2-move solves

Just remember this, if you decide to solve it, you are that person that came up to you and said, "i can solve that super fast" then turns two sides and turns them back and laughs in you face. Don't be that person.
 
Please. We know the rough distribution of optimal movecounts for the 3x3x3. Let's say we forbid anything that can be solved in 13 or fewer moves; it turns out that that is 575,342,418,697,410 positions, or about one in every 75176 positions. So we can figure out exactly how much of an impact that would have on a typical competitor (answer: almost none).
 
Try to find any top level sportsman who would turn down a chance for an easy win*. There aren't many. If I could solve as fast as you guys then I'd go for any record available and I'd leave it up to the WCA to worry about whether it is legal or not.

* John Francome is an exception to the rule.
 
i would do it for the lols, seeing how low i could go considering all competitors of that round get the scramble; and if it's WR i would get the WCA to disqualify it afetrwards because it's lame.
 
Do you guys not understand the point of random permutation scrambles? Filtering scrambles completely ruins that. It's stupid enough to do it for 2x2.

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.
Click to expand...
The answer is pretty obvious. People think that the odds of getting a 2 move scramble on 7x7 are negligible. And they're right.

The singles don't matter that much compared to the community wide consensuses on who is actually fast. If someone gets a 2 move scramble, they are really not going to get that much recognition anyway. Do you hear people talking about Christian Kaserer? What about Chris and Rami? Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's not just 2x2, either. People on here respect Mats Valk, but I don't think anyone thinks he's faster than Feliks. And that's considering that Mats is actually one of the best in the world at 3x3. If someone sets a stupid record, the community doesn't take any recognition away from the people who really deserve it.

Everyone who goes to a competition, anywhere, has an equal chance of getting a scramble that stupid. And if Feliks got that scramble, and got a sub 1, I would think it was every bit as stupid as if someone else did. People have no obligation to not solve it as fast as they can.
 
Last edited:
Rocky0701 said:
You would get 5 LL skips by the time it would ever take affect in a compeition. It isn't much to ask for, it just pregents people who average like 20 seconds to get a record that they don't deserve because of luck. Do you really count 10 moves a "solve"? Chill out.
Click to expand...

5 LL Skips? No. The amount of possible positions that are solved with 15 moves or less compared to all possible positions is 1/400, compared to the much greater number that would be 5 LL skips. The probability that you would get 5 LL skips in a row is more than the possible positions on the cube, by a lot. ((1/15552)[SUP]5[/SUP])

Also, if you meant over a long period of time, unless I've done my math wrong, you would have about a 1 in a billion chance of having 5 LL skips in 1000 solves. (Doing binomial probability is kinda tough when you have to find a calculator high powered enough to do exponents that high)
 
Last edited:
newtonbase said:
Try to find any top level sportsman who would turn down a chance for an easy win*. There aren't many. If I could solve as fast as you guys then I'd go for any record available and I'd leave it up to the WCA to worry about whether it is legal or not.

* John Francome is an exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

A lot of Australian cricket players, following in the footsteps of Adam Gilchrist, walk (showing they're out) regardless of whether the umpire calls them out or not.

I think you're underestimating the sportsmanship of professionals.
 
Tim Major said:
A lot of Australian cricket players, following in the footsteps of Adam Gilchrist, walk (showing they're out) regardless of whether the umpire calls them out or not.

I think you're underestimating the sportsmanship of professionals.
Click to expand...
Not a cricket player, but I assume an out is a "your turn's done" type of thing that happens many times every single game - which would mean it's a pretty basic politeness move. That's more like when a cuber points out a +2 penalty or DNF that the judge didn't notice - you lose a few seconds or one solve out of the many that you do each competition. Not really comparable to giving up a one-in-more-than-a-trillion lucky scramble.
 
goodatthis said:
5 LL Skips? No. The amount of possible positions that are solved with 15 moves or less compared to all possible positions is 1/400, compared to the much greater number that would be 5 LL skips. The probability that you would get 5 LL skips in a row is more than the possible positions on the cube, by a lot. ((1/15552)[SUP]5[/SUP])

Also, if you meant over a long period of time, unless I've done my math wrong, you would have about a 1 in a billion chance of having 5 LL skips in 1000 solves. (Doing binomial probability is kinda tough when you have to find a calculator high powered enough to do exponents that high)
Click to expand...
I was basing it off of qqwref's statement that it was one in 75,000 chance for a 13 move or below solution. I can see the huge difference between 15 and 13 move solutions now.
 
qqwref said:
Not a cricket player, but I assume an out is a "your turn's done" type of thing that happens many times every single game - which would mean it's a pretty basic politeness move. That's more like when a cuber points out a +2 penalty or DNF that the judge didn't notice - you lose a few seconds or one solve out of the many that you do each competition. Not really comparable to giving up a one-in-more-than-a-trillion lucky scramble.
Click to expand...

It has changed entire games before, and potentially series before. This was the semi-final at a World champs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8vmRKOEcCY

If Mats' +2 wasn't called by the judge (even though it should've been) and Mats won worlds instead of Feliks. Walking would be the equivalent of saying "no that WAS a +2" after the cube was already realigned.

There are plenty of sportsman who would turn down an unfair chance at an easy win.

The previous Square-1 single holder was laughed at by the community (and doubted). I'm sure many people in this community would take their average solve time to solve a 2 move scramble. At the end of the day, what's the point in getting a 0.5 solve? Unless you have some sponsorship, you're;
-not making money
-potentially losing respect
-getting a (meaningless) title that everyone won't care about
 
I would do the 2 moves, put the cube down, then stride around the competition area for around the same time as my global average, then stop the timer.
 
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with it. If it's legal, it's legal. I would do the solve as fast as I could, laugh about my meaningless single WR, and let everyone tie themselves in knots about how dumb the rules are :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Increasing the WCA 2x2 minimum move count?
Replies
3
Views
342
WACWCA
WACWCA
M
The One Move Megaminx Example Solve Thread
Replies
9
Views
596
Mr.Ducky
M
R
Is my ZBLS HTM Optimal move count calulation correct?
Replies
0
Views
286
Reece
R
OtaMota
Tronto's 16 move FMC single is now the longest lasting record in WCA history!
Replies
6
Views
1,283
qwr
qwr
thesubneo
Online Rubik’s Clock simulator with WCA scrambles, solve mode, and move history
Replies
0
Views
879
thesubneo
thesubneo
Back
Top