Inspection time down to 10 seconds

[Edmund]

What was wrong with the system before? And if we do this it could be harder to break previous records because solves done in the past had 15 second inspection.

 

[Stefan]

I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.

Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle. Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?

 

[Kirjava]

I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.

Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle. Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?

No, but this is not relevant to events with inspection. You are making a case for removing inspection altogether (if this were possible) rather than arbitrarily modifying the length of time inspection is allowed, which is a different issue altogether.

If my assumption is incorrect, how come you count 15 seconds inspection as part of the solving but do not count 10 seconds as part of the solving? The problem with descriptors like 'long inspection' is that they're subjective.

 

[Kenneth]

I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.

Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle. Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?

That is the reason for doing NIE (no inspection event). Why not have both? (long inspection and no inspection). We often did NIE here in Sweden some years ago.

In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.

 

[dada222]

I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.

Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle. Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?

Still why? It's nice to have to practise both aspects of speedsolving (that is, looking ahead part of the solve and solving it). Adds more interest imo.

 

[Kirjava]

In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.

You're talking about 'Waterman Inspection'. In all official competitions they did it how we do it.

 

[rachmaninovian]

reducing the inspection time is stupid. 15s is just right IMO. in fact, technically isn't it really >12s inspection? I only finish inspecting at the 10s mark...for most puzzles.

 

[Stefan]

I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.

Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle. Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?

No, but this is not relevant to events with inspection. You are making a case for removing inspection altogether (if this were possible) rather than arbitrarily modifying the length of time inspection is allowed, which is a different issue altogether.

No, I see it as a reason for lowering the time. Cause it means getting closer to the ideal.

 

[Kirjava]

No, I see it as a reason for lowering the time. Cause it means getting closer to the ideal.

I addressed this already in case my assumption was correct.

The way I see it, inspection and non-inspection are two different events.

"Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle." only applies if we attempt to have no inspection. We are not attempting to get close to this situation (we wish to have an event with inspection) - this is why I see the comment as irrelevant.

 

[Kenneth]

In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.

You're talking about 'Waterman Inspection'. In all official competitions they did it how we do it.

Not true. First thing, there was no "official" comps then, only WC 1982 has been made so later by the WCA. There was several comps using the inspection style I'm talking about. I cannot point any particular one out but I immediatly recognised the inspection style from the Waterman video when I first saw it some years ago and that because I knew this rule ever since the 80's.

Edit, hmm, mabye it was only in WC 1982 "our" style was used and that is the reason for only that comp have been made official... I don't know, records from national comps those years are really poor.

More edit: In the national championship of Finland 1981 they did not even time the solves at all!!! they where racing head to head (tornament style 2-by-2 I think). Jari Sandkvist won and got a place at the WC.

 

[Kirjava]

You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.

 

[Kenneth]

You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.

Yes, sure, but that's not what you ment from start

 

[Kirjava]

You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.

Yes, sure, but that's not what you ment from start

?!

 

[Kenneth]

"In all official competitions they did it how we do it"

"all" = 1?

 

[Kirjava]

Yarp?

 

[brunson]

I think the case could be made for removing the inspection or having an indefinite inspection time, any fixed amount of inspection time is arbitrary, so 15s is as arbitrary as any other. I'd vote either get rid of it all together or leave it as it is.

 

[jms_gears1]

I think the case could be made for removing the inspection or having an indefinite inspection time, any fixed amount of inspection time is arbitrary, so 15s is as arbitrary as any other. I'd vote either get rid of it all together or leave it as it is.

but getting rid of it would be stupid would it not?
15s has been around for ~27 years, with hundreds of competitions, and it has worked well so far. Why change it now.

 

[MichaelErskine]

I voted to keep the inspection time as it is although I still rarely have time to come up with a decent cross solution. If the option were there I'd vote for "whatever gives me an advantage over everyone else"

 

[qqwref]

There are really only two types of inspection to me, either you have some or you have none. Stefan has pointed out that inspection is part of the solve, and I agree, but only to the point where getting into a runner's stance is part of a 100m dash, practicing on the Olympic luge track beforehand is part of the sport, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow people to prepare a bit before the official attempt, even if the official attempt is timed. But, if we do have inspection, every number is arbitrary, and equally so. Why 15 seconds, but also why 10, and why 5, and why anything else? The only reason to use a specific number is that everyone is used to it and that is (and always will be) the case for 15.

PS: why are some people making unnice comments when I propose something, even if it is not a popular proposal?

Some people worry that it will be changed even if almost nobody wants it to.