Benelux Open 2009

[Stefan]

And if all else fails, you can simply ... double check ... darn, you cannot anymore. The old rules allowed to have closed competitions for clubs, so I was about to suggest having a competition only for members of the "If I submit more than 50 moves for the FMC event then I'll pay the organizers $1 for each move"-club.

 

[AvGalen]

And if all else fails, you can simply ... double check ... darn, you cannot anymore. The old rules allowed to have closed competitions for clubs, so I was about to suggest having a competition only for members of the "If I submit more than 50 moves for the FMC event then I'll pay the organizers $1 for each move"-club.

That rule might have been removed just because of that reason
A DNF would have costed me a fortune

 

[fanwuq]

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=BeneluxOpen2009&allResults=1#333mbf

Too many Multi BLD continental records?
Apparently everyone who participated now has a "History of Continental Records."

 

[qqwref]

I still think we should put in the old multi-BLD records which are under an hour... it's stupid to have a "WR" of 4/4.

Anyway, for FMC, I think 50 moves is a bit strict since people still get over 50 moves while legitimately trying to do it as efficiently as possible. I think something more like 80 would be more fair... the only purpose is to discourage people doing EXTREMELY long solves, and a 50 move limit would be like having a strict official 1-minute time limit on 3x3 speedsolve. By the way, I really think we should start using some kind of FMC computer program to do these, rather than trying to have someone execute the moves themselves and hoping that they did not make a mistake.

 

[Ton]

I still think we should put in the old multi-BLD records which are under an hour... it's stupid to have a "WR" of 4/4.

Anyway, for FMC, I think 50 moves is a bit strict since people still get over 50 moves while legitimately trying to do it as efficiently as possible. I think something more like 80 would be more fair... the only purpose is to discourage people doing EXTREMELY long solves, and a 50 move limit would be like having a strict official 1-minute time limit on 3x3 speedsolve. By the way, I really think we should start using some kind of FMC computer program to do these, rather than trying to have someone execute the moves themselves and hoping that they did not make a mistake.

For most competition we have only one lap-top used constantly, for most competitions I appoint 2 more judges to check them, DNF are checked more than one time, in doubt I check it with the competitor. But we could use a program for after the competition, when the WCA delegate checks the score sheets

 

[AvGalen]

I still think we should put in the old multi-BLD records which are under an hour... it's stupid to have a "WR" of 4/4.

Anyway, for FMC, I think 50 moves is a bit strict since people still get over 50 moves while legitimately trying to do it as efficiently as possible. I think something more like 80 would be more fair... the only purpose is to discourage people doing EXTREMELY long solves, and a 50 move limit would be like having a strict official 1-minute time limit on 3x3 speedsolve. By the way, I really think we should start using some kind of FMC computer program to do these, rather than trying to have someone execute the moves themselves and hoping that they did not make a mistake.

For most competition we have only one lap-top used constantly, for most competitions I appoint 2 more judges to check them, DNF are checked more than one time, in doubt I check it with the competitor. But we could use a program for after the competition, when the WCA delegate checks the score sheets

I agree about the old, sub 1 hour multi-blinds. I feel bad (but happy) with seconds place right now while knowing that others have already done 10/10 officialy

I disagree about the upper limit for FMC. There is no reason to stop beginners from trying and if they need 90 moves that's fine by me. Absurdly high moves like Kai's are like people doing one-handed blindfolded solves, blindfolded 2x2x2's and "almost 10 minutes" 3x3x3 solves. They are meant to be funny and as long as they don't disturb the overal tournament it is fine by me.

And I disagree about the computer for FMC. Not making mistakes is part of the event. We don't use robots to perform algs for us because our hands sometimes make mistakes.
Writing/scanning our solution directly into a computer would help with checking the solution, but only 1 "submit" per person should be allowed

 

[Mike Hughey]

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=BeneluxOpen2009&allResults=1#333mbf

Too many Multi BLD continental records?
Apparently everyone who participated now has a "History of Continental Records."

That's very funny! I especially like the people who have former continental records with a DNF. But it's not everyone who participated - only everyone who participated at Benelux. Bernett Orlando doesn't have one, even though he should have had the world record before Benelux.

 

[qqwref]

And I disagree about the computer for FMC. Not making mistakes is part of the event. We don't use robots to perform algs for us because our hands sometimes make mistakes.
Writing/scanning our solution directly into a computer would help with checking the solution, but only 1 "submit" per person should be allowed

Oh, no, that's not at all what I mean. There's no way you should be able to use a computer when you're *competing* in FMC. I was saying that (if possible) we should use the computer more for checking FMC results, because I think people make mistakes when turning more than people make mistakes when transcribing moves one by one. The only rechecking you have to do is to make sure what you typed in matches what's on the paper.

 

[AvGalen]

And I disagree about the computer for FMC. Not making mistakes is part of the event. We don't use robots to perform algs for us because our hands sometimes make mistakes.
Writing/scanning our solution directly into a computer would help with checking the solution, but only 1 "submit" per person should be allowed

Oh, no, that's not at all what I mean. There's no way you should be able to use a computer when you're *competing* in FMC. I was saying that (if possible) we should use the computer more for checking FMC results, because I think people make mistakes when turning more than people make mistakes when transcribing moves one by one. The only rechecking you have to do is to make sure what you typed in matches what's on the paper.

I have more problems writing/typing a solution than I have performing one from the paper

 

[Mike Hughey]

I have more problems writing/typing a solution than I have performing one from the paper

I was about to say the exact same thing.

 

[Pedro]

I used Lucas' FMC typer at the last competition here, and works great

about the multi, I don't think it's "stupid" to have a WR of 4/4...can we please not get started at this again? (6x6 and 7x7 come to mind...)

the event "just started", so the WR will surely improve with time...

and I don't think the old-under-hour times should count. After all, they were done in different conditions and rules. The event is much different now, so I agree with starting with a clean sheet (which is being filled)

 

[Stefan]

and I don't think the old-under-hour times should count. After all, they were done in different conditions and rules.

What does that matter? How they were done is perfectly in compliance with the current rules! So why should they not be in the current ranklist?

 

[Bryan]

I used Lucas' FMC typer at the last competition here, and works great

about the multi, I don't think it's "stupid" to have a WR of 4/4...can we please not get started at this again? (6x6 and 7x7 come to mind...)

the event "just started", so the WR will surely improve with time...

and I don't think the old-under-hour times should count. After all, they were done in different conditions and rules. The event is much different now, so I agree with starting with a clean sheet (which is being filled)

The 3x3x3 is done under different rules all the time. Should we throw away those results every time the regulations are updated?

 

[Pedro]

right, you guys have a point here

my only doubt/question/concern is:

would they get those results if they had a 1 hour limit?
I mean, would they "risk" doing X cubes if they HAD to finish in under 1 hour?

 

[qqwref]

It's irrelevant. None of the multi-BLD rules in the past would be considered cheating now (except not having paper, but who cares about that) - the only real difference in the rules was in how the attempts were scored (and the time limit counts as this, because really all a time limit says is "an attempt that takes more than X amount of time gets a score of DNF"). Remember we have three different styles now:
1) 15? minutes per cube max, attempts ranked first by whether all cubes were solved, then by number solved, then by total number attempted, then by time.
2) 10 minutes per cube maximum, attempts ranked by solved - not solved, then by time.
3) 10 minutes per cube, or an hour (whichever's less) maximum, attempts ranked by solved - not solved, then by time.

So I think that any attempts (no matter WHEN they were done) that are counted as a success within the new time limits should still be counted. I don't think it makes sense to invalidate an attempt just because the final result was ranked differently in 2005 and 2009 - it's still the same result, and just as impressive as an equal result from last weekend would be.

By the way... ANY attempt of 6 cubes or fewer has the same time limit now as it did before (i.e. in rule style #2), so there's actually no change at all. For example if you are doing 2 cubes you have 20 minutes just as you did before... the hour time limit doesn't even begin to affect you.

P.S. The real new rules WR, 10/10 in 44 mins by Dennis, doesn't seem like he was pushing his limit at all for the number of cubes he can do - I think he just wanted to do 10 cubes. I think even if they said "you can't go over an hour" he still would have done 10, knowing he was fast enough that he'd be under an hour for sure.

 

[Mike Hughey]

P.S. The real new rules WR, 10/10 in 44 mins by Dennis, doesn't seem like he was pushing his limit at all for the number of cubes he can do - I think he just wanted to do 10 cubes. I think even if they said "you can't go over an hour" he still would have done 10, knowing he was fast enough that he'd be under an hour for sure.

Actually, I doubt it. One of the beautiful things about the new rule is that everyone will now be tempted to cut it as close to an hour as possible. At least for those of us who are fairly accurate, it's really your best chance for maximum points. So I'm guessing that if Dennis had been told "you can't go over an hour", he probably would have tried 12 or 13 (or maybe even 15) cubes. And he probably would have gotten them all, too. So I'm quite sure he would be the current record holder even then.

Hopefully everyone who was good at old rules multi will just get new solves soon so all of this will become irrelevant.

 

[AvGalen]

My vote: Just include the valid old mbf results. It is the right thing to do

But I wanted to post for a different reason: I am very pissed off.
I was just unpacking my cubes from last weekend. And found out that:
1) Someone broke my Master Magic without telling me and apologising
2) Somebody decided that he had more rights on my timer and on 2 of my best 3x3x3's than I have

I always bring many puzzles so others can try/learn/experiment. Many people enjoy this and learn more about puzzles this way. If a puzzle goes missing, breaks or whatever I don't really mind. But if people decide to steal my stuff I get really sad and angry.

I have a pretty good idea who took these puzzles and I will try to find you and contact your parents! If you read this, send me a PM now so we can handle this as fast as possible

 

[Ton]

My vote: Just include the valid old mbf results. It is the right thing to do

But I wanted to post for a different reason: I am very pissed off.
I was just unpacking my cubes from last weekend. And found out that:
1) Someone broke my Master Magic without telling me and apologising
2) Somebody decided that he had more rights on my timer and on 2 of my best 3x3x3's than I have

I always bring many puzzles so others can try/learn/experiment. Many people enjoy this and learn more about puzzles this way. If a puzzle goes missing, breaks or whatever I don't really mind. But if people decide to steal my stuff I get really sad and angry.

I have a pretty good idea who took these puzzles and I will try to find you and contact your parents! If you read this, send me a PM now so we can handle this as fast as possible

Thats why my cubes/puzzles has a named stickers, in any case this is not what we want to see. But maybe Ron has your timer , one was left behind, and I noticed two cubes at the far end of the room. They still where there when I left.

So please check with Ron and the organizers, sure hope no one dis steal it.

btw So it can not be me or Maria since we have no parents

 

[TobiasDaneels]

My vote: Just include the valid old mbf results. It is the right thing to do

But I wanted to post for a different reason: I am very pissed off.
I was just unpacking my cubes from last weekend. And found out that:
1) Someone broke my Master Magic without telling me and apologising
2) Somebody decided that he had more rights on my timer and on 2 of my best 3x3x3's than I have

I always bring many puzzles so others can try/learn/experiment. Many people enjoy this and learn more about puzzles this way. If a puzzle goes missing, breaks or whatever I don't really mind. But if people decide to steal my stuff I get really sad and angry.

I have a pretty good idea who took these puzzles and I will try to find you and contact your parents! If you read this, send me a PM now so we can handle this as fast as possible

That's really too bad, Arnoud.
Also because your hospitality towards everyone. It's a chaim people take advantage of it. I hope it's not stolen but left behind like Ton suggested.

People ask me also all the time to use my puzzles for competition, and I have no problem with that. Mostly they bring it back themselfes but sometimes I have to look after it because they just forget and let it somewhere.

Sometimes it's even broken. (master magic)
Luckily, there's Arnoud for the rescue.

 

[AvGalen]

My vote: Just include the valid old mbf results. It is the right thing to do

But I wanted to post for a different reason: I am very pissed off.
I was just unpacking my cubes from last weekend. And found out that:
1) Someone broke my Master Magic without telling me and apologising
2) Somebody decided that he had more rights on my timer and on 2 of my best 3x3x3's than I have

I always bring many puzzles so others can try/learn/experiment. Many people enjoy this and learn more about puzzles this way. If a puzzle goes missing, breaks or whatever I don't really mind. But if people decide to steal my stuff I get really sad and angry.

I have a pretty good idea who took these puzzles and I will try to find you and contact your parents! If you read this, send me a PM now so we can handle this as fast as possible

Thats why my cubes/puzzles has a named stickers, in any case this is not what we want to see. But maybe Ron has your timer , one was left behind, and I noticed two cubes at the far end of the room. They still where there when I left.

So please check with Ron and the organizers, sure hope no one dis steal it.

btw So it can not be me or Maria since we have no parents

That is actually really good news. I was suspecting two kids because they already tried to take Hakans timer and Robin thinks they also took his OH-cube. I hope I made a mistake and all will be returned.

The two 3x3x3's were type F's with ultra-bright stickers. One of them is missing a chip from a yellow sticker. The other one looks the same but turns just a bit looser (it's for OH)
And the timer is unmarked, new and has no times stored in it.

If anyone found any of these items, please let me know and I will come to pick them up