[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb

[tx789]

The 2x2 world record single is meaningless a 4move solution what was the scramble backwards so there already meaningless records

 

[RNewms27]

The 2x2 world record single is meaningless a 4move solution what was the scramble backwards so there already meaningless records

You may not see a meaning, but I could see a good amount of people that would have choked the solve if they had some pressure toward it. It shows that the WR holder can handle the case most efficiently. Though there isn't much more to it than what I have stated.

 

[SoulSeeker]

It's not about luck being bad, it's about the records being meaningless.

the problem i have with your opinion is that there is absolutely NO waterproof way of prohibiting lucky stuff in speedsolving. no matter which puzzle you choose luck can happen on all of them. even with 7x7 you can have incredibly easy centers or a last layer skip or whatever.. luck is just a part of our sport in my opinion.
what if someone had infinite money and could visit every competition worldwide. would you consider it unfair because his chance for a lucky solve is higher than for you and therefore the "competition" is meaningless?

but even with all the luck included it wont get you somewhere without some skill. you can have 5 last layer-skips in an average for 3x3 and still wont get the world-record if you normally average around 15-20s it just helps a lot

 

[Dene]

And by meaningless you mean luck-based?

That depends on the situation. Magics obviously don't apply here, so let's look at other puzzles. Is it lucky to get a 4 move 2x2 scramble? Maybe. But it's not so much the fact that the scramble is lucky is the problem, but the fact that solving the puzzle becomes a contest of how fast the timer can be started and stopped (just like with the magics), while the actual solving of the puzzle becomes a mere formality. This is hardly in the spirit of what we want to be doing, namely, solving puzzles.

Pyraminx, I believe, is similar, where many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible and not much about the challenge of solving.

For 3x3 the problem becomes more vague. The reason a record is potentially meaningless is indeed luck based, whereby someone that gets particularly lucky by fluke gets a time they do not deserve (for example, I could come very close to getting the 3x3 single WR with a LL skip, and I definitely do not deserve it). It's meaningless in the sense that the challenge of solving the puzzle has become less of a factor.

the problem i have with your opinion is that there is absolutely NO waterproof way of prohibiting lucky stuff in speedsolving. no matter which puzzle you choose luck can happen on all of them. even with 7x7 you can have incredibly easy centers or a last layer skip or whatever.. luck is just a part of our sport in my opinion.
what if someone had infinite money and could visit every competition worldwide. would you consider it unfair because his chance for a lucky solve is higher than for you and therefore the "competition" is meaningless?

but even with all the luck included it wont get you somewhere without some skill. you can have 5 last layer-skips in an average for 3x3 and still wont get the world-record if you normally average around 15-20s it just helps a lot

I guess the difference with puzzles that take longer to complete is that any luck factor is not going to contribute as much to the challenge of solving the puzzle. There is still a lot required of someone to solve a 7x7 in less than 3:30, even if their first 2 centres are extremely easy.

 

[Kirjava]

many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible

this is hugely over exaggerated

 

[Escher]

That depends on the situation. Magics obviously don't apply here, so let's look at other puzzles. Is it lucky to get a 4 move 2x2 scramble? Maybe. But it's not so much the fact that the scramble is lucky is the problem, but the fact that solving the puzzle becomes a contest of how fast the timer can be started and stopped (just like with the magics), while the actual solving of the puzzle becomes a mere formality. This is hardly in the spirit of what we want to be doing, namely, solving puzzles.

Pyraminx, I believe, is similar, where many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible and not much about the challenge of solving.

For 3x3 the problem becomes more vague. The reason a record is potentially meaningless is indeed luck based, whereby someone that gets particularly lucky by fluke gets a time they do not deserve (for example, I could come very close to getting the 3x3 single WR with a LL skip, and I definitely do not deserve it). It's meaningless in the sense that the challenge of solving the puzzle has become less of a factor.

I think the obvious difference here is that I don't consider it a problem whatsoever - we're not 'solving puzzles' - we're speedsolving them. The element of 'doing it as fast as you can' involves throwing some cases to luck in larger puzzles and throwing some scrambles to luck for smaller puzzles. The single record is de facto less meaningful than an average result, but not meaningless. I agree to an extent with your last sentence - but the 'sense' of the whole thing is not pure puzzle solving, it's about executing things as fast as you can - whether that includes any/all of; looking-ahead, good recognition, ability to see deeply in inspection, or indeed luck - in combination with pure puzzle solving abilities.

I'm definitely with you on the extension of the number of solves in an average for some puzzles though.

 

[da25centz]

Hello,

I would like to propose Skewb as a new official event in 2012. This event has a large amount of popularity, many people own a skewb and there are several methods out there.

Scrambling: A ramdom-state scrambler would have to be produced. The one produced my meep here seems to be the best option at the moment: http://meep.cubing.net/html5/skewbscrambler.html

I'd like to propose U, D, L and R as the possible moves. To see these moves, hold the skewb as you would a standard 3x3x3, then do the rotations y/2, x'/2. U is a third turn around the top corner, D is around the back corner, the one that is not visible from the front, and L/R are the two back corners on the left and right sides respectively.

Penalties: 1 turn is defined as a 120 degee rotation around a corner. So following this, +2 is a angle of more than 60 degrees from solved state, the same limits as pyraminx.
In terms of pops, as far as i know, all pieces are functional, so any pops at the end of a solve would be a DNF.

If I've missed anything out, feel free to let me know, and I'll edit this accordingly.

Also, a warning:
This discussion is meant to be serious and useful. Posts construed as silly, inane, or similar will be moderated and dealt with harshly. Please post both constructively and respectfully.

EDIT: changed notation to fixed corner, as documented here: http://meep.cubing.net/skewb-fcn.html
EDIT2: Added scrambler link.

In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?

 

[RNewms27]

In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?

Probably not. One popped corner only has one place to be put, but it is still not present on the puzzle when the solve is complete. A center is equivalent to a corner for a skewb.

 

[Meep]

In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?

The puzzle has to be intact in its resting state, with the exception of non-moving pieces. All of the center pieces and 4 detachable corners move on the puzzle.

 

[Tim Major]

Editing quotes is a ***** on my laggy phone, so I'm just replying to the part Kirjava quoted.

@Dene: if that were so, why aren't the best in magic, 2x2 and Pyraminx the same people? It has nothing to do with that. It's about case prediction, TPS and method. That and also for Pyraminx recognition, as few Pyraminx solves are one look for anyone.

 

[Dene]

Editing quotes is a ***** on my laggy phone, so I'm just replying to the part Kirjava quoted.

@Dene: if that were so, why aren't the best in magic, 2x2 and Pyraminx the same people? It has nothing to do with that. It's about case prediction, TPS and method. That and also for Pyraminx recognition, as few Pyraminx solves are one look for anyone.

Or maybe because those people don't care about the other events enough to practise them? I think a better question is why do some random people manage to get comparably good times in those events when they are not exceptional at any other event?

 

[Kirjava]

Or maybe because those people don't care about the other events enough to practise them? I think a better question is why do some random people manage to get comparably good times in those events when they are not exceptional at any other event?

You completely ignored the point Tim just made. If those events were just about starting and stoping the timer quickly, people wouldn't need to practise more than one of those events to be good at all of them.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

I'm not sure if this is a valid point to make and will probably be shot down buuuut...
From the gist of what I've read on this thread, most of the arguments against skewb consist of a point that applies to other small puzzles (2x2, pyraminx; links have been made).
I would guess that people making these arguments don't necessarily like competing in these events either: are they forced to?
Just because it's an official event, doesn't mean everybody in the world needs to start considering it any differently; if you don't approve of it as a challenge, don't practice it.
Regarding the points on how luck is a significant factor in setting world records: if you feel that the WR was due to a lot of luck, don't view it as a target. Find records of a non-lucky solve/average and just aim to beat that. Is that not the aim of a speedsolver? I don't like this view that the official best has to be the actual best.
Just to put things into perspective: I have only been to one official competition and I was pretty slow at the events I entered. I also haven't posted much on here (or anywhere else, for that matter) so you could call me a noob. I just felt I should contribute.

 

[Ranzha]

I'm not sure if this is a valid point to make and will probably be shot down buuuut...
From the gist of what I've read on this thread, most of the arguments against skewb consist of a point that applies to other small puzzles (2x2, pyraminx; links have been made).
I would guess that people making these arguments don't necessarily like competing in these events either: are they forced to?
Just because it's an official event, doesn't mean everybody in the world needs to start considering it any differently; if you don't approve of it as a challenge, don't practice it.

Good.

Regarding the points on how luck is a significant factor in setting world records: if you feel that the WR was due to a lot of luck, don't view it as a target. Find records of a non-lucky solve/average and just aim to beat that. Is that not the aim of a speedsolver? I don't like this view that the official best has to be the actual best.
Just to put things into perspective: I have only been to one official competition and I was pretty slow at the events I entered. I also haven't posted much on here (or anywhere else, for that matter) so you could call me a noob. I just felt I should contribute.

Good idea, but people will still b*tch about it. Ultimately, it's their problem. It's causes more trouble b*tching about things than just not caring.

 

[TheMachanga]

The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.

 

[TiLiMayor]

The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.

Not all comps will be hosting skewb, there its obviously going to be some time for a considerable quantity of competitors in a certain region for skewb to be held, and consider the fact that some small comps are made of the fast events, as there are some only hosting big cubes or even some with only non cubical events, so it could be easy to find a spot for it..

 

[cuberkid10]

The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.

And the Marietta Competitions will never see skewb becuase Andrew is delegate.

 

[Ranzha]

No competition would be required to hold Skewb. Not even Worlds would require it (even though it'd be stupid not to have it). Saying that organizers would stress about making room for it is silly =P

 

[Tim Major]

In all WCA puzzles (except magic) I would say the main things to be fast in rough order is;
practice, base speed, method, natural talent and finally the puzzle they're using (GuHong etc) and luck.
If someone is sub 10 at 3x3, they can achieve sub 4 at 2x2 a lot easier than someone who does 3x3 in over a minute. This is why, even though Feliks hardly practices events until his records are broken, because if he practices 5x5, it'll help with similar puzzles too. However base skill only goes so far. Some people focus mainly on one or two events (ie: Cameron 222/333, Odder pyra/mega).
Even after base speed the main factors are the amount of practice put into it and the method used. At one stage I averaged 50 on 3x3 and 10/11 on Pyraminx because I focused on Pyraminx and learnt a good method.
When/if Skewb becomes official, sure, the world record holders of similar events could be up there, but if you look at the current fasted people, Meep, Sarah, Odder, Ranzha to name a few, they are the people that have learnt good methods, and practiced a lot.

Edit: tl; dr: Skewb won't be dominated and made pointless by luck, the people who practice it the most will be the best.

 

[tx789]

Why doesn't someone start a poll asking if skewb was offical would you compete and see the number of people and number who won't