Throwing out scrambles in competitions?

[StachuK1992]

It's been noted a few times now that scrambles have been thrown out in competitions because they were 'unfair' in various ways.

I'd like to move the main discussion here.

-What's 'unfair'?
-Should we continue doing this? If so, shouldn't we have an official rule stating this?

-A list of previous deletions would be neat.


On a personal note, deleting 'unfair' scrambles is silly; if they happen, they happen.
Different judges throwing out scrambles at different takes of the idea of 'unfair' in itself is quite unfair.

 

[Vincents]

I don't believe scrambles should ever be thrown out, except in cases where there is a violation of WCA regulations. E.g. this week at Stanford Fall 2011, Jeremy threw out all the 3x3 scrambles because they were all the same thing.

If you start throwing scrambles out, you have to have some definable standard by which you are basing your judgement on. Such a standard does not exist. Every single scramble can be easy or difficult, depending on what method, event, or puzzle is being scrambled. I believe WCA scramble generators generate random states. Cutting off certain scrambles because of perceived ease-of-solution basically makes this a nonrandom state; instead of solving cubes from random places, we would be solving "challenges."

 

[kinch2002]

I was actually thinking of making this myself so thanks

One thing I am sure of: A clear ruling needs to be made one way or the other.

Clearly there is some confusion about whether scrambles should be thrown out or not. Today I thought about it, and have decided that nothing should be thrown out. It's too difficult to draw a line somewhere, so we'd better not draw one anywhere. Most people realise that 2x2 singles (and pyra single to some extent) mean very little so I don't think it's really a problem at all to let some people get insanely lucky and set crazy times.

One problem I can think of is this: What happens if a cube is already solved (and I mean actually solved, not +2)?

 

[Cubenovice]

I am not in favor of delegates "manually" sorting out scrambles.

I suppose scramble programs can be set up so the scrambles are rejected (and thus a new one generated) when the scramble length is below a certain threshold value.

2x2x2: 5 moves (yep, you will still have lucky cases like Sunes and other OLL's)
3x3x3: 13 moves
etc etc
The treshold values would have to be set by the WCA.

edit for clarification:
the programs should offcourse not even show the scrambles below the treshold length.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I think that for random state generators (which we should use as much as possible - we really need to go to one as soon as possible for square-1, for instance), a minimum distance from solved would be acceptable. I personally don't care what that minimum distance is, as long as it's:
1. greater than zero (so as not to allow Daniel's case of a cube already solved), and
2. less than or equal to the smallest minimum distance that we know to have already existed in a competition - if this is done, then it's reasonable to maintain the current records as they are reasonably.

That means that, for instance, with 2x2x2 I'd be fine with minimum distance being set anywhere from 1 to 4 moves. (That was a 4 move WR, wasn't it?)

And I agree that the scramblers simply shouldn't generate any scrambles with shorter distances from solved than the minimum - if they do, they can always silently generate another until an acceptable one is found. So the person generating the scrambles is never even aware such a decision was made.

 

[asportking]

I think that for random state generators (which we should use as much as possible - we really need to go to one as soon as possible for square-1, for instance), a minimum distance from solved would be acceptable. I personally don't care what that minimum distance is, as long as it's:
1. greater than zero (so as not to allow Daniel's case of a cube already solved), and
2. less than or equal to the smallest minimum distance that we know to have already existed in a competition - if this is done, then it's reasonable to maintain the current records as they are reasonably.

That means that, for instance, with 2x2x2 I'd be fine with minimum distance being set anywhere from 1 to 4 moves. (That was a 4 move WR, wasn't it?)

And I agree that the scramblers simply shouldn't generate any scrambles with shorter distances from solved than the minimum - if they do, they can always silently generate another until an acceptable one is found. So the person generating the scrambles is never even aware such a decision was made.

This would work for smaller sized cubes, but what about, say, a 7x7? It could have an entire center solved and the minimum distance would still be pretty close to the minimum distance of a totally scrambled 7x7.

 

[Mike Hughey]

This would work for smaller sized cubes, but what about, say, a 7x7? It could have an entire center solved and the minimum distance would still be pretty close to the minimum distance of a totally scrambled 7x7.

I think that in the extremely unlikely case that such a thing happened, the appropriate thing to do would be to simply allow the scramble. Honestly, I don't expect this to even apply to something as big as a 7x7x7 (or even a 5x5x5), since random state scramblers are not likely to become practical anytime soon (if ever). For puzzles too big for a random state scrambler, we should simply allow any scramble.

 

[Kirjava]

Say no to scramble filtering

This seems like a nice solution. However, I'm not against allowing 1 move scrambles either.

I see these as the only valid solutions to this 'problem'.

 

[Stefan]

See also: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=954

I don't believe scrambles should ever be thrown out, except in cases where there is a violation of WCA regulations. E.g. this week at Stanford Fall 2011, Jeremy threw out all the 3x3 scrambles because they were all the same thing.

How did that violate the WCA regulations?

Say no to scramble filtering

Why? Why do you want to keep easy/short scrambles?

 

[Kirjava]

Why? Why do you want to keep easy/short scrambles?

It's too hard to draw a line and say how easy is too easy and how short is too short. I would prefer to be given a solve from a pool of all states, not a subset of them. I don't like it because David Salvia suggested it.

None of this is important.

I don't see why we should be trying to avoid having anomalous results in the first place. You can get lucky - that's speedcubing.

 

[Stefan]

I don't see why we should be trying to avoid having anomalous results in the first place.

More than avoiding easy scrambles or anomalous results, I'd like to avoid the outrage that comes with them.

Let's say we prevent 2x2 scrambles shorter than four moves with the scramble programs.

Advantages:
- We prevent the ugly discussions that would certainly follow a let's say two moves scramble. Especially from people who already had similarly easy scrambles removed ("WTF why was he allowed to get it when I wasn't? UNFAIR!!!").
- We prevent different organizers/delegates making inconsistent decisions (by preventing them from making decisions in the first place).

Disadvantages:
- You can't get scrambles shorter than four moves (which you probably wouldn't get anyway). Boo hoo.

Any other (dis)advantages? The way it looks to me now, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Kirjava]

I'd like to avoid the outrage that comes with them.

We shouldn't compromise the event to keep *****s happy.

We prevent the ugly discussions that would certainly follow a let's say two moves scramble.

Some people are upset. Boo hoo?

We don't risk different organizers/delegates making inconsistent decisions.

This would be the same if we didn't filter scrambles, so it isn't an advantage over it.

You can't get scrambles shorter than four moves (which you probably wouldn't get anyway). Boo hoo.

Arbitrary lameness.

 

[Stefan]

We shouldn't compromise the event to keep *****s happy.

I don't think it would get compromised. Who would really mind if we threw out a few very easy scramble possibilities?

And why is someone a(n?) ***** if he finds it unfair that someone else got a scramble he wasn't allowed to get (thrown out by his particular delegate)? I'd find that criticism rather valid.

Some people are upset. Boo hoo?

Yes, boo hoo. I don't like our community fighting, and if we can prevent it at the cost of pretty much nothing, I'd like to.

This would be the same if we didn't filter scrambles, so it isn't an advantage over it.

If we didn't filter scrambles. Which some delegates have already done, and might do again. And even if we wrote that clearly in the regulations, there's still the possibility that some delegate overlooks/forgets it and throws out a two-mover. If we prevent such scrambles, unaware delegates wouldn't get into that situation. It's preventing a kind of human error. That's an advantage.

Arbitrary lameness.

Not that arbitrary, I chose four because that's the shortest that was done (as far as I know). A lower bound might conflict with previous decisions of already thrown-out scrambles, and a larger bound would conflict with existing records.

Also, I wouldn't mind arbitrariness here. Why would you?

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think it would get compromised. Who would really mind if we threw out a few very easy scramble possibilities?

I don't know, I don't have any statistics. Neither do you - you don't know which side of the argument is more popular within the community.

And why is someone an ***** if he finds it unfair that someone else got a scramble he wasn't allowed to get (thrown out by his particular delegate)? I'd find that criticism rather valid.

My intention was to call them *****s for being angry that someone got a short scramble. They are.

Yes, if we didn't filter scrambles. Which some delegates have already done.

They didn't have to. They shouldn't've. I made a complaint to the delegate at the competition this weekend when a scramble was removed for being too easy. The delegate has reconsidered and appears to share my viewpoint on the matter now.

And even if we wrote that clearly in the regulations, there's still the possibility that some delegate overlooks/forgets it and throws out a two-mover. If we prevent such scrambles, unaware delegates wouldn't get into that situation. It's preventing a kind of human error.

You can say the same of delegates overlooking the rules and throwing out scrambles with cross skips absent mindedly.

Not that arbitrary, I chose four because that's the shortest that was done (as far as I know). Also, I wouldn't mind the arbitrariness here. Why would you?

Hasn't a (nonWR) 3 move scramble happened? Maybe it was removed. I seem to remember hearing about it.

The move limit could've easily been something else had world records played out differently. Seems weird to me.

I don't yet see valid reasons for not allowing 2 move scrambles.

 

[Stefan]

You can say the same of delegates overlooking the rules and throwing out scrambles with cross skips absent mindedly.

I could if cross skips were the suggestion. But that's method-specific and I don't see it suggested. On the contrary, Tim mentioned method-neutrality in his WCA forum thread when he suggested minimum scramble lengths.

We're not going to find a perfect filter, where nobody wants to filter more or less. I'm thinking of it as at least doing *something*, filtering something that everybody agrees is easy.

 

[aronpm]

Why should 'easy' (short) scrambles be filtered? Nobody has given any (good) reasons.

 

[Godmil]

I'm with Thom. Anything that isn't already solved (solved or +2) should be viable. I didn't like it in the other thread when someone said that Rowe would most likely have had the 2x2 WR if he hadn't thrown out a R2 F2 scramble. 2x2 singles will always be about luck, we don't need people arbitrarily choosing how much luck competitors are allowed.

 

[Kirjava]

I could if cross skips were the suggestion. But that's method-specific and I don't see it suggested. On the contrary, Tim mentioned method-neutrality in his WCA forum thread when he suggested minimum scramble lengths.

I really could've said anything. The point is that delegates shouldn't be overlooking rules anyway.

Thanks for reiterating for me, Aron. I think that is the main point I'm trying to put forward here.

 

[Escher]

'Nobody should ever get a royal flush because I/we don't like them and people get upset' is the argument I'm seeing here.

Of course it's a little more subtle than that, but even in the current competition meta/format I don't think filtering is necessary.

 

[Stefan]

Why should 'easy' (short) scrambles be filtered? Nobody has given any (good) reasons.

Why the parentheses? I did provide two reasons.

And what's your reason for keeping them? What would you lose if they were forbidden?