• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88

yoinneroid

Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
723
WCA
2010UTOM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The scrambler misscrambled, and the circumstances that led to the misscramble is fairly understandable.
And on other scrambles he seems to be doing fairly well, but he should have not claimed that he did scramble totally right on this one attempt though, especially when it is the very first cube he scrambled on the round (I dunno with you guys, but I misscramble the very first cube very often.)

Btw, where is the 13 move optimal solution limit stated? I can only find a 2 move limit

EDIT: arcio1 ninaj'ed me
 

Mollerz

Swag Overlord
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
1,204
Location
Surrey, England
WCA
2011MOLL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The scrambler misscrambled, and the circumstances that led to the misscramble is fairly understandable.
And on other scrambles he seems to be doing fairly well, but he should have not claimed that he did scramble totally right on this one attempt though, especially when it is the very first cube he scrambled on the round (I dunno with you guys, but I misscramble the very first cube very often.)

Btw, where is the 13 move optimal solution limit stated? I can only find a 2 move limit

EDIT: arcio1 ninaj'ed me

You can find it within TNoodle, all random state scrambles produced by TNoodle for 3x3 have a minimum movecount of 13.

For those saying it's an easier scramble, is it? The original scramble is 18 moves optimal, the scramble Faz received is ALSO 18 moves optimal. Are you saying it's easier because there is an easy cross? You should absolutely NOT think like that, because that is method bias. Are you saying it's easier because he got a PLL skip, well that's also method bias, and incorrect, the scramble does not dictate whether you get a PLL skip. The scramble Faz actually received could have been generated, and could well have been the extra scramble. That is why it is allowed. Sure, if it was 8 moves optimal like Zeri's suggestion, then I fully agree that it should absolutely have been DNF'd, but it is a scramble that is possible to generate with TNoodle.

This is exactly the same situation as Akash Rupela's Indian NR.

Also for those bringing up the very old Square-1 world record by Grzegorz Prusak (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3Bo_viy6Lk). It is a different scenario. The scramble was incredibly easy, and Grzegorz immediately spoke to Lars (The delegate) and asked to see the scramble because it was so easy, and it was confirmed that the scramble was incorrect almost immediately after the solve.

Feliks did the same, he checked if the scramble was right and the scrambler was certain that it was correct. Faz did everything he could. He should not be punished for something that he could not prevent.

EDIT: I realise that no matter what I or other people say will change people's minds, and those people that think lower of the board/WCA/etc as a result of this are in the minority. If you really don't like the way stuff like this is handled, then don't compete, then you don't have to worry about them. This outcome is fair, deal with it.
 
Last edited:

APdRF

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
557
Location
Madrid, Spain (From Mallorca)
WCA
2011FIOL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
EDIT: I realise that no matter what I or other people say will change people's minds, and those people that think lower of the board/WCA/etc as a result of this are in the minority. If you really don't like the way stuff like this is handled, then don't compete, then you don't have to worry about them. This outcome is fair, deal with it.

+1

Very well said. And congrats to Feliks one last time :)
 

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,811
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
CAPTAIN-BARBOSSA

IMO the regs "supplement" the board. There job is to make these decisions. They have a pretty tricky job. Not to mention that it is MOSTLY volunteer work. We could not have a WCA board then we don't have nearly the amount of competitions who says what is official and what's not? I trust the board to make the BEST call. Not necessarily the "RIGHT" call[/QUOTE]
 

Ranzha

Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
2,551
Location
Reno, Nevada, United States
WCA
2009HARN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Obviously we should try to follow the scrambles and have the images there, but it doesn't seem to make any difference whether or not that rule is broken. Solves aren't penalised in any way.

This is the point I wanted to bring up.

Why don't people thoroughly check their work?
I don't think I've ever incorrectly performed a scramble sequence and not realised.
I have, however, done the incorrect scramble sequence correctly (e.g. scramble #3 instead of scramble #4), checked the picture, and sent the cube out. That's something I can't really excuse since it's caused by negligence.

I performed two simulations with 20 cubes.
In the first simulation, I used cstimer to generate random scrambles one at a time, and I would scramble the cubes and check only the U and F faces.
In the second simulation, I used cstimer to generate random scrambles one at a time (different from the first simulation), and I would scramble the cubes and check all six faces.

My results:
The first simulation took 5:52.15 according to qqTimer (17.61 seconds per cube)
The second simulation took 8:08.18 according to qqTimer (24.41 seconds per cube)
Difference in scramble time per cube: 6.80 seconds

Food for thought.
 
Last edited:

Pro94

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
309
Location
Legnano, Italy
WCA
2009PROV01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I can't get why the scramble was accurately checked only after the competition and not before the start of a new round.
We had a case last month were a sub-2 solve in Skewb was replaced with an extra attempt since they noticed in time the miscramble.
Now it looks like that if the delegate or the competitor don't check the validity of the attempt, this will be recognised by WCA independently if it breaks some rules.
 

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,811
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is the point I wanted to bring up.

Why don't people thoroughly check their work?
I don't think I've ever incorrectly performed a scramble sequence and not caught it and had it rescrambled.
I have, however, done the incorrect scramble sequence correctly (e.g. scramble #3 instead of scramble #4), checked the picture, and sent the cube out. That's something I can't really excuse since it's caused by negligence.

I performed two simulations with 20 cubes.
In the first simulation, I used cstimer to generate random scrambles one at a time, and I would scramble the cubes and check only the U and F faces.
In the second simulation, I used cstimer to generate random scrambles one at a time (different from the first simulation), and I would scramble the cubes and check all six faces.

My results:
The first simulation took 5:52.15 according to qqTimer (17.61 seconds per cube)
The second simulation took 8:08.18 according to qqTimer (24.41 seconds per cube)
Difference in scramble time per cube: 6.80 seconds

Food for thought.

hmm... Interesting data. Let's say that we have 80 competitors in a round one. Assuming I have done the math right total scrambling time checking two faces is 23.48 minutes (lets round it to 23.50) with checking all sides it's 32.5467 minutes. lets round that to 32.55. This is baring having to do extra scrambles catching mis scrambles and solving that cube and re scrambling. This is ONE cube per competitor. So 23.50 minutes x5 is 1.95833 hours. let's round that to 1.95 hours. Id say most comps have say two scramblers so that's .98 hours of scrambling for one round. Let's just say that's an hour.

Our final time for two side checking is 1 hour.

applying the same calculations to checking all sides I got 1.35625 hours. Lets round to 1.35 hours.

The final scrambling times for ONE first round with Feliks's scrambling speed with no delays is

Checking only 2 sides:1 hour
Checking all 6 sides:1.35 hours

I don't know what to do with this data but it's there... At least as long as I did the math correctly. I realize that 80 competitors is a fairly large sample size but I've already done the math so meh.

I can't get why the scramble was accurately checked only after the competition and not before the start of a new round.
We had a case last month were a sub-2 solve in Skewb was replaced with an extra attempt since they noticed in time the miscramble.
Now it looks like that if the delegate or the competitor don't check the validity of the attempt, this will be recognised by WCA independently if it breaks some rules.

as far as I know there is nothing saying that all records must be checked. I think there should be a reg though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top