FMC ranking system

[Jorian Meeuse]

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.

Let me get this straight. Your reasoning is:

- There is almost no difference between what I am proposing and what is currently being used;
- The probability of the issues I am fighting actually arising is basically 0;
- Unrelated obvious thing.

And hence the WCA is extremely unfair and intentionally discriminating, and the way FMC is being ranked should be changed drastically, even though it would mostly affect world class FMC solvers, and not me, which is why I care so deeply.

(I thought it fair to assume you are not a world class FMC solver. Feel free to correct me if that is incorrect.)

 

[JDAW6]

Let me get this straight. Your reasoning is:

- There is almost no difference between what I am proposing and what is currently being used;
- The probability of the issues I am fighting actually arising is basically 0;
- Unrelated obvious thing.

And hence the WCA is extremely unfair and intentionally discriminating, and the way FMC is being ranked should be changed drastically, even though it would mostly affect world class FMC solvers, and not me, which is why I care so deeply.

(I thought it fair to assume you are not a world class FMC solver. Feel free to correct me if that is incorrect.)

He has never competed in FMC officially

 

[tseitsei]

Having only 18 move optimal scrambles would not make all scrambles equal. Most of the optimal solutions are just unfindable for humans with current methods.

Meaning that an 18-move optimal scrambles that has a human findable (eo->dr->htr with reasonable movecounts for all steps) optimal (or optimal +1) solution would be much better than a scramble where all sub20 solutions are some computer nonsense.
An 18 move scramble could even be better than a 16 move scramble if the 18 mover has a findable optimal solutions and 16 doesnt have findable shorter solutions.

Cubing is inherently lucky/"unfair" sport in that regard since every scramble is different. And there is really no good way of changing that. We need different scrambles, solving the same one(s) ovet and over again wouldnt make any sense.
Plus in competitions everyone gets the same scrambles anyway so it is only a problem with Records. So that also helps a little bit. But luck IS and will always be a part of cubing.

 

[bcube]

Let me get this straight. Your reasoning is:

- There is almost no difference between what I am proposing and what is currently being used;
- The probability of the issues I am fighting actually arising is basically 0;
- Unrelated obvious thing.

And hence the WCA is extremely unfair and intentionally discriminating, and the way FMC is being ranked should be changed drastically, even though it would mostly affect world class FMC solvers, and not me, which is why I care so deeply.

(I thought it fair to assume you are not a world class FMC solver. Feel free to correct me if that is incorrect.)

I won't repeat myself here, sorry. If you want to think of me that way, I am fine with it.

To add what has not been said yet in this thread, the WCA results team is misleading to say at least by making a wrong impression on all non-cubers and some portion of cubers that the FMC results on their site are comparable when they are not (source & possible solutions).