PokeCuberAlex
Member
Not surprised with this being Feliks Zemdegs, keep it up as you really are made of WR's! =D
This is insane! Very impressive!
(too bad the whole thing is a bit soiled by an incompetent scrambler tho)
From what I hear, the cross was even easier on the original scramble. SoThe scrambler made a mistake. If the scrambler made a mistake scrambling someone else's cube, then this wouldn't have been such a big deal. Don't blame the scrambler for making a little mistake.
If the scrambler intentionally gave Feliks(in particular) easy scramble, then there's a problem.
Amazing solve either way.
I think the result is legit, but I suggest faz give up the record.
There was also sq1 WR with wrong scramble, but he thought it was too fast at that time, so he give up the record.
6.88 is too much improvement from 8.27, so it cause the growth of OH event hugely
From what I hear, the cross was even easier on the original scramble. So
At no point is the validity of a scramble based upon which method the solver uses. A bad scramble for CFOP may be a good one for Roux, and a bad scramble for ZZ may be an easy one for CFOP.
most people use cfop...
This part I have a problem with. To deem him as "incompetent" based on one mistake is a really harsh judgment. He already must feel bad enough about his mistake, and this kind of abuse is unnecessary and unfair.
It was not a complaint or a suggestion, it was a question.
Especially since it is only one mistake. Doing R instead of R';
B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R(') D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2
Now that the problem has been detected, the board should give him the WR.
In a programming language I use often there is a big discussion on why you shouldn't use the backtick "`" to continue lines as small fonts make it hard to tell that from a single quote "'" and when you add a printer that might be a bit dodgy, a small fleck could easily just be totally missed. So maybe the scramble sheet was printed with a printer that had a hiccup on the black ink just at that R which made the ' almost impossible to see?Especially since it is only one mistake. Doing R instead of R';
In a programming language I use often there is a big discussion on why you shouldn't use the backtick "`" to continue lines as small fonts make it hard to tell that from a single quote "'" and when you add a printer that might be a bit dodgy, a small fleck could easily just be totally missed. So maybe the scramble sheet was printed with a printer that had a hiccup on the black ink just at that R which made the ' almost impossible to see?
Just saying that things might not always be as obvious as you might think...
The question is how do we now know that? I mean, from the information we have it seems to me pretty difficult to arrive to the conclusion that it was exactly that R/R' mistake. I didn't even kown that we knew the exact estate Feliks' cube was when he started his solve unless in the video most of the sides can be perfectly seen during inspection and the estate can be reconstructed and then, what? the suboptimal solution for the scramble that gives that estate just happens to be the same than the original scramble but with the R/R' difference? I'm not very knowledgeable in cube theory so maybe I'm saying something stupid, in that case please correct me, I'm always happy to learn ;-)
But, accepting this as a fact, it is now clear that it was an unintentional misscramble. So any conspiracy theories of someone giving the advantage on purpose can be forgotten now (not that I believed any of that myself even for a split second). The only reasonable conclusion in my opinion is to award the WR, I fully agree.
You can easily reconstruct how the cube looked when the solve is on video (even if not all sides are visible during inspection). If that state is identical to the misscramble, it's extremely likely that this is what happened.
Btw this doesn't mean the optimal solution has the same length. In this case though, they both require more than 16 moves (too lazy to check for optimal).
Doing R instead of R';
B L2 D' R L2 F2 B R(') D' F R F2 R L2 U2 D2 L' F2 L' B2
What if I was at the competition, and someone promised to give me 3 dollars if I got him a legit but easy scramble?
...Then I went over to the scrambling table and memorized the scramble
....Then I went back to my laptop and typed the scramble into my computer program
...and the computer program generates "typo scrambles" in which 1 of the moves is just slightly different (1 R becomes R', one B becomes B', etc)
...and then it checks each one of these scrambles for the lowest-move xcross, then spits it out to me.
...Then I go back to the scrambling table and scramble their cube. Then I go buy some candy with my 3 bucks.
Ok WCA
One would hope you wouldn't sell your integrity for 3 dollars.
So basically they repeated Felik's solve in reverse, okay, fine, I'm su dumb I didn't think of that possibility. But to discover that you can get to that estate with just changing an R/R' is what I don't get, unless somebody tried "let's see if it was just this D that was changed into a D'".