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

[Kirjava]

complete list of checked states (sorry for the scattered posts )

Should submit all your findings to the WCA / IAC / whoever needs them

 

[CubeRoots]

Should submit all your findings to the WCA / IAC / whoever needs them

what is the relevant email address? I will do it tonight

 

[jayefbe]

Just to throw my little two cents into the fire...

Competition time =/= actual solving capabilities. It's not rare for people to get nervous during a competition. There are plenty of great cubers who suck during competition. My competition times are horrid compared to the actual times I get when I cube at home. Which is why the 18 sec. average he got a year ago argument is kind of mute to me.

Moot, not mute.

While I agree that competition times do not necessarily reflect someone's true abilities, it's a pretty darn good approximation of them. Nerves do not change a world class (or even good) cuber into an ok/intermediate cuber.

With every day that passes without any news from the WCA, without any information from the delegate or judges at the competition, I'm becoming more and more depressed about the whole situation. I understand the need to see all relevant information before making an official decision, but at least some transparency would be nice. The system set up, in which an impartial and knowledgeable observer should be present for every single solve, should be capable of determining the veracity of any solve with a single phone call. So why does it appear to be failing right now?

 

[kinch2002]

cuberoots: [email protected]

 

[AvGalen]

this is so fake its untrue, why dont he record the actual solve? but just above it?

Can anyone confirm that this was shot at the competition-location and during the competition?

 

[cc9tough]

lolwat, suboptimal xxx-crosses are far easier to figure out.

but they take more time to execute. You also need to consider that he messed up mid solve, so he had to plan AND execute in this time meaning his solution had to be very close to optimal. I think it's very unlikely that he would get lucky and just guess this solution.

 

[CubeRoots]

but they take more time to execute. You also need to consider that he messed up mid solve, so he had to plan AND execute in this time meaning his solution had to be very close to optimal. I think it's very unlikely that he would get lucky and just guess this solution.

even if he did... 6.8+ tps? i don't think so

 

[cc9tough]

even if he did... 6.8+ tps? i don't think so

You can also figure that there was a pause when he messed up, so his tps were (technically) much faster than that

 

[Hays]

I've been lurking on this thread this whole time and I would just like to point out something no one has really mentioned

The competitortranslated)
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 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,

and then I decided to improvise some turns

What.

So let me get this straight. After messing up doing the yellow cross, he decided to guess at 7 TPS, which gave him a white triple x cross.

First of all, the chances of happening onto a triple x cross doing some "improvised" turns is so astronomically low it would "never" happen.

Second of all, when you mess up your yellow cross, you don't start guessing, you fix the yellow cross.

Saying that you "decided to improvise some turns" in a 4.41 official solve averaging at least 7 TPS sounds like a pathetic way to cover up the fact that these improvised turns were either pre-planned, or didn't happen because of a set up an easy scramble.

Of course I have no actual evidence that this didn't happen. But you don't "improvise" in a 4.41 solve.

 

[AvGalen]

3 video's:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XvQKgd-8KRA
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5XGfYydlovg
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UPDPZRZtYo

7 questions:
a) Can anyone explain why everyone was around him?
b) Can anyone explain why there were so many people videotaping him, but there is no material from the actual solve?
c) Can anyone identify the man in the orange shirt that seems to have the perfect angle for recording the actual solve?
d) Can anyone actually confirm that video 1 and 3 are shot during the competition and are recordings of the timeframe of the alleged 4.41 solve?
e) Who/where was the judge?
f) Who/where was the delegate?
g) Who/where was the organisor?

 

[Noahaha]

I thought that all the videos were from immediately after the solve. Do any of them claim to be from during the solve?

 

[TMOY]

Let's examine his claim a bit more closely. He says he was trying to solve cross on white, that is the four white edges, not caring about the rest of the cube. And then he messes up, changes his mind, does a few moves, and all of a sudden, he' gets a triple x-cross on yellow, which means that he has been able to solve in a very short time and without inspection 10 of the 16 pieces he didn't care about the second before.

Yes, I know it's mathematically possible. But I don't believe in such miracles, sorry.

 

[Ton]

Yes, but watching this guy solve, does he look like a top 100 speedcuber who turns twice as fast as you?

No....but from the little information of only one video I can not make any conclusions, sure it remains hard to believe. I can only speculate what happened and I do not like to speculate about people without consulting and hear from Martin himself.
I trust the judgement of the WCA in such events, they have a good trace record in their decisions in these kinds of matters.
They will for sure check with Martin first, which I find the most important first step.

 

[CubeRoots]

important question.

was the last layer of the solve the same colour as the U layer when it was scrambled, was it the opposite colour, or do we not know?

If you answer, how do you know this?

 

[AvGalen]

Everyone that has made reconstructions: thank you for helping out.
Everyone that has *****ed about the WCA not announcing/doing anything: Tim has already posted several times that they are working on it. So why don't you help them a bit by answering some of the questions that are still out there. I summarized a few that I have myself and there isn't much response to that

Also, it is clear that many rules were not followed during this competition. I have lots of experience and know that sometimes it is just impossible to follow all the rules and you have to just do the best you can. But can anyone tell me if this is how other South-American tournaments were as well? I have been everywhere else in the world but not there, so I would honestly like to know

 

[JF1zl3]

Wouldn't alot of solves be DNF'd if that were the proper punishment for this frequent regulation violation?

 

[jayefbe]

Everyone that has made reconstructions: thank you for helping out.
Everyone that has *****ed about the WCA not announcing/doing anything: Tim has already posted several times that they are working on it. So why don't you help them a bit by answering some of the questions that are still out there. I summarized a few that I have myself and there isn't much response to that

I just briefly went through this whole thread, and I only found one post from Tim and no other official statements from the WCA. If they are posting elsewhere, I would like to know.

I do not envy the position they are in right now. Not at all. I respect the WCA, and what they do for the cubing community. It's pretty amazing how they've built a worldwide organization that has become the face of cubing, all within the last ten years. I know they are working hard to uncover the truth of this situation.

However, I do believe that a little more transparency would be beneficial. Without official word from the WCA, the door has been opened for rampant speculation. We're left analyzing random footage, miscellaneous photographs, and second and third-hand quotes. While I do believe that analyzing the scramble/solve is important work towards determining the legitimacy of the solve, it's quite easy to argue against it. All one needs to say is there was a mis-scramble, or the cuber "misremembered" the solve. While these analyses could help support the results if a solve that matched the description was found, the inability to find a solve that matches the description does little to prove it was faked.

Unfortunately, the only real evidence to support either side is going to come from eyewitness accounts. Which is exactly what we don't have. Presumably, the WCA should have this information. I understand wanting to gain every ounce of information before making a ruling on this solve, but a little more information about what is being done, and what information the WCA is gathering could help to at least reduce the speculation.

As for helping to answer some of the questions that are still out there, I would love to help out. However, without first hand accounts, any answers would be pure speculation.

 

[wontolla]

But can anyone tell me if this is how other South-American tournaments were as well? I have been everywhere else in the world but not there, so I would honestly like to know

I am from the country in question, and I've been to one of its competitions and also one in the UK. The difference on how they are held is abismal.
In this country (sorry, my fingers refuse to write the name), it is the norm to do things like signing the 5 solves before the actual solves. Or keeping off 2 meters from the competitor's table.
Unfortunatelly, here, "follow the rules" is the exception, not the rule.

 

[TimMc]

it is the norm to do things like signing the 5 solves before the actual solves. Or keeping off 2 meters from the competitor's table.
Unfortunatelly, here, "follow the rules" is the exception, not the rule.

I'm sure that the organisers and delegate(s) are doing their best there. If they need any help or if their community feels that something needs to change then they need to reach out and speak up. This could be done openly through a forum or in confidence by e-mail etc.

Tim.

 

[Michael45764]

I've been lurking on this thread this whole time and I would just like to point out something no one has really mentioned







What.

So let me get this straight. After messing up doing the yellow cross, he decided to guess at 7 TPS, which gave him a white triple x cross.

First of all, the chances of happening onto a triple x cross doing some "improvised" turns is so astronomically low it would "never" happen.

Second of all, when you mess up your yellow cross, you don't start guessing, you fix the yellow cross.

Saying that you "decided to improvise some turns" in a 4.41 official solve averaging at least 7 TPS sounds like a pathetic way to cover up the fact that these improvised turns were either pre-planned, or didn't happen because of a set up an easy scramble.

Of course I have no actual evidence that this didn't happen. But you don't "improvise" in a 4.41 solve.

I read the spanish version of what he said and it isn't 100% clear so don't trust the translation to translate what he meant to say.

In spanish he said: "en mi resolución me equivoque a la hora de ejecutar y después decidí improvisar algunos giros, me percate que dos pares del f2l estaban resueltos"

Which seems to me that he means that when it was time to solve he decided to go with the white cross rather than his original plan because he saw 2 f2l's already solved.

The initial moves with the white cross were then not "pre-planned" (therefore "improvised"). By chance he saw that a third f2l was solved and the third was done with R U' R'.