Should minimum move counts be removed?

Should Minimum Move Counts be Removed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 19.6%

  • No

    Votes: 45 80.4%
  • Total voters
    56
Off-Topic, but

I have Signatures disabled, judging by the Profile Posts, @JDAW6 Signature is just 20,000 random characters. Is this correct?
If it is, did somebody report it already?
 
NebraskanSpeedsolver said:
isn't that what a WR is for anyway? Something insane
Click to expand...
If a very low move count scramble would be generated, pretty much anyone with decent TPS could get WR.

That makes the WR not very skill-dependent. I'd argue that if the WR is not skill dependent, it is not something that should be considered insane.

Lowering the move count increases the possibility that this would happen.
 
quanloh said:
Lower/remove the number for better chance of world records? You must have forgotten something.

WCA guideline & regulation is meant for competition, and guess what's the purpose of a competition? It's to find the best competitor among competitors.

Indeed with a smaller minimum number, we can have even faster record, but does it makes the event more competitive? No. We are currently still only register up to 0.01s accuracy, with a 3 mover or a 2 mover (for 2x2), top solvers will most likely getting the same results, which defeat the whole purpose of having a competition.

Ultimately a competition is to find the best competitor among competitors. With a higher number, there is higher chance we get to find who's the bestest among the best.

So, in my opinion, it's a hard no. In fact it's quite the opposite now, if the top levels continue to be this saturated, the minimum number should be raised.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot how rare 4 movers are. 4 movers only have a 1/1989 chance of happening. To put that into perspective, if you go to 100 comps(which only 213 people have done), each with 4 rounds of 2x2, there's still a 36.6% chance you won't get ANY 4 movers, and you would only get 6 5 movers on average.

I'll do a more detailed analysis when I have more time, but this clearly shows that optimal solution length isn't the bottleneck for clustered results. I agree that this is starting to become a problem, but increasing the minimum move limit isn't a good way to solve it.
 
cubenerd74 said:
still a 36.6% chance you won't get ANY 4 movers
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it will be a even lower chance statistically for discrete event.
That being said, it essentially means that the currently crowded scene is more responsible by 5,6,7,8 movers,
so let's increase the minimum to a even higher number I guess.
 
quanloh said:
Pretty sure it will be a even lower chance statistically for discrete event.
That being said, it essentially means that the currently crowded scene is more responsible by 5,6,7,8 movers,
so let's increase the minimum to a even higher number I guess.
Click to expand...
When you decrease variability in scrambles, you will also decrease the variability of times. If you look at the WR progression from when Magic was an event, (which has the same scramble every solve) you will find that getting the same result at least once in average is really common, there is little variance of times.

If the goal is to make more variance between times, I don't think reducing the number of scrambles or reducing the range of the difficulty is the way to go. I will admit that Magic is a pretty extreme example of what would happen if move counts are raised though, and rising to 5 or 6 would not have as drastic of an effect.
 
OtaMota said:
When you decrease variability in scrambles, you will also decrease the variability of times. If you look at the WR progression from when Magic was an event, (which has the same scramble every solve) you will find that getting the same result at least once in average is really common, there is little variance of times.

If the goal is to make more variance between times, I don't think reducing the number of scrambles or reducing the range of the difficulty is the way to go. I will admit that Magic is a pretty extreme example of what would happen if move counts are raised though, and rising to 5 or 6 would not have as drastic of an effect.
Click to expand...
(Do you realise you are making assumption that every top solvers has almost the same quality?)
You have to remember, it's not the "variabilities" of scrambles that make solves time varies,
it is the possible solutions.
Increase the minimum move counts means a more "scrambled" scrambles,
which lead to more possible solutions from different cubers,
which lead to more varied times.
Also the longer the solution, the easier for the fastest to be the fastest by cumulating their advantage each turn,
and the slower will be identifid as slower, the faster will be identified as winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Should methods actually be disciplines?
Replies
6
Views
404
Cassiopaia
C
iguana
What skewb should I buy?
Replies
11
Views
573
Puzzle Maniac
Puzzle Maniac
Ah_Kran
Should i buy a gan i carry 2 or a gan i carry 4 (or maybe not even buy smart cubes)
Replies
4
Views
583
That0newe1rdo
That0newe1rdo
Roux
Should i become full CN with Roux?
Replies
4
Views
533
Roux
Roux
Woofi
So um what order should i learn CLL?
Replies
6
Views
705
Renslay
Renslay
Back
Top