World Championship 2007

[AvGalen]

Pedro:

if 2 persons solve the same number, then the one who tried more wins...(99/1000>99/100;9/10>9/100>9/1000)

Where is the logic in that? You actually think 2/3 is better then 2/2? I don't think you thought about

3) If you attempt 100 cubes and all others attempt 5 you can take a gamble and pick the 5 easiest cubes (5%), memorize and solve only those and beat everyone that gets 4/5 or worse.

enough.

Stefan:

If you don't like the WCA rules, talk to the WCA. They have a forum for that.

I think the WCA IS the place to talk about this, but only after you have finalized an idea. I think this forum is a great place to discuss general ideas first, work out a few small oversights and then post at the WCA.
Although I personnaly like the current rules (I think blindfolded should be based on perfection), I think your "1 hour" plan is a good idea. It makes multi_blind more into a speedcubing event, more managable for an organisation, more competitive and more inline with fewest moves. I also see a big disadvantage: Doing > 30 cubes might not be possible with the new rules.

And I just received a messages telling me that I will be able to compete in multi-blind at Worlds

 

[gillesvdp]

sub-2?O.o

then you'll beat me...I just did 2 cubes once...was like 4:39

Ok that's fast ^^

I will just go for sub10 I think. So don't worry about me. ;-)

 

[Stefan]

Although I personnaly like the current rules (I think blindfolded should be based on perfection), I think your "1 hour" plan is a good idea. It makes multi_blind more into a speedcubing event, more managable for an organisation, more competitive and more inline with fewest moves. I also see a big disadvantage: Doing > 30 cubes might not be possible with the new rules.

I also think blindcubing should be based on perfection. Just on a finer level now that we've in my opinion clearly outgrown the original rules. Like mentioned before, those rules were made with a handful of cubes in mind, not dozens. I want to still require each single cube to be solved perfectly in order to count, but not require all cubes to be solved perfectly.

Consider the "hour numbers" memorization again. There they count each row (containing 40 digits) individually. Make one mistake in a row and you get half the points for that row, make two mistakes and you lose the entire row. This however doesn't make you lose any of the other rows, your total score is the sum of your individual row scores. I'd like us to treat our cubes like their rows, except that each cube must be solved perfectly, not still getting a half point when you made a small mistake. Um wait, actually I'd like to give a half point in case of situations that would just cause a two seconds penalty in speedsolving, e.g., when you're a quarter turn away from solved.

I don't think it's a disadvantage we couldn't solve more than 30 cubes this way. The current rules allow 5 hours and 30 minutes for 30 cubes. That's way too long to handle in most competitions. Usually competitions do limit the total time for this event already (I think) anyway. Thus how many cubes you can do depends on the competition you go to. Not good. Also, given enough time, even 100 cubes or more are possible. But I'd say competitions are not the right place for this. Compare again to the memorizers. They do have "hour cards" in competitions (see here) and they have larger record attempts outside of the competitions (see here and here).

I just noticed the hour cards discipline is actually a better analogy to blindcubing, because "a deck of cards" seems more like "a cube" than "a row of 40 digits" does.. You get 52 points for a correct deck of cards, 26 if you make one mistake, 0 for more mistakes, and then your total score is the sum of all individual deck scores.

 

[AvGalen]

I really like this idea!
A solved cube is +1 point
A +2 penalty solved cube is +0.5 points.
An unsolved cube is 0 points.
2/3 of the attempted cubes must be solved (to prevent my "trick 3")
Most points win.

Some questions:
1) How/when do you determine how many cubes you are going to do?
2) Can you decide to do more/less cubes during memorisation?
3) How does adding/removing cubes affect the 2/3 solved rule?
4) How would the ranking look with these results (would they all share 1st place?)
--4/4 in 54:05
--4/5 in 54:05
--4/4 in 60:00
--4/5 in 60:00

 

[guusrs]

original riddle

OK, same idea again (use 3 numbers to create 1/4 or 1/6)

Hello guys,

Do not %$#@* my riddle. The original riddels was: used all digits 1,3,4,6 (exact 1 time) to create 24 by dividing, multiplying, adding or substracting. The same for 3,3,8,8.

See you in Budapest

 

[guusrs]

Hello Guys,

I'm arriving at october 4 (around noon) and leaving october 8 (afternoon).
Staying at Kings hotel

Competing in speed 3x3x3, 2x2x2 and fewest moves

Goals:
Having fun!
2x2x2 best sub 6 seconds
3x3x3 best sub 16 seconds (would I then be in the semi-finals?)
3x3x3 average sub 18 seconds
fewest moves: beating the Dutch record (33 moves by Arnaud)

See ya

Gus

 

[Erik]

Guus! It will be so great to meet you again
You will be at dutch open both days?

 

[AvGalen]

Guus! It will be so great to meet you again

and even better if you don't break my record

But seriously, I have tipped you as the winner with a new WR. I am not bad, it is just my bad luck that I live in the Netherlands where everyone seems to be better. I never thought I would get a NR and now I have 2.

 

[Pedro]

yeah, maybe solving x% necessary is the best way...

then the point counting

 

[hait2]

i dunno, why don't you just do this:
determine what number of cubes you will solve beforehand. once determined, it cannot change.
+1 point for a solved cube, -1 point for an unsolved cube
highest points wins. in ties, lower time wins. 0.5 points for a penalty cube if you like
i can't see how this would be abused..

the only question is whether you agree that stuff like
14/17 is better than 10/10, equal to 11/11 and worse than 12/12++
seems okay to me

 

[AvGalen]

I think 5/5 is much better than 7/9, so I don't agree with this system. Now what do we do?

 

[hait2]

in my system they are equivalent so 5/5 would win since it would take less time
i don't see an issue
and i think 4/4 is worse than 7/9 so the line is drawn nicely, no?

 

[AvGalen]

I am not so sure that 5/5 would take less time than 7/9.

And I think 4/4 is better than 7/9

 

[Stefan]

And I think 4/4 is better than 7/9

Even if they both took the same time?

 

[hait2]

i don't know arnaud.. i doubt many people will agree that 4/4 is better than 7/9
i mean in the 7/9 case you're solving almost double the cubes bld with fairly good accuracy rate (almost 80%)

and 5/5 has to take less time than 7/9 simply because you're memorizing and solving less, by quite a bit

well it was just an idea anyhow, everyone will of course have different opinions on how it should work

 

[Mike Hughey]

i don't know arnaud.. i doubt many people will agree that 4/4 is better than 7/9

I will agree with Arnaud - I think 4/4 is better than 7/9. If you did 7/9, and thought you could do better with 4 cubes, you should have chosen to solve 4 instead.

well it was just an idea anyhow, everyone will of course have different opinions on how it should work

Very true. I'm sure lots of people agree with you. But I agree with Arnaud. I think accuracy is very important, and being able to judge your ability is also very important.

 

[Stefan]

I will agree with Arnaud - I think 4/4 is better than 7/9.

Then I ask you, too: Even if they both took the same time?

 

[Mike Hughey]

I will agree with Arnaud - I think 4/4 is better than 7/9.

Then I ask you, too: Even if they both took the same time?

Absolutely! If the person who did 7/9 was capable of doing 4/4 (as opposed to, say, 3/4, which would have been almost the same accuracy as 7/9), then that person SHOULD have chosen to solve 4 cubes instead of 9. They would undoubtedly have then gotten a better time than the person who did do 4/4 (unless they have to REALLY slow down for the accuracy). So they chose wrong on the number of cubes to do - that was their fatal mistake. And there is a chance that the 7/9 person might have gone slower than the 4/4 person if only attempting 4 cubes, but going for 100% accuracy.

Since the current regular 3x3x3 BLD event puts so little emphasis on accuracy, it seems only appropriate that the multi-BLD event put more emphasis on accuracy. I'd still rather see valid averages required for 3x3x3 BLD events, but I can live with it the way it is.

Another way to look at it: you and i were both at the US Open and saw Rowe Hessler's 5/8 attempt. I'm sure you were as impressed as I was with that. But don't you think that the average person in the audience there would have been more impressed with 3/3 than with 5/8? Even if they were the same time? And certainly at least as impressed by 2/2 as by 5/8. The average person doesn't understand why, if you can do it sometimes, you miss sometimes. So 100% accuracy is much more impressive to the average person. At least, that's my opinion - I haven't asked enough to know that for sure - I'll admit it's a guess on my part. And since multi-BLD is largely an exhibition anyway, I'd think the most important thing is to appeal to the average person.

 

[hait2]

I will agree with Arnaud - I think 4/4 is better than 7/9.

Then I ask you, too: Even if they both took the same time?

Absolutely! If the person who did 7/9 was capable of doing 4/4 (as opposed to, say, 3/4, which would have been almost the same accuracy as 7/9), then that person SHOULD have chosen to solve 4 cubes instead of 9. They would undoubtedly have then gotten a better time than the person who did do 4/4 (unless they have to REALLY slow down for the accuracy). So they chose wrong on the number of cubes to do - that was their fatal mistake. And there is a chance that the 7/9 person might have gone slower than the 4/4 person if only attempting 4 cubes, but going for 100% accuracy.

Since the current regular 3x3x3 BLD event puts so little emphasis on accuracy, it seems only appropriate that the multi-BLD event put more emphasis on accuracy. I'd still rather see valid averages required for 3x3x3 BLD events, but I can live with it the way it is.

Another way to look at it: you and i were both at the US Open and saw Rowe Hessler's 5/8 attempt. I'm sure you were as impressed as I was with that. But don't you think that the average person in the audience there would have been more impressed with 3/3 than with 5/8? Even if they were the same time? And certainly at least as impressed by 2/2 as by 5/8. The average person doesn't understand why, if you can do it sometimes, you miss sometimes. So 100% accuracy is much more impressive to the average person. At least, that's my opinion - I haven't asked enough to know that for sure - I'll admit it's a guess on my part. And since multi-BLD is largely an exhibition anyway, I'd think the most important thing is to appeal to the average person.

well i guess if you place accuracy above all, then yes, of course my system wouldn't work. i thought it provided a nice balance between accuracy and amount (both which are important imo) without being overly complicated.

also ironically, 5/8 under my system would indeed be equal to 2/2 (although would lose since it would probably take more time) and worse than 3/3 ^_^;

i think quite a lot of us can agree that current system isn't too good though (is 99/100 really worse than 2/2?)
im just throwing ideas out, and i encourage everyone to do the same ^^;

 

[Stefan]

But don't you think that the average person in the audience there would have been more impressed with 3/3 than with 5/8? Even if they were the same time? And certainly at least as impressed by 2/2 as by 5/8.

No I don't. I think the average audience person would think 5 cubes is better than 2 or 3.

The average person doesn't understand why, if you can do it sometimes, you miss sometimes. So 100% accuracy is much more impressive to the average person. At least, that's my opinion - I haven't asked enough to know that for sure - I'll admit it's a guess on my part.

How many people did you ask? I'll ask my colleagues next Monday and report the answer here.