That's sort of the purpose for these trial runs. If you would, please try it! Let's see what can be done, and try to find the flaws. Specifically I'd like to know if someone can really do 50 moves in 50 seconds. I suspect it's quite possible, but I know it's completely out of my reach.
This statement reads like "Roux is good but only if we change the rules", which comes with the implication that Roux is actually not good under the current rules… which I don't think is "obviously" true. (It might be true; it just needs some real justification!) I mean, for the usual one-hour non-speed FMC, Roux is roughly on par with methods like Petrus and ZB even when counting the moves with the face turn metric, even though people keep talking about how Roux is bad for FMC because of M slices.
I'll try this. I don't think I can hit 50 moves in 50 seconds, but 80-100 seconds might be doable.
. Although, people are probably already doing this so this shouldn’t be an issue.
Why would it seem like cheating? It's perfectly fine if it's within the rules. It's trickier because you have to place it properly in the solution, but it should be fine to do it. And wow, it's helpful for this event to know ZBLL!
Oh, I meant it in the sense of trying to write down a solution as quickly as possible, rather than writing down a reasonably good solution in a reasonable amount of time. And it's faster to write down OLL+PLL (especially when it's a short PLL), rather than grabbing another cube to set up the last layer case on. I'd totally use NISS (if it was worth it) in a proper attempt.
Optimal 5-corner insertion for speed FMC - there's something wrong about that.
Optimal 5-corner insertion for speed FMC - there's something wrong about that.
I'm going to start the next round in a few hours. Any opinions on a possible value for k for a linear scoring formula? Or are we already convincing ourselves that the logarithmic formula is really the way to go?
That does seem like a particularly elegant formula - hard to be much simpler than "moves plus minutes"!
Did I wrote that? Take a look at #4:
At first I was confused by this - it seemed to me that of course it should count as a success. But then I realized - what you're talking about here is that you didn't stop the timer? Actually, after thinking about this, I really think we'd need to count that as a DNF. Just like with a regular solve, you must finish the solve, release the cube, and stop the timer in order for the solve to count, I think you need to release the pen (and/or any cubes) and stop the timer for this to count. If you don't stop the timer before it runs out, I think it should count as a DNF.
That's the benefit of being able to do this in an at-home online competition - we don't have to worry about all those pesky details! But it would be absolutely necessary in an official competition to have a judge at every competitor, watching for the end of the solve, to make sure the timer was properly stopped and that nothing else was written after the timer was stopped. I guess if you did this in an official competition with two rounds, it might be doable - the idea would be that you would have two groups (with two different sets of scrambles!) first round, and half the competitors would judge the other half. Then the half of the competitors that didn't make the cut to the second round would be required to stay and judge the half that made it, so that you could have enough simultaneous judges to judge everyone with the same set of scrambles to make the finals fair. It would be truly a nightmare! But I think it would be necessary; the chaos that already exists after regular FMC would be so much worse for this event, there's no way it could work without a separate judge for each competitor. Even one judge per two competitors would be really inadequate for difficult scenarios - in fairness it would have to be one judge per competitor.
