Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico

[Florian]

It doesn't matter who the competitior is. the judge can't put his/her initials in all the spots first off, because then any time could get written in and be made official.

nah, just because the judge was a bit lazy that shouldn't have an impact. WCA shouldn't be that strict. When you know you're judging all 5 solves it's not that bad to just sign all 5, though I personally would sign all 5 in a row after the whole thing, but well

people seem to not realise that the competitior should have sgnd the score card too after he finished the solve

really? I always though you'd only need to sign the score card if it is +2 or DNF. But well I haevn't been to a comp in nearly a year, so maybe it changed.

even more: try to do 5tps while improvising an optimal solution (which is usually not fingertrick-friendly) including an execution mistake (which usually leaves you staring at the cube for at least half a second) and saying "OHAI, I'MA SOLVE A DIFFERENT SIDE NOW" (it also takes time to decide if it's worth it, if he did that decision) - speedsolving ain't free jazz, to quote corny.

Exactly!!!

If as stated by one of the Mexican cubers that the judge seems totally legit it might've been a prepared solve. He saw his cube and score-card lying somewhere so he just took his cube scrambled it a certain way and then did his execution!

 

[Stefan]

Grezgorz Prusak didn't.

I assume you mean this?
"Immediately after his solve he informed the WCA delegate about the irregularity."
I don't see how that has anything to do with getting "the doubt" (or "the benefit of the doubt", unless you're from Belgium, apparently).

 

[Arsonist]

I assume you mean this?
"Immediately after his solve he informed the WCA delegate about the irregularity."
I don't see how that has anything to do with getting "the doubt" (or "the benefit of the doubt", unless you're from Belgium, apparently).

Hmm right. I didn't remember he went directly to the delegate.
They both reacted well and quickly, and left no place to doubt.

In Telesforo's case, neither him nor the delegate reacted to this WTF time, which could very, very probably result from a misscramble (A fortiori when nobody, including Telesforo, is able to find his solution.), and now that's a very doubtful situation that leaves the board in deep sh**. My applauses to the competitor and the delegate :|

 

[Tyson]

I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.

Reading. Oh, so much reading.

 

[Sebastien]

I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.

I followed this topic since it popped up and my conclusion of useful content is exactly this:

That bit being maybe 5-7 posts.

 

[IamWEB]

A summary of all of the more useful posts in this thread could be compiled, assuming it the entire thing hasn't been read by at least a handful of WCA heads. Since I suggested it, maybe I should do it...

About posting potential solutions: Maybe the actual solution should be kept private, on the off chance that he might claim one of the solutions someone else found match his alleged solution in his solve.

 

[pipkiksass]

~10 tps? Bearing in mind Faz's 5.66 full-step was 52 moves = 9.1873 TPS and Mats 5.55 OLL skip was 49 moves (8.81). This would mean he was turning faster than either the current or previous WR pace for F2L, followed by a sub-1 J perm.

I don't think this can be the solution he used, if (and it's a big IF) this is legit.

 

[CubeRoots]

Okay how about if we challenged him to redo his solve... even with a month of prep and dosens of attempts i suspect he won't get a sub 4.5

 

[IamWEB]

Compilation

"4.41"
Perry Open

Post-solve video:

The solve following the alleged 4.41:

"He says that he had a triple X Cross, easy 4th F2L pair, OLL skip and an easy J perm."

From the Facebook page:
Joan Galindo:
Look this was the scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2

Translated posts. Original content removed for space:

From the mexican forum:

The delegate:
I have already sent the results, I have no comments on Martín's solve, this is already on the WCA board's hands


The competitor:
I erased the previous post because it could have been taken the wrong way, in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second. The prereconstruction (POSSIBLE) of the first moves is this D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL although it is just an aproximation, I'm still working on the real reconstruction but this is what I've got so far. My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct.

"I'm running J-perm (in 4 positions on each of U and D), plus the scramble, on Cube Explorer. A short solution would mean that, once the scramble is applied, there is a short way to solve the cube into a J perm. There are no solutions on any of the 8 scrambles shorter than 17 moves, though. So this guy would have to be "improvising" at least 17 moves, plus a J-perm, in that time. I'm not sure he's capable of that, no matter the luck, if he didn't know the scramble beforehand.

EDIT: For example, one of the solutions was D' R U B2 R L F' U2 L D' F2 D B' L' D2 U' F2 (17f*), so we can solve the scramble F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 with x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm].

Doing the 8 positions with the other J isn't giving me any solves under 17 moves either. " -qqwref

The average shouldn't even count anyway because of the score card.

View attachment 2873

The judge signed all of the times before they even happened. At most of the competitions I've been to its okay if the competitor does this but if the judge does it there can be some really bad things.

While it was brought up earlier that the image doesn't prove the judge signed the card before the 4.41, it does show that the competitor went on to complete his second solve with the required signature for the first solve.

"This judge was not following the proper procedure which calls the validity of the times into question." - Kirjava

"-Who Judged the WR-solve?
-Did anyone else saw the solve?
-Who Scrambled the Cube?
-Who printed the Scrambles?" -kko14

"Answering the kko14 questions...
1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating
2)Yes, theres 2 or 3 cubers claiming that they saw the solution and swearing what Martin Telésforo has said.
3)I don't know that, but Ernesto checked the scramble
4)Our delegate, Uriel Gayosso Ruiz" -jonathan90

There was no video of the solve, since obviously nobody expected him to beat the record. But it's obviously very suspicious for someone who got a 17 second average his last competition to suddenly get a 4 second time in competition. I think the two most likely possibilities are:
1) He somehow got an extremely easy misscramble, and got a ludicrously low movecount. In this case I would expect the same result as Grzegorz Prusak's Square-1 WR single - the result should be disqualified, hopefully with the cooperation of the cuber.
2) He received a setup scramble that he had already memorized a fast solution to, perhaps because he has a friend at the scrambling table. In this case I would expect some kind of punishment after the matter is investigated.

"It seems everything was done right, the scramble was well-made, but the competitor has some antecedents of lies and fake solves on the mexican forum, unofficial solves but still..." -Derads

"I've tried to talk to some of the people at the competition but they just either don't tell anything or they just say that the solve happened and claim it to be a WR while not seeing the solve themselves.
More regulation of procedures for solving might be needed so that things like this don't happen again." -mitch1234

 

[uyneb2000]

I would like to point out that if you do the "reconstruction" Martin provides, D' L' R' U' D U2 B2 U' L' U L U' D' L' U' B L, the closest you will get is when you do this with yellow on top and blue on front, and even there, there are 3 of the cross pieces solved, but no F2L pairs solved. I think he's just b*******ing us with reconstructions that won't work. Or when he claims he will reconstruct it and gives us this crappy, inaccurate reconstruction, I doubt he will actually give us one. If he does, I expect the provided portion to be in it, or I am sure he faked it.

 

[Ninja Storm]

Good idea, and it could work to see if they have actually solved it or not. However, you wouldn't be able to see if the cube was correctly scrambled before the solve began.

I've also remembered this, which could be useful to the people attempting reconstructions. His cube, which does not have a white side, must have been scrambled with Yellow on U and Green on F.

While these are the regulations, they're not always followed. At competitions I've been to I've seen scramblers simply pick up the cube in any orientation and start scrambling.

 

[TimMc]

it could of been 14.41 and they decided to get 4.41 on the timer or something

A judge was once writing down a 9 second solve for a competitor that averages just under 30 seconds. I was ghosting the new judge and had to correct the scorecard with a time of 29.xx seconds. The judge read the time off the malfunctioning tournament display instead of the timer.


I don't think that the tournament display malfunctioned for the 4.41 second solve though. It seems unlikely that both the front and rear LED's would have issues for one solve and then start working again for the rest of the competition...

TL;DR: Don't record a time based on the tournament display!

Tim.

While these are the regulations, they're not always followed. At competitions I've been to I've seen scramblers simply pick up the cube in any orientation and start scrambling.

Tell the delegate immediately so that they can get on top of the issue and resolve it straight away.

It's difficult for one delegate to monitor everything that's going on.

Tim.

 

[ErikJ]

Something like this could have happened

 

[Daniel Wu]

I can see how a judge can mistake a ~6 second solve for a 5 second solve, but mistaking a solve that was more than likely 8+ seconds for a 4.41... That probably should have been obvious.

 

[jayefbe]

Not necesarry, but an option. I personally think the current timers success rate is fine, but I have already seen a few posts stating otherwise. And I meant mostly for when you get things like a malfunction of the timer.

And just a side note, but I don't know if you noticed this video on the last page, but I, for one, completely looked over the cheating in this video, as did the judge, so maybe missing a cheating competitor isn't always obvious.

How often are there timer malfunctions? On a timer that is in good working condition? 1 in 5000? 1 in 10,000? I just went to a comp with a full day of solving, as far as I could tell there were no timer malfunctions. I have a timer that hasn't had any malfunctions after a few thousand solves. Not that my experience with a single timer really means anything, but I haven't noticed any issues. Any timer method is going to have some sort of failure rate, the question is whether it is acceptable or not. I believe it is, and would hazard a guess that most timer issues are isolated to defective timers, rather than an issue inherent to speedstacks. Perhaps most problematic, changing timing methods immediately starts a debate on whether new WRs are legitimate, and if records should be kept for the "old" and "new" timing methods.

As for when a timer malfunction occurs, there already is a method in place. A backup scramble is used and the solve is re-done. Any other timer method being used for an official time is problematic because it removes the consistency that is absolutely essential to ensure that solves are compared on a level field. Everyone knows that an official solve was performed using a legal cube, with 15 seconds inspection time, and using a speedstacks timer. Change any of those variables and you lose that consistency, and the ability to accurately compare solves between competitors/competitions.

As for cheating, I believe an observant judge that is paying close attention should have caught that. It was done in a clever way, and was carefully concealed, but that is exactly why a judge is there. Stopping the timer early, whether intentionally or accidentally, is something a judge is specifically supposed to watch out for. Not to mention that any timer method is going to have it's issues when it comes to cheating.

I have no problem with the judge keeping the timer running in order to make sure there are no timer malfunctions. In fact, it's probably a good idea. The judge's timer should absolutely not be used to provide an official time.

 

[5BLD]

I think its something more fishy than just a timer malfunction. The whole video in itself looks suspicious, especially the way the crowd is cheering and stuff. Maybe it's different over there, who knows. Certainly his comments in spanish which I read earlier seemed so vague yet so long winded. On top of the fact we seem to be hearing little from the actual people involved in said comp...

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

He didn't really get the World Record. He was practicing with the time. It would show up on the WCA profile. It hasn't yet so it is unoffical, if he would have got the wr it would be updated on the wca page shortly after.

None of the results from the competition have been uploaded yet. If it was a WR you have to wait for the competition results to go up, this can sometimes take over a week. Just because it isn't there yet doesn't mean anything.

 

[TimMc]

Here's one way of getting a fast solve:

1. You put your scrambled (prepared) cube on your scorecard and put both the cube and scorecard in a cube cover.
2. A judge picks up the cube cover and confirms that the cube looks scrambled.
3. The judge takes the cube to the competitor station and calls out your name.
4. You sit down and inspect the puzzle to make sure that the judge didn't accidentally cause a face to turn.
5. Your orient the cube and start the memorised solve.

Are stricter regulations required to ensure that scrambling procedures can't be interfered with? I.e. Get the judge to verify the scramble against the scramble sheet when picking up a cube? Keep the cube covers stacked until all cubes are on scorecards? Get judges to pick up scrambled cubes from one side of the table and put them down on another (out of the cover) so that it's obvious to the scramblers whether a cube has been scrambled by them?

It's slightly easier to get away with this now that cube covers are required. And especially if everyone is rushing.

If the scrambler can't be named then they may have been rushed...

What scrambling procedures were used?

Tim.

 

[Fili]

I don't know if I want this to be confirmed by WCA or not... Maaaaaan what a day to be a mexican

 

[qqwref]

Here's one way of getting a fast solve: [snip]

I believe Shane Rowland did some kind of variation of this. He got a 13.61 which was DNF'd after the results were already up.

Are stricter regulations required to ensure that scrambling procedures can't be interfered with? I.e. Get the judge to verify the scramble against the scramble sheet when picking up a cube? Keep the cube covers stacked until all cubes are on scorecards? Get judges to pick up scrambled cubes from one side of the table and put them down on another (out of the cover) so that it's obvious to the scramblers whether a cube has been scrambled by them?

These are all good ideas but they should be questions of organization rather than regulation - the WCA should not mandate something specific, but rather the organizers should decide how they want to set up the scrambling table, and should have it set up to prevent this kind of thing. Personally, as a scrambler, I would always check that any cubes put on the table (by either a competitor or a returning judge) were solved, and if any cubes weren't solved I'd either ask the person to solve them or start doing it myself.

I don't know if I want this to be confirmed by WCA or not... Maaaaaan what a day to be a mexican

Trust me, you don't want it.