[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb

[Kirjava]

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

The point was that if those events are about starting and stopping the timer the fastest, why don't the same people have the top results?

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 don't see how the issue only applying to certain events changes it's validity.

Also, it'd be nice if you weren't being so condescending.

 

[Ranzha]

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.

Just to point it out: >on here
I don't doubt there are other people who aren't here that would advocate for it, but that's not a big concern to me. The popularity will most likely grow as Skewb gets more explored and noticed.
In regard to my second point, I was referring to the exploration of Skewb and how as time continues, competition will get closer as more things about the puzzle are discovered. Ultimately, it does require skill to solve it fast, generally speaking. In the event that luck happens, the meaningfulness lies in the ability to recognize an easy case. Also, on Skewb, it's a bit more difficult to look ahead than a puzzle like 2x2 due to the deep-cutness of the puzzle.
Third point herp derp.

 

[asportking]

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.

Just because you happened to be able to improve quickly at pryaminx doesn't necessarily make it an easy event.

I actually think there shouldn't be any recognition of simple events because the official records eventually become meaningless.

So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.

 

[Ranzha]

So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.

This. Skewb WR could be sub-1. Probably will be soon enough. That doesn't mean the holder of that record is the best Skewb solver.

 

[Tim Major]

Dene: Arnaud got a 12 on Sq1. I think he averages over 40. So should we remove Sq1?

OH NOES NOT MY GOOD EVENT.

Edit: Ranzha, Skewb single will never be sub 1. Not in the next 10 years anyway. It's nothing like 2x2 in that respect.

 

[Ranzha]

Edit: Ranzha, Skewb single will never be sub 1. Not in the next 10 years anyway. It's nothing like 2x2 in that respect.

I've gotten 1.3ish with a 3-mover, and I nubbed it up.

 

[Kirjava]

I've gotten 1.3ish with a 3-mover, and I nubbed it up.

Hundreds of people have sub1 on 2x2x2 at home, hardly any in comp.

 

[Ranzha]

Hundreds of people have sub1 on 2x2x2 at home, hardly any in comp.

According to Jaap's site, there is three times the chance of getting a scramble with optimal solution 4 moves or less on Skewb than 2x2! =3

 

[Kirjava]

According to Jaap's site, there is three times the chance of getting a scramble with optimal solution 4 moves or less on Skewb than 2x2! =3

and it's much easier to sub1 a 4 move 2x2x2 scramble than a 4 move skewb one.

 

[Ranzha]

and it's much easier to sub1 a 4 move 2x2x2 scramble than a 4 move skewb one.

(Wait sorry, 3.5x, just getting the fact straight.)
I don't doubt that eventually, in the next few years, there will be a sub-1 official Skewb result.

 

[Tim Major]

A Skewb with 4 moves applied looks much more scrambled to the average cuber than a 2x2.

 

[Dene]

The point was that if those events are about starting and stopping the timer the fastest, why don't the same people have the top results?

I will say, once again, that obviously it isn't *only* about starting and stopping the timer the fastest. I may have said that, or at least strongly implied that when I first made the point, but to continue to hold me to that is silly when I have obviously developed my argument.

I don't see how the issue only applying to certain events changes it's validity.

Sorry I'm starting to lose track of everything that's going on, which issue are you talking about, and are you claiming it is or is not valid?

The popularity will most likely grow as Skewb gets more explored and noticed.

This would apply to any event made official.

Just because you happened to be able to improve quickly at pryaminx doesn't necessarily make it an easy event.

For your reference, I was never good at pyraminx. 7-8 seconds is not fast at all.

So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.

So what's the point of acknowledging 2x2 single as a WR? That's what I'm saying. You essentially just conceded that 2x2 single is meaningless, and the WR holder gets no credit because he doesn't deserve it, so the way I see it there is no reason to acknowledge 2x2 single as a record of any sort at all.

Dene: Arnaud got a 12 on Sq1. I think he averages over 40. So should we remove Sq1?

Everyone that matters has been aware of the major issues with the square-1 scrambler for a long time. And in case you aren't aware, the official scrambler for the square-1 has been changed very recently to what is hopefully a random state scrambler (cheers Lucas!), which will hopefully eliminate the problem of blatantly lucky scrambles. Point being, the issues with square-1 were due to the scrambler and not the puzzle.

 

[Tim Major]

For your reference, I was never good at pyraminx. 7-8 seconds is not fast at all.

Then why did you bring it up?
derp I'm averaging 5:45 at 6x6, a puzzle I've solved at most 20 times. My point? What's this about having a point?

How about making a quick list of your problems with Skewb, you keep going back on your own points and it's getting a little confusing (all about the speed of picking up the puzzle).

 

[Escher]

which will hopefully eliminate the problem of blatantly lucky scrambles. Point being, the issues with square-1 were due to the scrambler and not the puzzle.

No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

To be quite honest, I don't see the point in removing any events.
If you don't like an event, or how it's run, just don't compete in it. From some of the posts in this thread it seems like some people would like to remove a lot of events, but there isn't really any point. If you're an organizer, just don't hold that event, and as a competitor don't compete.
Removing events is just a silly thing to do, because by adding more events we are allowing competitions to grow, but by getting rid of half the events because they are too "easy" just seems like a bit of a bad idea.

 

[MTGjumper]

No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.

Please tell me you're just being Devil's advocate

 

[Tim Major]

Please tell me you're just being Devil's advocate

I think he's just stating it isn't just the scrambler. I don't think he wants it removed. Then again, I'm not him, so I can't know what he's thinking.

To be quite honest, I don't see the point in removing any events.
If you don't like an event, or how it's run, just don't compete in it. From some of the posts in this thread it seems like some people would like to remove a lot of events, but there isn't really any point. If you're an organizer, just don't hold that event, and as a competitor don't compete.
Removing events is just a silly thing to do, because by adding more events we are allowing competitions to grow, but by getting rid of half the events because they are too "easy" just seems like a bit of a bad idea.

I don't want any events removed. I was just saying that if Dene wants to remove Pyraminx and 2x2 because of luck, why don't we remove Square-1, due to the similar luck. (the magics I can't argue against, other than bringing in more and younger competitors).

 

[Dene]

Then why did you bring it up?

Because it perfectly illustrates my point that despite being not too fast at pyraminx, I can still get the odd time that is near WR, despite clearly not deserving it. How was that not clear?

How about making a quick list of your problems with Skewb

- It's too simple.
- I don't think it would add anything to competitions other than another potential event available. In which case why arbitrarily choose skewb? No one has given any reason why skewb should be chosen over other events other than that there is a small population on speedsolving.com that wish for it to become official.
- It is going to become another event similar to magics, 2x2, and pyraminx, whereby records become meaningless (already argued what I mean by that, not going over it again).
- I am of the general belief that we should be reducing the number of official events, not adding more, especially with no reason other than a mild popularity.

I don't feel like thinking of more reasons now. This is really all I've been arguing for the whole time, although maybe because things have been so scattered it hasn't been all that clear.

No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.

I will admit that is a bit of an issue, but overall it does not make much difference to someone that is good at square-1; probably my slowest cubeshape was sub4 when I practised, and I was never that great at square-1. Someone that is not so fast might get times undeserved of their ability, but those times would still not be near WR unless it was a case of an obscenely lucky scramble, which is a problem that should be eliminated with the random state scrambler. However I do admit that there are considerable variances in square-1 times which rely a lot on what I assume are fundamental qualities of the puzzle itself. I won't deny that perhaps an argument could be formulated to object to the recognition of square-1 single as an official record, and if that was shown I would also agree to that. I don't think there could be a good argument against square-1 average though, at least not if average was extended beyond 5 solves.

 

[asportking]

- It's too simple.
- I don't think it would add anything to competitions other than another potential event available. In which case why arbitrarily choose skewb? No one has given any reason why skewb should be chosen over other events other than that there is a small population on speedsolving.com that wish for it to become official.
- It is going to become another event similar to magics, 2x2, and pyraminx, whereby records become meaningless (already argued what I mean by that, not going over it again).
- I am of the general belief that we should be reducing the number of official events, not adding more, especially with no reason other than a mild popularity.

-It may be a somewhat simple puzzle to solve, but it isn't "simple" to get good times with it. That still takes lots of practice.

-You seem to be under the impression that only the 5-10 people who are arguing on this thread are the only ones that want skewb.

-So the records are meaningless. Boo hoo. Speedcubing is about having fun and getting personal bests, not about getting the world record.

-Ok, that's your opinion. Our opinion is that one or two more events couldn't hurt. What would be so bad about adding another event? We're not forcing every competition to hold it, we're just giving them the option of holding it officially.

 

[ZincK_NOVA]

Sorry for assuming that you wouldn't advocate a really stupid view.

Because I believe that if it can be competitive, it's nice to have some kind of records? Your opinion I guess.