[Indian NR] Kunaal Parekh - 15.03 Square-1 Single

[kunparekh18]

Aww.

Rules are rules I guess. Just work hard next time!

Hey, you did it once, you'll do it again. Keep your chin up Keep working hard, and your honesty will be rewarded.

Yep, definitely, thanks for the encouragement

 

[uberCuber]

When is it considered "making a move"? I always thought the definition of a move is turning a side more than 45 degrees. If so, I don't think you made a move. (One might argue that doing (1,0) (-1,0) is a move, but that's not clear in the regulations - and you only get +2 for more than 45 degrees, so...)

10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).

By 10f4, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty with a (-1,0) misalignment. So (-1,0) away from solved falls into the category "no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state." So (1,0) is not a move, according to section 10.

I always thought this was clear, and I assumed it was intentional because it is so difficult to even notice a (1,0) or a (0,1) being done in inspection. In this solve, neither Kunaal himself or his judge noticed that the face was turned during inspection. Since square-1's often reach the table not perfectly aligned, doing a (1,0) away from the intended scramble could be as little as turning 15 degrees. This isn't nearly as noticeable as 45+ degrees, and I wouldn't imagine a judge calling someone out for an accidental 15-degree turn of a face.

 

[kunparekh18]

I didn't notice I did the move, I was too excited. I bet even the judge didnt. After watching the video, I found I'd done a turn.

The misalignment was halfway through a corner

 

[Bhargav777]

 

[kcl]

10e2) If no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty.
10e3) If one move is required, the puzzle is be considered solved with a time penalty (+2 seconds).

By 10f4, the puzzle is considered solved without penalty with a (-1,0) misalignment. So (-1,0) away from solved falls into the category "no further moves are required to bring the puzzle to its solved state." So (1,0) is not a move, according to section 10.

I always thought this was clear, and I assumed it was intentional because it is so difficult to even notice a (1,0) or a (0,1) being done in inspection. In this solve, neither Kunaal himself or his judge noticed that the face was turned during inspection. Since square-1's often reach the table not perfectly aligned, doing a (1,0) away from the intended scramble could be as little as turning 15 degrees. This isn't nearly as noticeable as 45+ degrees, and I wouldn't imagine a judge calling someone out for an accidental 15-degree turn of a face.

I agree with this. Square 1's turn so easily that it's almost hard not to make a move simply picking up the puzzle. This is practically like saying it's a +2 for correcting a slight misalignment on 3x3.

 

[Tim Major]

I noticed it the first time I watched this yesterday. I was going to comment but two things were clear;
-the turn actually lengthened your solution, as the first turm was the opposite.
-accidental

However, a corner is much less than 60 degrees. You yourself said you turned it 30 degrees, over half a turn = a turn. If this was the end of a solve it'd have to be plus 2. If you have U left to solve a 3x3 and you do U2, just because it's obviously accidental, and INCREASES your solution, doesn't mean it isn't +2.

I honestly think the board made the right decision, so as to not set a precedent for moves before solves being allowed.

Whilst this is my viewpoint, I obviously feel sorry for you, it wasn't intentional or advantageous to make that move, good luck getting this NR again.

 

[ilikecubing]

I'm taking nothing away from Kunaal, the solve was pure brilliance.

But What would be the case if there was no video, I guess the solve would have stayed and it would have been an NR. Not only this solve, but there must be so many solves in which minute moves go unnoticed by judges. Unfortunately, Such carelessness in inexperienced judges is common. I think the regulations in relation to judging should be made more rigid than what they are now. If this solve wouldn't have been an NR, then it wouldn't even have come in front of the community.
Before a comp starts, all Judges should know that they have to make sure that the competitor is making no move to the puzzle. It is the judge who gets the best view of the competitor picking up and inspecting the puzzle. Maybe its time some important changes are made in respect to a judge's qualification to be able to judge in an official competition.

I have had several bad experiences with judges,some judges would just come to the table and say 'start' and instantly pick up the cover. It feels so disgusting and makes the competitor uncomfortable before the solve. I have to immediately ask them to keep the cover down and tell them to ask if I'm ready, it just disrupts my concentration. All judges should know that first, they are to ask the competitor if he/she is ready.
I would estimate that about 2-3% of the people who have ever judged me in a comp were unaware of the judging guidelines. Which is quite a lot.

Really, its time that set standards are brought into action specifically for judging

 

[LucidCuber]

Really, its time that set standards are brought into action specifically for judging

I made a thread about problems I see with judging, although I was focused on deliberate cheating rather than inexperience and mistakes. On the one hand I understand the need for trustworthines and faith in judges, but on the other hand I think as speedcubing progresses we should move towards more professional standards. Of course we can't be as stringent as a Olympic event, but I think improvements in the judging procedure would raise confidence of non cubers as to the legitimacy of our records.

 

[kunparekh18]

I noticed it the first time I watched this yesterday. I was going to comment but two things were clear;
-the turn actually lengthened your solution, as the first turm was the opposite.
-accidental

However, a corner is much less than 60 degrees. You yourself said you turned it 30 degrees, over half a turn = a turn. If this was the end of a solve it'd have to be plus 2. If you have U left to solve a 3x3 and you do U2, just because it's obviously accidental, and INCREASES your solution, doesn't mean it isn't +2.

I honestly think the board made the right decision, so as to not set a precedent for moves before solves being allowed.

Whilst this is my viewpoint, I obviously feel sorry for you, it wasn't intentional or advantageous to make that move, good luck getting this NR again.

Wait, I don't get you, a corner piece is 60 degrees, I turned the cube by 30 degrees, basically making it a (1,0) turn. However, a (1,0) turn at the end of the solve isn't +2 (regulations say it is 45 degrees for square-1)

 

[mDiPalma]

It really infuriates me when solves are retroactively disqualified on the grounds of PRIVATE video evidence.

In this age of CGI and video-editing it is not impossible for me to go to a competition, get my friend to sign off on a fake 5.23 WR solve, go home, get the scramble for my "solve", figure out a great CFOP-esque solution, generate an accurate computer graphic of myself at the competition venue "doing the 5.23 WR solve", and post it to the forums.

Of course then, the WCA would be unable to disqualify the attempt on ANY grounds whatsoever. They have, in fact, video evidence that the solve did occur correctly, and I would sit on my 3x3 WR until Porkynator pulls a 25 move speedsolve out of thin air.

Disqualifying solves as a result of privately produced video evidence is likely a sin against God. It's a disgusting, petty peccancy done via the cover of e-mail because the accusers don't have the nerve to make such an egregious accusation in the midst of the accused. If you can't openly disqualify a solve at the competition immediately after the attempt, then you shouldn't do so at all!

The disqualification should be done AT THE COMPETITION BY THE GODFORSAKEN JUDGE THAT VOLUNTEERED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. The concept of retroactively disqualifying solves on the basis of some private video evidence is liable to be corrupted by the fact that you're watching a horribly-pixelated, shaky, partially-zoomed, two-dimensional representation (with glare, heat, and depth inaccuracies) of an obscure diagonal-angle view of the attempt.

If you want to do that, then live the remainder of your contemptible existence in the same crass fashion. Answer test questions with knowledge garnered from a troll-joke-video online. Or marry someone you've only seen in a low-quality cell-phone video from the late nineties.

If you don't see the colossal mistake in post-judging attempts that have been already legitimately officiated, then you are closeminded, obstinate, pigheaded, shortsighted blockhead with no sense for the difference between reality and fantasy.

This guy just made a legitimate Square-1 NR, and you should be ashamed of the retraction that you've made.

 

[DeeDubb]

It really infuriates me when solves are retroactively disqualified on the grounds of PRIVATE video evidence.

In this age of CGI and video-editing it is not impossible for me to go to a competition, get my friend to sign off on a fake 5.23 WR solve, go home, get the scramble for my "solve", figure out a great CFOP-esque solution, generate an accurate computer graphic of myself at the competition venue "doing the 5.23 WR solve", and post it to the forums.

Of course then, the WCA would be unable to disqualify the attempt on ANY grounds whatsoever. They have, in fact, video evidence that the solve did occur correctly, and I would sit on my 3x3 WR until Porkynator pulls a 25 move speedsolve out of thin air.

Disqualifying solves as a result of privately produced video evidence is likely a sin against God. It's a disgusting, petty peccancy done via the cover of e-mail because the accusers don't have the nerve to make such an egregious accusation in the midst of the accused. If you can't openly disqualify a solve at the competition immediately after the attempt, then you shouldn't do so at all!

The disqualification should be done AT THE COMPETITION BY THE GODFORSAKEN JUDGE THAT VOLUNTEERED TO OFFICIATE THE ATTEMPT. The concept of retroactively disqualifying solves on the basis of some private video evidence is liable to be corrupted by the fact that you're watching a horribly-pixelated, shaky, partially-zoomed, two-dimensional representation (with glare, heat, and depth inaccuracies) of an obscure diagonal-angle view of the attempt.

If you want to do that, then live the remainder of your contemptible existence in the same crass fashion. Answer test questions with knowledge garnered from a troll-joke-video online. Or marry someone you've only seen in a low-quality cell-phone video from the late nineties.

If you don't see the colossal mistake in post-judging attempts that have been already legitimately officiated, then you are closeminded, obstinate, pigheaded, shortsighted blockhead with no sense for the difference between reality and fantasy.

This guy just made a legitimate Square-1 NR, and you should be ashamed of the retraction that you've made.

Aside from a lot of the unnecessary creative language in this post, it does bring up an interesting point.

Had the record not been filmed, it would be a NR. That's a fact. Not every solve is filmed which means people who don't have filmed solves do put themselves at an advantage in cases like this. Without video, it's one judges eyes seeing it live. With video, it could be thousands watching multiple times in slow motion. It's not hard to see why the judge missed it. Most of us certainly missed this the first time watching the video.

Some sports have video replay to allow for retraction of live judges errors, however, there are strict guidelines on when and how the replay can be used. I can only think of one example in any major sport where a private video was used to penalize someone, and that was Tiger Woods getting a 2 stroke penalty for his ball moving slightly when he cleared debris around it. Had it not been Tiger Woods (just like, had it not been someone going for a national record in this video), there likely would not have been a video evidence to catch him. Tiger Woods' penalty was controversial for the same reason that this should be controversial.

I think the rules have to be examined and adjusted to interpret when and how video replay can be used to make it fair for everyone.

 

[uberCuber]

Definitely agree with the above two posts. This honestly makes me glad my official solves aren't recorded, which is kinda sad.

But I would still like to see a response to my earlier post, because even with the video I don't think is DNF anyway.

 

[kunparekh18]

Even if it were somehow argued that this solve isn't a DNF, would it be possible for the board to change the results after they're uploaded on the WCA site?

 

[newtonbase]

I have to disagree with some of the preceeding posts. I believe that if a solve is against the rules then it shouldn't stand. Just because some people would have gotten away with it doesn't make it legitimate. It is unfortunate as it is a great solve but maybe the rules need changing to allow an error like this if there is no advantage gained.

 

[ryanj92]

Even if it were somehow argued that this solve isn't a DNF, would it be possible for the board to change the results after they're uploaded on the WCA site?

I'm pretty sure it's happened before, so yeah

(Back at UKO12 one guy in the final was given +2's on every solve for bad timer stops, based on video evidence. i'm pretty sure he was warned at the time after like his 3rd solve, but i'm pretty no penalties were applied until later. also i've seen results that have been uploaded wrong (inconsequential mistypes during data entry, like 32.13 instead of 31.23) which have been since corrected by checking scorecards)

EDIT
Kunaal, have you informed the board about uberCuber's post? I think he makes a legitimate point

tbh SQ-1 is an awful puzzle for this sort of thing, even puzzles without 'reasonable wear' tend to slip around on their own, it's more a consequence of the design everyone uses than anything else... the act of putting the scrambled puzzle in a box, carrying it over to a judging station, and placing it ready for a solve probably changes the orientation from what it should be anyway

 

[kunparekh18]

I'm pretty sure it's happened before, so yeah

(Back at UKO12 one guy in the final was given +2's on every solve for bad timer stops, based on video evidence. i'm pretty sure he was warned at the time after like his 3rd solve, but i'm pretty no penalties were applied until later. also i've seen results that have been uploaded wrong (inconsequential mistypes during data entry, like 32.13 instead of 31.23) which have been since corrected by checking scorecards)

EDIT
Kunaal, have you informed the board about uberCuber's post? I think he makes a legitimate point

tbh SQ-1 is an awful puzzle for this sort of thing, even puzzles without 'reasonable wear' tend to slip around on their own, it's more a consequence of the design everyone uses than anything else... the act of putting the scrambled puzzle in a box, carrying it over to a judging station, and placing it ready for a solve probably changes the orientation from what it should be anyway

I did message them, linking to uberCuber's post, minutes after he posted. They haven't replied. I just guess they've stopped caring

His point is legit. When I told the WCA sq1s are loose, they pointed me to a regulation saying I should have provided a better puzzle. I don't think anything can be done at this point. :/

If someone can point a board member active on the forums to that post it'd be great.

 

[Petro Leum]

I agree with MdiPalma. While his logic also works the other way round, that is, someone who gets their solves recorded, would be able to get an extra attempt when a misscrambled cube is noticed that has put him at a disadvantage, while when you dont record your solves, you likely wont ever notice your cube wasnt scrambled correctly. As long as recording is not part of the regulations and the judging itself, youre kinda just getting a penalty for trying to get your solves on vid, and it doesnt pose equal circumstances for all competitors when some are judged using video evidence and some are not. of course it is hard to "ignore" mistakes made when you see them in a vid, but if you cant penalize the mistakes made that were not filmed, it is not fair towards the competitor.

TLDR; better judging or ****. we cant record every solve, so dont even start judging by vids.

EDIT: in one point i disagree with MDiPalma. While when you sign up to a competition you already techincally volunteer to scramble/judge , many do actually refuse to judge unless reminded by the delegate (I myself have been guilty of this in the past for various reasons) So generalizing "the judge who volunteered" is not quite correct

 

[qqwref]

Perhaps we should change the regulation...

A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

 

[Petro Leum]

what if i get a misaligned cube and i fix the misalignment in the inspection time in the wrong way, so the scramble is technically altered by 1 move? would i get a DNF? i couldnt have known, right? im kinda frightened now to have **** like this happen to me when i try to get my solves recorded.

 

[JackJ]

Perhaps we should change the regulation...

A3c1) The competitor must not deliberately apply moves during inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).

Oh, I don't know. How will we be able to define what deliberately is?