The Future of Competitive Speedsolving (a discussion)

[Ranzha]

So we wait for another one. I said "eventually" And remember, everyone in a round gets to try the same scramble, so you just need one person with decent turning abilities to get lucky.

Perfect example of this is 2x2 single. There's a reason why Erik, Rowe, and Vincent were able to get under a second, aside from being phenomenal at 2x2. There's luck involved, and as we see here, it tends to go around at infrequent intervals (1.75 years the first time the record was tied, and 0.5 years the second).

Going back to young cubers pushing for TPS, I can't agree more. As one of the "younger cubers" as I am under sixteen, it really pains me to see people solving super fast with huge pauses. It's what I did, and I regret it. When you do that, you just have to wait and hope the gaps get shorter. It wasn't until I slowed my turning a little bit and actually watched the pieces move and noted what was transpiring in regards to the other pieces that I fully understood what "look-ahead" was.
Additionally, some look-ahead can be instantaneous. During OLL, the pi case for corners can be any of six different cases. For a good number of those cases, I can start the alg for the OLL and from what I remember of the permutation of the corners, predict corner permutation for PLL. It's little things like this that help one better understand a puzzle. As Sarah Strong's signature says/said, it's not just about look-ahead. It's also about know-ahead.

 

[macky]

I agree with some of the sentiment expressed in qq's and others' posts regarding the younger cubers. This is our Eternal September. Some related readings: by me and by Vincent Sheu. As for Feliks, the reaction to his dominance is one motivation for Nakajima's comeback...look for it in the interview to come.

At the same time, as I've written elsewhere, I think that this new cubing style and the evolution in hardware have suggested and made possible previously unexplored lines of investigation in speedcubing theory. It's an exciting time as ever to be a developer.

 

[MTGjumper]

Also: eventually someone will get a 3-4ish sq1 single. Sufficiently easy scrambles definitely do pop up.

This is something that bothers me. Should there ever be a point where we should step in and say it was too easy? My last two averages of 100 had a 2 and 3 second solve in respectively, with ~6 slice solutions. These were scrambles that people who averaged 30 plus seconds could've got sub-10 on. Maybe we need a random state scrambler...

 

[Kirjava]

I do not think that scrambles should be filtered unless they are solved (completely or +2).

 

[Mike Hughey]

I do not think that scrambles should be filtered unless they are solved (completely or +2).

I'm just curious, what's your reasoning behind this choice?

I guess this could be worded that the puzzle must be scrambled into an unsolved state. Is that your reasoning? I guess that makes it non-arbitrary, which is nice. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't pick an arbitrary value instead, and it would still be reasonable. Say, a minimum of 3, 4, or 5 moves from solved.

The current WR for 2x2x2 singles is something like 4 moves from solved (for at least one of them), right? So it seems like it would be a little unfair to make the minimum number of moves from solved higher than that now. I'm not looking for a very large number; I could be persuaded to agree with Kirjava, but my gut feeling is that a few moves away would be nicer.

 

[cubernya]

I definitely agree with Thom. Basically anything that isn't solved (2+ moves away from being solved) should be accepted.

 

[Kirjava]

I guess this could be worded that the puzzle must be scrambled into an unsolved state. Is that your reasoning? I guess that makes it non-arbitrary, which is nice.

Of course.

But I don't see any reason why we couldn't pick an arbitrary value instead, and it would still be reasonable. Say, a minimum of 3, 4, or 5 moves from solved.

There are some 7 move scrambles that would be kept that would be considered easier than 5 moves scrambles that would be removed.

The current WR for 2x2x2 singles is something like 4 moves from solved (for at least one of them), right? So it seems like it would be a little unfair to make the minimum number of moves from solved higher than that now. I'm not looking for a very large number; I could be persuaded to agree with Kirjava, but my gut feeling is that a few moves away would be nicer.

I don't see what the problem is in the first place. If it comes down to whoever can execute two moves the fastest when that case comes up, so be it.

This issue only really affects 2x2x2 single, which is (and always will be) regarded as something that relies heavily on luck.

 

[BruceCubing28]

LOL that's a good explaination.

I don't really know how to describe it, I can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes, remember small changes others would't be able to find, etc.
If you really want more depth, PM me and I'll try my best to explain it (it's complicated)

i have a few things to say. firstly theZcuber thats not a good memory. i also have aspergers. i can memorise several hundred digits in a few minutes. i also have some other wierd "talents" that im not going to go into.

ok stay on topic luke...
as too reaching the limit of speed. a cfop hybrid will be the fastest method. eventually it will become impossible for humans to solve the cube faster. i agree that we are quickly approaching that time. as to how fast we can go is anyones guess.
but as for people still being intrested in speedcubing 5 years or more from now. i cant see why people wouldnt be. i will still be interested. also dont forget that the ammount of cubers on wca for 3x3 has pretty much doubled in the past 2 years. how many of that amount are still cubing is unknown.
well my fear is that cubing will become another "fad" that everyone does.

 

[cubernya]

firstly theZcuber thats not a good memory

Really? I can honestly remember my 3OP memo from around a week ago (my only successful solve)

 

[Jorghi]

Too bad look ahead is limited by recognition xD

And there is a difference between short and long term memory

 

[BruceCubing28]

Really? I can honestly remember my 3OP memo from around a week ago (my only successful solve)

"i can memorize 50 random digits in around 10 minutes" <i was referring to that.

 

[David Zemdegs]

Some stats:

Number of competitors per year (only counted once)

2003: 91
2004: 205
2005: 549
2006: 844
2007: 1497
2008: 3020
2009: 5102
2010: 6295
2011: 5422 (so far)

 

[Tim Major]

i can memorise several hundred digits in a few minutes.

Next meetup/comp I'm teaching you BLD, with numbers as the memo system. You can sub 1 Yperm and Tperm, so I'll teach you Old Pochmann. Now, 1 cube = about 20 digits (though some pieces can't be covered with one digit so maybe 30 digits. Then we'll move onto multi.... oh the possibilities.(ps you have no say in your learning.)

 

[Jungleterrain]

Some stats:

Number of competitors per year (only counted once)

2003: 91
2004: 205
2005: 549
2006: 844
2007: 1497
2008: 3020
2009: 5102
2010: 6295
2011: 5422 (so far)

And that's only the people in competitions. How many that actually speedsolve around the world? I've never gone to a competition.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I think it's interesting that so soon after the discussion here on easy scrambles, my copied version of the official scrambler generated this for the first 2x2x2 scramble for the weekly competition this week.

Spoiler

2x2x2
1. R2 F' R' U2

 

[Johan444]

This is something that bothers me. Should there ever be a point where we should step in and say it was too easy? My last two averages of 100 had a 2 and 3 second solve in respectively, with ~6 slice solutions. These were scrambles that people who averaged 30 plus seconds could've got sub-10 on. Maybe we need a random state scrambler...

From what I've understood, delegates do step in and remove scrambles that are too easy. Depending on who you have as a delegate will decide if a scramble will be removed or not.

This arbitrary removal of scrambles is bothering (understatement) me too. Obvious reasons.

It would be appreciated if someone could point out what rule this is based off. Is it existent?

 

[Mike Hughey]

To my knowledge, the only time a delegate has stepped in and removed a scramble was done several years ago, and I think it was Ron who did it (I'm not sure about this - I can't remember, but I know it was a 2x2x2 scramble). As far as I can tell, there are no provisions in the rules allowing a delegate to do this now, so it really should not be allowed under the current rules. Am I wrong?

 

[Pedro]

You're right, Mike.

Delegates are not allowed to do that. Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"

I thought about it and while it was a lucky scramble, it could have happened to anyone, anywhere. Also, how do we know something similar didn't happen yet?

Since the scramble was generated by cubeexplorer, makes no sense to remove it just because it was easy. If it was a speed 3x3 scramble, it wouldn't be that easy.

My point is: different solving methods/events have different definitions of luck. How are we going to rule this? A scramble like that is easy for bld, but not for speed of FM solving. A cross almost done, but not aligned, is easy for speed, but not for bld.

If a 2-move 2x2 scramble pops up, what are going to do? It is a state of the puzzle, so it's valid. 2x2 single doesn't mean much anyway (Erik has single WR but only 24th avg).

 

[riffz]

Actually last weekend we had a really easy scramble for bld (6 corners solved). I was memorizing and like "wtf?! just 2 corners?"

:O Was that your NR?

 

[jonlin]

I'll give you something to think about. Fazrulz has broken the barrier of 6 seconds. No one else has ever done that before. Honest, I actually saw 5.36 lucky scramble and thought, whoa! this kid is beast! (N0 0ff3ns3 im a kid. i was trying to find that 5.66 official scramble and found it. I was really impressed because he could get under 6 seconds no one else has been ever acheving that(only on lucas garron's scramble).

Is his time one thing that we should be excited, or just give up with it altogether?:confused: