Better scrambles

[Claesson]

Ok, ppl doing 1,63 on 2x2x2 should have cred for that, but still i doubt that the scramble for that solve was a hard one, someone said it was 4 moves only!

Cant there be built in to the scramblegenerator to check for numbers of moves to solve it? Like you can do in cube-explorer, set a case and check for number of moves to be able to solve in. I say if its possible to solve in <10 moves its a bad scramble!

What do you think?

 

[Erik]

no bad idea, the idea of speedcubing is to solve the cube from a RANDOM position in my opinion, so by changing it would be a bad thing I think. AND if you set the limit at 10.. a random 2x2 scramble can mostly be solved in 8 or 9...

 

[Kenneth]

We use random and accept the wery lucky ones. It does not matter much since the competition is about best average.

 

[Dcuber]

but for the 2x2, if u look at the "pattern" on cube, u can easily solve it in I think 5, mabye 10
as for 3x3, can be solved in 20 with insane thinkin
XD

 

[Dene]

Well, that would be very hard to implement, as there are different methods for solving it.

 

[cuBerBruce]

I am of the opinion that very easy scrambles should not be allowed. At Gdansk Open 2008, the first round (2x2x2) was best of two. Just think if one of the two scrambles in that round had a two-move solution. That easy scramble would be the solve that would determine who gets to go to the final. That's a very bad criterion for choosing who goes to the final, in my opinion.

In a round of five solves, a scramble with a two-move solution would probably be everyone's best, so it would get thrown out for everyone. So only four of the five scrambles would really matter in determining who wins. Why not have "reasonable" scrambles so that all five scrambles will matter? Why include a scramble in a competition that, in the end, is not going to matter?

 

[Erik]

That's the fault of the format then, not the scrambles. And if someone is lucky... everyone has the same scrambles so if someone doesn't get to the final because he didn't got lucky it's too bad for him, maybe he just should've looked for the lucky case (as far 2x2 can be lucky)

 

[AvGalen]

I am of the opinion that very easy scrambles should not be allowed. At Gdansk Open 2008, the first round (2x2x2) was best of two. Just think if one of the two scrambles in that round had a two-move solution. That easy scramble would be the solve that would determine who gets to go to the final. That's a very bad criterion for choosing who goes to the final, in my opinion.

In a round of five solves, a scramble with a two-move solution would probably be everyone's best, so it would get thrown out for everyone. So only four of the five scrambles would really matter in determining who wins. Why not have "reasonable" scrambles so that all five scrambles will matter? Why include a scramble in a competition that, in the end, is not going to matter?

I once got a 25 move scramble that was solvable with F + Sune. I think everyone can beat the WR with that scramble, and no automatic check would have prevented that scramble.

 

[Erik]

Or that scramble where you had to do R and then a diagonal swap, it could be solved in optimal 11 moves or so which is the max (!) for 2x2, still it would be easy for everyone though it'd be evaluated as a hard scramble...

 

[jazzthief81]

I think we just have to come to terms with the fact that luck is part of the business and that eventually most single world records will be lucky solves. If you think about it, it's probably not justifiable that we give so much value to records for a single solve.

This is not to take anything away from people who hold world records, because I also believe that it's never just entirely luck. I think the 4-move 2x2x2 scramble is a good example: a lot of people would never even have spotted that. So it's still a combination of luck _and_ skill.

Maybe we should make one exception though: the cube should not be solved after the scramble. But that's as far as we should go in my opinion.

 

[masterofthebass]

The thing is, lucky solves really only apply cubes <4. On the 4x4, you can consider no parity lucky, but that happens 25% of the time. You can have easy solves, but not really lucky. I also don't really see how you can have a "lucky" megaminx solve either.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I would think a last layer skip on megaminx would be pretty lucky. Surely even Erik would find that a significant benefit.

Not that I've ever had one or anything - the odds must be pretty low for that.

 

[Claesson]

Ok, perhaps it wasnt a good sugestion. But to ppl looking at the "sport" from outside it must look strange that a really good 3x3x3 isnt really possible, if youre not lucky that is! Still skill is needed, no doubt about that, but luck is a big factor in a single solve, i guess better scrambles wont help that much anyway.

 

[Txarli]

Ok, ppl doing 1,63 on 2x2x2 should have cred for that, but still i doubt that the scramble for that solve was a hard one, someone said it was 4 moves only!

This is the 1.63" WR 2x2x2 scramble:

F´D2 L2 B´D´B R´D´R´U L´B´L2 U´L2 U2 R2 B2 R2 U2 B2 R2 D R2 D2

Can you resolve in 4 moves and 15 seconds?

Tx.

 

[cmhardw]

This is the 1.63" WR 2x2x2 scramble:

F´D2 L2 B´D´B R´D´R´U L´B´L2 U´L2 U2 R2 B2 R2 U2 B2 R2 D R2 D2

Can you resolve in 4 moves and 15 seconds?

This was interesting, I wasn't able to do it, I got a pretty much average time for my method using only 15 seconds inspection. Scrambling with white on top and green on front I look for either a white or yellow start. After the solve I retried the scramble looking at all starts, and I spotted the 4 move solution right away.

That's neat that a scramble like that can happen, I think the WR is fully deserved. Like many have said, most single solve records will be lucky solves eventually anyway, and more weight is given to average records in our community for this reason. Also, as in this example, I think it is both luck and skill, just as Lars mentioned.

Chris

 

[Johannes91]

If someone comes up with a good definition for "easy" and "hard" positions, then maybe the most exteme cases could be removed. But until then, IMHO all positions should have an equal probability.

 

[Txarli]

Also, as in this example, I think it is both luck and skill, just as Lars mentioned.

Chris

Yes it's a LL lucky, but done by one of the best spanish 2x2x2 solvers.

Anyway, let's analize the 4 moves and see the great skill to make the 1st layer.

And last, try to make this 4 moves in less of 1.63".

I think Javier Paris fully deserves the WR

Tx.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

Also, as in this example, I think it is both luck and skill, just as Lars mentioned.

Chris

Yes it's a LL lucky, but done by one of the best spanish 2x2x2 solvers.

Anyway, let's analize the 4 moves and see the great skill to make the 1st layer.

And last, try to make this 4 moves in less of 1.63".

I think Javier Paris fully deserves the WR

Tx.

I did 1.21 just now. Ugh so many double turns.

 

[Dene]

Well I don't have a 2x2x2 cube yet, but using my 4x4x4 I found the solution in about 10 seconds. Maybe I found it easier because I don't see the cube and think in terms of a specific method (as I don't know one).

 

[Inusagi]

Let's say that the cube is able to be solved in 25 moves.(3x3x3) Then the ppl are making algorithms about this. No good idea.