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

[ottozing]

Ok, you're right. Him getting an absurdly easy mis-scramble is indeed a possibility that I shouldn't have over looked. I guess I'm just kinda biased because I truly believe that he was cheating even if I can't truly prove it. I probably should change my view on this, but I can't help the way I feel.

Sorry for being rash :/

 

[TimMc]

If Martín Telesforo's solve was effectively considered as cheated, he should be bannished for life, that's all.

Let's assume that he's innocent. A sub-20 solver happens to get a sub-5 solve and break a WR. Nobody captures it on video because nobody expected the WR.

A scrambler scrambles the puzzle, a competitor solves the puzzle, a judge judges the solve and records the result, the delegate submits the result.

If you can't trust the judges to do their (usually unpaid) job then should all solves be recorded with a video camera?

What other solutions are there for verifying rare and lucky single solves? Get a delegate to watch everything and trust them (i.e. not compete)?

Tim.

 

[qqwref]

Right, cause your scrambler not scrambling properly (which is a possibility here) makes you just as guilty as those cases.

Is it really a possibility though? Do you think this guy could get a 4.41, given what he said (planned a cross, switched to cross on the opposite side, xxxcross somehow, easy fourth pair, OLL skip, J perm), on a scramble he did not already know, even if it was way way easier than the real scramble?

 

[applemobile]

I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.
Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true

 

[TDM]

Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.

Yes, but can you do a cross, then see that three F2L pairs are already done, and then find the other two pieces and then insert them in just three seconds? Even with an easy insertion, probably not at his speed. It'd be nice to see what his other results were like though, as we don't really know what he averages now - but I don't think he could've improved to a good enough speed to do this between now and his last competition. In addition, if he was fast, people would have recorded his other solves. Also, I don't think he could've done a J perm in just over 1 second, including recognition. Not only would he have paused when he saw the OLL skip, but it took him 2-3 seconds to do PLL on his next solve (which is unfortunately the only evidence we have of his speed).
Edit: Oh, and I don't not want it to be true. I just don't believe it could have happened.

 

[XTowncuber]

I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.
Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true

starts white cross and makes mistake in execution: 1.5 seconds
realizes yellow is easier and gets accidental triple X-cross: 3 seconds
solves last pair: 0.5 seconds
see OLL skip + recognize and solve J perm: 2.5 seconds
=8.5 second solve. At best. It's fake, admit it.

 

[applemobile]

starts white cross and makes mistake in execution: 1.5 seconds
it.

Justify this statement.

 

[Username]

starts white cross and makes mistake in execution: 1.5 seconds
realizes yellow is easier and gets accidental triple X-cross: 3 seconds
solves last pair: 0.5 seconds
see OLL skip + recognize and solve J perm: 2.5 seconds
=8.5 second solve. At best. It's fake, admit it.

I'de mention it again. It took him like 1.5-2 seconds to recognize a Y-perm in the solve after that. I don't believe he could be able to sub 10

 

[XTowncuber]

translation:
in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns

From the competitors own mouth.

 

[applemobile]

Yes, but can you do a cross, then see that three F2L pairs are already done, and then find the other two pieces and then insert them in just three seconds? Even with an easy insertion, probably not at his speed. It'd be nice to see what his other results were like though, as we don't really know what he averages now - but I don't think he could've improved to a good enough speed to do this between now and his last competition. In addition, if he was fast, people would have recorded his other solves. Also, I don't think he could've done a J perm in just over 1 second, including recognition. Not only would he have paused when he saw the OLL skip, but it took him 2-3 seconds to do PLL on his next solve (which is unfortunately the only evidence we have of his speed).
Edit: Oh, and I don't not want it to be true. I just don't believe it could have happened.

We have to treat this that every perfect situation could have happened. I could plan out a cross/x-cross, and already know where my first f2l pair would be. Given a lucky tripple x cross, this would pretty much mean i had planned out the whole F2L. As soon as i saw the OLL was completed, i wouldn't necessarily look around to see if the other f2l slots were correctly filled. A J perm for me is one of the easiest to recognise, and if it was suddenly staring e in the face i would just do it.
Sure, this is in a perfect scenario, with everything working in favor of the cuber, but it is not impossible as people keep stating as fact.

From the competitors own mouth.

>translation

This is the problem with your statement.

 

[XTowncuber]

Can someone who speaks Spanish verify that statement? Honestly though, I think you are grasping at straws.

 

[Litz]

>translation

This is the problem with your statement.

You do understand what a translation is right? I already posted this before, but the translation is fine. That's exactly what he said.

 

[applemobile]

Honestly though, I think you are grasping at straws.

No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done''
We could tear apart any world record if we wanted too using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread.

 

[Stefan]

Is it really a possibility though? Do you think this guy could get a 4.41, given what he said (planned a cross, switched to cross on the opposite side, xxxcross somehow, easy fourth pair, OLL skip, J perm), on a scramble he did not already know, even if it was way way easier than the real scramble?

Probably not, though I don't put too much weight on that statement ("borre la publicación debido a que se podía dar a malos entendidos [...]" from here), partly because it was posted here without link to the source and google only finds it here and in the Vietnam/Brazil/China forums, but not in the Mexican one.

 

[JF1zl3]

No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done''
We could tear apart any world record if we wanted too using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread.

Well how do you know any facts? You assume that the translation is incorrect, which is one of the few pieces of evidence we are sure is correct (Spanish translates to English quite well), yet you accept the fact that he did a xxx-cross, even though the only evidence of that resides within the translated text. You can't just pick certain things as true and others as false without reason, it's contradictory.

And I'm not sure how we could tear apart other records, seeing as how the most recent ones have been recorded, but perhaps you're right since one could claim mis-scramble.

 

[TDM]

We have to treat this that every perfect situation could have happened. Yes, I know. I could plan out a cross/x-cross, and already know where my first f2l pair would be. But with no inspection time? Given a lucky tripple x cross, this would pretty much mean i had planned out the whole F2L. Yes, but he messed up what he was doing and started again on a different side mid-solve with no time to plan anything. As soon as i saw the OLL was completed, i wouldn't necessarily look around to see if the other f2l slots were correctly filled. I know, but he'd have probably taken time at some point to see that the others were filled. A J perm for me is one of the easiest to recognise, and if it was suddenly staring me in the face i would just do it. I know it's easy to recognise, but so is a Y perm and he couldn't recognise and do that very quickly. Sure, this is in a perfect scenario, with everything working in favor of the cuber, but it is not impossible as people keep stating as fact. I'm not stating it's impossible, it's just very unlikely. Some people have practised 100 times to complete a solve at his speed, and they're faster than him most of the time (based on current evidence of his speed). The people who are doing this don't need to look ahead or recognise permutations either.

No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done'' We have evidence. It may not be evidence that he has cheated, but if the cube was scrambled correctly then there is no way he could have done the solve in 4.41 without knowing the scramble beforehand. He could have got 4.41, but only if there was a mistake in scrambling the cube, which would mean the time should be a DNF. We could tear apart any world record if we wanted to using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread. How?

I'm not saying he has cheated, I'm saying he can't have done this unless there was a mistake or he could have cheated.

 

[applemobile]

Well how do you know any facts? You assume that the translation is incorrect, which is one of the few pieces of evidence we are sure is correct (Spanish translates to English quite well), yet you accept the fact that he did a xxx-cross, even though the only evidence of that resides within the translated text. You can't just pick certain things as true and others as false without reason, it's contradictory.

And I'm not sure how we could tear apart other records, seeing as how the most recent ones have been recorded, but perhaps you're right since one could claim mis-scramble.

and where did that translated 'fact' come from?

 

[JF1zl3]

and where did that translated 'fact' come from?

That's irrelevant from what I was saying, but this furthers my point. If you yourself have suspicion of the "translated fact" then why were you making arguments involving it in Martin's favor?

 

[Litz]

and where did that translated 'fact' come from?

He posted it on the mexican forum facebook group. Here:

Since everyone seems to be questioning everything, I took a couple of screens from things he posted on the forum himself. Here:

If you also doubt this, feel free to check the forum yourself or talk to him directly.

Here's some screens of what his judge said (another forum) about the solve and the competition for whoever is interested:

There's more but I'm busy and there's tons of posts so feel free to check for yourself. If you need anything translated let me know, but most things were already translated here and like I said, they're fine.

Links to the forums for whoever is interested:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/ -> Where all of this was posted.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cuboderubikenmexico/ -> Some comments from the judge.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

He posted it on the mexican forum facebook group. Here:

img

Since everyone seems to be questioning everything, I took a couple of screens from things he posted on the forum himself. Here:

img
If you also doubt this, feel free to check the forum yourself or talk to him directly.

Here's some screens of what his judge said (another forum) about the solve and the competition for whoever is interested:

img

There's more but I'm busy and there's tons of posts so feel free to check for yourself. If you need anything translated let me know, but most things were already translated here and like I said, they're fine.

Links to the forums for whoever is interested:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/ -> Where all of this was posted.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cuboderubikenmexico/ -> Some comments from the judge.

Can someone please translate all of this, just so we have it for reference.