future competitions and lucky scrambles

[Cubenovice]

A proportional cutoff for 3x3x3 would mean to eliminate the top 4325 200327 448986 shortest positions (about). Using a very rough estimation of n turns creating:
\( 18*15^{n-1} \) possible positions we would have to eliminate any position solvable in about 13 moves or less.

Or do you just want easy positions removed on easy puzzles where the solution times would be very short in the perception of the general public (less than one second). Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.

I got to 13 moves without using math
As per my earlier post: for me it is indeed the perception of the general public counts.

"trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily".

As usual Stefan know how to word it best.

 

[adragast]

Chris, as Stephan stated, the aim is not to remove easy/lucky scrambles but the "trivial" ones. Blindfold solve with all corners solved ? Well, this is luck but you still have to know how to solve the edges... Blindfold solve where you only need to perform RU ? No, this is too silly.
So Stephan and a few others are advocating for an official removal of "2-move scrambles" and maybe 3-move too. 2-move scrambles have been removed in the past so this would only make this removal official instead of secret/ambiguous. If people really want those 2-move to be legitimate, then I would really like to see it officially on the WCA with a note saying that those scrambles should not be discarded no matter what. But again, this would have harm the image our sport has to the public/media... ("of course he can do it blindfold, he just needs 2 moves to solve it").

 

[Kirjava]

this must be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out.

It's not possible or fair to do things like this.

Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.

Well good for America, I guess.

 

[tim]

I think if a rule is implemented that limits the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 (or even if this also includes clock, pyraminx, square-1, etc.) then this must be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out. It seems unfair to me to limit the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 and 3x3x3, but not for 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. If we do this we do it all the way.

I agree with you that unfair scrambles should be thrown out for all events (if we do it for any event) just for the sake of consistency. But I don't think it's "unfair" to keep lucky 4x4x4 scrambles and remove lucky 3x3x3 scrambles on the other hand, since everyone has still the same chances to get WRs in each event.

 

[Stefan]

Chris, as Stephan stated, the aim is not to remove easy/lucky scrambles but the "trivial" ones.

To clarify: that's my aim now, others might want to throw out a fixed shortest percentage of scrambles like Chris discussed.

This is a reason why I feel that if we being to restrict starting positions, that we should do this across the board for all puzzles now.

Alright, so I suggest to throw out scrambles solvable in 3 moves or less across the board for all puzzles.

(Maybe make it three interdependent moves, cause L M R on 7x7 is still 100% trivial... though since that's not going to happen and still has flaws (l u r is still quite obvious), I prefer the simpler rule anyway)

However, the probability of having a scramble in the mid 30's is probably not too terribly low. It's possible that over about 20 years of cubing that one or more of these may come up (would you agree? That would seem reasonable to me). I have a feeling that a megaminx scramble such as this would have so many options for blocks that can be preserved that it would result in a world record that is far faster than the other times that we will have seen up until that point. This would be particularly so if a megaminx specialist were to receive such a scramble. This is of course speculation, but I feel that if such a thing were to happen that a discussion very similar to this one would crop up about throwing out "easy" megaminx scrambles as well.

I'd say there's a huge difference between a mid 30s megaminx scramble and a 3 moves 2x2 scramble. Not only can non-cubers not solve that megaminx at all, but even good cubers still need a lot of skill to set a world class time with it. I just tried a 30 move scramble and a 25 move scramble and they felt rather normal and I got normal times (note: that's the number of moves I made, not necessarily the lowest number of moves necessary). Then I tried a 20 move scramble and I did have blocks in the beginning (none after the first layer plus edges), but trying to use them caused more harm than good, and I actually ended up with a worse than normal time.

I any case, this is not the kind of scramble I'd like to filter, and I very much doubt it would spark the same kind of discussion as a 2-move or 3-move world record.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

The 2x2 yes, the small one and this cube seems the best example explains gaps irreversible speed records.

 

[cmhardw]

To clarify: that's my aim now, others might want to throw out a fixed shortest percentage of scrambles like Chris discussed.



Alright, so I suggest to throw out scrambles solvable in 3 moves or less across the board for all puzzles.

Yes I think the 3 moves or less rule would probably be a very good idea as well, now that I've read the arguments in favor. Should this discussion be moved to the WCA forum, or has it already been?

I'd say there's a huge difference between a mid 30s megaminx scramble and a 3 moves 2x2 scramble. Not only can non-cubers not solve that megaminx at all, but even good cubers still need a lot of skill to set a world class time with it. I just tried a 30 move scramble and a 25 move scramble and they felt rather normal and I got normal times (note: that's the number of moves I made, not necessarily the lowest number of moves necessary). Then I tried a 20 move scramble and I did have blocks in the beginning (none after the first layer plus edges), but trying to use them caused more harm than good, and I actually ended up with a worse than normal time.

I any case, this is not the kind of scramble I'd like to filter, and I very much doubt it would spark the same kind of discussion as a 2-move or 3-move world record.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for trying that as an experiment as well, I would definitely consider you a Megaminx specialist. If you can't find anything particularly nice to do with such a scramble, then it seems like a wasted effort to try to work so hard to remove scrambles like that. It seems that such scrambles are less helpful to the solver than it might at first seem before you try it.

 

[Stefan]

Should this discussion be moved to the WCA forum, or has it already been?

The WCA thread was actually started before this one (and the other here).

 

[Nostra]

There already is a discussion on the WCA forum (here). It's a very short thread, I personally think that Stefan had already sum up what I think (like forbid 3 or less move solutions) and a very nice idea (in an average 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 moves are the minimum to ensure non-lucky average)

I'm in favor of filtering scrambles, but whatever is your opinion, I'm pretty sure that it's important to have several different persons giving them opinion in the WCA thread to have a clear idea of what should be done.

 

[Eric79]

I like how you went on discussing things although I have the feeling that the discussion is drifting into too specific details instead of covering the main topic first: Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records? Going on like that, soon (I'm not talking about some weeks, more likely a few years) there will be only records left which where set because of luck.
You know, discussing "up to how many moves to solve scrambles" should actually be removed still can happen after it is agreed if we actually want to do so, after we agreed on that we care having luck as such an important factor or not. You also wouldn't plan out in detail what you are going to do on which day of your possible sight-seing holiday trip if you're not even sure if you should travel somewhere at all or rather stay at home.
As explained in my original opening post to this thread, in most other events (actually I can't think of another one besides speedsolving), no matter if sports, something intellectual,... or as another good example also in speed stacking, which we are compared so often with, the only thing that matters is the competitors professionality, his/her ability to do his/her thing as good as possible - not if being lucky enough to get an easy scramble which gives him a huge advntage over others in other competitions, just because he was at the right spot at the right time.

So let me ask you again:
Do you really want luck to be the most determining factor for getting records in speedsolving by giving some people trivial scrambles? And if you don't mind having luck decide who is "best" in the world (as lucky scrambles are faster solvable), why don't you?

As others expressed before, it's also about the image of speedsolving in public. For example: For those who know of Stefans successful blind underwater solve in german television (I wrote an article about in on my google+ if you don't know about it yet) the guests of the show scrambled the cube and "made sure" that the cube is "scrambled as good as possible". For WCA rules it just says "random state" - which could be anything from 2 turns up (for 3x3), right? If a WCA official would have scrambled the cube with two, three or four turns - which would be totally legit, what do you think the audience would have thought? Everybody would have said the scramble was faked. So no matter what the WCA rule says (for now), it allowes a lot of luck.
If we handscramble a cube, we make sure there are no blocks and F2L pairs already built as good as possible. If someone would post a video saying "unofficial world record 3x3 0.73 seconds" everyone would laugh about him and say it's just a big joke even though the scramble was legit from what the WCA rules say and resulted in a 3 turn solve (not saying that in official scrambles that would happen as Tim explained in great detail, but the rules actually don't tell how many moves there have to be for 3x3, they don't "force" us to use those given specific programs or how to select the scrambles - everything is legit as long as it is random in the case of 3x3).

My personal opinion is, remove as much luck as possible, keep competitions an actual competition not a lottery. Of course for EVERY event, not just pyraminx or 2x2. It's not like that if a few million possibilities for e.g. 3x3 were removed, there weren't enough then "legit" scrambles left. The responsible people should think really good about what state is a legit SCRAMBLE and which one still is just too easy/trivial to be actually be called it scrambled. Just because we have a rule that says "random position" doesn't mean that rule is good or should not be changed. And also: void records set up to today. There's nothing wrong with that. People who got the records before still got them before - it's not like it never happened. Those people still being active and good enough probably will get there record back at one of the first competitions there will compete at. But by doing this, the bar is just raised - records will happen as before, but it will not depend on luck but on the actual ability of the competitor. I personally just have a hard time acknowleding records which are set more because of luck rather than skill - while I highly respect records being achieved by great abilities.
OR just don't keep track/list the single solve records any more at all - put those we already have in an archive or something. Although the highly unlikable case of more than one lucky scramble witrhin an average is still not elliminated.

So, I am still curious for your opinion on how you feel about the luck factor... if you mind or if you don't and if the latter, why so. Also, what was wrong with voiding records and starting over again? There's nothing wrong with perceiving that it wasn't good (if that is the case) how it was done before and thus just do it again, but different.

 

[Stefan]

Do we want luch to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?

I think skill will always be the most determining factor.

You also wouldn't plan out in detail what you are going to do on which day of your possible sight-seing holiday trip if you're not even sure if you should travel somewhere at all or rather stay at home.

I'd say you have that backwards. The way I see it, we're talking about possible details in order to decide whether we should travel at all.

We've talked about this several times through the years, this isn't the first time. I really really doubt you'll get enough support for your big anti-luck idea, partly because it's likely indeed impossible to find a good filter of your desired magnitude.

If we handscramble a cube, we make sure there are no blocks and F2L pairs already built as good as possible.

I don't. I just make a lot of moves, trying to not repeat myself. I usually don't look while scrambling at all.

void records set up to today

lolno

 

[Eric79]

I think skill will always be the most determining factor.

Well, for averages: Probably - if people don't get like 2-4 very easy scrambles in an average of 5. For single records probably not as in future more and more lucky scrambles will cause new records rather than the skill. For 2x2 this already is the case for the top three in the rankings - just saying.

I'd say you have that backwards. The way I see it, we're talking about possible details in order to decide whether we should travel at all.

Sure, but say a customer approaches you and askes you for a totally new software - you don't ask him at first how it should do things but what it should do in the first place, do you? Well, I think you get my point. And maybe that's just the way you are thinking while I from my job and education am just used to first analyze things to see if there is an actual problem or what the problem/requirements is/are (or if it's just a minor "disfigurement") and afterwords I take care/figure out the possibilities on how they could be avoided, solved or implemented. I'm fine with different ways of thinking...

[...]I really really doubt you'll get enough support for your big anti-luck idea, partly because it's likely indeed impossible to find a good filter of your desired magnitude.

Well, I am not really looking for support. What I want is a differing discussion of the topic, the pro and cons and as you verified by mentioning that this discussion came up several times before over the years, there seem to be people questioning the way it is done. And only because there may not be as many doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. In my opinion those facts should lead to a decission. Maybe not a final one, maybe things are different in a few years again, but if people question how things are done over and over again, isn't that a hint that something should be changed? And if not so many people mind at all, couldn't it be that they just haven't thought about it yet? Or that they just don't care? As said, I am not looking for support, I just want a productive discussion about the legitimacy of luck in competitions which results in "unfair" (because not comparable) world records.

I don't. I just make a lot of moves, trying to not repeat myself. I usually don't look while scrambling at all.

Well, I do. And I know others who also do this: If after scrambling the cube still has to many clocks I scramble it some more until it doesn't. But that's just personal preference and a poll on this topic also could be quite interesting as it would also tell us something about how people feel about easy scrambles.
Why do I do it? I want the challange of solving a hard scramble - not the ease of 3 turns.

lolno

Ok, but why not? What are the reason for not doing so? I can't think of any... besides maybe pride of those having the records right now - no offence, there is just nothing else I could think of that was so important to not void them if it was decided that luck should be excluded as much as possible from cubing competitions (I talk about single solve records - not neccessarily averages).

 

[tim]

Luck will always play a big role in cubing (not as big as skill, though). PERIOD. Even if 3x3x3 scrambles are chosen from a pool of "well scrambled" cubes, you'll still have some people getting PLL/OLL/LL/* skips, because different people solve the same scramble differently.

And also: void records set up to today. There's nothing wrong with that.

Spoiler

 

[Stefan]

more and more lucky scrambles will cause new records rather than the skill.

Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.

For 2x2 this already is the case for the top three in the rankings

I disagree. I tried about 10 times to beat the 2x2 WR with the WR scramble. Couldn't do it. Takes skill.

used to first analyze things to see if there is an actual problem

Sorry, I guess I'm just ahead of you - I already know that we won't agree on whether it's a problem.

Also, if you ask "Are you ok with luck?" and I don't know what you mean with "luck", how am I supposed to answer? We do need to talk a little about what it shall mean.

Ok, but why not?

There's nothing wrong with them.

 

[David Zemdegs]

If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".

 

[aronpm]

If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".

Same thing. We're arguing whether this should happen at all.

 

[Stefan]

why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".

No, that is filtering.

 

[Eric79]

Luck will always play a big role in cubing (not as big as skill, though). PERIOD. Even if 3x3x3 scrambles are chosen from a pool of "well scrambled" cubes, you'll still have some people getting PLL/OLL/LL/* skips, because different people solve the same scramble differently.

We are talking about luck from the start which allowes to solve the puzzle with unusual few moves. We are not discussing having "luck" (it's no real luck as it is a natural result of how you solved the puzzle up to that point where the skip occurs, is it? Ok, it most of the times happens unintentionally so you may call it luck) because of using a specific method and thus being able to skip a step which normally was part of the solve - like those skips you mentioned. It was stated in the first post of this thread that it is about the scrambles.

Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.

In general? No - otherwise the three guys being lucky at the Trentin Open still were worse than the best up to that date. For the same scramble? Probably. But scrambles are different every competition/round/group so it need luck to get such an easy scramble in the first place to be able to set a corresponding record.

I disagree. I tried about 10 times to beat the 2x2 WR with the WR scramble. Couldn't do it. Takes skill.

Ok, if you take this example: I never said it wouldn't take any skill at all and others didn't either - of course you have to have a high TPS which probably was the reason why only 3 people were sub 1. But: Did you already check the avg. times from the world rankings for 2x2? Yours: 5.56s, Brancaleoni: 3.97s, Provasi: 4.2s, Kaserer: 4.33s. They all are more then a second faster than you on avergare. Maybe that could be a reason why they were able to do it and you were not. Maybe you could have done it with an eleventh try. Who knows. But whatever it was, there were several possibilties explaining it. Luck undenieably is a big one.

Sorry, I guess I'm just ahead of you - I already know that we won't agree on whether it's a problem.

Which is ok for me in case you didn't know yet, although I said I am not looking for support. Different people may have different opinions. So for me and in our case there is no "being ahead of someone" as I can respect different opinions - it's just different thinking. But variety helps improving things: If everyone living in the 18th century would have thought the manual looms wouldn't need any improvements, we still had no warp knitting machines. And that's what we do - we tell what we think and discuss it and if we are lucky (;-)) we find a solution which satisfies most of the community.

Also, if you ask "Are you ok with luck?" and I don't know what you mean with "luck", how am I supposed to answer? We do need to talk a little about what it shall mean.

I thought we already cleared that long ago, the latest when you threw in "trivial solves" instead of my general (and maybe bad worded) "lucky scramble solves". Also it is in the Threads Title: "Lucky Scrambles" which kind of implies about which kind of luck we talk.
anyway: If I had asked if luck was ok, it is about the luck responsible to get a statistically really rare and thus "lucky" scrambles of a puzzle which then could be solved with just a few movements/turns or however it is manipulated. Regardless if that may be 2, 3, 4 or more moves; as I think this is somthing which should be discussed after it is agreed on if lucky scrambles are ok or not. Not until then discussion about where the limits may be set for each event exactely makes sense in my opinion. But we didn't find a general consent yet (maybe an explained poll would be a good way to find one): Some say luck is just part of cubing and others say we don't want that luck which is responsible for lucky scrambles and you say (if I sum this up correctly) luck is ok but trivial scrambles should (or could?) be removed.

There's nothing wrong with them.

Not yet. But say there was a new rule regarding scrambles which have to require a minimum of (e.g.) 6 moves to solve (e.g.) a 2x2, then there is something wrong with the current ones as they needed fewer turns.

 

[Eric79]

If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".

Yes, I already suggested that in the original post of this thread: "Or - to make it easier and not as time consuming - use a scrambler which excludes scrambles not nard enough."

No, that is filtering.

Not sure, but I guess he meant "filtering" manually, after actually scrambling a cube. Although I may be wrong with that assumption.

 

[tim]

We are talking about luck from the start which allowes to solve the puzzle with unusual few moves.

You didn't until you've completely changed your last post. WTF?

it's no real luck as it is a natural result of how you solved the puzzle up to that point where the skip occurs, is it?

wat?

It was stated in the first post of this thread that it is about the scrambles.

Again: You asked another question in your post until you completely reworded it.

Lesson learned:
ALWAYS quote people even if they seem reliable. -.-