[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb

[Tim Major]

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

Because we already know Skewb is popular enough, that's not what the debate is about.

 

[tx789]

Because we already know Skewb is popular enough, that's not what the debate is about.

It's about the simplicty of the puzzle

 

[Dene]

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.

I said the events become about who can start and stop the timer the fastest. Obviously some practise has to be put into it, but to be honest, not an awful lot. Now you can address my question.

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.

It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.

As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.

 

[Carrot]

Some people focus mainly on one or two events (ie: Cameron 222/333, Odder pyra/mega).
... 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.[/b]

I don't focus in just pyra/mega, I barely touch a pyra (except when I have an upcomming comp), I barely practise mega... (but I'll begin again since that south korean kid is too fast for me).

Did I put time in learning a good method for skewb!?!? I know 3 algorithms for skewb..... 1 is just the inverse of another one.

And I really don't get the simplicity discussion, why don't you guys just make a proposal of deleting:
2x2x2
Clock (so simple... I just suck at it)
Magic
Master Magic
Pyraminx

 

[Ranzha]

It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.

As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.

The undeniable truth is that Skewb is popular enough to be official and that if people don't like it being an event, they don't have to practise it. Also, people who take Skewb seriously can probably agree that none of the methods currently in existence are near-optimal. Therefore, skill is still required to solve fast consistently. Anyone with a right mind would agree that it's more meritable to be consistently fast than to get lucky once.

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.

I may have a decent method, but my algs are so sub-optimal, and my turning style doesn't allow for much improvement. 7 is probably my limit. WR average will probably be Sarah/Meep with mid-5 in a year or two.

 

[Kirjava]

I said the events become about who can start and stop the timer the fastest.

Is there any evidence for this or is it just something you've made up?

Now you can address my question.

No need.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.

As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.

I actually don't think every puzzle as an official event is a bad idea, just not practical; do not assume how I think.
Besides, the suggestion is not to add everything, it's to add something that a reasonable portion of the community would benefit from. I personally don't have a skewb but, I am for it being an event because it appears to be 1. popular and 2. a reasonable puzzle.
as for Luck/Skill factors; poker has a rather significant luck factor, yet there is still a hierarchy of skill amongst players. The fact is everybody has the same probability of getting lucky, therefore in terms of probability, luck negates itself. In real world application this may not be the case however, I honestly don't see why luck makes something unfair. Unfortunate yes, but not unfair.

 

[Escher]

As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean by 'ability'. Abstract ability to solve the puzzles? In that case Michael Gottlieb should be crowned king of cubing and that should be that. Moreover I am intrigued to know what 'unrelated skills' means. I've already replied to previous posts regarding your irrational distinction between 'meaningful/meaningless', it'd be nice if you could reply to that.

 

[JustinJ]

The fact is everybody has the same probability of getting lucky, therefore in terms of probability, luck negates itself. In real world application this may not be the case however, I honestly don't see why luck makes something unfair. Unfortunate yes, but not unfair.

To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.

 

[Carrot]

To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.

Just go to more competitions? simple, right?

 

[Ranzha]

To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a one second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.

That's a weird example.

The process by which two people will solve the same scramble can be drastically different. Luckiness only applies subjectively.

 

[JustinJ]

Just go to more competitions? simple, right?

Which obviously makes this puzzle biased toward people who can afford to do that. (I assume you're joking, though)

That's a weird example.

The process by which two people will solve the same scramble can be drastically different. Luckiness only applies subjectively.

What if the optimal solution to the hypothetical puzzle is either two moves, or a 25 move parity case?

The point wasn't to give a practical example, I was just trying to illustrate that luck can make things unfair in response to the post I quoted.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.

The key there is "regardless of skill". The fact is, Skewb still requires skill and I believe the point has already been raised that only those who practice and have a solid method would be the ones who are able to recognise the "lucky case", thus preserving a sense of hierarchy. Furthermore, isn't there a small chance of getting a really big skip (IE: solved in 5 moves or less) in 3x3? How would it be dealt with if some 25 averager got a really lucky sub 4 because he had to do 5 intuitive turns?
Besides, the fact remains that everybody still has the same odds of getting a lucky solve, so if you did deem it unfair, just keep entering until you get a lucky solve yourself. You have the same chance of getting that lucky solve as everybody else.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

What if the optimal solution to the hypothetical puzzle is either two moves, or a 25 move parity case?

If a method is this extreme, it's hardly optimal. Either that or you've got a very odd puzzle.

 

[asportking]

Now you can address my question.

No need.

I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be any simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be any simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.

Even if that is his point, doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary? At what point does the amount of simple events become too many events? Why not add one more, or why not take away a few? I'm in favor of either removing all events in question, or just adding skewb. But arguing arbitrarily about "silly" or "simple" events is simply unproductive.

 

[JustinJ]

The key there is "regardless of skill". The fact is, Skewb still requires skill and I believe the point has already been raised that only those who practice and have a solid method would be the ones who are able to recognise the "lucky case", thus preserving a sense of hierarchy. Furthermore, isn't there a small chance of getting a really big skip (IE: solved in 5 moves or less) in 3x3? How would it be dealt with if some 25 averager got a really lucky sub 4 because he had to do 5 intuitive turns?
Besides, the fact remains that everybody still has the same odds of getting a lucky solve, so if you did deem it unfair, just keep entering until you get a lucky solve yourself. You have the same chance of getting that lucky solve as everybody else.

If a method is this extreme, it's hardly optimal. Either that or you've got a very odd puzzle.

My point didn't have anything to do with Skewb specifically, I was just pointing out that luck has the potential to make things unfair, in a general sense, even if everyone has the same chance for the skip.

Plenty of people don't have access to a large number of competitons, so the "just keep entering until you get a lucky solve" method is unfair for the people who are able to do that, and the WR for an event shouldn't automatically go to whoever goes to the most competitions.

 

[RNewms27]

Without practice, you probably won't recognize a lucky solve, especially on a skewb. Unless you refer to dumb-luck with awkward turn sequences that result in a quick solve, which can happen to just about anything. (Happens to me in 3x3 F2L all the time)

 

[Tim Major]

It's about the simplicty of the puzzle

... I wasn't asking, that's what I was trying to tell you. If you just worked it out, good job. :tu

And if it was all about luck, explain this www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=&eventId=pyram&years=&history=History

And if it's about timer starting, why is it getting faster? What do you think, we're evolving? And if it doesn't require much practice, I challenge you, Dene, to become the Pyraminx world record holder. Can't do it? Why not?

 

[Dene]

And I really don't get the simplicity discussion, why don't you guys just make a proposal of deleting:
2x2x2
Clock (so simple... I just suck at it)
Magic
Master Magic
Pyraminx

I'm all for it, but it will never happen because people don't like change. I mean, I could make a thread proposing a huge uphaul of the official events, creating a new philosophy based around the sorts of puzzles and events that we want to be official. But then I'd just hurt some the feelings of some people and it would turn into a flame fest and get nowhere.

The undeniable truth is that Skewb is popular enough to be official and that if people don't like it being an event, they don't have to practise it. Also, people who take Skewb seriously can probably agree that none of the methods currently in existence are near-optimal. Therefore, skill is still required to solve fast consistently. Anyone with a right mind would agree that it's more meritable to be consistently fast than to get lucky once.

Is it really popular enough? I see maybe 20 or 30 people on here arguing for it. I'm not claiming it isn't, I just don't think you have evidence to back up that claim. I don't see how your second point is relevant to anything. Your final statement of course I agree with.

Is there any evidence for this or is it just something you've made up?

Yes there is. Magic is like that, and 2x2 single is now. I'm not sure about pyraminx.

No need.

Maybe you didn't understand the point I was making, although I'm not sure why it wasn't clear, because the issue does not apply to most events. There aren't a bunch of random people with near WR bld solve times because of lucky solves, nor 4x4 or any other bigcube, nor OH; basically all the more challenging events. Even if some nub gets a lucky solve they will never be able to compete with the WR times in those events.

I have no idea what you mean by 'ability'. Abstract ability to solve the puzzles? In that case Michael Gottlieb should be crowned king of cubing and that should be that. Moreover I am intrigued to know what 'unrelated skills' means. I've already replied to previous posts regarding your irrational distinction between 'meaningful/meaningless', it'd be nice if you could reply to that.

By ability I am referring in a general sense to being good at a particular event. I don't see any need to elaborate further, it should be clear enough what I mean. The unrelated skills I refer to are what I have mentioned several times, that is, starting and stopping the timer, which is clearly not a part of solving the puzzle but is a limitation forced upon us due to technological shortcomings.

Sorry, I thought our discussion on what is meaningless was finished. I'm not sure if I really have any more to say. It's just the same thing I've been arguing all along: when an event becomes less about solving a puzzle and more about other factors such as starting and stopping the timer as fast as possible, and performing a few solves on a barely scrambled puzzle, the entire event loses meaning (refer 2x2 single for a very specific case of this). Not sure why you think it's so irrational to think this.

I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be any simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.

Nah, that's not my point. I actually think there shouldn't be any recognition of simple events because the official records eventually become meaningless.

And if it's about timer starting, why is it getting faster? What do you think, we're evolving? And if it doesn't require much practice, I challenge you, Dene, to become the Pyraminx world record holder. Can't do it? Why not?

It's *becoming* about starting and stopping the timer, as well as getting easier and easier scrambles. Obviously this is going to be a progressional change. And I can tell you that at home I have had times on pyraminx very close to the single WR time. I couldn't guarantee that I've had a time faster than the WR single as it has been a very long time since I've practised pyraminx, but considering I only ever practised for a few weeks and was averaging 7-8 seconds, the fact that I could get times close to the WR single demonstrates my point exactly.

Also, I will be the first to admit I was never adept at starting and stopping the timer fast, so that would always limit me from getting such obscenely fast times.