For example, 2:00 is a typical cutoff for 5x5. That’s so beyond the ability of 99% of cubers that come out to weekend comps, but because we have about 50 people locally that attend every comp and can do it under 2 min, it seems reasonable. But Patrick Ponce and people of that caliber are the “locals”... WR and NR holders... not a lot of room for the newbie to give it a go. It’s just not worth even trying when you KNOW you can’t even possibly make the cutoff. Furthermore, it’s not even something that someone new to larger cubes can easily attain—making it out of reach to get new people involved.

"2:01 DNF"

 

[SpartanSailor]

AHHHHH... overlooked the missing comma. Turns out grammar is important. LOL

 

[Old Tom]

You had 4 attempts at 3BLD? That strikes me as unusual...

next time we see each other, I’ll have a ton of questions for your about hosting/organizing a comp. I would like to run a comp, but beyond the standing “venue” type issues, I have a few questions about how to go about doing so. I know the time limits are important to keep the comp from being forever long. I’m thinking of doing fewer events with more generous limits than are normal in the area.

There are a LOT of very fast cubers in my local area so the limits are adequate and still get many people through. I would like to have a comp with generous limits on the non-3x3 events to encourage more people to try different events. But if you are new to bigger cubes and/or BLD events, our local cutoffs are too tight to make it fun to “try” to get more involved.

For example, 2:00 is a typical cutoff for 5x5. That’s so beyond the ability of 99% of cubers that come out to weekend comps, but because we have about 50 people locally that attend every comp and can do it under 2 min, it seems reasonable. But Patrick Ponce and people of that caliber are the “locals”... WR and NR holders... not a lot of room for the newbie to give it a go. It’s just not worth even trying when you KNOW you can’t even possibly make the cutoff. Furthermore, it’s not even something that someone new to larger cubes can easily attain—making it out of reach to get new people involved.

In bridge tournamemts (which I have run) there are often NLM (non-Life Master) events in addition to the Open events. These attract the newbies, and are an important means for growth and continuity of the bridge league, ACBL.

I've been told, and have discovered myself, that much of cubing is about PBs. So why not have a separate section at WCA comps for folks who do not yet have an official time for a given puzzle? A separate table or two where anyone with any puzzle can walk up at any time, get a scramble, and do a solve, with a much more generous time limit, TBD. This would not delay the open-event schedule. It would require one or two (rotating) officials to be on hand, not a big deal I don't think. It could also be restricted to a certain time slot of an hour or two, if manpower is a problem.

Something for the WCA board to consider? Successful solves could go into the database with an asterisk, if the purists insist. There are other ways to handle this, such as a semi-official, comp-specific record.

 

[mark49152]

I think the existing system is pretty kind to newbies. A format like Bo2/Ao5 for events like 5x5 give two chances - first for a single, and second for an average if the single is good enough. I don't really see the need for a separate competition feature as long as appropriate time limit and cutoff are set for the Bo2/Ao5, and it's nice that newbies are included in the main competition.

Setting the time limit and cutoff higher than usual would be a nice idea to give people a chance of single and average when they rarely otherwise get it. However, I wouldn't set it too high, nor remove the Bo2 combined round. Even getting a WCA single result should be reward for putting in some practice and becoming competent at the puzzle. If someone can barely solve a puzzle and has only practised a few times, I think it's reasonable that they should miss getting a competition result.

 

[SpartanSailor]

I agree... I’m not suggesting 60 min for larger cubes and whatnot. However, getting a sub-5 on 7x7 isn’t something that just casually happens. For example, I’ve seen 10:00 limits on 2x2, but 5 min limit on 7x7. Not the Bo1/Mo3 cutoff, rather the DNF limit. And I would want to keep the Bo2/Ao5 or Bo1/Mo3 format, I just think a slightly more forgiving cutoff for the single would be a good way to get more participation with limited impact on overall even schedule. I certainly don’t want to be there all day just to give 3 attempts at 7x7 to someone like myself (currently) that could easily take forever.

@Old Tom I think the real challenge presented by the side table concept (which I think is good) is having official scrambles properly generated and used to support that. There are usually teams of people working the scrambles from an official scrambles generated list for each cube/round/event. Having someone just walk up when 7x7 or Clock are not on the schedule would require considerable more logistics than might immediately come to mind—WCA officially generated scrambles, scrambler, judge, runner... I like the idea, just some peripheral logistics come to mind to wrestle with.

The big take away is I like the community and want to get more involved AND promote more participation.

 

[h2f]

So why not have a separate section at WCA comps for folks who do not yet have an official time for a given puzzle? A separate table or two where anyone with any puzzle can walk up at any time, get a scramble, and do a solve, with a much more generous cutoff, TBD.

It's rather imposible to do because there always would have to sit a delegate there. He has another duties. Cutoffs are made to prevents time delays in a schedule. Imagine competion with 70 people and 10 min cutoff for 7x7. It would take few hours to make an one round of this event. That's why there are needed.

 

[SpartanSailor]

It's rather imposible to do because there always would have to sit a delegate there. He has another duties. Cutoffs are made to prevents time delays in a schedule. Imagine competion with 70 people and 10 min cutoff for 7x7. It would take few hours to make an one round of this event. That's why there are needed.

Whereas I hear you and agree... bear in mind that most competitions have multiple judging stations. Locally, about 12 or so. If say, 40 people compete in 7x7, then there could be 12 simultaneous competitors. Meaning in 10 minutes, 12 people are potentially done for the day. Only those that can actually make the 4 min cutoff (using that for sake of example) can continue on. However, locally, we often see 4:00/5:00 cutoff/limits. In this case, we only lost 5 minutes to let others even have a hope to participate.

That’s only one wave/heat....true. But if done for each wave, 40/12 = 4 waves. So, in an entire day, we have added 20 minutes (maximum... many could possibly be done in 6-7 minutes) by extending the limit from 5 to 10 minutes.

Admittedly, this does add time and with “real life” during the day, those theoretical 20 minutes add up to more. I’m sensitive and aware of the time constraints of a comp... which is why I’m playing with the idea of trying to do something like this. FWIW, I’ve never seen 40 people sign up for 7x7. Usually it’s closer to 15... and they all get under 4 minutes. It seems to me that they only do it for themselves, and are not providing much opportunity for new 7x7 competitors (as an example).

Another example is our local 4x4 cutoff/limits. I work 4x4 all the time and still have only made cutoff a couple times. The cutoff is usually faster than the US National qualifying time. That seems unreasonably fast for a friendly local comp—but again, we have 20 or so world class local cubers, so using a national qualifying time isn’t really reflective of the larger talent present. So, question: Who are the comps for? the fastest cubers or everyone? I know the answer and don’t mean to insight argument. I just think there is room for slightly more lenient times.

Final example, go to nearly anywhere else in the US and you will see much more friendly cutoffs.... I would not suggest cutoffs that were outside the norms. I think part of the problem (for me, MY problem I suppose) is that where I live there are a LOT of world class cubers. So, the cutoffs used still result in large numbers of competitors being able to continue their average or mean.

 

[h2f]

I think part of the problem (for me, MY problem I suppose) is that where I live there are a LOT of world class cubers.

I have the same situtation. When I started in 2x2 there were no cutoffs or there were at 10-12 seconds level. Now they are 5-6 seconds in Poland. On the other hand - it's not as hard to make them. For example 6 seconds level in 2x2 is quite easy to achive - maybe 10 000 practice solves I guess.

 

[SpartanSailor]

5-6 second cutoff! LOL. Yeah, that would stop a LOT of people from continuing (at least locally). But of all the events, if you want to get sub 6 with 2x2, it isn’t that difficult if you are willing to do the practice (said by a mid-6 sec 2x2 solver HAHAHAHA)

 

[mark49152]

I would want to keep the Bo2/Ao5 or Bo1/Mo3 format, I just think a slightly more forgiving cutoff for the single would be a good way to get more participation with limited impact on overall even schedule.

You could add say 20-30% to the cutoff to help out those folks who are working hard to reach the usual cutoff but not quite there yet. Then maybe set a time limit of 2x cutoff on the grounds that the competitor will still use fewer competition resources than if they had made the cutoff. Time limits usually seem lower than that, which you could argue penalises those who won't make cutoff anyway. (I was considering organising a comp along those lines a year or so ago, but it didn't happen.)

 

[AvGalen]

I remember us discussing this many years ago, and the main justification for it back then was as a way to verify that your memo is right - if you get a mismatch from how you've set the cube, you know you're probably recalling the wrong cube. Not really much of a benefit; if your memo is insecure enough that you need this help, it's probably not going to be a very good solve anyway. But it is something that takes practically no extra time to do, so from that perspective, maybe it still makes sense to do.

I thought of this purely from a theoretical perspective. People wanted to count with fingers and I just wanted to point out that there are easier ways to keep count. I use 3OP and never got into bigblind so I never really used this myself

 

[AvGalen]

You could add say 20-30% to the cutoff to help out those folks who are working hard to reach the usual cutoff but not quite there yet. Then maybe set a time limit of 2x cutoff on the grounds that the competitor will still use fewer competition resources than if they had made the cutoff. Time limits usually seem lower than that, which you could argue penalises those who won't make cutoff anyway. (I was considering organising a comp along those lines a year or so ago, but it didn't happen.)

As I said in the thread about "worst things happened in a WCA comp":
It makes no sense from a timesaving perspective to have cutoffs that are shorter than the inspection time. If it takes 30 seconds to get me from the waiting area to a timer, a get 60 seconds to prepare, 15 seconds to inspect and perform a 2x2x2 solve in 6.5 seconds it makes no sense to punish me for needing 0.5 seconds too long
(and for several events with such cutoffs there weren't enough people that made to cutoff so some people went to the 2nd round anyway where they would do 5 solves)

 

[mark49152]

It makes no sense from a timesaving perspective to have cutoffs that are shorter than the inspection time.

Yes I agree. I think (or I assumed) the discussion was about longer events like 5x5-7x7.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Yes I agree. I think (or I assumed) the discussion was about longer events like 5x5-7x7.

Yes, I think that's what we were discussing. But Arnaud did recently get stopped at 2 solves for getting 6.5 in 2x2x2 when the cutoff was 6 seconds. I quite agree that that cutoff seems pretty extreme; I think Arnaud's suggestion of making the inspection time be the minimum cutoff time for an event is a decent guideline to use.

For huge competitions like US Nationals and Worlds now, they have qualification times that should make it unnecessary to have to have ridiculous cutoff times like 6 seconds for 2x2x2. I'd like to think that sort of thing should not be necessary at any competition.

 

[openseas]

From an organizer's point of view (when we set cut-off for big cubes), the most important factor is, of course, time but scramblers are the real factor behind the schedule. Any events using 333 is the most easiest to find scramblers and same for 444.

However, there are big difference between 555 vs. 666 or 777.

1) By WCA regulation, 555 scrambles have to be matched exactly as drawn while you can make your best to match the scramble of 666 or 777 but not a must. Many times, scramblers for 555 have to solve miscrambled 555 and then re-scramble them. So, number of attempts are critical to run a smooth & not-so-behind schedule competition.

2) Those high profiled scramblers are recommended to compete in the same group to keep the fairness. That means, all fast 555 solvers are likely to be in the same group leaving almost no decent scramblers available.

When we select events for each competition, we use historical data of this region (DFW area) - which events cubers register the most and what are the distribution of their times. Based on this analysis + time allowed in the venue, we make the decision which event to include and the time limit and cut-off of those events. We try to make more relaxed timelimts so that cubers can have official singles whereas reasonable cut-off to make the schedule effective.

A side note: In a competition in Florida, there was only one group for 555, nobody else (not competing) was decent. So, I had to scramble 555. I made my best but 50% success rate on scrambles. Those mis-scrambled cubes, I added ~10 extra moves and gave them to the cubers (competitor of 555) and let them solve (unofficially) so that I didn't have to spend next 10 minutes to solve a 555 with 3 style

 

[AvGalen]

"The Mission of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions. "
cut-offs are a necessary evil. If somebody needs 9 minutes for a 5x5x5 I would love for him to be able to do an average of 5 but that is often just not doable without limiting the amount of events for all other competitors. There are many "making the best from a bad situation" solutions that have proven their worth. Some are now required official regulations (fair and equal conditions) while others only have to be applied if the delegate/organizer decide it is needed to keep the time schedule (more people, more fun):
* Limiting multi-blind to 10 minutes per cube and 60 minutes in total. (used to be 15 minutes per cube, no total limit)
* Limiting FMC to 60 minutes per solve. (used to be 90 minutes)
* Limiting all solves to 10 minutes by default
* Having cumulative time limits (like 15 minutes for 3 blindfolded solves)
* Having combined rounds with cut-offs (you only get all 3/5 attempts if your first 1/2 attempts beat a certain time)

I feel like all of this is pretty much established practice, normally well communicated before competitions start and also communicated well enough if it changes during a competition. You could have a good discussion if it is really "fair and equal conditions" that cumulative time limits are different between competitions resulting in some people being allowed to get a "9 minute official 7x7x7 average" while others are stopped after 5 minutes or even prevented from doing a solve at another competition that requires having an official average. I trust enough in the WCA and the organizers of competitions that this will only happen if it is needed. That trust (not any rules!) got broken during Euro 2018 which is why I complain about that so much.

 

[mark49152]

Arnaud did recently get stopped at 2 solves for getting 6.5 in 2x2x2 when the cutoff was 6 seconds. I quite agree that that cutoff seems pretty extreme; I think Arnaud's suggestion of making the inspection time be the minimum cutoff time for an event is a decent guideline to use.

I guess it depends on what the organisers want to achieve with the cutoff. If the objective is to reduce the field to some percentage for solves 3-5 in order to save time overall (including scrambling, running and judging time) then it's not unreasonable to do that by looking at a psych sheet and working out a cutoff that N% of the field will likely fail to meet.

If the objective is instead to eliminate the slowest outliers to prevent the round from overrunning with a few stragglers still solving, a more generous cutoff makes sense.