Geneva Open 2008

[Doudou]

The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.

... but you would have told the WCA it was unfair that you beat the WR and not have it validated, right?

Well than we should just completely abandon the 2x2x2 single WR since there is no fair way of beating it in the current conditions.

Well... That's hard to say. As soon as I finished my cube, I went to Clément and told him that we should delete this scramble. He told me that it already happened and most of the people thought that the scramble should have been kept.

Let's forget this (what is still called a) "WR".

 

[Erik]

The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.

That makes no sence at all, basically you would not be allowed to cheer or show your time to other competitors after a solve because they would know there is possibly easy scramble somewhere if you want to prohibit that.

Fact is that nobody (except maybe Sheriff) knew anything about the solution of the scramble or the number of it. It was weird that Sheriff solved that scramble after everyone was almost like done with 2x2.

To add something, I don't even think scrambles like this should be taken away. This if for several reasons.

One of the reasons is that there is probably at least one in 5 scrambles on ALL tournaments which can be solved in 7 moves. It's not a coincidence only 3 (well maybe 4 if you include Sheriff) people saw and did the 7 move solution. It has to do with the ability to look ahead and your knowledge about 2x2.

2nd of all, rules say that we should have random states of scrambling. This was a random scramble. Lets not make this a new thread discussing about trying to prohibit 'lucky scrambles' it's done before and will not add anything else than that we have another agreement in the end that the rules about scrambling are good as they are.

3rd of all, if you forget about my 2nd argument. There were already done solves with the scramble. If you want to take it out (which is not even allowed by the rules now I think) you should do it before you give people the scramble.

Finally one thing to add:
It's just the 2x2 single record! I mean: come on! Everyone knows it doesn't say anything about skills, besides maybe your ability to look ahead a bit.

The very last thing I'd like to say to Doudou: with all respect, you sound a bit childish. After Arnaud did a 1.xx you didn't complain about anything and you cheered a lot when you did the WR, you didn't say anything about deleting the scramble then (and of course it shouldn't be). Only after I did a better time you started muttering about that the scramble should be removed. Also with phrases like 'lets forget about this "WR"' is somewhat unapropriate. I'm the first to say it's not meaning anything about skill, but in my opinion it is not apropriate to say such things.

 

[Laetitia]

It was weird that Sheriff solved that scramble after everyone was almost like done with 2x2.

It was because he used the same 2x2x2 than Alejandro Aguado.

If I believe wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Cube, about 8% of the positions of the 2x2x2 can be solve in 7 moves or less.
So, it's not something rare. (OK, the 7 movements are not always R and U).
The problem with deleting scrambles is : where is the limit?

 

[Doudou]

I don't think you really know what happened so in this case, you should just not say anything.

Just read what has been written before. Clément and I talked about this scramble and if it must be kept or not. And even before that Arnaud or you or everybody else solved it. The matter is not to know if the scramble must be taken away or not. Clément and I decided to keep it.

I was talking about fairness between competitors. Ok, that's just a single, only matter of luck. I know. The goal is to change/improve the regulations in a good way. But you can not see that and just look after your record.


End of the discussion.

 

[Erik]

Sorry but I won't listen to a command of not speaking since this a free forum.

Besides article:
A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.

Which is a weird article since it would require skill from the judge (not delegate) and is how it seems only ment to not give people a cube which is seen as scrambled when there is only done an accidental U move on it.

There is only this which would legalise a remove from the scramble:

11d)If the WCA regulations are not fully clear or if the incident is not covered by the WCA regulations, then the main judge must make his decision based on fair sportsmanship, after consulting the WCA delegate.

You didn't do this (delete the scramble) and it's good you didn't. It would not be possible to back up the story of a lucky scramble. I assume you knew this and is together with the opinion of others the reason why you didn't delete the scramble.

I would like to see a rule in the regulations about the posibility to delete scrambles. Also with the addition of the posibility to delete one after the scramble was already used. I will ask Ron about it this weekend if he doesn't reply here (I know Ron is a busy man ). Also it should be more clear what the exact regulations are about messages other people can get from any scramble.

You will hopefully see that I'm not after keeping my record, personally I don't care that much about that record (though of course I don't want to lose records just like you don't want to use records I assume. I'm in favor of making clear rules about this just as you are.

I'm only against the fact that you, being a WCA delegate are whining and almost made decisions based on the wrong things, namely your emotions, your feeling of injustice. Also I'm against your attitude with a tone like 'shut up because you don't know anything and just want to keep your record and don't care about the rest, listen to me because I'm a delegate'. This is at least how you are sounding to me at the moment and also how you were sounding to me at Geneva. I hoped you were more mature than that, WCA didn't make you a delegat for nothing I assume.

I am not the only one who shares the feeling about the bad opinion about the incident from a delegate.

I'm not whining because you have a lucky scramble that partially made your average record possible and I don't want people to forget your record which you deserved a lot.

 

[Doudou]

I think it was clear when the competitor was talking and when the deleguate was.

I mean, I, as deleguate, decided with Clément to keep the scramble. If you have any problem with what I did as deleguate, tell me in private. And don't talk about I almost do or did, because it has no sense and is so useless... And tell me which incident you had with me as deleguate. You are right when you say that my emotions wanted to delete the scramble immediatly after doing it. But as you can see, you and others could solve it.

In this topic I gave my feelings, so I talked as a competitor. Of course there was no way to delete the scramble once everybody did it, because such a decision must be token by the WCA. That's not the first case, and some scrambles already have been deleted (I'm thinking to two cases when it happened).

For the rest, I don't really care, and it does not matter. I can feel i find unfair how things happened and tell it. You can feel it's fair and tell it. It's not necessary to be so aggressive. I would prefer to see the whole round deleted, because, as a competitor, i found it really weird. Even if I lost this WR. That's my opinion. And I can understand you feel differently.

But I don't know the opinion of the WCA. Again, don't be so aggressive. I was not telling "end of the discussion" as "I am right and you are not" but as "I gave my opinion, so I don't need to talk again".

 

[TMOY]

If I believe wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Cube, about 8% of the positions of the 2x2x2 can be solve in 7 moves or less.
So, it's not something rare. (OK, the 7 movements are not always R and U).

7-moves solutions are not sometinng rare but such easy ones are much rarer.
At Dutch Masters for example, there was a 7-moves solution on the second scramble of my group, which was certainly not that obvious and probably not foreseeable at preinspection. I stumbled into it by pure luck, by solving my cube as I usually do and getting xLL skip. That's why I was so slow (4s11) .

 

[Erik]

I'm not agressive I'm only reacting to your behaviour against me.
Sentences like: 'lets not talk about this "WR"' 'you should just say nothing' 'you don't know what you are talking about' and assumptions about how I think are more aggresive I think.

In my previous post I merely cleared up how I think about things.

I'm glad you realise the difference between delegate and competitor, I was afraid you lost it a bit at Geneva but I see you didn't now

Let's stop this pointless discussion and get back to Geneva open or discuss how we can make more clear rules?

 

[Stefan]

some scrambles already have been deleted (I'm thinking to two cases when it happened)

Please let us know more about these. I have never heard of this being done and I'm interested to know the justification.

 

[Doudou]

I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).

 

[Erik]

Odd, I had at least 2 scrambles ever with a face done (no layer)
At least one other occasion is a competition in Poland where Ron removes a scramble which could be solved in 3 moves I think.

 

[sheriff]

Hey everyone. First of all I'd like to justify something about 'Sheriff knowing the solution'. I would have solved the cube that way for sure, but I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING. Well, I didn't know it ended with U', that's why I had +2.

The thing I hate most is people cheating, and that's something I would never do. In this case, some may think I did. Rigurously, I did. I don't approve of this world record, I think it is not fair. I wanted to get the WR, and then try to cancel it, since (I think) if the WRholder agrees with it it is much much easier to erase it. That's all, and some people who I talked with know I did it because of that, and I told them before solving. I wouldn't like to have that 'WR', since I, or Erik in this case, had more information than Doudou when solving.

With that said, and you perfectly know what I think Erik, I don't think this WR is 100% fair.

But the main point of the post was to justify my 'knowing the scramble'. Hope you understood.

 

[Stefan]

I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING [...] I wanted to get the WR, and then try to cancel it

Yeah, messing around with organizers and the WCA is so cool!

 

[Erik]

Sheriff: I understand what you are meaning. You mean that we knew way too much info about the scramble, but as I said before and as other people also said before, we didn't know anything about the scramble besides that there was a scramble on which Edouard did a 1.39. If you say this gives too many information about anything then I suggest you message Ron or post in the official forum and request for all solves to be secured, no people are allowed to cheer about a good time and no people are allowed to see other people's times.

Your way of trying to let the times be not approved is not funny, though I had to laugh a lot that you +2'd it. It's probably the fastest +2 ever on a solve. I was not aware that you practised the scramble because of the mess there, actually I was quite sure you already did the solve.

I agree with Stefan on this one.

 

[sheriff]

By the way, after thinking for a while I have another thing to say. It is the only thing we know, but we also know Doudou, his ability, talent, and knowing a bit of 2x2 the only possible thing to happen was white-face LL skip.

But supporting you, what else could you have done? You did what everyone would have done, it would of course be ridiculous not trying to beat that WR. But seriously, would you have liked to be the first to do that solve? Would you have gotten that sub1?

 

[Escher]

it is probably not appropriate to post surrounded by people who know much more about this situation than i do but to sum up what i can see...
- sheriff cheated, no ifs or buts, or 'i intended to do x'.
- edouard was the first to discover the easy scramble, and then got a new WR (well done).
- Erik then deduced that it must be easy (so had some minor preparation), and also discovered the simple solution, beating edouard in execution time (well done erik).

in effect, sheriffs actions are in consequence equal to me getting a friend to scramble in my round, and getting him to set up a 4 move x-cross and OLL skip for me, and so breaking the WR. whether or not i intended to come clean later, i still did something very wrong and unfair.

 

[sheriff]

I don't intend to come clean you *******! I don't even mind about a non deserved WR in 2x2, since I don't even practise 2x2. Simply, that was maybe, and sadly, the only way to erase that 2x2 solve/round. So you may say I did something wrong; which I find completely justified, don't feel bad about it, and would do it again; but don't say I'm trying to come clean because my ONLY aim was to get rid of that 2x2 scramble. I would never cheat, and feel agressive when someone says I do (in this case I do undestand though, because it may be seen that way).

 

[Escher]

nice.

well...

I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING.

in your own words, you satisfy most peoples criteria for the action 'cheating'.
im glad you dont mind that you might've had a completely undeserved WR.

ill leave it to other cubers to draw parallels to events comparable to this.

EDIT
vault312 has a lot of good things to say.

 

[DavidWoner]

By the way, after thinking for a while I have another thing to say. It is the only thing we know, but we also know Doudou, his ability, talent, and knowing a bit of 2x2 the only possible thing to happen was white-face LL skip.

not true at all. Edouard could easily get a 1.39 if it was a 2 move FL and easy CLL case that he could see from inspection.

It's just the 2x2 single record! I mean: come on! Everyone knows it doesn't say anything about skills, besides maybe your ability to look ahead a bit.

Agreed, I think the same holds true for single solves for all puzzles, although to a lesser extent as the times increase. Erik's 7.08 is just a case of getting lucky on an already good solve(although it still would have been a very fast solve without the skip). Yu Nakajima said that Yumu Tabuchi described the edges on his 4x4 WR as very easy, almost like they were lucky. average is a much better determinant of skill. the average that went with Javier's WR was 7.12, and the avg that went with Patrick Jameson's 1.72 NAR was 7.37. Edouard, your WR avg says way more about your skill at 2x2 than a 1.39 single ever could. You are still the best, even without the single.

 

[Tyson]

I want a salary now

Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?

Furthermore, if you haven't competed, you really shouldn't be staring at the competition that's going on.

(Note: I am not accusing anyone. I'm just saying, if you're competing in BLD, and you haven't done the first solve, don't sit in the front row and study everyone doing the first solve. We have baseball bats to rectify this problem if it should occur.)