FMC ranking system

[bcube]

FMC is held under equal conditions because everyone has the same chance of getting a lucky scramble.

Please, read again what I wrote. I believe I made myself pretty clear in several posts that I am objecting about the current FMC ranking system.

It is the current ranking system which is discriminating the vast majority of competitors, not the event itself as is (even if I still think optimal 18-mover as a scramble for each competitor would be the best WCA´s choice for this event from the beginning).

Here is an analogy to sprinter´s race: Adam will run 100 meters, Bob will run 90 meters (because rules are allowing that). They will both clock 10 seconds, meaning they will finish at the same time. The current ranking system is saying they should be ranked the same (because they finished at the same moment). I am proposing they should be ranked differently because their initial conditions were not equal, the race was not fair.

 

[bcube]

Does anyone know the reasons why WCA denied the suggestions I made in the past?

I can't believe I am the first one (edit: see a post from 2012) making the proposals to WCA to fix the discrimination issue (and yes, I contacted WCA almost 2 months ago and got no response from them since then).

 

[OtaMota]

Does anyone know the reasons why WCA denied the suggestions I made in the past?

I can't believe I am the first one making the proposals to WCA to fix the discrimination issue (and yes, I contacted WCA almost 2 months ago and got no response from them since then).

I believe you posted it on GitHub, which not many people use these days. The WCA forums is a lot more active, and you are more likely to have people read it. Don’t just put the link of this SS forum thread though, summarize the proposal.

 

[bldcuber314]

Here is an analogy to sprinter´s race: Adam will run 100 meters, Bob will run 90 meters (because rules are allowing that). They will both clock 10 seconds, meaning they will finish at the same time. The current ranking system is saying they should be ranked the same (because they finished at the same moment). I am proposing they should be ranked differently because their initial conditions were not equal, the race was not fair.

That is the case in any WCA event. If someone gets a 1.84 9 mover in Skewb, they will be tied with someone who gets a 1.84 7 mover.

 

[bcube]

If someone gets a 1.84 9 mover in Skewb, they will be tied with someone who gets a 1.84 7 mover.

When time is the ranking factor it makes sense that the same time will result in the same ranking.

All but 2 (FMC, MBLD) WCA events have time as a primary ranking factor. In MBLD it is a secondary ranking factor. In FMC it doesn't matter whether the solve is finished in 3 seconds or 20 minutes.

That's what I tried to indirectly indicate by "FMC can be well quantified and measured" in the first post of this thread.

As I understand it, all other WCA events except for FMC can be only well measured.

 

[abunickabhi]

I believe you posted it on GitHub, which not many people use these days. The WCA forums is a lot more active, and you are more likely to have people read it. Don’t just put the link of this SS forum thread though, summarize the proposal.

Yes the WCA forum is quite active.

I will vouch to have more meaningful WCA related discussions there.

 

[bcube]

Does anyone know the reasons why WCA denied the suggestions I made in the past?

Alright. Does anyone know the reasons why WCA chose case A over case B below, at least?

A) use 1 of 43 * 10^18 scrambles and use different and not equal initial conditions for all competitors
B) use 1 of 29 * 10^18 scrambles and use fair and equal initial conditions for all competitors

I hope there is a better explanation than just handpicking the scrambles since both cases are the same order of magnitude, B making 2/3 of A (A representing a random state, B representing optimal 18-mover). To me, B outweights A even when handpicking the scrambles.

 

[ProStar]

Alright. Does anyone know the reasons why WCA chose case A over case B below, at least?

A) use 1 of 43 * 10^18 scrambles and use different and not equal initial conditions for all competitors
B) use 1 of 29 * 10^18 scrambles and use fair and equal initial conditions for all competitors

I hope there is a better explanation than just handpicking the scrambles since both cases are the same order of magnitude, B making 2/3 of A (A representing a random state, B representing optimal 18-mover). To me, B outweights A even when handpicking the scrambles.

Because that's a terribly unfair way to represent the two options

 

[bcube]

This is definitely my last post in this thread because I strongly believe that I have nothing more to add to what I said earlier, and that the WCA is:

1. intentionally discriminating (that´s what this thread is about)
2. lying (when promoting the WCA forum as public discussions; to me, public means free to listen/watch, not acting like super secret organization)
3. not communicating effectively (I publically asked members of the WCA regulation team through 2 channels, I expected public answering reaction from them)

The WCA has changed a lot since 2005 when I became its member as a competitor. Back then, there was a public WCA forum, and communication was effective between the WCA officials and random bystanders.

Unlike others, I see future changes in the FMC event as inevitable (regardless whether the community will like them or not). I wish that common sense will prevail in the WCA regulations.

Because that's a terribly unfair way to represent the two options

I don´t see how stating facts is a terrible way. Anyhow, following my previous

if WCA really wants to recognize that as a WR then I quit trying to change anything immediately

I am not trying to change anything anymore.

---

Edit (nothing new mentioned in this part, only extending this post):

Assuming the distance for each competitor would be selected by computer/randomly, ask yourself why athletics regulations are not allowing such a race. Also question yourself why the athletics ranking system for decathlon is the way it is among competitors with different results (the answer lies in this post).

Another example: consider archery tournament where there are 10 targets, each has 0-10 points. Ask yourself why each competitor has the same amount of 10 arrows (when the amount could be randomly selected by a computer for each competitor) and why the archery governing body would not allow comparing 97 points (this competitor had 10 shots) with 89 points (this competitor had 9 shots) in the same category if random amount of arrows for competitors would be allowed.

Try to find analogies among distance, time (athletics), number of shots, number of points (archery) and optimal number of moves, used number of moves (FMC cubing).

Try to find analogies among lucky factors like wind, sunlight, sound, shooting method in archery for FMC cubing (you should come to a conclusion that the argument "FMC is currently held under fair and equal conditions because everyone has the same chance of getting lucky (whatever that means) scramble" is not valid - in athletics, everyone could get the same chance of getting either 80, 90, 100 or 120 metres selected by computer (find an analogy in archery), yet I am talking about competitor´s time (find an analogy in archery)). Competitors with longer distances and lower amount of shots would be clearly discriminated.

I can´t think of any other sport governing body allowing an analogy of the current FMC ranking system. Can you? If not, ask yourself why not because in athletics as well as archery it would be technically possible to adapt an analogy of the current FMC cubing ranking system.

 

[OtaMota]

WCA forum as public discussions

It is though? I see many pre-teenagers on the forums, you don’t even need to have a WCA id to participate in discussions. I think it is a public discussion place if it is accessible to many people.

 

[OtaMota]

Here is the link in case you need it

World Cube Association

The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...

forum.worldcubeassociation.org

 

[OtaMota]

Oh, I almost forgot, right now, the WCA forums is having an event where you can suggest proposals for the Jan 2025 regulation cycle. If you want to propose your idea on FMC, now might be the best time to do so

 

[bldcuber314]

Oh, I almost forgot, right now, the WCA forums is having an event where you can suggest proposals for the Jan 2025 regulation cycle. If you want to propose your idea on FMC, now might be the best time to do so

Can somebody try to propose +2s for Clock(If it can be solved by turning a dial by 1 o'clock)? I'm open to any reasons this is a bad idea, but I feel like it makes sense as DNFing like this in Clock is an equivalent mistake to a regular +2.

 

[FineGeoduck2211]

Can somebody try to propose +2s for Clock(If it can be solved by turning a dial by 1 o'clock)? I'm open to any reasons this is a bad idea, but I feel like it makes sense as DNFing like this in Clock is an equivalent mistake to a regular +2.

well the goal of the puzzle is to get ALL the clocks at 12, It's like saying to +2 a dnf bld solve cause you missed a move in the middle of execution. It doesn't really make any sense cause the whole goal of the puzzle is to get all the arrows at 12. It's like saying if we can +2 a square one solve cause the colors are solved but the cubeshape is not solved. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but that will kinda just destroy the whole goal for clock

 

[ProStar]

well the goal of the puzzle is to get ALL the clocks at 12, It's like saying to +2 a dnf bld solve cause you missed a move in the middle of execution. It doesn't really make any sense cause the whole goal of the puzzle is to get all the arrows at 12. It's like saying if we can +2 a square one solve cause the colors are solved but the cubeshape is not solved. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but that will kinda just destroy the whole goal for clock

He’s saying if you can do one extra move at the end to solve it then it should be a +2, which falls perfectly in line with every other puzzle. Now that changing pins isn’t considered a move, I think this would be a good change.

 

[bldcuber314]

well the goal of the puzzle is to get ALL the clocks at 12, It's like saying to +2 a dnf bld solve cause you missed a move in the middle of execution. It doesn't really make any sense cause the whole goal of the puzzle is to get all the arrows at 12. It's like saying if we can +2 a square one solve cause the colors are solved but the cubeshape is not solved. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but that will kinda just destroy the whole goal for clock

The goal of a Rubik's Cube is to get all sides a solid colour, but +2s exist. +2s also exist for BLD. When it is one move off, you have clearly solved the puzzle, but simply got unlucky or made a very small mistake that has nothing to do with solving the puzzle. It is completely different from the sq1 idea as there you haven't at all solved the puzzle. Also again is there anybody who is able to contact the WCA and propose this?

 

[OtaMota]

The goal of a Rubik's Cube is to get all sides a solid colour, but +2s exist. +2s also exist for BLD. When it is one move off, you have clearly solved the puzzle, but simply got unlucky or made a very small mistake that has nothing to do with solving the puzzle. It is completely different from the sq1 idea as there you haven't at all solved the puzzle. Also again is there anybody who is able to contact the WCA and propose this?

Already done, WRC does not seem keen on it rn

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

It's like saying if we can +2 a square one solve cause the colors are solved but the cubeshape is not solved. I'm not sure if this is making any sense, but that will kinda just destroy the whole goal for clock

Cube shape does not have to be solved to get a recorded time. If the puzzle is a "slice" (/) off and nothing else it is given a +2 penalty.

ProStar:

He’s saying if you can do one extra move at the end to solve it then it should be a +2, which falls perfectly in line with every other puzzle. Now that changing pins isn’t considered a move, I think this would be a good change.

I find this a very valid , and compelling, argument.

 

[bcube]

This is definitely my last post in this thread because I strongly believe that I have nothing more to add to what I said earlier

OK, maybe just a little bit of data-driven facts. Did you know:

• statistically speaking, 2 out of 3 attempts in a current official FMC mean should be 18-movers, and the third one most probably 17-mover? Random state mean with issues is 17.67 moves optimally, whereas fixed 18-mover mean guaranting fair and equal conditions is 18 moves. (source)
• you could officially get a 12-mover in the 3x3x3 event in 2018? It is, statistically speaking, almost guaranteed you will not get another official 12-mover in a lifetime, because you should get 1 such scramble in 1 000 000 of your official scrambles. (source - data from 2014 to 2019)
• the probability of getting an X-mover is not the same/linear? For example, you should get a 17-mover in 26.7%, whereas a 15-mover in only 0,2% of your scrambles.

 

[ProStar]

OK, maybe just a little bit of data-driven facts. Did you know:

• statistically speaking, 2 out of 3 attempts in a current official FMC mean should be 18-movers, and the third one most probably 17-mover? Random state mean with issues is 17.67 moves optimally, whereas fixed 18-mover mean guaranting fair and equal conditions is 18 moves. (source)
• you could officially get a 12-mover in the 3x3x3 event in 2018? It is, statistically speaking, almost guaranteed you will not get another official 12-mover in a lifetime, because you should get 1 such scramble in 1 000 000 of your official scrambles. (source - data from 2014 to 2019)
• the probability of getting an X-mover is not the same/linear? For example, you should get a 17-mover in 26.7%, whereas a 15-mover in only 0,2% of your scrambles.

Yup that’s how math works. There’s a good reason that no one gets those FMC results, because it’s insanely hard to find those solutions. It’s God’s number, not random human’s number. You can also get a 2-mover in 3x3, it’s just incredibly statistically unlikely. And of course the states by optimal solution length are not linear. That’s just not how the math of the cube works out. Why artificially restrict the cube’s possible states and defeat the entire purpose of solving it?