Issues with BLD events, OH and credibility of whole databse [DISCUSSION]

Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
73
I read WCA regulations over and over again and this is something I need to speak about. There are so many issues with all BLD events and OH that we should do something about this.

So, as you know the regulations doesn not always make sense. For example in the past literally nobody would think that introducing 3BLD means is a good idea. People were confident with just single being recognized, so they can push their attempts as fast as possible to get a golden medal or to set a new record. At the time they made the thing official, people argued that the same thing should be done with 4BLD and 5BLD. Why this took 6 years, I don't know? It's unfair to every world class big blinders with a good effectiveness. They could have go for WR mean but didn't do because there was no point in doing that. Retroactive WRs just doesn't give so much satisfation and I feel they are sometimes even random as people simply don't care enough. Also it is 7th January already and I don't see the means on WCA website. It should be done a week ago, come on it's probably a few minutes of work.

I won't be surprised if they make a MBLD mean in the future. Obviously current MBDLers and organisers will be affected if that will be introduced and announced just a few weeks before like it was done with Big Blinds.

Cheaters:
BLD events has a highest percentage of people cheating on world class level. It all started with Matyas Kuti and you thought a piece of paper will solve the problem.
Matyas. Maskow. Zalewski. Hessler. Fabio de Rose. Haiyan Zhuang. And possibly many more we don't know about.

My suggestion: delegate has to be present and oversee the solves of all blders. Harmonica holders are mandatory for everyone - judges tend to hold the paper too low or too high so competitor can sometimes peek under the blindfold. That could solve some of the problems.

Cameras:
WCA grows exponentially. There are more and more competitors and competitions every year. For the same reason there are more and more incidents which not always can be honestly handled - not always you have witnesses and not always you have proof of cheating on camera.
Speedstacks timer costs ~30$. Tournament display can cost around ~200$ and the mat with cables ~15$. That's almost 250$ per one station. Sooo...
Is it really so hard to equip every station with some cheap cameras you can find on aliexpress? You can buy them for as little as 20-30$ and the quality is just right. That's 10% of costs of the whole station and if mandatory on every competition on earth, this will basically solve every single problem with cheaters and incidents. Of course you will need some kind of database to keep them for I don't know, 1-2 years?

OH:
Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH.

That's all for now, I will update when I have more time.
 
OH:
Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH.
I don't have too much of an opinion on the rest of your post, but lol @ this.

It has been in the regulations for years that table abuse (or rather, table use) is allowed. What do you want to do, retroactively invalidate every solve where the cube came in contact with the surface? Also, have you seen Max Park's CFOP solves???? The cube is touching the table over 20% of the time.

So, I grabbed the video linked above of one of Max's ao5 along with this 10.62 official average by Kian to compare them. I specifically didn't want to choose their WR averages because those are inherently distorted towards lucky solves and I wanted something a bit more representative. Also, no unofficial solves because those are extremely distorted. Just before you scroll down any further, make a rough guess of the proportions of the solves where Max and Kian had the cube touching the table.

Methodology notes: Max's video is of really poor quality and he had his GoPro in the way for like 4/5 solves (this is a really frequently recurring problem, so Max, if you're reading this, PLEASE UPLOAD BETTER VIDEOS), so I had to guess a lot. I mostly tried to be conservative in my determination of whether the cube was touching the table (for both Max's and Kian's videos). The start of the solve is when the hand first touches the cube (not when the timer is started), and similarly, the end of the solve is when the cube is solved and the hand last touches the cube. The first few and last few frames of the solve are counted only if the table is used to help make the moves.

frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 345
end of solve: frame 629
total frames: 285
cube touches surface:
[345 347] [357 360] [365 376] [382 384] [391 409] [431 439] [485 493] [529 551] [561 566] [582 592]
99 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 1047
end of solve: frame 1373
total frames: 327
cube touches surface:
[1047 1050] [1056 1065] [1067 1081] [1092 1129] [1160 1174] [1241 1241] [1289 1289] [1294 1304] [1319 1325] [1335 1354] [1372 1372]
123 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 1907
end of solve: frame 2207
total frames: 301
cube touches surface:
[1907 1910] [1933 1946] [1950 1953] [1959 1988] [1999 2006] [2034 2042] [2045 2048] [2071 2079] [2104 2111] [2116 2126] [2149 2156] [2160 2176] [2182 2192]
137 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 2649
end of solve: frame 2967
total frames: 319
cube touches surface:
[2649 2650] [2653 2660] [2692 2704] [2721 2726] [2751 2759] [2798 2804] [2836 2846] [2877 2879] [2891 2894] [2923 2931]
72 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 3418
end of solve: frame 3710
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[3418 3418] [3427 3456] [3461 3469] [3478 3488] [3502 3507] [3522 3527] [3541 3548] [3559 3569] [3633 3640] [3652 3663] [3695 3696] [3699 3710]
116 frames

total frames of all solves: 1525
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 547
percentage: 547/1525 ~ 36%
frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 27
end of solve: frame 389
total frames: 363
cube touches surface:
[27 30] [37 47] [56 66] [173 178] [205 216] [235 240] [305 389]
135 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 525
end of solve: frame 832
total frames: 308
cube touches surface:
[525 527] [549 551] [623 635] [649 658] [743 832]
119 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 966
end of solve: frame 1271
total frames: 306
cube touches surface:
[1142 1152] [1158 1271]
125 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 1430
end of solve: frame 1722
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[1474 1482] [1529 1534] [1575 1579] [1587 1590] [1600 1601] [1638 1722]
111 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 1867
end of solve: frame 2181
total frames: 315
cube touches surface:
[1867 1868] [1954 1964] [1984 1990] [2005 2009] [2117 2181]
90 frames

total frames of all solves: 1585
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 580
percentage: 580/1585 ~ 37%

Guess what, the difference in proportion is less than one percentage point. They're both around 36% (with sufficiently large error bars that the difference isn't statistically significant).
 
I don't have too much of an opinion on the rest of your post, but lol @ this.

It has been in the regulations for years that table abuse (or rather, table use) is allowed. What do you want to do, retroactively invalidate every solve where the cube came in contact with the surface? Also, have you seen Max Park's CFOP solves???? The cube is touching the table over 20% of the time.

So, I grabbed the video linked above of one of Max's ao5 along with this 10.62 official average by Kian to compare them. I specifically didn't want to choose their WR averages because those are inherently distorted towards lucky solves and I wanted something a bit more representative. Also, no unofficial solves because those are extremely distorted. Just before you scroll down any further, make a rough guess of the proportions of the solves where Max and Kian had the cube touching the table.

Methodology notes: Max's video is of really poor quality and he had his GoPro in the way for like 4/5 solves (this is a really frequently recurring problem, so Max, if you're reading this, PLEASE UPLOAD BETTER VIDEOS), so I had to guess a lot. I mostly tried to be conservative in my determination of whether the cube was touching the table (for both Max's and Kian's videos). The start of the solve is when the hand first touches the cube (not when the timer is started), and similarly, the end of the solve is when the cube is solved and the hand last touches the cube. The first few and last few frames of the solve are counted only if the table is used to help make the moves.

frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 345
end of solve: frame 629
total frames: 285
cube touches surface:
[345 347] [357 360] [365 376] [382 384] [391 409] [431 439] [485 493] [529 551] [561 566] [582 592]
99 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 1047
end of solve: frame 1373
total frames: 327
cube touches surface:
[1047 1050] [1056 1065] [1067 1081] [1092 1129] [1160 1174] [1241 1241] [1289 1289] [1294 1304] [1319 1325] [1335 1354] [1372 1372]
123 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 1907
end of solve: frame 2207
total frames: 301
cube touches surface:
[1907 1910] [1933 1946] [1950 1953] [1959 1988] [1999 2006] [2034 2042] [2045 2048] [2071 2079] [2104 2111] [2116 2126] [2149 2156] [2160 2176] [2182 2192]
137 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 2649
end of solve: frame 2967
total frames: 319
cube touches surface:
[2649 2650] [2653 2660] [2692 2704] [2721 2726] [2751 2759] [2798 2804] [2836 2846] [2877 2879] [2891 2894] [2923 2931]
72 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 3418
end of solve: frame 3710
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[3418 3418] [3427 3456] [3461 3469] [3478 3488] [3502 3507] [3522 3527] [3541 3548] [3559 3569] [3633 3640] [3652 3663] [3695 3696] [3699 3710]
116 frames

total frames of all solves: 1525
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 547
percentage: 547/1525 ~ 36%
frame rate: 30000/1001
solve 1:
start of solve: frame 27
end of solve: frame 389
total frames: 363
cube touches surface:
[27 30] [37 47] [56 66] [173 178] [205 216] [235 240] [305 389]
135 frames

solve 2:
start of solve: frame 525
end of solve: frame 832
total frames: 308
cube touches surface:
[525 527] [549 551] [623 635] [649 658] [743 832]
119 frames

solve 3:
start of solve: frame 966
end of solve: frame 1271
total frames: 306
cube touches surface:
[1142 1152] [1158 1271]
125 frames

solve 4:
start of solve: frame 1430
end of solve: frame 1722
total frames: 293
cube touches surface:
[1474 1482] [1529 1534] [1575 1579] [1587 1590] [1600 1601] [1638 1722]
111 frames

solve 5:
start of solve: frame 1867
end of solve: frame 2181
total frames: 315
cube touches surface:
[1867 1868] [1954 1964] [1984 1990] [2005 2009] [2117 2181]
90 frames

total frames of all solves: 1585
total frames of all solves with cube touching surface: 580
percentage: 580/1585 ~ 37%

Guess what, the difference in proportion is less than one percentage point. They're both around 36% (with sufficiently large error bars that the difference isn't statistically significant).

well I don't find this convincing at all because

It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?

Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand
 
well I don't find this convincing at all because

It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?
You think table abuse makes solves illegitimate. The vast majority of people don't think WF results are illegitimate; it's just an unpopular event. I have no comment about Magic and Master Magic because those are from before my time.

If the regulations are to be changed to reflect that (but they won't, so this is a silly hypothetical), it would make sense to go one step further to invalidate older solves that are now considered illegitimate as well, considering how heavily populated the top of the current rankings are with table-abuse-heavy solvers.

Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand
There is zero principled reason to draw the line there. Aligning the cube and changing grip are also things you'd normally use your second hand to help with.

(My personal stance on table abuse is that it looks ugly, and if it were up to me, I'd ban it uniformly. Not "ban it for Roux users because they're getting too good at exploiting table abuse". If you do have a principled reason for wanting to draw the line where you want to draw it, you have yet to state it convincingly.)
 
Last edited:
He never cheated.
He started the stop watch himself on his 41/41 and also for like 5 attempts which can be found all his cubes were given to him in his preferred orientation, first time it could slide since it wasn’t his fault but he continued to let it happen which is against the spirit of the regs for sure.
 
well I don't find this convincing at all because

It has been in the regulations for years that feet, magic and master magic are recognised. What do you want to do, retroactively dnf every solve?

Also Max uses table to align the cube or change the grip. Kian uses table as his second hand

We can NOT ban table abuse in some cases and not in others. Sure, maybe you can tell when it's being used as a second hand (which is entirely subjective regardless), but we can't realistically expect all judges to have the same discretion. Either keep table abuse legal or disallow it entirely; there can't be any in-between.

Personally, I'm very much for keeping table abuse legal for the following reasons:
- It's too hard to specify what's table abuse and what's not. (i.e. The cube must start and end on the Stackmat; how long would you be allowed to keep it touching the mat? Is it legal to drop the cube accidentally? How about on purpose? Assuming dropping the cube is legal, how do you define dropping so a judge could determine its legality without video evidence?)
- It changes the nature of the event. People have been practicing OH this way for years to the point where it would require very different skills to become world class. Would we then need to entirely reset the rankings and invalidate the efforts of those who have been practicing according to the regulations?

I'm not saying major changes like this should never be made; rather they should only be made if their pros greatly outweigh their cons. In this case, the only pro I see is that some (?) of the community would be more satisfied with this change. Based on the backlash from this post and the general acceptance of the OH regulations however, I can confidently say that this pro hardly exists regardless.
 
He started the stop watch himself on his 41/41 and also for like 5 attempts which can be found all his cubes were given to him in his preferred orientation, first time it could slide since it wasn’t his fault but he continued to let it happen which is against the spirit of the regs for sure.
It wasnt proved it was cheat. He didnt get a ban etc.
 
You think table abuse makes solves illegitimate. The vast majority of people don't think WF results are illegitimate; it's just an unpopular event. I have no comment about Magic and Master Magic because those are from before my time.

If the regulations are to be changed to reflect that (but they won't, so this is a silly hypothetical), it would make sense to go one step further to invalidate older solves that are now considered illegitimate as well, considering how heavily populated the top of the current rankings are with table-abuse-heavy solvers.

Do you know that once cubes with logos were allowed in 3BLD event?

I could apply your argument towards every solve where cube with logo was used. And according to you we should retroactively DNF all such results. Your original argument just doesn't work here and changing it over and over again won't make you appear smarter.

It wasnt proved it was cheat. He didnt get a ban etc.

What do you mean by "It wasnt proved it was cheat". He and the judge (which accidentally appears to be his wife) broke whole amount of regulations. It should have been DNFed, but that's just my personal opinion.
 
I would say he was cheating by doing so. Also cheating =/= punishment (extreme example is vladislav Ushakov). I don’t think they were big things that need punishment but I would definitely consider it to be cheating. WCA deemed it not worthy of punishment and discussed it here
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/archive/forum_topics/1162


Instead, he continued to exploit the procedural errors to his advantage, be it big or small. We find this against the spirit of the WCA and formally reprimand the competitor for this unsportsmanlike behaviour. (...) The WCA Board believes that the occurence of all those incidents was accomodated by the fact that the Multiple Blindfolded event has been held in parallel to other events at the affected competitions, leaving it free to the competitors to start their attempts at any time. We take this opportunity to recommend that delegates and organisers be careful in the planning of competitions in the sense of ensuring that the number and nature of events held allow for good control and supervision for adherence to WCA regulations and standards. We thank Mr. Kowalczyk and the WCA Disciplinary Committee for their cooperation with this investigation. -Natán Riggenbach WCA Board Member

I think this finish it. It doesnt matter what you or me think about it. There's no real advantage of custom orientation in mbld. Ask any top mblder about it. I know that in these times many top mblders got cubes in his/her orientation. It stopped after the case.
 
There's no real advantage of custom orientation in mbld

Well I don't agree, I don't have to ask anybody else either, will just use common sense. Orienting the cube can take up to 1-2 second and if you multiply that by 41 you will get over 1 minute of advantage. MBLD takes into consideration score and time
 
I disagree with some of your points.

Cheaters:
BLD events has a highest percentage of people cheating on world class level. It all started with Matyas Kuti and you thought a piece of paper will solve the problem.
Matyas. Maskow. Zalewski. Hessler. Fabio de Rose. Haiyan Zhuang. And possibly many more we don't know about.

My suggestion: delegate has to be present and oversee the solves of all blders. Harmonica holders are mandatory for everyone - judges tend to hold the paper too low or too high so competitor can sometimes peek under the blindfold. That could solve some of the problems.

Maskow didn’t cheat. Fabio probably didn’t cheat. And I’ve never heard of Rowe Hessler cheating.

If you’re trying to convince me that cheating happens lots of the time in 3bld, then you are doing an awful job.

Please ban heavy table abuse. Rouxers will dominate that event and it will basically become as retarded as 2x2x2 single solve. You should use one hand to hold the cube. Currently rouxers use one hand but they replace the other one with the table which holds the cube for them. It just doesn't feel right. Of course CFOPers also abuse the table, but the cube has contact with its surface for a fraction of a second. They use it continuously. Rouxers can have 6 seconds average for TH and 7 seconds average for OH.



Like others have said above, this would destroy the event and cause every solve to be invalidated. Table abuse has been legal and has been used since 2008, which is a long time. And your point with Roux is completely irrelevant due to people like Feliks and Max and other fast OH solvers that use CFOP. They push the limits too. Don’t just say it’s Kian and other roux solvers.

Next thing you know people will argue we shouldn’t table abuse in Megaminx.

Edit: 2008, not the start.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't agree, I don't have to ask anybody else either, will just use common sense.

Nope. Taking cube you rotate it to your orientation. It doesnt matter. Just do some attempts of mbld. Rotating cube you memo previous cube etc. It's a part of memo process and you cant cut it out as a "waste of time".
 
Last edited:
Next thing you know people will argue we shouldn’t table abuse in Megaminx.
I would argue for this, fwiw. ;) Feliks seems to only sometimes use the table for megaminx, which is in stark contrast to most other top megaminxers. He probably could be about as fast as he is now, even without any table abuse.

(Now, some would even go further and argue that "floor abuse" shouldn't be allowed in WF…)

And I’ve never heard of Rowe Hessler cheating.
There was that one time he got a repeat scramble, got a WR (?) single on it, and only confessed to it years later. Or something like that.
 
Well, also Haiyan Zhuang did not cheat, right? He was banned for his mafia-like bevavior in competitions, not for cheating. That is why his results were not DNFed.
 
Well, also Haiyan Zhuang did not cheat, right? He was banned for his mafia-like bevavior in competitions, not for cheating. That is why his results were not DNFed.

Yes, that's true. He also created his own WCA after he was banned, I was just curious how many of you know the details
 
Back
Top