mark49152
Premium Member
That's one way 2BLD would differ from one-look 2x2, right there.You do know that they spend their inspection looking for the fastest solution instead of checking the first one and going with it, right?
That's one way 2BLD would differ from one-look 2x2, right there.You do know that they spend their inspection looking for the fastest solution instead of checking the first one and going with it, right?
It hardly adds anything new those. The solution used is still what would be used if the was the best solution they found. 2BLD is just 2x2 speedsolves plus inspection. You just want to inspect as quickly as possible and that's the only difference.That's one way 2BLD would differ from one-look 2x2, right there.
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for 2BLD to be added to WCA. I think it would be a pointless event that would introduce too many practical difficulties. Somehow I got drawn into a debate about 2x2 inspection because I suggested it's "probably" slower than conventional BLD memo of 6 corners, but I'm happy to concede on that point since it's academic anyway.You just want to inspect as quickly as possible and that's the only difference.
Seems reasonable, but some people might want to use that as justification but with 2BLD the judging is too complicated for it to be consistent. Magics were removed due to difficulties in judging. The judging issues is the first hurdle for 2BLD the second is the question of does it add anything new? Out of all the events suggested as new 2BLD is by far the worst.Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for 2BLD to be added to WCA. I think it would be a pointless event that would introduce too many practical difficulties. Somehow I got drawn into a debate about 2x2 inspection because I suggested it's "probably" slower than conventional BLD memo of 6 corners, but I'm happy to concede on that point since it's academic anyway.
But that’s inconsistent. Each event should be able to have unlimited possibilités for what you should do.Strongly agree, but 1 looking method shouldn't be allowed, only the blind method should.
Strongly agree, but 1 looking method shouldn't be allowed, only the blind method should.
That's true DG, and BTW I LOVE UR YOUTUBE CHANNEL!! AND UR MY FAVOURITE PYRAMINX SOLVER.This would be impossible to regulate. How do you define "the blind method" and actually check and enforce this for all solves? What about a four-mover? Would that have to be done with two 3-style comms? With the WCA growing as much as it is, we need to avoid such subjective regulations, not add more.
They're not thrashing you, they're just explaining why your idea doesn't work. You're not a loser.Everyone is just thrashing me. I feel like a loser
Haha thanks...There not thrashing you, they're just explaining why your idea doesn't work. You're not a loser.
That was a bit of an over reaction. What Wombat said is completely true, but everyone else has a fair point. I don't think (and neither do most people) subjective regulations should be a thing (unless practical, such as if you misscramble a 7x7), and even then, this event would add nothing practical. It would be dominated by top 2x2 solvers from the start, and it would just be 2x2+maybe 2 seconds. You shouldn't add this and remove feet (for example). Instead, keep the events that are unique, such as feet imo.Everyone is just thrashing me. I feel like a loser