2-move solves

mark49152 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

Also, wouldn't the delegate or the main judge has the right to change a scramble before it goes out? I highly doubt that they let a 2 move scramble be an official one. "Hey, look, a 2 move scramble!" "Nah, let it man, it's what the software generated..."
 
Well many of you are arguing that 3x3 single would be worthless then, but also saying you should not solve it because someone else deserves it more than you. That doesn't make sense to me. When I have super lucky cards at Poker, and play against a better player, I don't let him win because he deserves it. Same goes for cubing because luck always plays a role. (Not as much as in Poker, but it still is part of the game.)
That's why I don't care for 3x3 singles, and that's why I don't have a problem to use whatever luck I get. And yes that is totally legit and fair.
 
Carrot said:
Pyra scrambles should definitely be 10 moves as minimum :3
Click to expand...

Isn't 11 the Pyra God's Number?


And anyway, maybe we should just stop taking this thread so literally and realize how incredibly small the chances are of a 2 move solve. It would be 1/176 quadrillion compared to the 1/286 million chance of winning the lottery. It's also still even less that winning the lottery twice in your lifetime. It would be even less than the chances of winning the lottery 3 times in your lifetime. Or even a 3 move solve, which would be 1/13 quadrillion, that's just a little more common than getting the lottery 3 times in your lifetime. So yeah it's great to have "moral" discussions on what you would do, but we need to think within the reasonable realm of probability.
 
Last edited:
Renslay said:
Also, wouldn't the delegate or the main judge has the right to change a scramble before it goes out? I highly doubt that they let a 2 move scramble be an official one. "Hey, look, a 2 move scramble!" "Nah, let it man, it's what the software generated..."
Click to expand...

That happened at Phalsbourg Open 2012; when we (the scramblers) noticed that the last solve of the 2^3 group we were scrambling for had a 2-move solution (scramble filtering for 2^3 was not in effect yet). The delegate told us to replace it by the first scramble of an extra group he had generated just in case.

And this kind of discussion always makes me laugh. It is very easy to say "of course, I would naturally decline it" while comfortably sitting on a chair at home in front of a computer. If those righteous guys actually got faced with such a scramble at an official comp, how many of them would resist the temptation of getting a superfast PB ? Probably not that many. Come on, guys, getting lucky is not a crime.
 
TMOY said:
That happened at Phalsbourg Open 2012; when we (the scramblers) noticed that the last solve of the 2^3 group we were scrambling for had a 2-move solution (scramble filtering for 2^3 was not in effect yet). The delegate told us to replace it by the first scramble of an extra group he had generated just in case.

And this kind of discussion always makes me laugh. It is very easy to say "of course, I would naturally decline it" while comfortably sitting on a chair at home in front of a computer. If those righteous guys actually got faced with such a scramble at an official comp, how many of them would resist the temptation of getting a superfast PB ? Probably not that many. Come on, guys, getting lucky is not a crime.
Click to expand...

what event? like 2x2 pyra or skewb? cuz if anything else it would crazy...
 
goodatthis said:
Isn't 11 the Pyra God's Number?


And anyway, maybe we should just stop taking this thread so literally and realize how incredibly small the chances are of a 2 move solve. It would be 1/176 quadrillion compared to the 1/286 million chance of winning the lottery. It's also still even less that winning the lottery twice in your lifetime. It would be even less than the chances of winning the lottery 3 times in your lifetime. Or even a 3 move solve, which would be 1/13 quadrillion, that's just a little more common than getting the lottery 3 times in your lifetime. So yeah it's great to have "moral" discussions on what you would do, but we need to think within the reasonable realm of probability.
Click to expand...

It's not that it's unlikely to happen. It's that it could happen. Just because it's unlikely that you'll win the lottery doesn't mean it won't happen.
 
JediJupiter said:
It's not that it's unlikely to happen. It's that it could happen. Just because it's unlikely that you'll win the lottery doesn't mean it won't happen.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there's only been about 2 million solves done in the WCA's history. And honestly I'm just going to leave you to ponder the number 176 quadrillion. That's 176,000,000,000,000,000. And I'm not aware of anyone who has won the Mega Millions lottery more than 3 times in their lifetime. And there's also a lot more people who have played the lottery than have competed in a WCA competition. There are some things that are so infinitesimally small a chance of happening that sometimes it's not even worth it to wonder. And I never said it wouldn't happen, but there are some things, such as the Infinite Monkey Therorem (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) that bring up the question, how low is too low? Obviously something like 167 quadrillion is no where near is great as in the infinite monkey theorem, but it's still a very low probability.
 
JediJupiter said:
It's not that it's unlikely to happen. It's that it could happen. Just because it's unlikely that you'll win the lottery doesn't mean it won't happen.
Click to expand...
I don't think probability is the point. It's a hypothetical question. Everyone's aware that a 2-move 3x3 solution will almost certainly never happen. Perhaps it would be more interesting to consider where people would draw the line. For example, of those saying here that they would forego a 2-move solution, I wonder what they would do with say a cross skip and LL skip? Wait until the clock passes 5.55 before hitting the timer?
 
Still, there will continue to be competitions held for years from now. If they go on long enough, it's hard to imaginr there not being a 2-move solve. Also, just because my chance of being mugged on the way home are extremely low, it doesn't mean the police say "oh, it's too unlikely to happen." They take measurements to stop it anyway.
 
JediJupiter said:
Still, there will continue to be competitions held for years from now. If they go on long enough, it's hard to imaginr there not being a 2-move solve.
Click to expand...

I'm very much imagining it. In fact, I *believe* it.

(Unless humans keep cubing for at least a few *million* more years. I think they'll have had enough time to think about it by then.)
 
JediJupiter said:
Still, there will continue to be competitions held for years from now. If they go on long enough, it's hard to imaginr there not being a 2-move solve.
Click to expand...

Actually it is very hard to imagine. You would have to have 167 quadrillion solves total just to have your odds of getting a 2 move scramble be statistically "more probable than not." If there were 4 competitions a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, with 300 scramble sequences for each, so basically a national championship 4 times a day, it would take 381 billion years to accomplish that many solves (or scramble sequences rather). Compare that to the age of the universe, 13 billion years, and you understand how what you're saying doesn't make sense. Earth will be burnt to a crisp by the sun in much much much less time than the time it would take for it to be statistically more probable than not that we will find a 2 move scramble in a competition.

Please do a little bit of thinking before posting a claim that ludicrous. I doubt the WCA will outlive the Sun.
 
Last edited:
JediJupiter said:
Still, there will continue to be competitions held for years from now. If they go on long enough, it's hard to imaginr there not being a 2-move solve. Also, just because my chance of being mugged on the way home are extremely low, it doesn't mean the police say "oh, it's too unlikely to happen." They take measurements to stop it anyway.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more realistic things to worry about than a scramble leading to a two move solve. For example, the event being hit by a meteor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Increasing the WCA 2x2 minimum move count?
Replies
3
Views
344
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
288
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
881
thesubneo
thesubneo
Back
Top