Changing Multi BLD format?

[Noahaha]

I've never organized a competition with multi, so yell at me if I'm totally wrong about this, but it seems like you only need 3 things to make multi easy:

1. A side room
2. Each competitor in multi must have an event that they are not competing in.
3. Each multi competitor finds their own judge.

Once you have those three things it seems like multi practically runs itself.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Does anyone remember the competition where there was a 10 minute multiBLD limit? I really thought it was in the US, although I'm sure I wasn't there for it. It seems like it may have been a west coast event.

 

[pedrinroque]

5 minutes per cube
and a maximum time of 30
if you wanna try 3 cubes you have 15 minutes,and if you wanna do more then 6 you have 30 minutes
the same idea that we are using now but with half of the time

 

[ducttapecuber]

1. A side room
2. Each competitor in multi must have an event that they are not competing in.
3. Each multi competitor finds their own judge.

Once you have those three things it seems like multi practically runs itself.

Exactly. If we don't run multi like this, we should. It doesn't slow down the competition.

We should keep the limit to an hour, as that seems fair. Yes, very time consuming, but worth it.

 

[tim]

2. Multi is the only event that's weird in that, despite our being a speedcubing community, the event takes longer to do as you get better at it.

Actually it takes longer and you get faster the better you get. Saying the better you get, the longer it takes isn't entirely true. Plus: Isn't this argument in a similar manner valid for FMC as well? It takes longer to find shorter solutions and therefore leads to better results. At the same time you get faster at finding short solutions the better you get.


I actually like the idea of a "speed"-multi. I have two concerns, though:
1.) Since the orientation in which you get your cubes is considered to be random, they might be different for different people in the same round. Cuber A might need the extra 10s to orient his cubes while Cuber B might get lucky and doesn't need to orient his cubes at all. The shorter the time limit is and the more cubes people try the bigger this disadvantage gets.
2.) I wouldn't consider the way MulitBLD is currently held to be fair. People entering the room/solving their cubes in an unpleasantly loud manner are very distracting and you easily lose focus (another cuber sitting away from the door might not get distracted, though). This is currently not a big deal since 60 minutes is plenty of time to make up for it. But since the distraction itself takes constant time lowering the time limit will make this event even more unfair.

IMO these points should be addressed before changing the time limit drastically.

 

[Bob]

Actually it takes longer and you get faster the better you get. Saying the better you get, the longer it takes isn't entirely true. Plus: Isn't this argument in a similar manner valid for FMC as well? It takes longer to find shorter solutions and therefore leads to better results. At the same time you get faster at finding short solutions the better you get.


I actually like the idea of a "speed"-multi. I have two concerns, though:
1.) Since the orientation in which you get your cubes is considered to be random, they might be different for different people in the same round. Cuber A might need the extra 10s to orient his cubes while Cuber B might get lucky and doesn't need to orient his cubes at all. The shorter the time limit is and the more cubes people try the bigger this disadvantage gets.
2.) I wouldn't consider the way MulitBLD is currently held to be fair. People entering the room/solving their cubes in an unpleasantly loud manner are very distracting and you easily lose focus (another cuber sitting away from the door might not get distracted, though). This is currently not a big deal since 60 minutes is plenty of time to make up for it. But since the distraction itself takes constant time lowering the time limit will make this event even more unfair.

IMO these points should be addressed before changing the time limit drastically.

Assuming everybody uses a format in which they use a specific orientation, each cube only has a 1/24 chance of being correctly oriented. If solving two cubes, there is only a 1/24^2 = 1/576 chance of both cubes being correctly oriented. As we go further, it becomes even more drastically more unlikely that a competitor has their cubes in the orientation they prefer.

 

[tim]

Assuming everybody uses a format in which they use a specific orientation, each cube only has a 1/24 chance of being correctly oriented. If solving two cubes, there is only a 1/24^2 = 1/576 chance of both cubes being correctly oriented. As we go further, it becomes even more drastically more unlikely that a competitor has their cubes in the orientation they prefer.

In practice, every cube usually has the same orientation. And even if each cube's orientation is entirely random, it's still not fair.

 

[Micael]

I totally prefer 60min, but I think 10 min per cube is to long. That could ease running the event if it was, say, 5 mins per cubes.

 

[qqwref]

Assuming everybody uses a format in which they use a specific orientation, each cube only has a 1/24 chance of being correctly oriented. If solving two cubes, there is only a 1/24^2 = 1/576 chance of both cubes being correctly oriented. As we go further, it becomes even more drastically more unlikely that a competitor has their cubes in the orientation they prefer.

Wait, what? Have you ever seen a multiBLD scrambler randomly throw every cube up in the air individually? I mean, sure, you could do that, but it's extra work for no real reason, and that risks damaging a cube. It's much more likely to have all the cubes in the same orientation, and that orientation is most likely to be white top green front (or white top blue front if the competitor sat on the opposite side of the table).

 

[A Leman]

I am very inexperienced about competitions so correct me if I am wrong to think this, but would it be possible to create another event that is 10Min MBLD. Then Organizers could choose to run the quicker paced multi to simplify competitions, but the choice(and records) of the 1Hr MBLD would still be avalible for those who wish to organize and compete in it. BLD is a lot like memory sports and they don't always organize 1Hr #'s and use 5min #'s instead, but the option of running 1Hr #'s is still avalible.

@Mike Hughey: I understand you point about 10 minutes/cube being too long, but that could be changed by making it 5min/cube. a change like that would act like a cut off to help organizers for most cubers until they reached a competitive level.
PS: I am still looking forward to the day that someone comes around and solves 60/60 MBLD.

 

[tx789]

This must of been said before


One solution have 2-4 judges that switch every so often say every 2 cubes, 5 min or 10 min those at large comps this could be a problem

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

This must of been said before


One solution have 2-4 judges that switch every so often say every 2 cubes, 5 min or 10 min those at large comps this could be a problem

The problem isn't the judging, as this can be worked around using a music stand with the card on it, or similar. The problem is that it takes too much time in a competition.

Personally, I think it should stay as it is, so that there is variation in the types of memory used in competition. I see it like 3BLD trains memo speed, 4 and 5BLD train accuracy, and multi trains capacity, so if you lower the limit, it becomes much more about speed than the number of cubes.

 

[tx789]

The problem isn't the judging, as this can be worked around using a music stand with the card on it, or similar. The problem is that it takes too much time in a competition.

Personally, I think it should stay as it is, so that there is variation in the types of memory used in competition. I see it like 3BLD trains memo speed, 4 and 5BLD train accuracy, and multi trains capacity, so if you lower the limit, it becomes much more about speed than the number of cubes.

Yeah I guess so but watching it would get boring
Still FMC takes 1 hour max like multi shorting it to 45 wouldn't be the worst but I think the best solution is to see how the event goes and how long the average attempt takes more so world record ones

 

[Ranzha]

Yeah I guess so but watching it would get boring

Irrelevant.

I say keep it as is. If you're hosting a competition and you want Multi, set aside time for it.

 

[Marcell]

I actually like the idea of having best of 3 with 10 minute limit. But I reckon this has barely anything to do with what we now call MBLD. This would be much more like 5BLD.
Multi does focus on a different aspect of blindfolded solving than the other events. But I fail to see why this is a downside - I actually think this is great. This makes blindfolded cubing all the more interesting.
My opinion is: keep it as it is.

 

[ottozing]

I think the way MBLD is right now is the best possible way to have it. If you're worried about MBLD taking up time at a comp, don't host MBLD. I also think the idea of having optional time limits (Lower than 1 hour) is good too for smaller comps where there aren't going to be any instances of people doing more than 5 or 6 cubes.

 

[Zane_C]

My 2 cents.

I quite like the proposed 10 minute limit (best of 3 format) and the reasons put forth by Mike. If it were to go ahead, it would however be a shame for the many cubers who enjoy the event and will no longer be able to compete due to the strict limit. But the one positive side of this is that it would only affect current cubers, and not new ones, since new cubers would emerge into the cubing community under the impression that multi BLD has always had a 10 minute limit. Being able to stackmat multi would be an intrinsic part of the event, and if they can't do multi in under 10 minutes, I don't see why there would be much emotional repercussions. As a comparison, I suppose this isn't really any different from when 'old-style' multi BLD was abolished in 2008. At the time, cubers that could attempt >6 cube attempts in over 60 minutes may have been a little saddened, but fairly new cubers like myself have grown used to the 60 minute format from the very beginning, and aren't bothered that more cubes can be attempted in over 60 minutes.

If a new time limit is to be chosen, I don't like the idea of cutting the total limit down to 45, 30, 20 mins... or any other limit that isn't 10 minutes for several reasons. It'll obviously be more convenient to use a stackmat and have the competitor stop their own timer, rather than the usual confirmation to the judge with the stopwatch. A 10 minute limit will also make the event a lot more manageable, as there won't be huge amounts of cubes that will need to be transported/handled/scrambled, and also this -

1. Multi is causing logistical problems of various sorts. People who travel to competitions find it hard to bring enough cubes, which is apparently causing a number of top people to abandon multi. It is certainly a challenge to organizers to handle competitors with large numbers of cubes. An hour is a very long time to have to judge a single attempt. Keeping the cubes covered with so many cubes is a challenge. And there are certainly other issues I'm not thinking of right now.

Reducing the limit to a figure other than 10 minutes seems very arbitrary to me. Firstly, nothing has changed to benefit the time keeping of the event (no convenience of a stackmat). Secondly, there will still be competitors attempting large amounts of cubes. Even cutting the limit in half to 30 minutes will not solve the complications caused by competitors attempting many cubes. And as for cutting the limit down to 20 minutes, well, if it's going that low I feel as if it may as well be cut all the way down to 10 minutes.

In discussing this, I think it is may also be worth considering the future of multi BLD solvers. As the cubing community grows, and more information becomes available on the topics of memory methods, BLD solving methods, and multi BLD techniques, there will no doubt be a lot more BLD solvers emerging, and with them - comes more skill. In a few years time there may very well be a number of new people who are even more enthusiastic with memory sports than Maskow, and who also apply their memory skill to multi BLD. If the 60 minute limit remains unchanged, I foresee a future where 30 to 40+ cube attempts will be common (well, for those competitions that will tolerate multi). The complications caused by large attempts is one of the main concerns for why this thread was made in the first place...

In regards to cutoffs not being alloted for multi BLD, I originally thought it would be a good idea to allow for cutoffs in regulation H1b, but then I realised the whole point of the 60 minute limit in the first place was to make multi a fair event, so that all competitors at any competition had an equal time.

Although I do like the idea of a 10 minute limit, and it may sounds like I'm all for it, as others have already addressed, the current format for multi BLD makes it unique, in that it focuses on memory capacity and endurance. If the limit were to be dropped to 10 minutes, those attributes would be badly damaged, and the event would indeed become much like big cubes BLD. Multi BLD can certainly be a hassle for organisers, but the solution to this is easy - don't run the event. As for the competitions that do host multi BLD, as long as there is an allocated time slot, a dedicated judge(s), an unused table/area, a cooperative competitor, and lots of scrambles, it should be fine.

So I say keep it how it is. And if the current format is to change, would that turn 'old-style' multi BLD into 'older-style'?

 

[StephenC]

I am a total noob at BLD, so I am probably saying something very noobish. I think that having a time cutoff for BLD is a good idea, but 1 hour also seems like it could be a limiting in the same way that having a 10 minute limit is limiting (admittedly not for many people). If a competition has the ability to hold a multi-BLD event that is longer then an hour, and they have the necessary judging capacity to go for longer then an hour (judges that are willing to judge for more then an hour), I think that we should allow them to hold multi-BLD attempts with a longer time limit. Not totally eliminating the time limit, but allowing competitions to extend the time limit to their capacity.

 

[Zane_C]

If a competition has the ability to hold a multi-BLD event that is longer then an hour, and they have the necessary judging capacity to go for longer then an hour (judges that are willing to judge for more then an hour), I think that we should allow them to hold multi-BLD attempts with a longer time limit.

This used to be the official multi BLD format. The limit was determined by multiplying the cubes attempted by 10 minutes, with no maximum limit (also, competitors who did not achieve 100% accuracy got a DNF result). The current format was adopted because many rightfully felt that it was unfair that some people could attempt more cubes than others due to the circumstances of the competition. For example, someone at a competition with the venue hired all day and a dedicated judge could spend the entire day memorising. Whereas someone else who may be more experienced can only spend a couple of hours on the attempt due to circumstances at a completely different competition.

 

[aronpm]

10 minute best of 3 sounds cool

doing a 60 minute attempt is boring as ****