[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb

[Carrot]

For notation I prefer:
hold it like a normal 3x3x3, do ½y and then ½x... then you have the moves L R B which are not affecting the top corner, (I hope it's obvious what those three moves are performed?) and then U which is basically just orienting the top corner. I like this notation because it reminds me of how I scramble my pyraminx.

 

[TheMachanga]

For notation I prefer:
hold it like a normal 3x3x3, do ½y and then ½x... then you have the moves L R B which are not affecting the top corner, (I hope it's obvious what those three moves are performed?) and then U which is basically just orienting the top corner. I like this notation because it reminds me of how I scramble my pyraminx.

How is this different from the current one, or the one on the KM method site? (I don't know if it's the same of not, but I forgot how the current one is). This way is the most logical in my eyes, and I also thought of this notation independently.

 

[Carrot]

How is this different from the current one, or the one on the KM method site? (I don't know if it's the same of not, but I forgot how the current one is). This way is the most logical in my eyes, and I also thought of this notation independently.

I think the one on the KM site has a fixed corner, while my notation only has a "partial" fixed corner, as it can change orientation. But to be honest, I don't know any skewb notation, except of the ways I interpret scrambles, which might or might not be the right way to perform them.

 

[Sa967St]

FCN:

 

[Forte]

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.

I agree with the above.

The way I'm thinking about it, if 2x2 wasn't an event right now, but people were as fast as they are now, would people really want it to be added? I dunno if everyone remembers when Ben got that 2x2 average and everyone got mad at him because of how lucky he got in it, but Skewb would just be like that, but potentially worse.

 

[Ranzha]

Of course I would like Skewb to be added. Of course I know it'll get bashed. But I project that eventually no one will really care.

For scrambling, I've used FCN forever, but instead of Meep's usage of "D", I've always used "B" as it is in both Mr. Logan's scrambler and on qqTimer. I personally think it should be "B" to mirror pyraminx notation (without tips, of course). This needs to be resolved, but it's low-priority.
Another thing to be clarified: scrambling orientation. If we call the fixed corner UFR, then WGR as UFR works (considering a "normally" stickered puzzle here). 15's a great length for scrambles.

Concerning simplicity, Skewb is downright simple. The method I use has two quick blockbuilding steps, maxing out optimally at 11 moves (5 for the first according to acubist (whose site is down, btw; I have the .zip to the acubist solver if anyone wants it), and 6 for the second (unless I'm proven otherwise)) and then one final step (with 75 cases, solved state included; max 10 moves) that can be broken up into two looks (7 cases for the first, 3 for the second; solved states are always accounted for).
Total max movecount for my method is 21 to the best of my knowledge.

So yeah, the puzzle's easy and easy scrambles can be yielded, but the solver does require skill and experience to solve fast consistently.

 

[Luis]

I would like to have Skewb as an official event in the near future. Many reasons have been given, but I want to give one that I couldn't see written above: like x2 and pyra, skweb offers a very interesting challenge 'in inspection time'. Having good fingers will not give you much unless you are able to do a deep inspection. I like (much) the idea of solving puzzles with the brain, not with the fingers.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Just to adress the issue about skewb scrambles being too easy:
I honestly think that the WR times will be similar to 3x3, maybe a bit lower. The single however is more likely to be between 3x3x3 and pyraminx times, just because of the chance of easy scrambles.
Also, the fact that it is a relatively fast event, it will take less time to run in a competition than things like 6x6/7x7.

 

[Carrot]

Just to adress the issue about skewb scrambles being too easy:
I honestly think that the WR times will be similar to 3x3, maybe a bit lower. The single however is more likely to be between 3x3x3 and pyraminx times, just because of the chance of easy scrambles.
Also, the fact that it is a relatively fast event, it will take less time to run in a competition than things like 6x6/7x7.

I think the average will also be somewhere inbetween faz's 3x3x3 avg and Oka's pyraminx average, it doesn't require that much practise to get sub 8

 

[TheMachanga]

Am I the only one that thinks skewb is hard?

 

[AustinReed]

Am I the only one that thinks skewb is hard?

No.
I think I've been thinking about. At tournament such as Nationals and Worlds, how many will sign up? How much time would it take?

 

[ben1996123]

I'm not totally against skewb at this moment, but I'm swaying that way. As Dene says - it's just too simple a puzzle. 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. Also, maybe it's just me, but the puzzle is really annoying to turn so it's just not enjoyable to practise. So I'm going to end up feeling really stupid after solving it in 8 moves and taking more than 5 seconds doing it.

I agree, and there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.

 

[Kirjava]

there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.

People prefer to practise official events.

 

[kinch2002]

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.

Thanks Sarah - that's really useful to get a feel for how 'easy' (or hard) the event is

People prefer to practise official events.

This is a good point. I have no doubt that my likelihood of practising it would increase greatly (probably to 100% ) were it official. Hopefully enjoyment would increase too

 

[Carrot]

I agree, and there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.

Meep
Sarah
Chris Bird
Odder
Lars V N
MaeLSTRoM

Just to mention some of the nerds

 

[asportking]

I think I've been thinking about. At tournament such as Nationals and Worlds, how many will sign up?

I'm guessing about 50-100 for something like Nationals. It wouldn't be as popular as 3x3, but it wouldn't be something like 5x5 BLD where only 20 or so people sign up.

 

[Cheese11]

How are magic and master magic singles "a joke"? There is no variance derived from having a "lucky scramble".

Please explain why "simple puzzles" should not be involved in WCA competition.

Because they require no skill.

 

[Kirjava]

Because they require no skill.

This is incorrect. Try again.

 

[Cheese11]

This is incorrect. Try again.

How is it incorrect, I tought my friend how to solve magic in 7 minutes.

 

[Kirjava]

How is it incorrect, I tought my friend how to solve magic in 7 minutes.

I'm assuming when people say "simple puzzles" that that includes skewb.