2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles

[ben1996123]

solution: some rotations probably R' U2 R' U

 

[reThinking the Cube]

solution: some rotations probably R' U2 R' U

Not one of 34 originals, but one of the luckiest looking performances ever. lol.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

Javier Paris 1.63 Murcia Open 2008 a lucky scramble too

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky".

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk

I don't see any reason to contradict Erik. Do you?

Erik a raison . La faute va à la wca. Il est facile de donner un mélange impossible à résoudre en bas de 7 mouvements. Un record n'est pas une loterie.
GG

 

[ben1996123]

Javier Paris 1.63 Murcia Open 2008 a lucky scramble too

hurrrrrrr you got the 163st post with a 1.63 video hurrrrrr

 

[qqwref]

Erik a raison . La faute va à la wca. Il est facile de donner un mélange impossible à résoudre en bas de 7 mouvements. Un record n'est pas une loterie.
GG

A lot of people have said something like this before, but in the end, we cannot eliminate the problem. We don't want luck to come into play, but the only way to remove luck is to either guarantee lucky scrambles or remove them. I think few people would like guaranteed easy scrambles. And if we make sure there are no more easy scrambles, we must remove all top results which are lucky, because otherwise they are unbeatable by future cubers.

Here's one idea: we could force every average of 5 to contain one 4-move scramble, and no other "easy" scrambles, defined somehow. (For instance: no solutions under 7 htm, no scrambles with one face solved or two opposite faces oriented, no scrambles which can be solved 2gen in under 9ish qtm.) The easy scramble would be in a random position and all scrambles would be long enough to hide the easy one. Thus a potential sub-2 scramble is available to everyone who does an average of 5, without luck involved. Of course, getting a *counting* sub-2 would be quite difficult. I don't think this would affect averages substantially because you would have to be quite skilled to get a very fast counting time.

 

[Tim Major]

I was scrambling at Kubaroo Open. Not from the list but;
Cameron got 1.63 on F2 R' F U R' F.
x2 y' R' y' U R' U' R U2 (6 moves).

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

good comment

A lot of people have said something like this before, but in the end, we cannot eliminate the problem. We don't want luck to come into play, but the only way to remove luck is to either guarantee lucky scrambles or remove them. I think few people would like guaranteed easy scrambles. And if we make sure there are no more easy scrambles, we must remove all top results which are lucky, because otherwise they are unbeatable by future cubers.

Here's one idea: we could force every average of 5 to contain one 4-move scramble, and no other "easy" scrambles, defined somehow. (For instance: no solutions under 7 htm, no scrambles with one face solved or two opposite faces oriented, no scrambles which can be solved 2gen in under 9ish qtm.) The easy scramble would be in a random position and all scrambles would be long enough to hide the easy one. Thus a potential sub-2 scramble is available to everyone who does an average of 5, without luck involved. Of course, getting a *counting* sub-2 would be quite difficult. I don't think this would affect averages substantially because you would have to be quite skilled to get a very fast counting time.

I like your comment and it is virtually impossible to go back.
Average Feliks isn't a luck anyway

The rule is the same for each cube, but we realize that it is difficult to be really just. The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte. The average is much important than the single. Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.

GG

 

[JustinJ]

The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Forte]

I like your comment and it is virtually impossible to go back.
Average Feliks isn't a luck anyway

The rule is the same for each cube, but we realize that it is difficult to be really just. The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte. The average is much important than the single. Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.

GG

Wait, are you Man of Slice?!?!

 

[Vincents]

Not one of 34 originals, but one of the luckiest looking performances ever. lol.

This also happens to be my 0.96.

Scramble: R' U F2 U

 

[uberCuber]

Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.

I would love to agree with this; the only problem it creates is how to manage the time? A single fewest move solve takes a full hour already, so to do an average without changing the time rules would really make time management difficult