What is considered a "skip"?

mark49152 said:
Also, sometimes I think our use of the word "skip" is a misnomer. If you arrive at the PLL stage and fortuitously find the cube solved, that's a real skip. If you choose to do OLS, are you "skipping" OLL? No, you are combining it with last slot, but still doing work to solve it. Calling that an OLL "skip" seems wrong to me. Same goes for saying ZBLL forces PLL skip - it doesn't, it's just an alternative route that doesn't require PLL.
Click to expand...
I agree, though I don't think anyone really says ZBLL is skipping PLL. Which I think is interesting, because it is very common for people to say WV/OLS is skipping OLL.
 
Bindedsa said:
I agree, though I don't think anyone really says ZBLL is skipping PLL. Which I think is interesting, because it is very common for people to say WV/OLS is skipping OLL.
Click to expand...
Yes that's my point, there are other step combinations where we generally don't refer to forced skips. I should have said "same would go" because I don't recall anyone saying that about ZBLL either. Another example would be saying that switching from 2-look to 1-look OLL forces OCLL skip.
 
Why are people insistant on definitions of 'luck'? Have we not grown beyond this yet?

What's wrong with just describing what happened in the solve instead of worrying about if it was 'lucky' or not?
 
Kirjava said:
What's wrong with just describing what happened in the solve instead of worrying about if it was 'lucky' or not?
Click to expand...
People like to have criteria to determine whether a single PB represents their best ever full solve, or whether it was only fast because it was unrepresentatively "lucky". A description can't serve as a criterion.
I don't think this is about defining "luck", it's about defining criteria that make more sense than "luck".

Incidentally, I had my fastest ever solve today, but it was a PLL skip so I don't care.
 
I disagree with seperating singles with non lucky singles. Any single that you get is probably a "lucky" solve, because there was most likely some kind of situation in the solve that was easier to perform than other solves, whether is was a skip or just really easy F2L or something. Singles don't really determine skill, they kind've do and definitely do for big cubes, but the most accurate way of finding what you average is to do a big average such as 100, or 1000.
 
mark49152 said:
People like to have criteria to determine whether a single PB represents their best ever full solve, or whether it was only fast because it was unrepresentatively "lucky". A description can't serve as a criterion.
I don't think this is about defining "luck", it's about defining criteria that make more sense than "luck".

Incidentally, I had my fastest ever solve today, but it was a PLL skip so I don't care.
Click to expand...

Why don't you care? If I get a sune then a U perm or a comparably fast LL, that would be faster than most of my OLLs alone, even more so because in the case I would use a quick 2GLL. I'm pretty sure my PB Fullstep single is a 8.66, in which I had the OLL that makes up the first part of a Y perm than the easy J perm, which is only .33 slower than my PB which was a LL skip. F2L takes up most of my solves and can vary even greater than LL, if you get a 3 move insert is that not a skip? far mare than half each of my F2L pairs is setting up the 3 move insert. Singles mean little and I am much more excited about an average of 100, but there is no reason to ignore a non-fullstep single.
 
Last edited:
mark49152 said:
People like to have criteria to determine whether a single PB represents their best ever full solve, or whether it was only fast because it was unrepresentatively "lucky"
Click to expand...

Those people should realise that your fastest ever solve is going to be easy regardless.

Filtering solves with skips isn't a way to only keep 'worthy' solves. I don't think you'll find good criteria and should stop looking.
 
Bindedsa said:
Why don't you care? ... there is no reason to ignore a non-fullstep single.
Click to expand...
It depends what you care about, and different people care about different things, as is evident from this thread. Personally, I care about how fast I can get. A full-step single PB is one fun indicator of the current threshold of my ability. Yes there was probably some luck in there, like an easy cross or a U-perm, but luck is a continuum. With even more luck I could have skipped half the steps and come in at under half my average, but at that extreme, the result tells me more about my luck than about my performance. So I choose to draw a line somewhere on the continuum of luck, and "full step" seems to be a reasonable point at which to draw it. Others may choose a different line, or no line at all.

Kirjava said:
Filtering solves with skips isn't a way to only keep 'worthy' solves.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "worthy"? The question isn't whether the solve is legal, it is whether the result is a worthy indicator of performance (as opposed to outcome of the solve). The best and worst removed from an ao5 are also worthy solves, but we filter them so that the ao5 is a better indicator of performance. What is the difference?

Of course, (large) averages are what matters, singles are fun but close to meaningless, and full-step singles are only slightly less meaningless, in my opinion :D.
 
mark49152 said:
What do you mean by "worthy"? The question isn't whether the solve is legal, it is whether the result is a worthy indicator of performance (as opposed to outcome of the solve). The best and worst removed from an ao5 are also worthy solves, but we filter them so that the ao5 is a better indicator of performance. What is the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is that the average is using time, the actual result as an indicator of whether or not a solve is an anomaly, while you are only using one of many causes of anomalies. Trying to make singles less meaningless, is like trying to make feces smell better, sure there are ways to do it, but it's still going to be a long way from roses.
 
Bindedsa said:
The difference is that the average is using time, the actual result as an indicator of whether or not a solve is an anomaly, while you are only using one of many causes of anomalies.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing. You are filtering solves on the basis that they might cause the result to be skewed by good (or bad) luck.

Bindedsa said:
Trying to make singles less meaningless, is like trying to make feces smell better, sure there are ways to do it, but it's still going to be a long way from roses.
Click to expand...
Sure singles are meaningless, but people still like to get a single PB, and still like to ask the question whether their PB is really an achievement or just a fluke. Filtering may be arbitrary, but it satisfies a need, for those who care.
 
mark49152 said:
It's the same thing. You are filtering solves on the basis that they might cause the result to be skewed by good (or bad) luck.
Click to expand...

I just said the difference is the criteria of filtering. Also, we filter averages to make them more accurate, but filtering PB singles is filtering anomalies to find a more accurate anomaly...
 
Bindedsa said:
I just said the difference is the criteria of filtering.
Click to expand...
Obviously.

Bindedsa said:
Also, we filter averages to make them more accurate
Click to expand...
How does filtering make an average more "accurate"? What does accuracy mean here? Was there something inaccurate about the solves that were filtered out?

Bindedsa said:
but filtering PB singles is filtering anomalies to find a more accurate anomaly...
Click to expand...
You've lost me now.

These two examples are really just the same concept - filtering solves to try to mitigate the extremes of luck and make the result a better indicator of performance. Yes the criteria are different, but in both cases they are somewhat arbitrary. I could make a case that filtering non-full-step singles is less arbitrary than filtering times from averages - the best solve deleted from your ao5 might not have been lucky at all, and could have just been an awesome solve.
 
Your PB by definition is not a good indication of performance, whether you decide to filter according to a very grey line or not. Stop trying to define "lucky" and "not lucky" and just state the facts of the solve
 
Say I get an H COLL( F (RUR'U')*3 F' ). I also realise that the edges are permuted correctly. Knowing that the edges don't move when doing the algorithm, is it skill because I knew I would skip EPLL, or is it luck because I got that specific case? I would have used COLL anyway, I just realized beforehand that I'd skip EPLL. It wouldn't be forcing though...
 
Nilsibert said:
Say I get an H COLL( F (RUR'U')*3 F' ). I also realise that the edges are permuted correctly. Knowing that the edges don't move when doing the algorithm, is it skill because I knew I would skip EPLL, or is it luck because I got that specific case? I would have used COLL anyway, I just realized beforehand that I'd skip EPLL. It wouldn't be forcing though...
Click to expand...
I'd call it a predicted skip. It's still lucky, you just knew it was lucky.
Alternatively, if you knew multiple algs for the same COLL case, I might call it ZBLL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael Wimberly
What's considered a "normal" rate of progression?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5,339
iguana
iguana
C
  • Locked
Please consider some cubes from my collection
Replies
1
Views
516
chadliam
C
abunickabhi
When do we consider a speedcuber to be washed up?
2
Replies
24
Views
2,811
Clock_Enthusiast
Clock_Enthusiast
precompsubwr
WCA Regulations Committee considering allowing logos for bld solving
Replies
19
Views
4,642
Jorian Meeuse
J
White KB
Guys, I'm considering making a diss track of DG the Artist... Submit Lyric Ideas and I'll credit you!
Replies
3
Views
797
JDAW6
JDAW6
Back
Top