[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb

[Carrot]

Kinch2002:

Let's remove clock, it turns weird, I don't enjoy practising it, I cannot do the moves any fast because the turn mechanism is weird. ohh and I don't want to waste my money on it.

Kirjava:

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!! (that is.. 0.88 U-perm )

 

[kinch2002]

Kinch2002:

Let's remove clock, it turns weird, I don't enjoy practising it, I cannot do the moves any fast because the turn mechanism is weird. ohh and I don't want to waste my money on it.

Sure, take it out. I'm getting fed up of trying to explain wtf it means to be clock world champion
Seriously, clock doesn't have a lot going for it, and wouldn't stand a chance of getting added if it wasn't already in there.

 

[bamilan]

Magic and master magic averages are also a joke. The reason is because the events are so basic that the times achieved are so low that it becomes a competition of who can start and stop the timer the fastest. The same reason applies to the other two puzzles mentioned.

Why not simple puzzles? Because of the reason above. And because we have to upkeep the competitive spirit. We are hosting competitions here, not funfairs. You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.

100% agree.

 

[Kirjava]

I have this feeling that it might look silly because you're doing a few slow moves then stopping after a few seconds

I think you have the wrong idea of the state of skewb solving.

Saying solutions are "a few slow moves" is very wrong.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Please keep it civil. Any more discussion about whether an event is "silly" will be heavily moderated.

Please focus on constructive things like
- how to implement Skewb as a new event
- legitimate reasons for adding the event (or not) apart from personal preference / opinion of the event.

 

[kinch2002]

I think you have the wrong idea of the state of skewb solving.

Saying solutions are "a few slow moves" is very wrong.

This is quite possible. Can you or anyone else give me an idea of move count for solutions using Kirjava-Meep or Sarah Strong's method? Also an approximate alg count would be useful. My opinions are indeed formed off whatever general information I've heard floating around.

EDIT: Lucas, is it a problem saying that I can't turn the puzzle fast? It's a personal opinion but I say things like this because I want to know whether other people felt the same way so I think it's still a constructive thing to say

 

[RNewms27]

Why just perform the same events for the next century? Speedsolving should not be limited to what is a small amount of puzzles. It gives something new for everyone to try and compete with. Methods used to solve the skewb should not be brought into the decision of its use in competition. Events have been added prior to the development in optimized methods, so why look at the number of algorithms it may take? No such event should be prevented by stating "it's simple."

 

[Escher]

I don't see how any arguments that derive from x event being 'silly' really apply when the act of repetitively playing with a slightly different unproductive piece of plastic is not considered so.

I also don't really understand why speedcubing is supposed to 'look fast' (assuming that fast skewbing doesn't look fast - which it does). Especially when you look at FMC.

In the end the WCA is about "more fun". I don't even Skewb but I can see how it would be fun, and I don't see how it's inclusion detracts from the fun of other elements of competing.

The only logic I've really seen that holds up towards non-inclusion is that it is being picked out of a bunch of other possible side-events that might also eventually deserve inclusion.

However, in my opinion, the WCA should be making yearly steps to steadily increase the number of events. If this was the case then the inclusion of Skewb would just be a first step - not a categorical statement that it is more important than anything else. I'm also implying I don't agree with the idea that there should be a maximum bound to the number of events we can have, due to competition time constraints. The bound should be considered in terms of quality/difficulty/uniqueness of puzzles, ease of (regulation) implementation, and community desire.

Anybody want 3x3x4 in 2013?

 

[Kirjava]

I just realised something.

With Skewb, it's easy to pick up the puzzle and start turning straight away compared to most other events.

 

[collinbxyz]

I just realised something.

With Skewb, it's easy to pick up the puzzle and start turning straight away compared to most other events.

This doesn't really affect anything though, since everyone will have this 'advantage', if you can call it that. Although I guess you never said it was a problem in the first place.

 

[Sa967St]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you learn about 10 algs and then you can 2-look it. To me that suggests that it's even simpler than 2x2.

Kirjava-Meep is a generally 3-look method, which requires 14 algs, if you do the first layer/side intuitively in one look.
My intermediate method is also 3-look, which requires 13 if you do the first layer intuitively in one-look, and my advanced method is 2-look but it requires 134 algs to know the whole thing.

Magic and master magic averages are also a joke. The reason is because the events are so basic that the times achieved are so low that it becomes a competition of who can start and stop the timer the fastest. The same reason applies to the other two puzzles mentioned.

Why not simple puzzles? Because of the reason above. And because we have to upkeep the competitive spirit. We are hosting competitions here, not funfairs. You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.

Skewb is NOT a silly event.
Although I foresee skewb single being another 2x2 single event, a WR worthy skewb average isn't something easy that anyone with a little practice can get.

It's not just something you can learn a few algs and immediately get super fast at. It takes a lot of practice to get familiar with the turning and to develop good fingertricks, and to be fast at inspecting and solving the first layer intuitively. Most algs are also harder to learn and perform well than on cubic puzzles.
You're exaggerating how simple skewb is.


Another thing to add is that even though skewb single is lol, it's less lol than 2x2x2 single. I highly doubt that there will ever be any sub2 singles, unless you have a finger-trickable solution that's less than 6 moves. The fastest singles will be less condensed than 2x2 singles, and there should be fewer ties.

 

[tx789]

I have never used a skewb but so many people want it so it should be. THose it ins't as easy as clock it just one thing it is the turning that hard. I don't own one. ANy way those the sing;e would be like under 2 or 1 seconds and like 2x2 the average wouldn't and there is people who hate the other non cube events 2x2-7x7

 

[Carrot]

I have never used a skewb but so many people want it so it should be. THose it ins't as easy as clock it just one thing it is the turning that hard. I don't own one. ANy way those the sing;e would be like under 2 or 1 seconds and like 2x2 the average wouldn't and there is people who hate the other non cube events 2x2-7x7

I often get sub 2 singles at home for pyraminx... however the WR single still remains 1.93 by Yohei Oka, so the single will probably be like low 3 or mid 2

 

[Dene]

Skewb is NOT a silly event.
Although I foresee skewb single being another 2x2 single event, a WR worthy skewb average isn't something easy that anyone with a little practice can get.

It's not just something you can learn a few algs and immediately get super fast at. It takes a lot of practice to get familiar with the turning and to develop good fingertricks, and to be fast at inspecting and solving the first layer intuitively. Most algs are also harder to learn and perform well than on cubic puzzles.
You're exaggerating how simple skewb is.

Sure, but 2x2 is the same. No one can get low 2s averages with only a little practise. It doesn't mean the puzzle itself isn't silly as an official event. I am of the opinion that speedsolving puzzles should be a challenge of skills with the puzzle (and brain), and not with the timer.


EDIT: I know I used the word "silly" again, and Lucas doesn't seem to like it, but I can't think of a more suitable word for now, so until someone else comes up with something more appropriate I will use it and hopefully no one will take offence.

 

[Bryan]

There are already scramblers for skewb, all that's needed is for a more official one to be put together. http://www.logan.cc/skewb.html Similar to this but with FCN.

That scrambler looks ugly.

But really, what sort of notation to people prefer? I decided on having the top center fixed because I thought it would be easiest for people to understand. I also considered having the bottom center fixed so that there's always a stable base to hold.

As for it being easy, was 2x2 at World's boring? Sure, there may be a lucky scramble, but having a quick event is important. I have 6x6 and 7x7 very rarely because even with a few competitors it takes a long time.

 

[Sa967St]

Sure, but 2x2 is the same. No one can get low 2s averages with only a little practise. It doesn't mean the puzzle itself isn't silly as an official event. I am of the opinion that speedsolving puzzles should be a challenge of skills with the puzzle (and brain), and not with the timer.

Of course. I was just clarifying that skewb isn't as simple as ones who have never tried it may think.

But really, what sort of notation to people prefer? I decided on having the top center fixed because I thought it would be easiest for people to understand.

The front corner fixed with 3 face visible. Meep calls it FCN.
It's easiest to fingertrick (it feels somewhat like megaminx scrambling, with the 3x1x1 block at UL fixed), and you won't have any dumb F moves that you have to awkwardly regrip.

 

[tx789]

I often get sub 2 singles at home for pyraminx... however the WR single still remains 1.93 by Yohei Oka, so the single will probably be like low 3 or mid 2

THat's where luck comes in the pyraminx pb is like 2.60 for a single(unsure about scramble)( but I average 9.5-12. Skewb would be the same. As pyra and 2x2

 

[TheMachanga]

A lot of these arguments against skewb (the low times, potentially easy scrambles and lucky solves, simple looking) can definitely apply to pyraminx, yet very few want to get rid of that. Pyraminx is actually way way easier than skewb (to solve, and to get decent at it) IMO, yet if you look at the rankings for pyraminx, the slowest of the top 100 averages is 6.61, while 2x2 is 3.59.

I have personal experience with skewb. I decided to get fast at it, and practice it a lot. It is in no means a simple puzzle to get good at, like pyraminx (learn the method and develop fast tps).

1. The algs are way harder to remember and learn than on any other puzzle. A lot of the algs require cube rotations and weird hand shifting because of the nature of the puzzle. They are also long algs for a puzzle that moves slowly. 3x3 algs may be longer, but you turn faster so it seems slower, and it is easier to use muscle memory to learn the algorithm. I often got lost in the middle of algs, even after a full month of practicing it most of the time.
2. The recognition is a pain in the ass. A lot of the cases look the same, and the cycles are confusing, especially 5 center cycles, and you have to follow the line of centers to see which case you have. Cases can easily be confused with others. Doing the wrong alg is truly the worst experience imaginable because you have to preform another long and painful alg to fix it.

I've experienced the horrors of learning advanced skewb, and it's safe to say it is not an easy puzzle. Learning 2x2 CLL cases is even easier than that IMO. I gave up on skewb after it made cubing sad for me.




I would me "meh" if it does become official, because it means I'll be forced to start solving it again and go through the difficult process of practicing it.

 

[Meep]

http://meep.cubing.net/html5/skewbscrambler.html

Here's a quick scrambler I threw together.

Though having done a lot of Skewb, I will admit that it's pretty darn simple. If you look at the scrambler and click scramble a few times, it doesn't take much to see a bunch of big blocks/skips almost independent of method (Rubikskewb, acubist, Kir-Meep, etc.). I guessed that it might not be random enough, but using my sim I did 500 move scrambles and ran into roughly the same frequency of these 'lucky' scrambles. I did a quick check of around 40 scrambles and just a bit under 50% had something unusually easy to start with (For the methods I listed above). Also, being a deep-cut puzzle, you might have a state 4-5 moves away that just isn't obvious from the scrambled state: I've had around 6 of these occur in the last two days, one sub-2 and the rest sub-3. I might even say it's worse than 2x2 in how often lucky/easy things happen. I haven't worked out the odds, but I've had entire averages of 5 that consisted of 'lucky' solves and really inconsistent averages of 12 for the same reason.

This may or may not be a big issue with regards to the criteria for being an official event. Just thought I'd throw that out there since there was debate over the issue and over the fact that people who haven't done much with the puzzle were bringing it up.

 

[Andrew Ricci]

I honestly can't see why anyone has arguments against skewb. It's a complex enough puzzle that has been hosted "unofficially" many times and has working sub-optimal scramblers. Why wouldn't it be added, considering the reasonably large demand?

Anybody want 3x3x4 in 2013?

I would love to see 3x3x4 added.