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.

It's interesting that they round average times, but truncate single times. Is there a reason we still truncate times, other than the fact that all past times are to 2 decimal places?

It may be that you can't accurately measure to three decimal places with a stackmat. The displayed result may not always be the correct result for such small scales of time, and the uncertainty's magnitude is much higher.

Solves used to calculate the average* are called "counting" because they "count" toward the average. In this case, Feliks had a 4.99 that counted toward the average, so a "counting 4".

* - if you don't know, the lowest and highest times are thrown out and then the other three are averaged to get an official average.

I've found reconstructions in comments by Wang Jiayu:

Reconstructions:

7.16
R2 B2 L2 U' L2 D' L' U F U2 F' R' D B U R F2

y // inspection
R2' F D F D2 // cross
y F U' F' R U' R' U R' U' R // 1st pair
y' U' L' U L R' U R // 2nd pair
R U' R' F U F' // 3rd pair
U' R U R' // 4th pair
U2 F U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' F' // OLL
U R U R' F' R U2 R' U2 R' F R U R U2 R' U // PLL

5.04
D2 L2 F2 D2 R2 F' L2 B' F' U' F' D' B D' B R U B' D2 U2

x y2 // inspection
U' R2' D R' D2 // cross
R U2' R' U L U L' // 1st pair
U' R' U2' R d' R U R' // 2nd pair
U' L U2 L' // 3rd pair
y' U R U' R' y' R' U' R // 4th pair
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // OLL
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U' // PLL

4.67
D2 B F2 R2 U2 B L2 D2 B2 L' F' R B' U L' R D' R' B

y z' // inspection
L' U' r' l U' l' R' U' R D // Xcross
y' U' U r U' r' F // 2nd pair
U' R' U R // 3rd pair
U R' F R F' // set up
U' R' F R F' // VLS
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 // PLL

6.55
R' B R L F' U' B' R2 U B U' L2 D F2 U D F2 U' R2

z' y // inspection
U' R' F D2 R' U R' D' // cross
L U L' // 1st pair
U' R U' R' U' R' U' R // 2nd pair
U' R U' R' U L' U' L // 3rd pair
U R U R' U' R U R' // 4th pair
U' R' F' r U' r' F r U' r' F2 R //OLL
R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R2 D U' R' U R D' // PLL

4.99
D2 F2 R B2 F2 D2 B2 R U2 L U R' F' U R' B F2 R F U2

x // inspection
U' R U2 R (U' D) // cross + 2 pairs set up
R' U R2 U' R' // inserts
y' R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R' // 3rd pair
y' U R' F R F' //set up
U R U2 R' F R U R' U' F' // VLS
y' x' R U' R D2 R' U R D2 R2 //PLL

It may be that you can't accurately measure to three decimal places with a stackmat. The displayed result may not always be the correct result for such small scales of time, and the uncertainty's magnitude is much higher.

This may be an argument for rounding to two decimal places, but it definitely isn't an argument for preferring round-to-zero over round-to-nearest or vice versa.

This may be an argument for rounding to two decimal places, but it definitely isn't an argument for preferring round-to-zero over round-to-nearest or vice versa.

I do think one of the arguments for truncating was for theoretical consistency with gen 2 stackmats. There are still some in use for competitions, I think - I noticed that there was an item in the WCA discussions (https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/issues/619) asking about how many are still being used for official competitions. In theory a gen 2 stackmat would turn over to the next hundredth of a second at the beginning of that hundredth, so if you truncate a time with 3 digits, you would get a consistent result with what would come from a 2-digit stackmat.

Of course, that's just theory - not sure if anyone has ever actually tested them to verify that, or even to verify the accuracy of either of them in truly adequate fashion.