Andrea Santambrogio Square-1 single WR 7.41

[antoineccantin]

But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.

 

[TDM]

But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.

Maybe he did cubeshape differently (possibly by accident)?

 

[BoBoGuy]

Probably like Gregorz Prusak's scramble...

 

[stoic]

I seem to remember another slow guy getting world record on sq-1 and then refusing to accept it because the scramble was too easy.
Unfortunately, not everyone is this considerate to people who worked really hard to get fast times

Luck is an inherent part of cubing, especially singles.
If it's a legitimate solve of a legitimate scramble, everyone else at the comp had the same chance.

 

[kcl]

It's something .41 again!

Imagine how long this one's going to be held for.

Not long at the rate Nathan Dwyer is progressing.. Good job!

 

[Ranzha]

But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.

This can't really be said for the slower people. Had there been more people in the ballpark of 30s (or even just more people) it wouldn't look as out of place.

Congratulations! Can't wait for the reconstruction.

 

[Lin Chen]

I want to know...the WCA delegate's view
You can imagine a record keeping 1,126 days after being broken is unbelievable... And...His average is 20+

 

[cubizh]

Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?
You can sometimes see things like this happen, but are cleared upon review.
Specially when no one that attended the competition has talked about it or shown any sort of proof that this actually happened.
Also, any official WR/CR/NR/PB is only confirmed when it is shown in the official WCA webpage, until then it's all speculation.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?
You can sometimes see things like this happen, but are cleared upon review.
Specially when no one that attended the competition has talked about it or shown any sort of proof that this actually happened.
Also, any official WR/CR/NR/PB is only confirmed when it is shown in the official WCA webpage, until then it's all speculation.

I totally agree. There have been many instances of times inputted badly into Cubecomps, and although its usually noticed pretty quickly, it sometimes doesn't get fixed for a while. I'll wait for the official results to come out before being excited over this.

 

[TDM]

Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?

I did, but porky said they had checked the scramble, so I don't think it's an error typing the results. If it was they wouldn't have had to check it.

 

[blade740]

WTF............

Does anyone have the scramble?

 

[Mako]

I was there and I had the same scramble and it didn't seem very simple to me.

Maybe he did cubeshape differently (possibly by accident)?

That's exactly what happened
Then he solved the first layer in a few moves and skipped the last.

 

[Kirjava]

I was there and I had the same scramble and it didn't seem very simple to me.

inb4 wrong scramble

post scramble and solution plz

 

[qqwref]

Given the average times, and everyone else's times on that scramble, I think it's very likely this is just a data entry problem. However, I'd still like to see the scramble if anyone is willing to post it. We could, for instance, run it through an optimal solver and see if a very easy solve is even possible.

 

[Antonie faz fan]

I am pretty sure this is the new perry open

 

[Tim Major]

I got a 15 on a scramble that people 10s faster than me got 17+. I did a different cubeshape or EO alg which gave a lucky solve. I'm not saying I believe the 7, especially considering that would be roughly 15 slice turns, but I won't call BS quite yet.

The longer cubing stays around, the more likely lucky world records would happen. A top 100 3x3 silver could get an LL skip on a good solve and break 5.55.

For now, Congrats Andrea.

 

[Michael Womack]

I want to know if there is a video of the solve.
inb4 Typo.

 

[qqwref]

I got a 15 on a scramble that people 10s faster than me got 17+.

Yeah, it happens. But I don't see any other times on that scramble that were out of the ordinary.

The longer cubing stays around, the more likely lucky world records would happen. A top 100 3x3 silver could get an LL skip on a good solve and break 5.55.

She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.

 

[TDM]

She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.

Averaging about twice the WR is equivalent to a top 100 solver in square-1: the 100th person's average is 1.994 times Bingliang Li's WR average. But you're right about someone from the top 100 getting sub-5.55 with a LL skip - it's very unlikely for someone averaging 10 seconds to have a 5.5 second F2L. I don't know much about square-1 singles (or anything about square-1), but if it's like 3x3 then it's very unlikely this could've happened. But if it's like 2x2 (i.e. there are some really easy scrambles that anyone decently fast can get good times on), then this is a possibility. But as I said, I don't know much about this event, so you don't have to listen to me.

 

[Stefan]

She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.

Who are you talking about?