Throwing out scrambles in competitions?

[Cubenovice]

This is a /bad/ thing.

You can't possibly say that 3 moves is trivial yet 4 moves is not.

This is not why we do not want filtering.

So what? If we filter to 16 moves, cases where the entire F2L is solved are still valid.

I don't think it is a bad thing to reduce the easy scrambles

I can say that triviality decreases with increasing movecount.

Where to draw the line will always be a point for argument.

This is not why "I" do not want filtering?
On a side note: I thought you are in favor of it.
Are there any optimal LL solutions that take 16 moves? (serious question)
Just yesterday I argued that you could still get PLL's but I was thinking speedsolve movecount, not optimal...

In any case; filtering to a certain amount of moves from optimal solution would reduce the amount of freak occurences.
Wether these are trivial, too short, or common alg solutions.
And I think that is a good thing.

I made my point, now I'm gonna go back to work.

It seems like a massive waste of time to get people filter scrambles on the day. Why not apply a filter to the scramble programs instead?

Obviously we would need a filter integrated into the scrambler (Thread title does not really fit the current discussion).

 

[Godmil]

Any non-solved state is a scramble.

I'd actually allow one move scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.

 

[Stefan]

Any non-solved state is a scramble.

That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.

Magics are getting removed (and iirc you're happy with that) partly because they don't require thinking. Solving a cube (especially larger than 2x2) that just needs one or two moves also doesn't require thinking.

 

[Godmil]

That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.

That could be a good reason not to let random non-cubers define the rules we use.

 

[Stefan]

That could be a good reason not to let random non-cubers define the rules we use.

No, I think they get that right. It's the natural view. One or two moves simply doesn't make it look scrambled. And I didn't say random non-cubers, I said random people. That includes cubers. Ask cubers to scramble your cube and unless they're trying to be a smartass, they'll do more than two moves.

 

[Godmil]

Yeah, I get your point, but there has to be a more specific definition of 'scrambled' than just 'it seems scrambled' - unless we're going by the old definition of what constitutes pornography ('I know it when I see it')

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think it is a bad thing to reduce the easy scrambles

Why?! You're artificially increasing the overall difficulty.

This is mentality is along the lines of removing easy crosses etc., only you're proposing a method neutral version of it.

I can say that triviality decreases with increasing movecount.

The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.

Where to draw the line will always be a point for argument.

Where you draw the line doesn't make a difference to me. Drawing any kind of line is the wrong way to go about this in my opinion.

Are there any optimal LL solutions that take 16 moves? (serious question)

God's alg for LL is 16.

In any case; filtering to a certain amount of moves from optimal solution would reduce the amount of freak occurences.
Wether these are trivial, too short, or common alg solutions.
And I think that is a good thing.

So what if we have freak occurances? This is ****ing cubing, not the 100m sprint. it's in the nature of the event.

We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?

"Common alg solutions" is a dangerous proposal that may discredit your ideas.

I'd actually allow one move scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.

Hey, if we start filtering scrambles can I get a +2 for 3 moves away because it's trivially solved?

That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.

Ask them how many moves they think M is and they'll often be wrong. They're not the authority because they have no context.

Magics are getting removed (and iirc you're happy with that) partly because they don't require thinking. Solving a cube (especially larger than 2x2) that just needs one or two moves also doesn't require thinking.

Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.

Ask cubers to scramble your cube and unless they're trying to be a smartass, they'll do more than two moves.

Humans are really bad at random state scrambling.

 

[PatrickJameson]

I'm leaning more towards Kir's view. Filtering scrambles does very little to prevent extremely easy cases to come up during a competition, and there's really only one major reason behind this: different methods have different definitions of what is easy.

While filtering scrambles this way would prevent silly scrambles that are 4 moves away or so, there's nothing stopping a solve from having the corners solved, the F2L mostly solved, an LL + M slice skip, centers already solved on a 4x4, etc. All of these, given to the correct person, has the potential to absolutely destroy a current record.

So what can we do to stop this? Nothing really. While I agree that a 1-4 move scramble would be dumb on any cube, a 16 move limit has nothing to do with how easy a solve will be.

Also, 2x2 is a dumb event anyway. Less dumb than magic, but still dumb.

 

[ThomasJE]

We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?

Sub 0.4 solves with 3 move solutions.

Hey, if we start filtering scrambles can I get a +2 for 3 moves away because it's trivially solved?

Let's look at the post you were replying to:

I'd actually allow one move scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.

Last time I checked, three was two more than one.

Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking?

Every time a 4 move scramble comes up.

So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.

Single case of what?

Humans are really bad at random state scrambling.

They'll still do more than two moves.

 

[Escher]

Sub 0.4 solves with 3 move solutions.

*wooooosh*

Last time I checked, three was two more than one.

He was arguing vs the general support for filtering, not a specific limit Godmil said

Every time a 4 move scramble comes up.

He was more comparing it to the millions of positions where it does require thinking

Single case of what?

3 moves or less.

They'll still do more than two moves.

*wooooosh*

 

[Cubenovice]

Why?! You're artificially increasing the overall difficulty.

This is mentality is along the lines of removing easy crosses etc., only you're proposing a method neutral version of it.

The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.

So what if we have freak occurances? This is ****ing cubing, not the 100m sprint. it's in the nature of the event.

"Common alg solutions" is a dangerous proposal that may discredit your ideas.

Not at all along the lines of removing easy crosses etc.
I never mentioned filtering for specific states but I am indeed in favor of method neutral filtering: Min X moves to solve optimally.


The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 6 and 7 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 7 and 8 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 8 and 9 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 9 and 10 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 10 and 11 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 11 and 12 move scrambles is negligible.

In 100m sprint they do not count records above a certain wind speed Even though wind is in the nature of outdoor sports.

"Common alg solutions" is just an example of an easy state; I did not imply specific states to be filtered.
X moves...

 

[Mollerz]

It seems like a massive waste of time to get people filter scrambles on the day. Why not apply a filter to the scramble programs instead?

Ron said that the scramble filter will be in the program. If a "filtered" scramble comes up in the program, it will just generate a different scramble for it.

I honestly don't mind either way whether or not scramble filtering is introduced, but arguments on this thread are swaying me to not having scramble filtering at all.

 

[kinch2002]

I'm not 100% sure but I thought that Ron said 14 moves for 3x3. I might be mistaken

 

[ThomasJE]

I reckon it whould be 3 moves for 2x2, and 15 moves for 3x3. And one minus the moves in the 1.61 Pyraminx single WR discarding tips (I think it was 1.61). And maybe require one tip to be scrambled. I have no idea about other puzzles (maybe non-cube shape scramble for Square-1).

 

[Mollerz]

I reckon it whould be 3 moves for 2x2, and 15 moves for 3x3. And one minus the moves in the 1.61 Pyraminx single WR discarding tips (I think it was 1.61). And maybe require one tip to be scrambled. I have no idea about other puzzles (maybe non-cube shape scramble for Square-1).

Read the thread back before posting, it does state such in the rules for the forum.

Indeed. We were doing 2x2 and I jokingly asked Lars if he'd generated a 1 move 2x2 scramble and then Ron told Daniel, Rob and I that scramble filtering would be brought in. No 2x2 scrambles shorter than 4 moves, clock shorter than 9, 3x3 shorter than 16 (If I remember correctly), but also for pyraminx and square-1 as well but I can't remember the amounts on those.

 

[ThomasJE]

Read the thread back before posting, it does state such in the rules for the forum.

I forgot about that post. What a coincidence... (I hope I spelt that right)

Anyway, I think we need to actually discuss the numbers right now. Short scrambles are usually thrown out, so it's almost certain this will happen.

 

[Stefan]

He was more comparing it to the millions of positions where it does require thinking

Which is why those aren't suggested to be removed. But 2-movers don't require thinking just like magic doesn't require thinking, so let's remove 2-movers just like we remove magic. I don't think the analogy is that hard to see.

 

[uberCuber]

They'll still do more than two moves.

This is exactly the point (well, part of it at least). Random-State scrambling has the ability to result in any state. If a human will always do more than two moves, they are obviously not doing random-state scrambling, as Kirjava said.

 

[Sebastien]

We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?

So what? That would be absolutely awesome and I'd say the person setting this WR is very skilled...

...in contrast to the scenario where 30 people at one competition beat the former WR just because they had the incredibly (unfair) luck getting a 2 move scramble.

 

[Kirjava]

The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 6 and 7 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 7 and 8 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 8 and 9 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 9 and 10 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 10 and 11 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 11 and 12 move scrambles is negligible.

Not sure if all those statements are true.

However! If they were, that doesn't mean that the difference in triviality between 4 and 12 move scrambles is negligible.

Which is why those aren't suggested to be removed. But 2-movers don't require thinking just like magic doesn't require thinking, so let's remove 2-movers just like we remove magic. I don't think the analogy is that hard to see.

Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.

So what? That would be absolutely awesome and I'd say the person setting this WR is very skilled...

I agree. You seem to have missed the point. The same behaviour can happen with 2 moves but with a lower time.

...in contrast to the scenario where 30 people at one competition beat the former WR just because they had the incredibly (unfair) luck getting a 2 move scramble.

The same thing has basically already happened, and you know that 30 is a huge exaggeration.

I don't see how this luck is unfair. Getting lucky is not a crime.

Also, this would only happen once ever, then the playing field would be level.