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

[Ton]

I don't think there is any doubt that he cannot have done what he claims he has done. It doesn't even matter if he used 17 moves for triple X-Cross or 17+3 moves for F2L. With his turning speed, level, description of all the pickup, dropdown, turns, rotations, decisions, undoing, etc that he had to make there is no way he could do 17 or 20 moves in 3.41 seconds.

Let's stop obsessing about this part (what he claims has happened) and move on to the next part (what DID in fact happen).

I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .

If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early.

Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.

 

[CubeRoots]

I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .

If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early.

Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.

misscramble perhaps. Frankly I don't think that he is honest.

 

[AvGalen]

The video is from after the "solve".

Please don't refer to THE video when I actually listed 3 video's and asked if anyone could confirm that these video's were all video's of the official "solve"

If you ask me, one of those vids looks like the guy standing in front of the table is organising the fake reaction... and then he is the first to start clapping and cheering (all of a sudden without even looking at the table/timer), and then everyone else follows.

Looks to me like a "Ok guys, lets all start cheering and stuff now just for the camera", cept someone uploaded a video without the initiation cut out

JMO

It looks EXACTLY like that to me. It also doesn't look like it is at the same time/place as the first

Then i must have read this wrong
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42174-4-41&p=857323&viewfull=1#post857323

He has been extremely inconsistent about describing his solve. The only consistent part seems to be "OLL skip" + J-Perm. Even in that quote he doesn't directly say "17 moves", he just says something like D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL (but it is just an approximation) + R U R'. That is why I keep referring to "17/20" moves.

I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .

If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early.

Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.

Doing 20 moves in 3.41 seconds (not 4.41) is possible, but not when it involves him, so many random turns, rotations, pickuptime, thinking, etc. That is why several people gave the challenge of "do D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL + R U R' in 3.41 seconds". This example actually seems rather fingertricky to me with almost no halfturns and many LRU turns.

 

[Litz]

Please don't refer to THE video when I actually listed 3 video's and asked if anyone could confirm that these video's were all video's of the official "solve"

They're all from after the solve. The first video is from right after the solve (as in, when everyone found out about the 4.41). The second one is from the solve after that one. The last one is from the "official announcement" of the WR. In chronological order: 1 -> 3 -> 2. And yes, they're all ridiculous.

 

[AvGalen]

They're all from after the solve. The first video is from right after the solve (as in, when everyone found out about the 4.41). The second one is from the solve after that one. The last one is from the "official announcement" of the WR. In chronological order: 1 -> 3 -> 2. And yes, they're all ridiculous.

Do you assume this, or do you know this?

 

[chris410]

The issue I have with this is whether a 17 second average cuber has the ability to look ahead, inspect, and execute a solve in 4.41 seconds. Even given the solution, how many 17 second average cubers can even solve a cube that quickly? Also, as others said, how did the other faster cubers all miss this solution? If he had other sub-10 averages, I would believe this to be possible however, I think this was either a joke or something else which was taken seriously when it was not meant to be. Either way, it is highly suspect given the large discrepancy between his average and a 4.41 second time. I think a lucky solve would be a 9 second or maybe an 8 second however, 4.41 would demand a very fast TPS which, I would question at a 17 second average. Things do not add up...I hope the WCA has something in the rules or procedures to address situations like this.

I would like to see the person execute the solve itself in 4.41 seconds or even have some sub 10 second solves to back up the possibility of having such a fast solve.

 

[Litz]

Do you assume this, or do you know this?

This is just from what they say in the video and what the guy recording them says. According to this, he broke the WR (but no one recorded it) so people gathered around him to congratulate him, take pictures, etc (the first video). After that, they decided to announce it to everyone and tape a fake reaction (the third video). The other one is just from the next solve (no idea why they were cheering but probably just joking or whatever).

Sure the guy could be lying about this too, but that wouldn't even make sense as he's not claiming these are from the solve at all.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Having a degree in psychology, I have a lot of doubt about employing such a method. While there are generally ways to tell if someone is lying, a lot of views held are actually myths (such as people avoiding eye-contact being an indication of lying; this is not true). And if someone knows the facts about these things, it is very easy to manipulate one's body language to appear however one wants to portray it.

Ah, but if (hollywood) TV has taught me anything, it's that microexpressions cannot be faked! I was an avid fan of "Lie To Me" and they certainly fake said microexpressions! I actually saw this concept years before this show was aired, and I've always wanted to meet somebody well versed in said topic because I'd love to test them

Stefan: I most CERTAINLY have watched too much Lie To Me! I watched the whole series I cannot speak on Nick's behalf, though.

 

[CubeRoots]

I overlooked 1 case which can be solved in 29 moves. It is a 16 move xxxcross and no AUF on the Jperm, but it gives the 'bad' Jperm. It is F R2 B L F D2 L2 D B' D' F2 R' D2 F' R2 F2.

However, looking more closely at the sources I believe we can conclude that his last layer was in fact yellow. The result from those cases gives the lower bound as 30 still.

 

[Hays]

Even if he started on white, the solutions found in this thread, ending in R U R' and J perm, cannot be executed in 4.41 seconds. If anyone can solve that scramble with that ending in 4.5 seconds or less, I'll buy them dinner at worlds

scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2


D L' B R2 U L2 B' D' B U D2 L' D2 R U F2 y R U R' U2 Jperm

The Riviera Steak and Seafood place looks good.

But realistically there is no way he did this in 4.41 in the competition. This took me over 100 attempts, and I had perfect lookahead and execution.

 

[mark49152]

lololol. Dang it. I was gonna try doing that this morning

Did Faz say only the first to do it would get dinner?

 

[ySoSrs]

Haha, that's awesome. Would be funny if multiple people are able to do it. Although he didn't specify what the dinner would be, it could also be a cheap hamburger of course.

 

[cmhardw]

Haha, that's awesome. Would be funny if multiple people are able to do it. Although he didn't specify what the dinner would be, it could also be a cheap hamburger of course.

It was common practice a year or so ago amongst us BLD cubers to offer to buy someone a cookie at the next competition whenever they achieved some impressive feat

 

[Bh13]

In my opinion, even if he did get this lucky of a solve, he shouldn't count it as official. For example, I got a solve one time that was 8.xx seconds, but I don't count it as my personal best because it was way too lucky. A PLL or OLL or even a full LL skip would be fine with me, but if the f2l was almost entirely done already and then he got an OLL skip and a J-Perm, I would say it would be way too lucky. And also, what cuber who averages above 15 seconds would have enough look ahead to be able to solve a triple x-cross after messing up the cross on the opposite face, and then be able to finish in under five seconds? It doesn't seem at all logical to me.

 

[Ronxu]

In my opinion, even if he did get this lucky of a solve, he shouldn't count it as official. For example, I got a solve one time that was 8.xx seconds, but I don't count it as my personal best because it was way too lucky. A PLL or OLL or even a full LL skip would be fine with me, but if the f2l was almost entirely done already and then he got an OLL skip and a J-Perm, I would say it would be way too lucky. And also, what cuber who averages above 15 seconds would have enough look ahead to be able to solve a triple x-cross after messing up the cross on the opposite face, and then be able to finish in under five seconds? It doesn't seem at all logical to me.

Getting lucky is not a crime.

 

[JF1zl3]

Getting lucky is not a crime.

Agreed, However, try to see it from the perspective that perhaps a non-cuber may take.
Some non-cuber may ask "What is the fastest solve EVER?!" and in reply, if this is accepted by WCA, I would say "4.41 by this Martin guy", And then the non-cuber would be like "HOW?!" and in response to that I would say "Well half of the puzzle solved itself easily while he was doing other things to it and he got an extremely lucky finish as well."
Now I cant say 100% for sure that this is how a non-cuber would react, but I am thinking he or she would be confused and say "If it were so lucky, how is it considered the fastest? That doesn't seem right..."
I actually get from almost everyone I explain competitions to this dilemma:
Non cuber: "Does everyone get the same scramble?"
Me: "No, they are each randomly generated."
Non Cuber: 'Why? Then some scrambles will be LUCKIER than others."
Me: "Because if everyone had the same scramble word could get around and there could be cheating and etc. etc. etc. ..."
So you can see, Non-cubers do understand the concept of lucky solves, and they will not be impressed by the fact that some guy happened to be the person who got a solve in which Luck > Skill for the solve time.
However, I do not know what to do in the event of a lucky solve. (So lucky it is past the point where it should be considered acceptable, such as that Square-1 Solve earlier.) Is there some way to measure Luckiness? Maybe by the amount of pieces already solved? I personally draw the line at LL skip (LL Skip BEING too lucky), however that is only applicable to CFOPers, and it doesn't include the steps before it (getting simple F2L cases, Cross nearly solves, stuff like that.)

 

[XTowncuber]

I actually get from almost everyone I explain competitions to this dilemma:
Non cuber: "Does everyone get the same scramble?"
Me: "No, they are each randomly generated."
Non Cuber: 'Why? Then some scrambles will be LUCKIER than others."
Me: "Because if everyone had the same scramble word could get around and there could be cheating and etc. etc. etc. ..."
So you can see, Non-cubers do understand the concept of lucky solves, and they will not be impressed by the fact that some guy happened to be the person who got a solve in which Luck > Skill for the solve time.

Umm..everyone gets the same scramble at comps. Each of the 5 solves is different but everyone gets the same 5.

 

[JF1zl3]

Umm..everyone gets the same scramble at comps. Each of the 5 solves is different but everyone gets the same 5.

Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.

Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#4b

Unless I am missing something here.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.

Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#4b

Unless I am missing something here.

Interesting. It appears somehow that in our current regulations, regulation 4e got dropped. From the 2010 regulations:
4e) Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.

How did we manage to drop this? I would think it needs to go back in.

Note that in the new regulations, there's a 4d and a 4f, but no 4e.

 

[Meep]

Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.

Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#4b

Unless I am missing something here.

If you actually try out the official scrambling program, you'll see it just makes a set of scrambles for each round of an event.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/