2-move solves

[JediJupiter]

According to the WCA rules:
4b3) Specification for the scramble program: An official scramble sequence must produce a random state from those that require at least 2 moves to solve.
Now, imagine that you're at a competition. They bring out your cube, and you see that you have a 2-move solve. You can solve it as fast as you can, or you can solve it slowly and try to take more than 5.55 seconds. What would you do? Of course, you only have 15 seconds to decide.
((If this counts as off topic, please feel free to move the thread.))

 

[Goosly]

I would solve it and try to stop the timer at 1:00.00.

 

[EMI]

I don't even get it, why should I wait five seconds?

 

[pewpewrawr]

I'd do it as fast as I could, why would I purposefully be slow? :/

 

[Ollie]

I'd DNF it.

1. It requires no skill.
2. 3x3x3 single WR loses all merit.
3. The inevitability of having to explain to people just how unimpressive my world record is, which they'd certainly agree with.

However, everyone has an equal chance of getting a similar scramble at any competition at any time, I can understand if others will try and solve it as fast as possible. They shouldn't IMO, but it's kind of inevitable that one **** will do it.

 

[10461394944000]

I'd DNF it.

i'd deliberately get a sub 0.5 WR to cause the biggest debate ever on speedsolving

 

[pewpewrawr]

I'd DNF it.

1. It requires no skill.
2. 3x3x3 single WR loses all merit.
3. The inevitability of having to explain to people just how unimpressive my world record is, which they'd certainly agree with.

However, everyone has an equal chance of getting a similar scramble at any competition at any time, I can understand if others will try and solve it as fast as possible. They shouldn't IMO, but it's kind of inevitable that one **** will do it.

You're taking things to seriously, I'd do it because 0.xx wr lol.

 

[qqwref]

Excuse me, Ollie? If a competitor gets an easy scramble in competition, and solves it as fast as possible, it's their fault that the time is too good, and we should look down on them for it?

If a scramble would be so easy as to render the event meaningless, it should not be used in competition. That's the whole point of scramble filtering, to prevent stuff like this. And this example is exactly why we need it.

 

[Tim Major]

If this was E1 or E2 and I got the scramble but no one else would, I'd get 9.80+

If this was just a normal group's scramble, I'd go as fast as I could. Other people would so the 3x3 single would lose merit without me.

 

[Ollie]

You're taking things to seriously, I'd do it because 0.xx wr lol.

Would you rather have a sub-5.50 WR that you earned honestly or a sub-1 single which was only possible as a result of sheer luck (which virtually every non-cuber is capable of doing in a similar time?)

 

[pewpewrawr]

Would you rather have a sub-5.50 WR that you earned honestly or a sub-1 single which was only possible as a result of sheer luck (which virtually every non-cuber is capable of doing in a similar time?)

Sub-1 because it would be funny.

 

[JediJupiter]

I don't even get it, why should I wait five seconds?

To respect the current world record holder who had to do more than 2 moves.

Excuse me, Ollie? If a competitor gets an easy scramble in competition, and solves it as fast as possible, it's their fault that the time is too good, and we should look down on them for it?

I'd at least have way more respect for someone who waited specifically to not get a WR on an easy solve, especially if they knew they would have no chance of breaking it otherwise.

If a scramble would be so easy as to render the event meaningless, it should not be used in competition. That's the whole point of scramble filtering, to prevent stuff like this. And this example is exactly why we need it.

I also agree. I'm also very confused about why a 7x7 can be just 2 moves away, but a 2x2 which can be done in under a second anyway has to be 4 moves away.

 

[ryanj92]

I'd probably pop or get a timer fail or something

 

[Goosly]

I also agree. I'm also very confused about why a 7x7 can be just 2 moves away, but a 2x2 which can be done in under a second anyway has to be 4 moves away.

2x2 scrambler is based on a random state. 7x7 scrambler is a big amount of random moves. It can't be 2 moves anyway.

 

[Ollie]

Excuse me, Ollie? If a competitor gets an easy scramble in competition, and solves it as fast as possible, it's their fault that the time is too good, and we should look down on them for it?

If a scramble would be so easy as to render the event meaningless, it should not be used in competition. That's the whole point of scramble filtering, to prevent stuff like this. And this example is exactly why we need it.

Sub-1 because it would be funny.

A good case for scramble filtering methinks

 

[JediJupiter]

I'm under the impression that it could; just because you're doing a large amount of moves doesn't mean it always becomes less 'solved'.

 

[pewpewrawr]

A good case for scramble filtering methinks

I feel like that comment was a jab at me, but I'm going to let it go because I'm cool like that.

 

[scottishcuber]

I agree with Ollie.

 

[kcl]

I gotta say I'm with Ollie. I wouldn't feel right about a sub 1 3x3 single, it just seems wrong. I don't deserve WR single. I would still make it a good time, just probably not WR.

 

[Kirjava]

A good case for scramble filtering methinks

Yes, we should ruin 2x2x2 because of highly probable cases like this.