future competitions and lucky scrambles

[Stefan]

Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.

In general? No - otherwise the three guys being lucky at the Trentin Open still were worse than the best up to that date.

You seriously call those three guys non-skilled?

So for me and in our case there is no "being ahead of someone"

To clarify: I meant ahead in the discussion, in the sense that I skipped the stage that I know (ok, suspect) won't lead anywhere. The one where you don't want to talk about details yet (even though you really are already).

 

[Eric79]

You didn't until you've completely changed your last post. WTF?

Pardon me? This is wrong. The thing that never got changed and which was there right from the start in the original first post which started this thread: "So, what could be done regarding "lucky" scrambles?" And this is the key sentence which you now seem to forget about. And you even replied only regarding lucky scrambles with your very first post in this thread which was:

[...] And as I've already stated in the other thread: Setting a scramble length doesn't help much in terms of "lucky scrambles".

before you went on - also - about scrambles. No word about anything but scrambles (regarding luck) up to your second last post where you suddenly started to talk about PLL/OLL/LL skips. Nobody but you was talking about them at all up to this point (maybe Thom did when he wrote that luck simply was part of cubing as he didn't exclude that he also meant those lucky skips). That's why the "we" isn't wrong at all - call it "we except Tim" if that makes you happy. But most important: Even the title of this thread always was "future competitions and lucky scrambles."

wat?

If you get a one of those skips you mentioned it
1) depends on the method you are using
2) depends on how you solve the puzzle up to the point where the skip occurs
If you solve (in this case for your examples) the F2L in a different way, there may not be one of those skips while if you do it the "rigth" way, maybe even do some extra moves before actually solving the F2L, you get a skip. Those skips all depent on the method you are using and on how you solve the puzzle up to the point where the skip occurs - even if it wasn't "optimal" to do some extra turns just to get a "forced" skip - besides the fact that I don't know of anyone who actually could do it intentionally for every case. But I also stated before that thus you could call it "luck" to get such a skip while in reality it just is a consequence of how you did the former, not skipped steps.

Again: You asked another question in your post until you completely reworded it.

Lesson learned:
ALWAYS quote from people even if they seem reliable. -.-

Again and for the last time: No, I did not. And to make it short as I already wrote this above: The threads title - which defines what the topic is about - always was "future competitions and lucky scrambles." and not "future competitions and lucky OLL/PLL/LL skips". So don't blame me if you suddenly decided to discuss those skips, if you missed, forgot or even mixed something up and don't try to discredit me by making false statements. Enough said.

You seriously call those three guys non-skilled?

I never did, I explicitly said they were lucky and worse than the best up to that date which they on average still are - that doesn't particularly explude skill at all. I even pointed out by wrinting down the times, that they seem to be even more skilled than you are regarding 2x2 - judging from the world rankings. And only about 4 of my sentences later I also wrote "I never said it wouldn't take any skill at all and others didn't either". I just picked up your example of that 2x2 WR where you said you tried it 10 times and didn't make it as good as they did. So Stefan, don't twist my words.
The topic still is "future competitions and lucky scrambles" and if they should be excluded from competitions and thus the luck to get them. It's not if those guys were lucky, skilled or whatever (also stated in the first post of this thread) - I guess that's already discussed at other places where I by the way am not participating - just saying.

To clarify: I meant ahead in the discussion, in the sense that I skipped the stage that I know (ok, suspect) won't lead anywhere. The one where you don't want to talk about details yet (even though you really are already).

That is right, you are ahead of me regarding that - maybe because you thought about the whole topic more often within the last years than I did. And well, yes, the topics are quite intersecting but my reason not to discuss those specific details in this thread was because they are already discussed for example in those threads you linked to earlier. I still think we would need more peoples opinion on if it is ok as it is and why so or if they don't want the several times by now defined kind of luck in competitions before we go ahead and plan out details.

Actually, now that I think of it and as I have already stated my opinion on the topic and if you would like to, you also can discuss this in here and I could tell you my subjective opinion on it for some puzzles I guess. But I also could (as I already kind of did before) just sum that up by saying right away:
I would like all puzzles/events as good scrambled as possible - meaning to give it to the competitors with as few as possible blocks (starting from 1x2 blocks) already given. As in my opinion competition results should be comparable - which they aren't if some only have e.g. 2 moves while others in other competitions have to do e.g. 10.

 

[Kirjava]

I would like all puzzles/events as good scrambled as possible - meaning to give it to the competitors with as few as possible blocks (starting from 1x2 blocks).

In the first part of your post you expressed that you don't want rules to apply to specific methods.

Then this idea applies to specific methods.

You don't understand the topic very well and shouldn't be taking part in this debate.

 

[adragast]

Ninja'ed by Kirjava but oh well...

The problem, as people mentioned earlier is that it is difficult to determine the "as good scrambled as possible". Typically your suggestion of avoiding blocks is not good enough (have you thought about M2R2, corner first, ZZ, HTA, ... ?). Also this would only be about the beginning of the solve. Easy cross but difficult F2L, no oll skip and no pll skip is not easier than difficult cros but trivial f2l (only 3-move cases) and ll skip. And as people stated earlier you cannot sort scrambles about whether or not they may lead to a pll skip. People solve f2l in different ways, different orders, some may get skips some other not.

 

[tim]

And you even replied only regarding lucky scrambles with your very first post in this thread which was:

But most important: Even the title of this thread always was "future competitions and lucky scrambles."

The threads title - which defines what the topic is about - always was "future competitions and lucky scrambles."

That's not relevant. I replied to your recent post not to your first post.

So don't blame me if you suddenly decided to discuss those skips

I didn't discuss them, they were an example for my reasoning about luck in speedcubing, since you wanted to know: "Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?". The bold part of your post said something very similar, btw.

adragast and Kirjava sum it up perfectly.

 

[Eric79]

In the first part of your post you expressed that you don't want rules to apply to specific methods.

Then this idea applies to specific methods.[...]

In the first part of my last post? I cannot find where I say something even close to that. But I know that in the first post of the thread I already said

1) A limit could be set for the fewest move solution "legit" for each puzzle

So, "each puzzle", exactly what I now again said.

You don't understand the topic very well and shouldn't be taking part in this debate.

The original topic was if lucky scrambles should be allowed. There's not much to know to have an opinion on that. I just told Stefan he now also may discuss further details if he wants to (as I have expressed regarding the topic what I wanted to, several times already). And I already told my general opinion on what I think makes a good scramble. I didn't even say I would want to get involved discussing details as being discussed before by Stefan and Chris already. And as you may have noticed, I already didn't reply to those earlier posts - for a reason.
Saying I shouldn't take part in a debate that wasn't even the original topic set by the one who started this thread - which was me by the way, and in which I didn't even partake when it started before is like saying "Oh, but you shouldn't talk about that, you have no idea of cooking" if all your 3 year old kid said was "I want waffles. But waffles with a special taste." He didn't say "The taste has to be cinnamon apple". Transferring to what I said: "I want Scrambles, scrambles which exclude luck to have compareable competitions" - I didn't tell how that should be done, let alone in such detail as Stefan or Chris started discussing it. All I did was expressing my opinion on what I think a good scramble should be like. So if you want to - and I'm sure you could add useful thoughts, join in with Chris and Stefan, I don't mind any more.

Ninja'ed by Kirjava but oh well...

The problem, as people mentioned earlier is that it is difficult to determine the "as good scrambled as possible". Typically your suggestion of avoiding blocks is not good enough (have you thought about M2R2, corner first, ZZ, HTA, ... ?). Also this would only be about the beginning of the solve. Easy cross but difficult F2L, no oll skip and no pll skip is not easier than difficult cros but trivial f2l (only 3-move cases) and ll skip. And as people stated earlier you cannot sort scrambles about whether or not they may lead to a pll skip. People solve f2l in different ways, different orders, some may get skips some other not.

Of course my "suggestions" probably isn't good enough - it wasn't even meant as one. That's just my opinion on what a good scramble should be (in the meaning of challenging and comparable to others - as said before, you can't really compare times needed of a 2 move solve with a 10 or 40 move solve). However that could be achieved. And sure some people get a skip and others don't with the same scramble, that is about what I also said before. So we completely agree on that. It simply is about scrambles which don't allow solves that only need a few turns - which may not be simple to realize at all.

 

[Kirjava]

The original topic was if lucky scrambles should be allowed. There's not much to know to have an opinion on that. I just told Stefan he now also may discuss further details if he wants to (as I have expressed regarding the topic what I wanted to, several times already). And I already told my general opinion on what I think makes a good scramble.

Exactly, your definition of lucky scramble is flawed.

Saying I shouldn't take part in a debate that wasn't even the original topic set by the one who started this thread - which was me by the way

I was replying to something you said. Just because it wasn't the original topic doesn't mean that you are immune to replies about it.

 

[Stefan]

Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.

In general? No - otherwise the three guys being lucky at the Trentin Open still were worse than the best up to that date.

You seriously call those three guys non-skilled?

I never did

I said non-skilled, and you tried to use them as counter-example. So yes, you did call them non-skilled.

 

[Gaétan Guimond]

In sports it is all on how good competitors are trained and what their body is capable of or how good they play together as a team, in "mental" competitions like chess, it is on how good you attack and defend your king.

If the best speedcuber average of 2x2 and the best cuber fewest move of 3x3 want to participate for an average of 5 2x2 fewest move on to the next WC. I Imagine my first one championship.

The only one fewest move official challenge is a single 3x3 in 60 minutes I think ?

10 minutes for a 2x2 seems sufficient for a rule. Impossible to resolve the scramble in less than 7 HTM. Compulsory from 7 to 11 (max alg god). This is only my opinion.

......................................................................................................................

Are you able to find an algorithm of 7 HTM which can be solved in 6 HTM on a 2x2?
The first one shortcut

................................................................................................................

Yes I am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW790cTRCwI

Happy cubing

 

[Eric79]

That's not relevant. [...] since you wanted to know: "Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?".

And that quote was defined more precisely several times as being the luck responsible for way to easy scrambles.
If there is a discussion about oviparous domestic animals and how they are bred for their meat, you can't just start talking about horses and cows because they also are domestic animals bred for their meat. You would have missed the one importent defining criterium: They just are not oviparous animals.
And this is why all that what you said wasn't relevant is the only thing which actually is relevant.

Exactly, your definition of lucky scramble is flawed.

I never claimed it was a perfect, flawless solution - it's just my approach "on what a good scramble should be (in the meaning of challenging and comparable to others - as said before, you can't really compare times needed of a 2 move solve with a 10 or 40 move solve)." Feel free to enhance or perfect it.

I was replying to something you said.[...]

If you are talking about what you quoted, then I have to point to what I just said before a few lines above. My opinion is not meant to be understood as the already perfect, flawless solution of all the problems - it's my... (see above). If you were replying to something else I said, exactly point me to it.

 

[Kirjava]

I never claimed it was a perfect, flawless solution

I never said you did. It's a terrible and flawed definition created by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. This is why I advise you to stop posting. Your ideas are awful.

If you are talking about what you quoted, then I have to point to what I just said before a few lines above. My opinion is not meant to be understood as the already perfect, flawless solution of all the problems.

I never said it was. It's a terrible and flawed opinion created by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. This is why I advise you to stop posting. Your ideas are awful.

 

[Eric79]

I said non-skilled, and you tried to use them as counter-example. So yes, you did call them non-skilled.

The verb I used was "lucky" not "non-skilled" as the rest which you misappropriated explaind in detail. Again, don't twist my words - read what actually is written, not what you'd like to read between the lines.

If the best speedcuber average of 2x2 and the best cuber fewest move of 3x3 want to participate for an average of 5 2x2 fewest move on to the next WC. I Imagine my first one championship.

The only one fewest move official challenge is a single 3x3 in 60 minutes I think ?

10 minutes for a 2x2 seems sufficient for a rule. Impossible to resolve the scramble in less than 7 HTM. Compulsory from 7 to 11 (max alg god). This is only my opinion.
[...]

I am sorry Gaétan, I can't follow your drift - but I guess: Go for it.

[...]It's a terrible and flawed definition[...]

Approaches or opinions aren't definite - thus what I said never was meant as an definition which is how you seem to have understood it. As said: "It's just my opinion on what a good scramble should be[...]" Regarding an actual definition I wouldn't go further as agreeing on what Stefan said, that they were trivial to solve.


I'd appreciate if you get back on topic or the details you started discussing earlier. If you don't want that... well, your decission. Going for words, maybe trying to twist them, doesn't help the original problem getting solved. As said before, I already mentioned everthing I wanted to say regarding the actual topic and for that reason don't expect me to reply to your posts any more, as long as they aren't on topic or about what an actual "fair", compareably, luck-excluding scramble is or could be in detail.

 

[Stefan]

Again, don't twist my words - read what actually is written, not what you'd like to read between the lines.

Gosh, why did I bother building the quote-tree if you just ignore it anyway... non-skilled *was* written! Look again, I even bolded it for you! Twice!

 

[cmhardw]

I have to be perfectly honest that I am lost as to the track this discussion is taking.

I will try to list what my understanding of this discussion is so far. I imagine this may not be (fully?) correct, so someone please help me to clarify:

1) Eric79 proposes to discuss the topic of whether "lucky" scrambles should be allowed.
2) Various discussion takes place
3) Stefan proposes to limit scrambles that are "trivial", which could include scrambles that are less than 4 turns in length.
4) Various other discussion on this topic takes place in which some people agree with Stefan's proposal, and Eric79 seemingly does not find it sufficient
5) Currently we are now debating why Eric79 does not find Stefan's proposal a sufficient solution to eliminating "enough" of a luck element from cubing competitions?

Have I understood this correctly? The reason I ask is that I feel the proposal to eliminate scrambles of length less than 4 turns is a good one, and one that does not require the eliminating of all records before such a new rule is added.

I find Eric79's proposal to reset all single records and start from scratch unreasonable, but if he can provide an instance where this has happened previously in another sport then I might consider it with more of an open mind. I do not like the idea of restarting the records over from scratch. Has Guinness ever done this with their records? Has any other sport who made a large change done this? It seems reasonable that some other sport at some point in their history may have done this before. However, I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this might (possibly) be a viable option for cubing. Such a drastic change should not be taken lightly in my opinion. I agree with Stefan, I see nothing wrong with the current records, and I have not yet been convinced that a change beyond Stefan's proposal is even necessary in the first place.

 

[Kirjava]

Approaches or opinions aren't definite - thus what I said never was meant as an definition which is how you seem to have understood it.

You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

The point is that you had an idea, and it was bad. Very bad.

 

[Stefan]

Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.

 

[Godmil]

Thanks for the summary Chris, skimming over this thread I was glad I didn't get involved

I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this might (possibly) be a viable option for cubing.

Do you need to look any further than cubing, isn't this what happened when the Multi-BLD rules changed? (EDIT: ninja'd)

 

[cmhardw]

Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.

I agree, that is a good example. I feel that this was, sadly, necessary from the viewpoint of how difficult the old style was for organizers to include that event in competitions. At least the 1 hour limit does allow for MultiBLD to continue to be included in competitions.

I think it's sad that we had to lose Tim's 24/24 result as the "current" record. I say current because his record is still the record for the old style. However, I think that the circumstances made it clear that such a change was necessary.

 

[Kirjava]

Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.

Talking to me?

 

[whauk]

I do not like the idea of restarting the records over from scratch. Has Guinness ever done this with their records? Has any other sport who made a large change done this? It seems reasonable that some other sport at some point in their history may have done this before. However, I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this might (possibly) be a viable option for cubing. Such a drastic change should not be taken lightly in my opinion.

look at javelin throw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_throw
the records went from 100+ meters down to sub90 meters when the new design was introduced.
today the WR is at 98 again.