TDM
Legend
I'm not saying I disagree with the decision; to me, it doesn't make sense having a regulation if it's not followed.
[WR] Feliks Zemdegs 3x3 OH single 6.88
- Thread starter Tim Major
- Start date
arcio1
Veteran
It doesn't get penalized. It gets replaced...
Last edited by a moderator:
SpeedCubeReview
Veteran
It was the orange Hoodie that did it.
megaminxwin
Current Clock NR Holder
I can only apologise. We had the cups for the popcorn, but Jay forgot to bring it.
Last edited by a moderator:
arcio1
Veteran
I'm not saying so because he misscrambled a cube...
Faz said:
yoinneroid
Veteran
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
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
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:
arcio1
Veteran
What is the point of existing of the WCA Regulations if the WCA Board can break them any moment and just say "don't like it? don't compete"?
Mollerz
Swag Overlord
I do not represent the board in anyway, that last statement is my opinion.
APdRF
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 557
- Location
- Madrid, Spain (From Mallorca)
- WCA ID
- 2011FIOL01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
biscuit
Veteran
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 ID
- 2009HARN01
- 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 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
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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.
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:
TDM
Legend
How can every record be checked? Not all of them are on video.
Andreaillest
Premium Member
Just came in here to say congratz Feliks!
Looks like I have some reading to do though. :rolleyes:
Looks like I have some reading to do though. :rolleyes:
biscuit
Veteran
Recreating it with the competitor. I guess there really is no way to enforce this but delegates should at least try. I don't know exactly how it would work...
MTGjumper
Veteran
Like the sq1 former world record :rolleyes:
TDM
Legend
Well, my point was supposed to be that people could be dishonest about a misscramble if nobody had recorded it so they could keep a record, but yes, it can work the other way even without a video.
Similar threads
