Competitor requested orientation

[mariano.aquino]

If you cannot make it fair for everybody through making it more complex (developing a way to create random orientations that does not depend on each judge), then make it fair by extending that benefit to everybody, and let each cuber decide the orientation. Making it fair is more important than making it "completely" scrambled in my opinion, in this sole matter. I embrace larsN procedure a well.

 

[Kirjava]

The stickers they know about give them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in, so that's not a problem at all.

You could say that knowing where the white blue red corner is gives them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in.

The stickers they know about tell them where the centre pieces are on the puzzle.

Didn't you just say white-U/green-F was unfair? (And what do we do if it's in the wrong orientation?)

No. The kind of predefined orientation I'm talking about is a randomly generated one. If it's in a different orientation from the randomly generated one, we do nothing unless the judge is seen to have intentionally influenced it.

The cube changes orientation randomly anyway in certain conditions, I'd see the rotations given at the end of scrambles as something akin to a random seed more than anything else.

 

[jeff081692]

How about making a new scramble system that includes moves like M and such which scrambles the center orientation. You could always scramble with white on top and green on front and then have the judge note which orientation the scramble ends on to give to the competitor. I'm sure things can go wrong with this too but it was just a thought I had. Sorry if this was already mentioned.

 

[mariano.aquino]

What about letting cube explorer use slice moves to generate scrambles (U,F,R,B,L,B,u,f,r,b,l,d) ? Then, just take notice of the final orientation, and place it like that.
You HAVE to make sure every puzzle is placed the correct way, since there lies part of the fairness we're seeking

EDIT: simultaneous post, dismiss first part

 

[Ickathu]

How about making a new scramble system that includes moves like M and such which scrambles the center orientation. You could always scramble with white on top and green on front and then have the judge note which orientation the scramble ends on to give to the competitor. I'm sure things can go wrong with this too but it was just a thought I had. Sorry if this was already mentioned.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...yobwrg&multi=on&cubori=on&subbutton=Scramble!

The official WCA scrambler can do that. Just check the little box that says "Cube Orient"
If the judge accidently puts it down wrong... Oh well... Reorientation takes <0.5 seconds.

 

[jeff081692]

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...yobwrg&multi=on&cubori=on&subbutton=Scramble!

The official WCA scrambler can do that. Just check the little box that says "Cube Orient"
If the judge accidently puts it down wrong... Oh well... Reorientation takes <0.5 seconds.

Oh I see. I was sure it would be easy to make if not already done. So the questions is do we make it the standard for BLD or not?

 

[mariano.aquino]

If we use this feature, we could as well use it for every category.

Regarding the "-0.5s" , before marcell's, there was less than 0.5s difference among top3 blders..

 

[Benjamins]

So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?

We can´t have standard orientation because everyone can use his own color scheme with maybe no green or white in it.

 

[qqwref]

You could say that knowing where the white blue red corner is gives them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in.

This is true - it does give them no information. However, it would require the judge to carefully look at the scramble, which they shouldn't really be doing.

 

[Kirjava]

it would require the judge to carefully look at the scramble

Are you saying that you have to be careful when looking at corners but not centres?

The difference in care taken is minimal at best. Come on man, that's a really weak argument.

 

[qqwref]

I'm basically saying that a judge can give a cube to a competitor with white-U/green-F without ever uncovering the cube, assuming the scramblers did their job. In order to put a specific corner on the top they need to uncover the cube and look at the scramble.

 

[Kirjava]

The comparison is against a requested orientation, not a set orientation.

 

[DrKorbin]

The comparison is against a requested orientation, not a set orientation.

So you're asking what to do if someone appears with a brand new method of blind solving, which involves floating centers and one fixed corner?
If the point is to make equal chances for all (including necessity for rotation or not), then why not to allow him to put that damn corner wherever he chooses? It still gives him zero information about the whole scramble, but restrains him from rotation.

 

[Mike Hughey]

So you're asking what to do if someone appears with a brand new method of blind solving, which involves floating centers and one fixed corner?

That would not be a brand new method. I could go do a solve that way right now by simply applying my normal 5x5x5 BLD method to the 3x3x3.

Edit: So I tried it and got one of the bad cases, where I had to do a slice move to correct for center parity. And even then, as my first try, I got a 3:15.95 success. (Fixed white-orange-green corner at DBL - that's what I usually use for 2x2x2 BLD.)
(By the way, if I could preorient my 2x2x2 BLD scrambles with white-orange-green corner at DBL, that would probably shave 2 seconds off my average 2x2x2 BLD solves for the weekly competition - it often takes me way too long to find that corner.)

If the point is to make equal chances for all (including necessity for rotation or not), then why not to allow him to put that damn corner wherever he chooses? It still gives him zero information about the whole scramble, but restrains him from rotation.

I might really request that my DFl wing be placed as I want for 4x4x4 BLD if we allow arbitrary rotation - I hate solving that wing. If I could do that, I'd check to see if centers look reasonable, and if so, go without reorienting, knowing I get to skip that wing.

I'm amazed and a little disturbed that I pretty much completely agree with all that Kirjava has said on this thread.

 

[Alejandro]

Well, in my opinion I totally disagree to ask the judge for the correct orientation,
memorizing the cube is closely linked with the identication of it, when a cuber reaches certain level of memorization,
memorization becomes full identification of the cube, with full identification of the cube
I mean quickly recognize the orientation and quickly see the cycles to be resolved,
If we were allowed to choose the orientation, that would be an advantage, we would be skipping a step for free, and not because of our skills
to skip it.
I think that would make it boring 3x3 bld event, I think it's fun to 3x3 bld because we know absolutely nothing about the cube
(not even orientation). Summary, orient the cube I consider part of the memo, One should not skip any step.
Sorry for my english.

 

[DrKorbin]

I might really request that my DFl wing be placed as I want for 4x4x4 BLD if we allow arbitrary rotation - I hate solving that wing. If I could do that, I'd check to see if centers look reasonable, and if so, go without reorienting, knowing I get to skip that wing.

I understand your point, but you would still spend some time checking for reasonable centers, so you can put this edge there during your normal bld.
If it would be an issue, I would suggest to give an opportunity for choosing only for 3x3x3 bld.

I think that would make it boring 3x3 bld event, I think it's fun to 3x3 bld because we know absolutely nothing about the cube
(not even orientation).

Every time I do a bld at home, I know that the cube is in WG-orientation, because I've just scrambled it. And bld is not boring for me at all.

 

[Kirjava]

I understand your point, but you would still spend some time checking for reasonable centers, so you can put this edge there during your normal bld.
If it would be an issue, I would suggest to give an opportunity for choosing only for 3x3x3 bld..

The same problem applies to 3BLD.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Every time I do a bld at home, I know that the cube is in WG-orientation, because I've just scrambled it.

I don't, because I always toss the cube in the air before covering it. I want to know that it's in random orientation, like I expect to get it in competition.

I don't know if I often get cubes in competition in the standard WG-orientation, because it's not the orientation I use, and competition solves are such a small percentage of my total solves that I've never noticed. Now that this discussion has occurred, I'll probably be paying attention to how I get them in competition in the future. That'll probably cost me another second - gee, thanks. (Actually, I'll probably try to only pay attention during speedsolves, where it doesn't make as big a difference.)

 

[mariano.aquino]

Does anybody know what the odds are the wca implements such modification, based on 10-20 people's opinion...?
What would be the next step...?

 

[Lofty]

I agree with Kirjava.
I don't think it will be too much trouble to add a random rotation to the end of scrambles. The scramblers cover the cubes before giving it to the judges anyway so the scrambler will just set the correct center on top and the judges will just be instructed to always present the cube with a certain side of the score card facing the competitor. I don't think it's a huge deal but just for the sake of being completely random and fair I think it should be presented in a random orientation.
But I also think Bob is right. I've never been at a competition where we actually use a box to cover the cube. Always just a score card. We also may need to standardize the cover of the cube as BLD times become so close.