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

[Bh13]

I'm not saying he should be disqualified because he got lucky, I'm just saying that if I were him, I would just not count the time as official, just to save every body the trouble of having to decide wether or not it was legal or not. If he did that, it would be a lot easier to accept his time as a real solve that was simply unofficial instead of having to decide wether or not it was a real official solve that was a WR. This would also be (in my opinion) more honorable than having the WR. But who doesn't want a world record? Probably it won't happen. It was just a thought

 

[JF1zl3]

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.

Huh, you're right, it skips e. That would be a helpful thing to have in there though haha.

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/

I have tried it, I use it for the competitions I run on this forum. For some reason I got it in my head that everyone gets there own set of scrambles printed off that are each unique, I always thought that must be a big hassle, but apparently not since it is not that case.

In any case, this is all very off topic.

 

[Ton]

Has it not already been proven that he will not be able to reproduce a viable solve from the supposed scramble through the research done by our cube explorers?

He would either have to claim a misscramble, im which case he could invent his own scramble with a solution close to what he claimed by using CE, and then say "Hey look i managed to reverse what I did and this was the scramble..."

"dey scramble wrong wr plz fank yu"

Or..

He could turn around and say "Ahh thanks Laurence, yeah this is what I did... I just did it bare fast for some reason... my hands like went into hyperdrive it was weird... but yeah.. thats what I did.. right there... WR plz"

Agree, this is the part that bugs me also, I was able to reproduce my 11.21 PB the next day , took me 15 min or so as there where a few options when I solve that specific state
All I need to reproduce my own solves is
1) the correct scramble
2) how I solved the cross together with the first F2L pair
I use the end PLL as confirmation, from this I am pretty sure I can reconstruct my own solve even if it is the next day.

What does a cuber need as information in general to reproduce his own solve ?

 

[Meep]

I'm not saying he should be disqualified because he got lucky, I'm just saying that if I were him, I would just not count the time as official, just to save every body the trouble of having to decide wether or not it was legal or not. If he did that, it would be a lot easier to accept his time as a real solve that was simply unofficial instead of having to decide wether or not it was a real official solve that was a WR. This would also be (in my opinion) more honorable than having the WR. But who doesn't want a world record? Probably it won't happen. It was just a thought

It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.

 

[cubecraze1]

It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.

Could you choose to DNF it?

 

[Noahaha]

It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.

I think that if you cheated/regulations weren't followed, you could certainly DNF yourself.

For example, one time I did a 2H solve instead of OH by accident. My judge didn't notice, but I told her what happened and it was a DNF.

 

[Mike Hughey]

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.

I got a response back from the WRC on this. If you look at the guidelines, there are these:
1h+) RECOMMENDATION Competitors in the same group should use the same scramble sequences. Different groups should use different scramble sequences.
1h+) RECOMMENDATION All final rounds of all events, as well as all Fewest Moves Solving rounds, should have the same scrambles for all competitors (i.e. only 1 group).

So while it's not absolutely required, it is recommended (it SHOULD be done). I guess that means that it wouldn't technically be illegal to give every competitor in a competition an entirely different set of scrambles (although it would be a bad idea, as it's against recommendations). Fortunately, that would be very inconvenient, so I doubt anyone would bother to try.

 

[uberCuber]

I got a response back from the WRC on this. If you look at the guidelines, there are these:
1h+) RECOMMENDATION Competitors in the same group should use the same scramble sequences. Different groups should use different scramble sequences.
1h+) RECOMMENDATION All final rounds of all events, as well as all Fewest Moves Solving rounds, should have the same scrambles for all competitors (i.e. only 1 group).

So while it's not absolutely required, it is recommended (it SHOULD be done). I guess that means that it wouldn't technically be illegal to give every competitor in a competition an entirely different set of scrambles (although it would be a bad idea, as it's against recommendations). Fortunately, that would be very inconvenient, so I doubt anyone would bother to try.

That's odd. Why would they change this to make it not *required*?

 

[Mike Hughey]

That's odd. Why would they change this to make it not *required*?

"Logistics at a small competition" were mentioned. Also, I can see where this keeps us from having to invalidate whole rounds just because of some minor problem with keeping scramble sequences properly separated.

I think I'm okay with it - we really should follow the guidelines as much as possible, but this prevents disasters from occurring if we don't for some reason. In any event, if anyone thinks this is a big enough deal that it should be corrected, we should probably move it to another thread and stop spamming this one. Sorry for sidetracking it even this far.

 

[Rubiksfreak]

I don't beleive it, and if the wca recognizes it I still won't. He will never be a record holder in my eyes.

 

[Faz]

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

In my head, yes

 

[qqwref]

Unless people are willing to ask around on the Mexican cube forums and/or facebook groups (and I don't even know where these are), there aren't really any more facts we can discover. We've already seen the videos - from after the solve - and discussed the scramble and what the competitor said about his solve.

 

[AvGalen]

So let's speculate about either 1 of 2 things:

1) Please find a scenario that allows him to have done a legitimate solve and get the WR
2) Please find a scenario that explains what could have happened

Or let's not speculate at all and wait for the official WCA investigation to make some announcement. I am pretty sure there will be a lot of speculation at the comps this weekend!

 

[TMOY]

I am pretty sure there will be a lot of speculation at the comps this weekend!

Seems pretty obvious. I only hope that the board members who are competing this WE won't get harassed to much by cubers who want to know.

Or this, is there any idea when we will get an official announcement?

We'll get an official announcement when the board feels ready to make an official announcement. Impossible to tell when it will happen, depends on too many things.

 

[qqwref]

1) Please find a scenario that allows him to have done a legitimate solve and get the WR

I'll be honest, at this point, I can't think of one. There are just too many moves he had to do, without any obvious solution with nice fingertricks, and he doesn't have anywhere near the tps or recognition to pull it off.


Here's what I think is going to happen, actually... the WCA will decide that Martín could not could have completed that scramble in that time, and that, if the time is accurate, there must have been some mistake which gave him the wrong scramble. Without proof that Martín cheated, they will give him the benefit of the doubt, and DNF the time (for being done with the wrong scramble, and/or mistimed) but not penalize him in any other way.

 

[JF1zl3]

What if they have no proof of a misscramble or mistime? Can they still DNF it?

 

[Rubiksfreak]

What if they have no proof of a misscramble or mistime? Can they still DNF it?

I think the wca can do whatever they want, its not like court where you have to be proven guilty.

 

[JF1zl3]

I think the wca can do whatever they want, its not like court where you have to be proven guilty.

I guess that's true. Well in this case it's a good thing then.

 

[Dene]

While the WCA is not a democracy, the people that lead the WCA are still obligated to the community upon which they rely. They cannot just do what they want.

To be honest, I can't believe people are so worked up about this; the solve is clearly illegitimate. If it isn't just a prank (and I feel things have been taken way too far for this to be a prank) then the solution is simple: put the burden of the proof on the competitor. The reason for this is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against this solve being legitimate.

The situation would then parallel very well with the case of Matyas Kuti when there was overwhelming evidence that his solves were illegitimate. If this competitor cannot provide good evidence that his solve was legitimate, just as Matyas Kuti couldn't defend his "bld" methods, then this solve should be DNFed and a penalty should be applied to the competitor. Of course the history behind the two cases is different, and as such any consequences would be different, but that is up to the WCA board to decide.

 

[Radu]

I don't know what the outcome for this case will be...probably DNF and we just wait for the motivation.
But the problem I see after this case is that it might give ideas to other competitors to do similar things in the future (e.g. "WRs"). So, Delegates...be careful and pay more attention to some competitors.