future competitions and lucky scrambles

[Eric79]

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.

But as Rowe (I think it was him) said: Now that the records are set, it shouldn't be changed. (Probably because of people getting angry to lose there records or whatever - that's just what I assume.) So, shouldn't be taken care of such things BEFORE they occur? The sooner the better? As you said, you probably would change your mind regarding the 3x3x3 as soon as one of those crazy lucky solves occures...

 

[tim]

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.

Since you've never been to a competition, you might not know that: For 2x2, 3x3, Pyraminx and Clock (the puzzles we're mainly talking about) the state is chosen randomly and then a solution is calculated which results in the scramble (or its inverse, that doesn't really matter). For 2x2 and Pyraminx this solution is optimal (see provided scramblers on WCA page). For 3x3 it might also be optimal if the delegate chooses so, otherwise it's close to optimal. I have no knowledge about the Clock scrambler, though. See? There's no 20 move long scramble which results in a cube 2 moves away from solved.

/edit:

2) All scrambles used in competition could be checked for the fewest move solution using software like e.g. cube explorer so even one who is not good enough to "see" the easy solution can check. (Or - to make it easier and not as time consuming - use a scrambler which excludes scrambles not nard enough.)

Oh, you really had no clue how scrambles work nowadays. What a waste of time...

 

[Stefan]

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.

Ah, ok. So not just some minimum distance, but a higher one than I had in mind. Answer: I don't like it. My reasons for minimum 4 or 3 moves (see the other current threads about it, here and here) don't apply to or even speak against a minimum of 5 or higher.

 

[Eric79]

[...]

The thing is, I wasn't limiting my original post to any specific event but was writing generally about scrambles. But thanks for the explanation anyway... Oh, and I highly doubt that every person who partook in a competition as a competitor knows how scrambles are picked. Actually I think only the fewest do really know.

Ah, ok. So not just some minimum distance, but a higher one than I had in mind. Answer: I don't like it. My reasons for minimum 4 or 3 moves (see the other current threads about it, here and here) don't apply to or even speak against a minimum of 5 or higher.

Ok, so you don't like it because former records had to be voided if higher than minimum distance solves would be discarded or just because you still like the involved luck factor too much to get rid of it?

 

[timelonade]

But as Rowe (I think it was him) said: Now that the records are set, it shouldn't be changed. (Probably because of people getting angry to lose there records or whatever - that's just what I assume.) So, shouldn't be taken care of such things BEFORE they occur? The sooner the better? As you said, you probably would change your mind regarding the 3x3x3 as soon as one of those crazy lucky solves occures...

Perhaps the current records should stand, the rules should be changed and people should just find ways to improve ;D.
Although 0.69 is low enough to say there is probably no way to improve a method to make solves subWR a possibility in say... 5% of scrambles..

A problem, we have found.

 

[rowehessler]

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?

well whoever calls themselves an "official world record holder" for a 2x2 single cube and are cocky about it then they are just losers. I always considered 2x2 WR a joke, even when i did have it. My opinion on the fairness hasnt changed because it was beaten. im going to stop participating in this thread, this was a terrible idea to post in here...

 

[Stefan]

Ok, so you don't like it because former records had to be voided if higher than minimum distance solves would be discarded or just because you still like the involved luck factor too much to get rid of it?

Do you mean lower?

It doesn't have to do with me "liking luck too much". If you insist on looking at it that way, I'd say I "don't dislike luck enough". But really, I'm rather neutral about "luck". Again, my reasons for making the cut between 3 and 4:

- As far as I know, that's consistent with what we've done so far. At least one 2-mover has been rejected and none used, don't know about 3-movers but I'd probably know about one being used, and at least one 4-mover has been used and none rejected. Looks like we've already made a cut between 3 and 4 (or 2/3 or 2/4, not sure).

- Everybody seems to agree that up-to-3 is easy. I doubt that for some 4-movers.

- I actually prefer the word "trivial" here, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily. Again, I doubt that for some 4-movers. And I'd also call a Jperm scramble "easy" or "lucky", but not trivial - non-cubers can't solve it (and it needs 10 moves, almost the maximum of any scramble). In essence, I'm not for or against "easy" or "lucky" scrambles, just against "trivial" ones. Those that kinda aren't really scrambles in the first place.

 

[Kirjava]

Everybody seems to agree that up-to-3 is easy.

That doesn't mean that they also want them removed.

 

[Stefan]

That doesn't mean that they also want them removed.

And I didn't say they do. That was not an argument about whether to have a cut, but where to put it (if at all). I was solely explaining why I'd put the cut between 3 and 4, and not somewhere higher. It's *something* that differs between those two, something that I can't say for higher cuts like Eric is thinking of and asked me about.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

- I actually prefer the word "trivial" here, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily.

My opinion too

 

[Stefan]

My opinion too

That seals it. I win.

 

[uberCuber]

Oh, and I highly doubt that every person who partook in a competition as a competitor knows how scrambles are picked. Actually I think only the fewest do really know.

Maybe they don't, but they would if they actually looked at the WCA regulations like they are supposed to. If a competitor doesn't know how scrambling works, it is their own fault.



But this thread can end now because Gaétan just agreed with Stefan.

 

[Stefan]

they would if they actually looked at the WCA regulations like they are supposed to

No, not necessarily. The regulations don't tell you (except in the scrambler source code, which you really don't have to read).

 

[uberCuber]

No, not necessarily. The regulations don't tell you (except in the scrambler source code, which you really don't have to read).

Oh wow, I seriously thought that the explanation was in the regulations...I wonder why....

Well, at least they could see that the scramble length isn't fixed for those four events, which in itself Eric did not seem to understand in his earlier posts.

 

[Dene]

I really hope Tim generates a 2 move 2x2 scramble for our competition in two weeks so we can put an end to all this silliness. Without a specific regulation I would let the scramble stay, and I'm thinking faz would sub 0.3 it. That would really put an end to all the talk.

 

[Stefan]

Well, at least they could see that the scramble length isn't fixed for those four events, which in itself Eric did not seem to understand in his earlier posts.

I just tried it and got five scrambles from 8 to 10 moves, so they were almost the same length. And the visual length difference can be explained by the proportional font. So I really had to count to see that they have different lengths. And I only counted because I was actively looking for this. One can easily miss it if not already looking for it.

 

[cmhardw]

I think if a rule is implemented that limits the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 (or even if this also includes clock, pyraminx, square-1, etc.) then this must be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out. It seems unfair to me to limit the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 and 3x3x3, but not for 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. If we do this we do it all the way.

I don't like the idea of limiting the starting positions, other than I do think that the solved state should be explicitly eliminated for all puzzles as a possible starting position. Other than that, I think any state should be allowed, and thus I agree that an element of luck should be allowable.

If we are to eliminate more starting positions than just the solved state, then I like the arguments of cutting out 3 or fewer turn scrambles for 2x2x2. This has us eliminating the 0.01% shortest possible positions of the puzzle.

A proportional cutoff for 3x3x3 would mean to eliminate the top 4325 200327 448986 shortest positions (about). Using a very rough estimation of n turns creating:
\( 18*15^{n-1} \) possible positions we would have to eliminate any position solvable in about 13 moves or less.

For pyraminx we would eliminate any position solvable in less than 4 turns (not exactly the same percentage, but close enough).

For Megaminx we would have to eliminate the top \( 10^{64} \) positions closest to the solved state.

Using:
\( 48*44^{n-1} \) as a very rough estimate for the number of positions reachable within n moves, we would have to eliminate any position solvable within about 39 moves or less.

I guess where I am going with this is I don't like the idea of eliminating 3 move 2x2x2 scrambles if we don't also eliminate 39 move Megaminx scrambles. I think doing this for all puzzles would be a lot of work, and I don't see a huge problem with allowing for easier cases for all puzzles.

For the record I think it's a bit silly to make sure all Megaminx scrambles less than about 39 moves are removed and never appear, but if people are so adamant about removing easy positions on 2x2x2, are you equally as adamant about removing positions with approximately the same probability of occurrence on a larger puzzle? Or do you just want easy positions removed on easy puzzles where the solution times would be very short in the perception of the general public (less than one second). What if the Megaminx WR was set on a 30 move scramble by something who took excellent and skillful advantage of block building and commutators at, say 19 seconds? To the general public 19 seconds is "fast" for Megaminx, but not as "absurdly fast" as less than 1 second for 2x2x2. The times are actually fairly proportional in terms of what we cubers would probably consider "unreasonably fast for that puzzle". But to the layperson 19 seconds on Megaminx would just be "cool, that's fast!" Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.

So what really is the underlying issue for those who want certain portions of the total number of positions of a puzzle to be eliminated from the pool of possible scrambling starting states? Why are we not clamoring just as loudly to remove 39 move Megaminx scrambles as we are 3 move 2x2x2 scrambles?

 

[Stefan]

Chris, I don't know why you're looking at that as a percentage as if that's the only way to do it. And I don't know why you're then using that percentage for another puzzle as if that's the only way to do it.

Again, one of my reasons for removing 3-movers for 2x2 is that they're "trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily". Would you say 39-movers for megaminx are trivial? Can non-cubers solve these? No. If I were to advocate removing short megaminx scrambles, I'd set the limit to around 4 as well. However, I don't care about it for megaminx, simply because that's really not going to happen. For 2x2, it already has.

 

[cmhardw]

Chris, I don't know why you're looking at that as a percentage as if that's the only way to do it. And I don't know why you're then using that percentage for another puzzle as if that's the only way to do it.

It's not, and I realize that now. However, I feel that if we begin to remove possible starting positions from puzzles, that this should be done across the board. That was my main point.

Again, one of my reasons for removing 3-movers for 2x2 is that they're "trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily". Would you say 39-movers for megaminx are trivial? Can non-cubers solve these? No. If I were to advocate removing short megaminx scrambles, I'd set the limit to around 4 as well. However, I don't care about it for megaminx, simply because that's really not going to happen. For 2x2, it already has.

I agree that the probability of a 3 or 4 turn megaminx scramble is so astronomically low that it's basically negligible. However, the probability of having a scramble in the mid 30's is probably not too terribly low. It's possible that over about 20 years of cubing that one or more of these may come up (would you agree? That would seem reasonable to me). I have a feeling that a megaminx scramble such as this would have so many options for blocks that can be preserved that it would result in a world record that is far faster than the other times that we will have seen up until that point. This would be particularly so if a megaminx specialist were to receive such a scramble. This is of course speculation, but I feel that if such a thing were to happen that a discussion very similar to this one would crop up about throwing out "easy" megaminx scrambles as well.

This is a reason why I feel that if we being to restrict starting positions, that we should do this across the board for all puzzles now. This makes sure there is far less chance of another issue happening on another puzzle in the future.

What would be a good scheme to restrict moves on a megaminx? I feel that this is in no way an easy question, and is part of my argument that we should not restrict starting cases (except for banning the solved state as a possible scramble position).

 

[JCub3r]

I think they should make 2x2 scrambles at least 6-8 moves then if someone solved it in six moves then they had the skill to see the six move solution rather than four.