1 Hour FMC is a Luck Based Event

[ErikJ]

getting lucky isn't a crime but no event should reward luck as much as FMC does.

reading this might be faster than watching the video -
the main issue is that the rankings section the of WCA website should represent the skill of each competitor. solvers with more skill should win against those with less skill and should also get a higher rank. if this is true, then the podium results in competition should be correct. we can see the disadvantage of using single solves to determine skill just by comparing the single and average ranks of any cube, except maybe 2x2, and judging what each solver typically averages by looking at their history. if we look at the FMC ranks, and each solvers history, it becomes obvious that a lot of the people ranked near or at the top aren't necessarily better than those ranked bellow them. so if the big leader board is not correct then the podium results in competition cannot be correct.

an easy way to fix the issue is to give each solver 2-3 scrambles and have them do multiple solutions in one hour. that way, not only do they have to rely on their skill and knowledge of the cube more than luck, but we can also take an average of 2 or a mean of 3. I'm going to email Per and see if he can make a section for this format in his weekly FMC. I think that would be a great place to test it out.

 

[kinch2002]

Sure, there's luck involved. Sometimes more than some people like. But no feasible solution has been found. As for your suggestion, although it still only takes an hour, I'm not convinced the luck will be reduced. A good solution for me usually uses almost the entire hour, and that's not because I'm slow. I'm not bad at FMC either. If I were given 20 minutes, I'd probably be better off just building a couple of blocks and then spamming hundreds of ways of finishing F2L until I find a nice OLL/PLL skip. In which case, luck comes into it more. At least if there's an hour I can go through most/all of the 'advanced' techniques I know which should give me the edge over 'lucky noobs'. If you really want to know who's the best at FMC, just look at profiles and see all their results.

 

[ErikJ]

spamming hundreds of ways of finishing F2L until I find a nice OLL/PLL skip.

this is MUCH easier to pull off right now with the one hour format and all you have to find is one, not 3.

everyones results will change. I probably wont average 30-35 with 20 minutes per cube. all of the numbers for everyone will change and will show there actual skill at fewest move solving.

 

[JasonK]

You say that the WCA rankings show that the higher people are better at the event than lower people. I'm pretty sure that the only thing the rankings can (and are meant to) show is that the higher people have had better results in competition than the lower people. I don't disagree that FMC is more dependent on luck than other events, but I don't think that "the WCA rankings don't reflect who's best at the event" is really a good argument. I mean, we already basically ignore the rankings for 2x2 single, why can't it be the same for FMC?

 

[Tim Major]

I agree, but only because OcR is PLL skip and my 2nd place was full step

I would actually prefer linear FMC, 3 solves, middle solve counting.

I mean look at Okayama, consistent sub 30, but not WR because his solves in competition haven't had great luck.

 

[Cubenovice]

So Sebastien with more sub 30 HTM solves than any other competitor is just a lucky guy?

I don't particulary like the fact that the FMC WR solves were done by "non-experts" but that is just the way the dice rolls...

If you want to know who's good at FMC you just need to look past the WR's.
Deal with it

 

[Tim Major]

I mean, we already basically ignore the rankings for 2x2 single, why can't it be the same for FMC?

Mind clarifying? Ignoring FMC single means ignoring the event, as there is no average.

 

[masterofthebass]

Yes, the very best solves are pretty lucky, but overall, the people who win FMC at competitions are people who are really good at FMC. Look at http://worldcubeassociation.org/res...gionId=&years=&show=100+Results&single=Single . There's a pattern of people who consistently get good solves. Just because you can get mediocre solves relatively fast doesn't mean we should change the event.

 

[kinch2002]

this is MUCH easier to pull off right now with the one hour format and all you have to find is one, not 3. everyones results will change. I probably wont average 30-35 with 20 minutes per cube. all of the numbers for everyone will change and will show there actual skill at fewest move solving.

I'm saying that I think it's easier to find a decent non-skilled solution in 20 minutes than a decent skilled one. So luck is MORE prevalent when time is reduced.

So Sebastien with more sub 30 HTM solves than any other competitor is just a lucky guy?

He is obviously one of the best, but remember he does compete much more than any other FMC 'expert' Going slightly off-topic, to get a good idea of who's good, I would suggest looking at the median result over a suitable time period (rather than mean, so that DNFs can be accounted for). Sebastien's median for 2011 was 34 with 6/26=23% attempts sub-30. I wonder who has the best median for the year? Btw my median was 33, with 2/7=29% sub-30[/QUOTE]

 

[ErikJ]

Yes, the very best solves are pretty lucky, but overall, the people who win FMC at competitions are people who are really good at FMC. Look at http://worldcubeassociation.org/res...gionId=&years=&show=100+Results&single=Single . There's a pattern of people who consistently get good solves. Just because you can get mediocre solves relatively fast doesn't mean we should change the event.

yes but there are so many people who shouldn't be ranked up so high. look at the results from 09 nationals http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=USNationals2009&allResults=1#333fm

both 27s were PLL skips by mediocre FMCers and bambozzled you and I out of the podium. another example is from armonk where bob beat my 39 with a 36 because he had the 6 move OLL and a PLL skip. since those results place him at the top of that competition then that means he was the best FMCer there which certainly isn't true.

doing FMC as a single attempted makes as much sense as doing 3x3 as a single solve instead of an average.

 

[kinch2002]

yes but there are so many people who shouldn't be ranked up so high. look at the results from 09 nationals http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=USNationals2009&allResults=1#333fm

both 27s were PLL skips by mediocre FMCers and bambozzled you and I out of the podium. another example is from armonk where bob beat my 39 with a 36 because he had the 6 move OLL and a PLL skip. since those results place him at the top of that competition then that means he was the best FMCer there.

doing FMC as a single attempted makes as much sense as doing 3x3 as a single solve instead of an average.

Competition results don't have to reflect who's the best there. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having a competition - just decide who's the best without turning up

 

[JasonK]

Mind clarifying? Ignoring FMC single means ignoring the event, as there is no average.

Maybe that wasn't the best comparison ever, but what I meant was that since the world rankings don't show who's actually best at the event, we should know not to take them quite as seriously as we do with other events. We know who the good FMCers are by their results in other places, the rankings don't have to be the final word on who's the best.

I think the biggest problem is that you can't properly compare FMC results that were set with different scrambles. In general, the good FMCers tend to win the event in competitions because they are competing on an even playing field with everyone else. Unfortunately this isn't the case when comparing results between competitions, so the overall rankings can get a bit screwed up.

EDIT:
[quote="ErikJ] since those results place him at the top of that competition then that means he was the best FMCer there which certainly isn't true.[/quote]
No it doesn't. It just mean that he found the shortest solution to the given scramble on that day. Winner doesn't always have to equal best.

 

[cityzach]

Even though i'm not an FMC-er myself, I agree with what you're saying. If you look at Tim Reynolds for example, his results are all very consistent, with only 1 DNF. Jimmy Coll and Istvan Kocza probably aren't the best FMC-ers in the world.

 

[ErikJ]

Competition results don't have to reflect who's the best there. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having a competition - just decide who's the best without turning up

the point of competing is to compete and reward the people who are the best. not to roll dice and flip coins.

 

[kinch2002]

the point of competing is to compete. not to roll dice and flip coins.

Your first sentence doesn't really make sense. Anyway, so poker is a stupid game/sport because there is some luck involved?

 

[Jaycee]

the point of competing is to compete. not to roll dice and flip coins.

It's my understanding the many people don't go to competitions to win. If everyone did, there wouldn't be nearly as many people at competitions.

 

[ErikJ]

Your first sentence doesn't really make sense. Anyway, so poker is a stupid game/sport because there is some luck involved?

I was saying that it's called a competition because people compete there. a competition is about rewarding the skilled solvers and not the luckiest. poker takes skill in the sense that you have to read people based on there faces and what they are betting. but that's a different conversation.

It's my understanding the many people don't go to competitions to win. If everyone did, there wouldn't be nearly as many people at competitions.

it doesn't matter why people go. a competition based on luck is more fun for the less skilled because they have a shot at winning but if they don't care about winning then why should we have events that cater to them?

 

[kinch2002]

I was saying that it's called a competition because people compete there. a competition is about rewarding the skilled solvers and not the luckiest. poker takes skill in the sense that you have to read people based on there faces and what they are betting. but that's a different conversation.

Yes of course poker takes skill, just like FMC does. Just because there's a mix of skill and luck doesn't mean it has to be changed

 

[Lucas Garron]

[Disclaimer: I haven't watched your video. If you have a good argument, you should be able to put it down in (concise) words instead of making me listen to 12 minutes of questionably planned oration. I'm going to go off the written text in this thread instead]

This has been discussed before. What I got out of those discussions was that making competitors do *more* solves in an hour only forces a good FMC expert to spread out her/his effort too much, while not really reducing the potential for luck to determine the result. It's no longer about finding a good solution, but gaming the scrambles to find the best way to spend your time on them.

Also, requiring more solves to be written down (e.g. all 3 for mean of 3) is a lot of pressure, and more room for accident. If not all the scrambles need to be solved (e.g. median, average of best 2, etc.), it's back to luck on which scrambles the competitor chose to focus on.

While it's not perfect, I think that 1 scramble at a time is best. 1 hour is the most reasonable compromise for organizers and competitors (and very few FMC solvers would truly benefit from more than an hour except as a way to keep trying to "more of the same" or get lucky).

Luck is certainly somewhat of a problem. (Last week at Berkeley Winter, I think I put in some decent effort to find two solutions that ended up 33 and 35 moves, but I placed third because Vincent and Steven got more lucky on the second scramble. While I don't claim to be particularly good or to have deserved a better ranking, the result did seem up to luck much more than skill, and I think it would be great if is wasn't.)
I'd love to hear from any experienced FMC solvers about this. Maybe we can come to consensus on a new approach (preferably compatible with old results) that we agree is more fair to experienced solvers rather than those who get lucky.

 

[kinch2002]

I'd love to hear from any experienced FMC solvers about this. Maybe we can come to consensus on a new approach (preferably compatible with old results) that we agree is more fair to experienced solvers rather than those who get lucky.

Cubenovice and I have already commented. I pretty much agree with everything you said, and also tried explaining how more solves in an hour doesn't make it better. Afaik expert FMCers know and also accept that they can't win every comp. Personally I'm not too bothered if a lucky solution beats me every now and then - just comes with the event. The only place I sense something should be done is the major champs. This has been discussed before and it was suggested that best of 2 or 3 should be done if at all possible.