future competitions and lucky scrambles

[Stefan]

you cant just make up a new rule about 2x2 scrambling after 8 years of cubing

If it is consistent with everything that happened so far, why not?

If I'm not mistaken, a rule removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles would actually be *more* consistent with what happened so far than a rule forbidding removing scrambles. And I'm quite certain removing 2-moves-or-less is definitely more consistent with what happened so far, at least in the only case I heard about where a 2-mover occurred, it *was* removed.

That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.

 

[Kirjava]

Do I get this right? You think one lucky scramble for each average is al right? Ok. So, what's your opinion on average scrambles containing more than one lucky scramble?

No, you didn't understand me.

Well, it can eliminate locky few move solves.

Why would you want to do that?

 

[Godmil]

2x2 is dumb, i cant believe there are like 3 threads about this bullcrap.

It's not just 2x2 though, it's also Clock, Sq-1... there was talk that it should prevent Skewb from being an official event..

 

[Eric79]

[...]That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.

Well, I actually talk about more than just that... your rule would keep it just as it is right now. So how is your opinion on eliminating luck for few moves lucky solves by setting a minimal move count necessary to solve the puzzle?

No, you didn't understand me.

Then please explain if you don't mind my asking.

Why would you want to do that?

To avoid few moves lucky solves to have actual results representing someones ability, not his/her luck regarding getting an easy scramble. Comparability also is a reason. Single records set by luck, no matter which event, are quite meaningless - as you said before - as long as luck is the most deciding factor.

It's not just 2x2 though, it's also Clock, Sq-1... there was talk that it should prevent Skewb from being an official event..

Exactly, I added this before to the original post to clarify things. But I didn't know there were talks not to include skewb because of that.

 

[timelonade]

Maybe the WCA should just stop listing the 2x2x2 single results.

But this would take away so much drama ;P. However I do think this is a good idea, people would start to concentrate a lot more on averages and there would not be so much an element of "luck", unless we want to zoom out a little and look at whether 5 solves (for an avg) can be "luckier" than 5 other solves..

 

[tim]

I am quite missing the context of that statement.

I assumed you've already read his post and knew the context. (You can always klick on the small double arrow right next to the name, btw.)

And I enver said they should be "deleted"

You said "such drastic steps has to be done". And even if you just want to invalidate existing WRs: That's not necessary as Mike already suggested.

Leave the scramble length aside, they are not topic of this thread as there are already rules regarding them

According to you, they are:

Should lucky scrambles (few move solutions) not be used in future competitions?

and there are no rules regarding scramble length for 2x2 and 3x3, that's why we're discussing them in the first place.

it's not like there are 3x3x3 scrambles for 3x3 legit for competitions which only are 6 (just an example) turns long - this one simply is about the minimal move count legit to solve the puzzle. (It may result in the same, but doesn't include each other from a certain scramble length on.)

Scramble length for 3x3 = Length of optimal solution.
Have you lived under a rock for the last 2(?) years?

 

[Eric79]

But this would take away so much drama ;P. However I do think this is a good idea, people would start to concentrate a lot more on averages and there would not be so much an element of "luck", unless we want to zoom out a little and look at whether 5 solves (for an avg) can be "luckier" than 5 other solves..

Well, it could be done for every event where the problem occurs. It was a more mild solution then what I hypothetically suggested. But in the end it more or less only was a psychologic solution as it does the same: By having five solves instead of one, luck gets almost eliminated naturally due to its seldom occurrence.
Official world single records though still would be nice to have which would make somthing similar to what I wrote down neccessary.

 

[rowehessler]

If it is consistent with everything that happened so far, why not?

If I'm not mistaken, a rule removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles would actually be *more* consistent with what happened so far than a rule forbidding removing scrambles. And I'm quite certain removing 2-moves-or-less is definitely more consistent with what happened so far, at least in the only case I heard about where a 2-mover occurred, it *was* removed.

That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.

I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second. If the WR was still like 2.xx or 1.xx and this rule was made, then it would be more fair. Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me). And also, im totally half asleep right now, i hope what im saying makes any sense at all to anyone.

 

[Eric79]

I assumed you've already read his post and knew the context. (You can always klick on the small double arrow right next to the name, btw.)

Nope, haven't done that yet. Too busy right now...

You said "such drastic steps has to be done". And even if you just want to invalidate existing WRs: That's not necessary as Mike already suggested.

Well, I maybe should read what he wrote in context later.

According to you, they are:

No they are not - look what is written in brackets that specifies what I am talking about: "few move solutions". A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used.

and there are no rules regarding scramble length for 2x2 and 3x3, that's why we're discussing them in the first place.

Well, obviously no few move scrambles (e.g. somethign between 2-10 turns) are used in competitions depending on the event, are they? They all are of a certain length which should ensure to have the cube acutlly scrambled and it wasn't meant to get 2 move solves from them - I assume it was relied on the seldom statistical occurrence of too easy scrambles... which not quite worked out as you can see by the discussions going on right now.

 

[timelonade]

Well, it could be done for every event where the problem occurs. It was a more mild solution then what I hypothetically suggested. But in the end it more or less only was a psychologic solution as it does the same: By having five solves instead of one, luck gets almost eliminated naturally due to its seldom occurrence.
Official world single records though still would be nice to have which would make somthing similar to what I wrote down neccessary.

I enjoy your signature.

 

[Eric79]

I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second. If the WR was still like 2.xx or 1.xx and this rule was made, then it would be more fair. Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me). And also, im totally half asleep right now, i hope what im saying makes any sense at all to anyone.

Well Rowe, but it seems to be not minded of in the first place. You can't just say: "Oh, we are polluting the air... oh well, now it already is dirty, who cares." Things which need improvement should be improved. IF they need improvement which should be discussed in this thread. Of course people who have already a record would not like this. But they would just need to go to another competition to get it back if they are actually good enough and not just lucky, right? Regarding fairnes: Is it more fair to just let people call themselves "official world record holder" (instead of "former ...") which they got partially for having luck or have a fair competition where it only is about how good someone actually is?

 

[tim]

They all are of a certain length

No. The cube has to be in a random position. The resulting scramble length (read "optimal solution") might be indeed only 4 moves long.

Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me).

I still hate you for that!

 

[Eric79]

I enjoy your signature.

Yeah, especially within that context :-D As said, what I write here in this thread is not neccessarily my opinion - what I write, it is hypothetical, something to start thinking if it actually is good as it is right now or if things should be changed.

No. The cube has to be in a random position. The resulting scramble length (read "optimal solution") might be indeed only 4 moves long.

Tim, you recognized that this is part of what I talk about? Setting a minimum number needed for solving a puzzle, not just having ANY possible random scramble usable? I clearly stated this in the first post as well as that rules had to be changed to implement that.

 

[MostEd]

Aren't 3x3 scramble taken from cube explorer, a person clicks the cube scrambled then gets a 20 move scramble which would
have a 19-20 move solution by the prog itself. wether its easier for roux, or a ZZ solve thats about the user of the method, his colorsheceme(blocks/cross) etc.. who sees wether its easy or hard

 

[Stefan]

I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second.

Yes, it might have been better to do it earlier, but it's still not too late. If we only forbid scrambles that haven't been used so far anyway or that even already have been rejected, there's no problem. There'd only be a problem if we already had let's say a WR set with 2 moves, then it would be bad to introduce a rule like no-3-moves-or-less that would've forbidden it.

So how is your opinion on eliminating luck for few moves lucky solves by setting a minimal move count necessary to solve the puzzle?

How is my opinion for my own suggestion? I don't think I understand your question.

 

[tim]

Tim, you recognized that this is part of what I talk about? Setting a minimum number needed for solving a puzzle, not just having ANY possible random scramble legit?

Eric, you recognized that I simply corrected your false statements?

 

[Eric79]

Aren't 3x3 scramble taken from cube explorer, a person clicks the cube scrambled then gets a 20 move scramble which would
have a 19-20 move solution by the prog itself. wether its easier for roux, or a ZZ solve thats about the user of the method, his colorsheceme(blocks/cross) etc.. who sees wether its easy or hard

They are taken from cube explorer for 3x3, not for other events (here is the link Tim posted earlier to the rule where also the scramble software is provided).

How is my opinion for my own suggestion? I don't think I understand your question.

Right, you didn't understand: You just were suggesting to set the limits to where they are set by records right now - which still includes some luck as 3 move solves are still quite lucky and have not too much to do with someones ability and knowledge to speedsolve a twisty puzzle. I talked eliminating luck to a level where it doesn't lead to "normally" implossible solves (2,3,4,... moves), about more stricter rules like... e.g. a minimum of 5 moves (or whatever the WCA decides) for 2x2 and so on for other events and to "void" the records set up to date. This is what I was asking you for your opinion about.

I didn't ask that, Thom did (you mixed up the quotes, please correct it).

Didn't see it when posting. Corrected it. Thanks.

Eric, you recognized that I simply corrected your false statements?

Well, looking at the words, it wasn't wrong: All scrambles are of a certain lenght - only the length itself is not certain. But joke aside... Still, I am not talking about scramble lengths but solution move counts. Just two sentences before what you say you corrected, I wrote: "A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used."

 

[tim]

Still, I am not talking about scramble lengths but solution move counts.

We all are! These two things are the same for 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx. Dude, I'm so out...

 

[timelonade]

Yeah, especially within that context :-D As said, what I write here in this thread is not neccessarily my opinion - what I write, it is hypothetical, something to start thinking if it actually is good as it is right now or if things should be changed.

I appreciate that .
I like what you say about correcting only events in which there is a problem. I think although you have written in your first post that this thread is not aimed directly at 2x2x2, it is something that should be thought about mostly for this event.. And I like the idea of filtering for events where there is a problem.

There is not such a need, I feel, for scrambles at 3x3x3 to be filtered in such a way since there does not seem (IMO) to be as great a problem with luck.. (although my position on this would easily change should the world record become 0.8seconds for a 2 move solve or w/e)

Don't fix it if it's not broken right? That's my 2c anyway.

 

[Eric79]

We all are! These two things are the same for 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx.

And a last time: "A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used.": A cube could be scrambled with 100 or 2 turns - both having the same optimal solution of two turns... So scramble length and solution length are not neccessarily the same length as opposed to what you say.

Dude, I'm so out...

On that specific topic, I now too.