[WR] 4.75 3x3 Average by Yiheng Wang - Misscramble

[OldSwiss]

I don't understand why they don't doublecheck the scrambles of the top cubers.

I think no one cares about a misscramble of a 20 second solver in a first round, but everyone expected Yiheng Wang to break the world record.
The scrambles of cubers in the top50 of the world ranking and all scrambles in final rounds should be done by the top scrambler and double/triple checked.

I know it is hard to find volounteers but scrambling is not an easy job. They shouldn't let everyone do the scrambling

 

[Imsoosm]

I don't understand why they don't doublecheck the scrambles of the top cubers.

I think no one cares about a misscramble of a 20 second solver in a first round, but everyone expected Yiheng Wang to break the world record.
The scrambles of cubers in the top50 of the world ranking and all scrambles in final rounds should be done by the top scrambler and double/triple checked.

I know it is hard to find volounteers but scrambling is not an easy job. They shouldn't let everyone do the scrambling

I agree with your idea, but it does bring up some problems: what if a misscramble happened on a relatively unfamous cuber who is not on top 50, but the misscramble is good enough to make them beat WR? Then in this case shouldn't every scramble be double checked?

 

[xyzzy]

scrambling is not an easy job

Nonsense, scrambling correctly is easy. People just don't care enough.

But yes, you're right, scrambles should be double checked. And I'd go as far as to say that this should be done always, not just for top cubers. I consider myself to have decent scramble accuracy (98-99%) and I'd still spend the extra 5 seconds to check every time.

Edit: no, sorry, I don't mean double checked; clearly Yiheng's misscramble was not even checked once.

That this is still happening, despite multiple WR-invalidated-by-misscramble incidents in the past, indicates that something is going very wrong.

 

[Imsoosm]

That this is still happening, despite multiple WR-invalidated-by-misscramble incidents in the past, indicates that something is going very wrong.

I'm wondering if Vietnam's competitions aren't as strictly supervised as other places. WRC deleted Vietnam's competition results for the last few years as well, just around a month ago.

 

[espeed]

Here we can all see that we still care for WR rather than comp winners

 

[UncleFrank]

Wait, was ruihang's 3.86 also a misscramble?

Apparently, because it's been removed now.

 

[Cuber987]

Apparently, because it's been removed now.

That's sad.

 

[OldSwiss]

Are the scrambles usually checked by a second person or only by the scrambler itself?

It doesn't have to be the top 50 but maybe at least the scrambles of cubers that possibly could beat a record (also CR or NR) should be checked by a second person.
Maybe all "sub8 solvers" or whatever.


For Yiheng it's sad but I'm quite confident that he will beat the record again before the WCA finally decided in his case

 

[FenTheGoat]

I don't understand why they don't doublecheck the scrambles of the top cubers.

I think no one cares about a misscramble of a 20 second solver in a first round, but everyone expected Yiheng Wang to break the world record.
The scrambles of cubers in the top50 of the world ranking and all scrambles in final rounds should be done by the top scrambler and double/triple checked.

I know it is hard to find volounteers but scrambling is not an easy job. They shouldn't let everyone do the scrambling

I do agree with this. But it would be hard to implement. Imagine how much longer comps would be if 16 peoples’ scrambles had to reviewed 2-3 times before the solver solves. 16 people x 5 solves x 2 reviews would be 160 checks in a finals. And usually there’s only 2-4 delagats (who’d I assume would be doing the checking in this is theoretically scenario) at comps. (from personal experience)

I think that scramblers should just be more careful when scrambling to make sure there are no misscrambles. Maybe only delagates should be scramblers. Maybe the WCA should make it mandatory to have more delagates at comps. I’m not 100% sure what could be done that doesn’t disrupt competition flow while also ensuring people don’t get misscrambles.

 

[Tabe]

I don't understand why they don't doublecheck the scrambles of the top cubers.

Laziness.

 

[SkewbIsTheBestEvent]

Are the scrambles usually checked by a second person or only by the scrambler itself?

It doesn't have to be the top 50 but maybe at least the scrambles of cubers that possibly could beat a record (also CR or NR) should be checked by a second person.
Maybe all "sub8 solvers" or whatever.


For Yiheng it's sad but I'm quite confident that he will beat the record again before the WCA finally decided in his case

In reality, we can have no misscrambles for everyone and have no second person. The thing is you just need a good scrambler who checks to see if the scramble is right. Misscrambles can be avoided easily if the scrambler checks to see if the cube is scrambled correctly.

 

[An Animating Cuber]

Mis-scrambles should be a thing of the past in my CsTimer sessions one of the tools I have is the Draw Scramble and after I finish scrambling I'll take 3 to 4 seconds to check the scramble, even if a comp scrambler takes an extra four seconds to verify to be extra sure I doubt it's that much of a delay to make letting mis-scrambles through the preferable option.

 

[Imsoosm]

I still think WCA should doublecheck every scramble, no matter if they're top or not. Besides, it's not like checking scrambles take a long time, right?

 

[J41]

I still think WCA should doublecheck every scramble, no matter if they're top or not. Besides, it's not like checking scrambles take a long time, right?

Probably not for an individual scramble, but you'd think the cumulative effect would be considerable.

 

[An Animating Cuber]

Probably not for an individual scramble, but you'd think the cumulative effect would be considerable.

Ok you are right about the cumulative effect but comp organisers should account for that extra time when planning a comp.

 

[J41]

Ok you are right about the cumulative effect but comp organisers should account for that extra time when planning a comp.

So long as you're happy to have longer delays, and fewer available events due to time and other constraints.

 

[An Animating Cuber]

So long as you're happy to have longer delays, and fewer available events due to time and other constraints.

Did you read my post? What you plan for is much less likely to cause problems.

 

[TheSilverBeluga]

So long as you're happy to have longer delays, and fewer available events due to time and other constraints.

Or, instead of assuming that the only thing you can do is throw up your hands and give up, you could simply get more scramblers.

Besides, it's not like we're talking about making changes to the regulations here. This is already something that's supposed to be done.

 

[Tabe]

Ok you are right about the cumulative effect but comp organisers should account for that extra time when planning a comp.

The cumulative effect is negligible. It takes barely any time at all to check a scramble. Even over the course of a full competition, it adds up to not a whole lot.

 

[JohnnyReggae]

I still think WCA should doublecheck every scramble, no matter if they're top or not. Besides, it's not like checking scrambles take a long time, right?

Regulations already require the scrambler to sign that the scramble is correct. If it is not then the scrambler is not doing their job and being lazy effectively. Having a 3rd party then verify the scramble is a waste of time and resources.

Probably not for an individual scramble, but you'd think the cumulative effect would be considerable.

In my view the cumulative effect would be quite huge depending on the number of competitors and number of rounds to go through. Also the type of puzzle has an effect on time taken to check a scramble.

Ok you are right about the cumulative effect but comp organisers should account for that extra time when planning a comp.

Have you ever organised and run a competition ? It's not as simple as adding extra time. Adding that extra time means having 1 or 2 less rounds of an event or not holding a particular event. As a competitor I'm sure you would be upset if a 3 or 4 round 3x3 turns into a 2 round event because there is not enough time to handle more rounds due to extra checking that is being done. In my experience events and rounds are carefully planned in order to maximise the number of events and rounds for a better competitor experience. Personally I would rather attend a competition that has 4 or 5 events with a few rounds, than one with 2 or 3 events because organisers are taking extra time to check scrambles.

The cumulative effect is negligible. It takes barely any time at all to check a scramble. Even over the course of a full competition, it adds up to not a whole lot.

Yes you can check a scramble quickly, how about checking 500 scrambles in 1 round with 100 competitors, excluding extras. Scrambles that should already have been checked and signed for that they are correct.

The regulations are quite clear and IMO there is not more that can be done from that point of view. What does need to happen is ensuring that experienced people are scrambling, but that it sometimes not as easy as it sounds. People make mistakes and in pressure moments due to sheer volume they sign the scramble and move onto the next one. This is essentially a people management issue which is not going to be solved by more regulations or having additional people check scrambles.

Try running a competition making sure you have the right scramblers all the time is not an easy task. If anyone is very passionate about making sure the right thing is done, then I implore you to get involved and start organising and running competitions. Get you hands dirty so to speak, it will give you a better perspective and possibly you come up with some great ideas around competitions.