Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

[AJ Blair]

Moral of the story:
Whenever you're planning to cheat on a competition, don't let anybody take video.

Moral of the story:
How about we not cheat at all?

 

[Tyson]

Moral of the story:
How about we not cheat at all?

Sure. I, myself, am just going to sit here, enjoying my cake, glad that I can't read Spanish. It saves me a lot of time that I can't read Spanish.

Well, I could if I tried. I guess it saves a lot of time by pretending I can't. I have to go. My pet potato battery is calling me fat.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Moral of the story:
Whenever you're planning to cheat on a competition, don't let anybody take video.

How about: don't cheat?

 

[Chuck]

:fp

I'm saying we should have a way to know someone's cheating even without any video.

 

[rubikaz]

Hello, I am Carlos (from rubikaz). Do you know the famous clock scrambles? You can see them here:

http://www.rubikaz.com/foro/viewtopic.php?p=134785#p134785

Superti (Javier Tirado) have explained why that scrambles are very lucky, there are some skips in the 5 scrambles. I have calculated the probability of getting that 5 skips (if we suppose that the scramble generator is a random one) and the result that I have obtained is:

1/1.981.355.655.168

About this:

"Mr. Pino has been cooperative with this process, and the WCA finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of records for anyone other than himself."

I do not know what Sebastian Pino told to the WCA members but he have said it:

http://www.cuberos.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2085
(...)
Adentrándome en el veredicto, no me declaré culpable, no reconocí lo irreconocible, no dije que había hecho trampa, porque nunca la he hecho. Deben tener muy malos planes de comprensión lectora en Suecia, porque lo que acepté fue que hubo irregularidades en los scrambles del WR average, porque nadie debió haber participado con esos scrambles, pero yo no los manipulé.
(...)
Después de ser notificado en reiteradas oportunidades de apocalípticas sanciones que podrían caer sobre la comunidad chilena, se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.

He says that he is innocent, that the clock scrambles should have been changed but he did not manipulated them (and it was what he said to the WCA board).

He also says that the WCA board told him that if he did not accept his suspension, then all the Chilean community would be punish.

And about cuberos.cl, it is true that they have banned several users that think that Sebastian Pino cheated (I do not know if they insulted or not, but I think that they did not).

 

[MTGjumper]

He also says that the WCA board told him that if he did not accept his suspension, then all the Chilean community would be punish.

I highly, highly doubt this.

 

[Stefan]

Stefan, I think your reply was very rude and patronizing. I don’t know that it happens infrequently, no one can really say for sure. I was attempting to voice my opinion and I got slapped down in doing so. Thank you very much.

Yeah, sorry, I just can't stand the word "proof" being used with such levity.

Yeah, and we know how good Stefan is at shooting to different targets.

(reads...) What? I have no clue what you're talking about.

(5 hours later, doing other stuff) Oooooohhhhh! Right. LOL.

In my defense, I don't usually get up at 9am, give me a break.

 

[rubikaz]

I highly, highly doubt this.

I also doubt it. I am going to translate the exact words:

Se me ofreció asumir un castigo para despejar las dudas sobre el país entero. Literalmente lo que se me planteó fue si prefería hacerle las cosas fáciles al país o si quería hacerme las cosas fáciles para mí.

They offered me to accept a penalty in order to remove the doubts about the whole country. Literally they asked me if I preferred to make things easier for the country or to make things easier for me.

 

[Sa967St]

:fp

I'm saying we should have a way to know someone's cheating even without any video.

That's not a moral...

 

[Bryan]

On the mornings of my competitions, I'm extremely busy. Scrambles are usually generated sometime in the week before the competition, and only saved on my computer's local drive (this is why I'm crap at posting scrambles later). And trying to have multiple people on the thing does add some complexity, because for some competitions, it's me running most of it.

 

[legolas]

Some time ago I could see the scrambles and I can assure you that:

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IS A CHEAT

It was only a matter of time knew the truth and thankfully it has. I have participated in many championships and I know perfectly this modality.

Congratulations David Woner and Yu Sajima.

WCA thank you very much.

Ernesto (Spain)

3 medals at world championships
1 European Championship
4 national championships
11 opens
1 European Record

I think I know what I'm talking about

 

[tehmaxice]

I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.
Rare events happen all the time, and as you may have heard: statistics can fool juries

 

[Rpotts]

Congratulations David Sajim Woner and Yu.

lol

 

[kinch2002]

I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.
Rare events happen all the time, and as you may have heard: statistics can fool juries

Don't worry, there was other evidence

 

[rubikaz]

I'm not satisfied with just the "improbability" of getting such scrambles being the only evidence, although it hopefully isn't.

The probability is 1 against 1981355655168 (almost 2 european billions).

How much is it? For example the probability of solve the cross in the first layer and get 4F2Lskip+LLskip is 1 against 418037760 (smaller than 1000 millions).

 

[Stefan]

I have calculated the probability of getting that 5 skips (if we suppose that the scramble generator is a random one) and the result that I have obtained is:

1/1.981.355.655.168

Can you show us the calculation as well, please?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Can you show us the calculation as well, please?

Yeah, I was going to complain, but my browser crashed. I'm getting only about one in [3 million].
And more like one in [20 thousand] if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).

His calculation is the probability that a set of clock scrambles has exactly the same positions (and sides) matching centers as in these scrambles. I wish we could somehow get people around here to stop trying to estimate the likelihood of something unusual that occurred by over-constraining the specification. In this case, it's not a justifiable estimate. [Read below. Apparently that's not what was being calculated. Though I still think it's a bit unreliable to try to calculate exact numbers for this.]
(If anyone would like to respond "Who cares? It's still really unlikely!" here, it's only likely to lower my respect for your reasoning capabilities and ability to gather and interpret evidence.)
(As some wise guy once said, it's extremely unlikely that Feliks's WR solve would have had exactly the scramble and solve it did – but it did.)

Edit: Was too busy pointing out how far off the first calculation was to check the one I ended up posting. In any case, easy clocks are even more likely than I first suggested.

 

[Kirjava]

(As some wise guy once said, it's extremely unlikely that Feliks's WR solve would have had exactly the scramble and solve it did – but it did.)

I try and use stuff like this when people say that evolution is too unlikely to happen.

 

[Stefan]

I'm getting only about one in two billion. And more like one in two million if you allow diametrically opposite clocks on the same side to match the center (more peg-switching, but still less turning).

For what exactly?

If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:

Easy side:          2.551119% (1 in 39.20)
Easy clock:         5.037156% (1 in 19.85)
Five easy clocks:   0.000032% (1 in 3083707.48)

for $a (0..11) {
  for $b (0..11) {
    for $c (0..11) {
      for $d (0..11) {
        $easy++ if !$a&&!$b
                || !$b&&!$c
                || !$c&&!$d
                || !$d&&!$a;
        $all++;
      }
    }
  }
}

$easySide = $easy/$all;
$easyClock = 1 - (1-$easySide)**2;

printf "Easy side:        %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easySide,       1 / $easySide;
printf "Easy clock:       %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * $easyClock,      1 / $easyClock;
printf "Five easy clocks: %10.6f%% (1 in %.2f)\n", 100 * ($easyClock**5), 1 / ($easyClock**5);

 

[Lucas Garron]

For what exactly?

If I define an "easy side" as one that has adjacent edges showing the same time as the center and an "easy clock" as one having an easy side:

Easy side:          2.551119% (1 in 39.20)
Easy clock:         5.037156% (1 in 19.85)
Five easy clocks:   0.000032% (1 in 3083707.48)

Ah, oops. I made a typo right before adjusting the calculation, and skipped a sanity check for that one because I didn't treat it as important enough for the post. Embarrassing, because that's exactly what I'm telling people to be more careful about.

Anyhow, I agree with you, since I used the same calculations, and the easy side probability comes out the same:

Count[Tuples[Table[Range[12],{4}]],Alternatives@@(RotateRight[{12,12,_,_},#]&/@Range[4])]/12^4

529/20736

(Also, counting diametrically opposite, I get 3.71%, 7.30%, 0.000207% respectively)

Edit: By the way, did you know that skipping 5 faces on a single clock solve is about as likely as an OLL skip? (1/236 vs. 1/216)