Baltimore Spring 2010

[shelley]

all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.

If a competitor came up with a scrambled cube and put it under instead of on top of his scorecard and nobody caught it, this wouldn't really help.

On a separate note, let all your judges know: scrambled cubes go under scorecards. Solved cubes go on top of scorecards. Very simple system which some people unfortunately haven't caught on to.

 

[Tyson]

I think the location where competitors set down their cubes for the first time and where cubes are coming and going from and to the scrambling table needs to be two different locations.

Let's try to implement this in the future.

 

[bluecloe45]

Well, if he did his intentionally, that is horrible behavior. Since he is deaf, he might not have heard that you put the cube ON TOP of the score card. This is also a possiblity

 

[Sa967St]

ugh, Shane... I hope there is a really good explanation for that 13. A really good explanation.

doesn't seem like it :/

Sarah Strong April 20 at 10:36pm
Hello,
I heard that you got a 13 second solve at Baltimore. Congratulations! That's really fast!
Was it a lucky solve? What method do you use to solve the cube?
Thanks.

Shane Rowland April 21 at 3:03am
Hi, Sarah!

I just got lucky solve and need to more practice. Because my avg is bad with pop out and messed up.
I learn from Speedcubing101.com
You can check it out that website.
I know you really pretty fastest than me do lol.

Welcome, Shane

 

[tsirhce1]

Hello all,

I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.

I can tell you I was doing honest work when I did this event. This was my first time doing the event, and Shane was only telling me the rules as I am not experienced in various competitions yet. I've only played 2x2, 3x3, 3x3 OH, 4x4, pyraminx, and magic up til this competition.

The method I used to solve the FMC was clearly Petrus, as my speedsolves are all Petrus. I was at second, a Fridrich user but I eventually came to dislike that method and found Petrus much more efficient. Apparently, in FMC you need to be extremely efficient. So basically, block-building was the ideal strategy along with OLL and PLL. In this particular solve, I managed to skip OLL,and then did a PLL which equalled into 30 moves.

Some of you may ask why I have an average of 50 seconds speedsolving the 3x3. It is true that I could have gone lower, in fact my personal best was 30 seconds and I should have averaged 40 seconds but I did not. When I speedsolve, I try to look for optimal moves but I tend to end up missing some ideal moves due to the fact I still feel tense from being watched by a judge. My hands are not that fast either compared to most of you guys, which means I still have a lot of practice turning the cube quickly (without popping the cubies, even! Or I might need a really good cube... )

Just because I lack speed does NOT certify that I lack the ability to optimize my solves. I have been practicing fewest moves on my own.

If you all are wondering, Shane only showed me how to do the Fridrich method and that was where I eventually picked up on speedcubing. I came to favor Petrus much more than Fridrich.

If you guys have any question about me, or even my disability, please feel free to PM me.

 

[Meep]

all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.

If a competitor came up with a scrambled cube and put it under instead of on top of his scorecard and nobody caught it, this wouldn't really help.

On a separate note, let all your judges know: scrambled cubes go under scorecards. Solved cubes go on top of scorecards. Very simple system which some people unfortunately haven't caught on to.

I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.

 

[ErikJ]

all you would have to do to prevent cheating with the scrambling table is check to make sure the scramble is good before calling the competitor's name.

If a competitor came up with a scrambled cube and put it under instead of on top of his scorecard and nobody caught it, this wouldn't really help.

On a separate note, let all your judges know: scrambled cubes go under scorecards. Solved cubes go on top of scorecards. Very simple system which some people unfortunately haven't caught on to.

I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.

yes.

 

[qqwref]

I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.

Hm, that's an interesting idea. It would slow down competitions a lot (especially if the scramblers make mistakes) but it would definitely prevent scenarios like this.

 

[Kian]

I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.

Hm, that's an interesting idea. It would slow down competitions a lot (especially if the scramblers make mistakes) but it would definitely prevent scenarios like this.

I think the seperate area for scrambling and bringing up your cube makes more sense in that it will save more time. When you consider how many judges aren't familiar with cubes it would be take an inordinate amount of time to follow this suggestion, imo.

 

[Anthony]

I learn from Speedcubing101.com
You can check it out that website.

Apparently I'm the secret to his success.

Hello all,

I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.

...explanation

Just because I lack speed does NOT certify that I lack the ability to optimize my solves. I have been practicing fewest moves on my own.

That sounds pretty legit to me, Chris. Congrats! However, I don't think we're going to get anywhere near as good an explanation for Shane's 13.
Out of curiosity, Chris, do you think Shane's 13 second solve was as honest as your FMC solution?

 

[Ethan Rosen]

I think he meant that when the cubes are underneath, and the judge picks it up, the judge compares it with a diagram of what the scrambled cube should look like before bringing it to the competitor to solve. If they don't match, it'll be put back on top to be re-scrambled.

Hm, that's an interesting idea. It would slow down competitions a lot (especially if the scramblers make mistakes) but it would definitely prevent scenarios like this.

I see a major efficiency issue here. This shouldn't be a problem on 3x3, but how often do you think there's a round of 5x5 where every single scramble is perfect?

 

[cuBerBruce]

Hello all,

I am Christopher Phillips who managed to pull a 30-move solve FMC in that competition.

I can tell you I was doing honest work when I did this event. This was my first time doing the event, and Shane was only telling me the rules as I am not experienced in various competitions yet. I've only played 2x2, 3x3, 3x3 OH, 4x4, pyraminx, and magic up til this competition.

The method I used to solve the FMC was clearly Petrus, as my speedsolves are all Petrus. I was at second, a Fridrich user but I eventually came to dislike that method and found Petrus much more efficient. Apparently, in FMC you need to be extremely efficient. So basically, block-building was the ideal strategy along with OLL and PLL. In this particular solve, I managed to skip OLL,and then did a PLL which equalled into 30 moves.

Some of you may ask why I have an average of 50 seconds speedsolving the 3x3. It is true that I could have gone lower, in fact my personal best was 30 seconds and I should have averaged 40 seconds but I did not. When I speedsolve, I try to look for optimal moves but I tend to end up missing some ideal moves due to the fact I still feel tense from being watched by a judge. My hands are not that fast either compared to most of you guys, which means I still have a lot of practice turning the cube quickly (without popping the cubies, even! Or I might need a really good cube... )

Just because I lack speed does NOT certify that I lack the ability to optimize my solves. I have been practicing fewest moves on my own.

I thought the comment earlier about it being hard to believe someone at Christopher's speedsolving speed could get a 30-move solution was a bit ridiculous. I'm at about the same speed for speedsolving and I've gotten 33-34 move solutions on online FMC competitions, and as low as 24 moves with more than 1 hour allowed. It's very possible to be good at fewest moves solving without being speedy.

And it's quite possible for someone only knowing Petrus and basic last layer algs could come up with a really short solution. Consider this solution below (found by computer, I admit).

Scramble (Baltimore Spring 2010): D2 L2 D2 U2 L F2 R B2 U L U L2 F' D' U L' B F' L'
Solution:
2x2x2: R' D R' B
2x2x3: B' R B' R D2 R2 B2
Orient Edges: F2 R U' R'
F2L + LL 2x2x1: F2 U' F' U' F2
OLL + PLL skip: B L F' L' B' L F L'

The solution is 24 moves after cancellations. The 2x2x2 is temporarily broken up in expanding to a 2x2x3 (unlike traditional Petrus solving), but the 2x2x3 only takes a total of 7 moves (note the cancellations), so I don't know if it's too much of a stretch for someone to find that. The rest of the solve has nothing unusual (except a great deal of luck).

 

[Tyson]

I should have put a stop to this conversation a long time ago. The public discussion of the events that happened at Baltimore unfortunately has affected the internal investigation by the WCA and the organizers.

In the future, when stuff like this happens, talk about it one-on-one with the organizers, or by a means which is invite only and not completely public.

 

[jtjogobonito]

Here is some footage from the final. (Did not record this)

 

[Kyle Barry]

Ha, Dan's 11.13 had 0 pairs in until about 4 seconds, then he put all 4 in in 2 seconds, and it should've been about 10.1.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Wait, John, you didn't record this? Really? The kid recording looks and seems so much like you though

Apparently I'm "the same guy from the DC open" and I'm "killer" and "insane"? Cool.

The laugh was Kristoffer, right?

I want to see my last solve, and my subsequent happiness. Not my fourth solve, though.

 

[Dene]

LMAO that vid was 6 minutes of my life well spent. The commentary was hilarious.

 

[joey]

Lolvideo.

also chieh lee was there, awesome!

 

[JustinJ]

Sorry it took so long Tim! I don't have the first solve though :/ and sorry, the fourth is in there

Ugh, I don't know what's with the black box.

 

[jtjogobonito]

Imagine if Tim started practicing O_o