3x3x3 Blind, changing to 3/5?

[Olivér Perge]

I like the idea in general, but it would make the competitions longer which is bad from an organisation point of view.

I don't like the "slow people will win" kind of argument. If enough people would vote for this and that would become an official rule, we should respect it and follow it.

It's like saying, he broke the world record, yeah, but he got a PLL skip... Who cares, it's still a WR.

Everyone would have the same conditions, so noone would have any advantage or disadvantage. And by the way, why the fast competitors can't do an average?

 

[tim]

For that I have to say: The organisers and delegates should take care of those problems, "earplugs" are allowed.

Practicing in noisy environments is even more important.

Anyway: Count me in for 3/5, cause i would benefit a lot from this format.

 

[Ville Seppänen]

I guess all I have to say is I'd rather keep it the way it is.

 

[AvGalen]

I personally don't actually believe that "safety" solves work. If you go fast you only have to keep the memo in your head for a shorter time and have less time of forgetting anything.

Most slow people wouldn't even be able to do 5 solves right now. My first solve is easier (empty head) than my third solve (mixing up previous memo) and doing a fifth solve would be even harder.

I do think that cutoffs would solve the time problem. And yes, I think that IF there are cutoffs, they could be on both time and nr. of DNF's.

I don't think people would get slower because of this system. In order to win you have to go fast, you would practise more on getting solves right, and if you have 5 solves instead of 3 you have more chances of a good single.

But my main reason for this is simply: Get your cubes solved when you do blindfolded. I hate it when people start memoing for 20 seconds, realise it is a "bad scramble" and then not even attempt to solve it because it wouldn't improve their previous 40 second solve anyway. I have never seen anyone look at a cross, realise it was a horrible one, and then decide not to solve that cube because "it wouldn't be a good solve anyway"

 

[Sakarie]

There is no other puzzle where it is bigger chance of getting a DNF when it is faster than the blind events, accept for the last turn in a solve, or not checking every clock on clocks. But there is no other puzzle where you can't be sure of getting a solve.

And there ARE a lot of events for the "slow but safe"/"very accurate and fast" cubers! Multi, 5x5blind, and maybe 4x4, is three events where probably 90% prefer accuracy before speed. If anythings unfair, it's not that the accurate blinders is dispreviliged.

And I agree with Arnaud's opinions about spectators. It's very disappointing for spectators to see so many DNFs. If we imagine this on TV someday, we would want a format where at least most of the solves are successful, and this format would encourage that. I think it would be better for spectators.

I don't agree. Would you really prefer seeing 20 mediocre successes before 5 good ones? Maybe the audience do, maybe not.

But is that so important? Do we cube to satisfy the spectators? I think that we should be careful to change rules to satisfy non-cubers.

 

[qqwref]

You're right in some way, but those slower people at smaller competitions would also win with their singles.

No, I don't mean slow like 2:30, I mean slow like 6:00 or worse.

...and I have no problem with disqualifying people that don't solve their cubes blindfolded during a blindfolded event. It doesn't matter how much you have trained or how skilled you are, if you don't solve the puzzle you don't deserve to win.

If you solve the puzzle correctly 3 times, in 40 sec each, and make two mistakes on the two other solves, you don't deserve to win? This isn't a case of "lol I can't really solve it", this is a case of making two or three mistakes in the entire round and being kicked out because of it. We're all human.

I also think that you are wrong in assuming that fast people would DNF more often than slow people. I have judged many fast people that solved cubes blindfolded in 55, 60 and 65 seconds while a slow persons just DNF'ed 3 times after 9 minutes.

Well, yeah, not all slow people are going to get successes. Some slow people are slow just because that's the 5th BLD solve they've ever done. I just mean that doing best of 1 means that the winner is almost certainly one of the fastest few people there, whereas doing an average of 5 means that the winner may be one of the slower people, who cannot go fast but makes an effort to have good recall. And even if a fast person is capable of getting no more than one DNF in 5 solves, that doesn't mean they will.

Everyone would have the same conditions, so noone would have any advantage or disadvantage. And by the way, why the fast competitors can't do an average?

I don't mean that there's an objective advantage, but that the format itself favors certain people. The old format (which we are used to) favors fast people regardless of consistency; the new format favors people who have very high consistency, and time second, so if there is only one person at the competition who has very high consistency they are guaranteed to win regardless of speed. And why can't fast competitors do an average? Ville and Haiyan are two of the best BLD solvers ever, in practice; and yet Ville has never had 3 of 3 solves in a BLD round, and Haiyan only rarely does (and he's never done an average on his practice solves during the speed round). Maybe getting an average at a good speed is harder than you think.

 

[Pedro]

I don't really like this idea...

I don't think people would get slower because of this system. In order to win you have to go fast, you would practise more on getting solves right, and if you have 5 solves instead of 3 you have more chances of a good single.

But my main reason for this is simply: Get your cubes solved when you do blindfolded.

I'm pretty certain that nobody is going to do a 3x.xx average in the next...few years. I got a sub-60 single the other day, but no way I can average anything close to that (at home, let alone at a competition).

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I don't practice blindfolded to get a good average. I practice to improve my time. It's not like sighted events where you can spot a mistake or a shortcut and avoid a DNF average. I've done safety solves to "win" a competition, because I had 2 DNFs already. And, well, it's not that fun...My times were like 40% worse. Doing 4 safety solves doesn't sound good for me.

Also, about the bolded part, I don't see why we should do that with single bld, since we already "gave up" on that idea for multi, which is a lot harder. Yes, if you solve all your cubes, you have a better chance of winning. Same for single bld. But it shouldn't be a requirement.

And, seriously, I don't like the idea of a [(8:03), 9:04, 9:30, 9:50, (DNF)] beating [(48), 49, 50, DNF, DNF]...

 

[CharlesOBlack]

consistency > speed.

thus, I think a5 should be done, not ra5.

 

[Kirjava]

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!

 

[aronpm]

I don't think 3/5 is a good idea. It's too difficult for a lot of blindfolded solvers to get averages of 5. The point of rankings in competition is to get the best times you can. If you're forced to go slow in your blindfolded solves so that you get at most 1 DNF, you can't get your best times. I think the 'best of' format is the best for blindfolded, although I'd support best of 5 to give people more attempts.

 

[maggot]

I have never seen anyone look at a cross, realise it was a horrible one, and then decide not to solve that cube because "it wouldn't be a good solve anyway"

there was a kid who post video online of sub 15? and then he went to comp and he was actually not even sub 30 and he DNF through his solve on purpose so they wouldnt record anything that was sup 30. i think he got 1 or 2 solve on his avg of 5.

 

[Quadrescence]

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!

As a long member of the cube community, I believe this is an especially good solution and will provide accurate means (no pun intended!) for obtaining an accurate representation of one's capabilities.

 

[qqwref]

I don't think 3/5 is a good idea. It's too difficult for a lot of blindfolded solvers to get averages of 5. The point of rankings in competition is to get the best times you can. If you're forced to go slow in your blindfolded solves so that you get at most 1 DNF, you can't get your best times.

Another good point. Blindfolded solving is not speed solving: unless you are a god of consistency, you actually have to slow down to be sure to get an average. Again, look at Haiyan's 3x3 "speed" results. It's not like people are getting DNFs because they don't feel like solving, and someone who doesn't get a success every time doesn't deserve to do well at a competition. A single solve is impressive; four out of five is even more so but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Personally I would like best of 5 (with cutoffs, for organizational reasons) more than both best of 3 and average of 5. But it may be too many solves to be feasable. I know some competitions now only do two solves in a round for time reasons, when they could be doing 3.

 

[tim]

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!

No, best of 5 doesn't eliminate lucky cases (which can be pretty crucial if the fastest people are in different groups).

 

[Pedro]

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!

No, best of 5 doesn't eliminate lucky cases (which can be pretty crucial if the fastest people are in different groups).

If you're a smart organizer, you should put the fastest people in the same group

 

[tim]

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!

No, best of 5 doesn't eliminate lucky cases (which can be pretty crucial if the fastest people are in different groups).

If you're a smart organizer, you should put the fastest people in the same group

What about new people who've never competed and kept silent about their times? Or people who've just practiced their ass off since their last competition?

 

[Sakarie]

And about judging; you claiming that judges are having more fun if you do ao5. I'd rather judge fast dnf's than slower successes

 

[Kirjava]

No, best of 5 doesn't eliminate lucky cases

Best of 3 doesn't either.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I guess all this discussion supports my suspicion that we're just not ready for average of 5. I think if we have this discussion 5 years from now, it will likely be very different. I suspect that if Haiyan or Ville continue working at it for those 5 years, by then they'll be getting times just as good as or better than they get now, but with 80% or better accuracy. At that point, we can have this discussion again, and it will be more likely to be considered.

I really do think that with people who practice a lot, 80% accuracy will eventually be common. It just hasn't happened yet.

And by the way, Gabriel Alejandro Orozco Casillas (who I mentioned earlier in this thread) has a success rate of 8/9 for 3x3x3 BLD, and 3/3 for 4x4x4 BLD. And he's 3rd in the world at both. So certainly it is possible to be very fast and accurate simultaneously.

 

[tim]

No, best of 5 doesn't eliminate lucky cases

Best of 3 doesn't either.

I disagreed with the part in bold:

Best of 5!

The event is the same, only more attempts! Has none of the problems caused by introducing the average format! Only advantages!