Is this scramble lucky or easy/ or both?

[waffle=ijm]

 

[RyanO]

If you and I use the same scramble and you get a 1.xx and I get a 8.xx is the scramble lucky for you and not for me? This wouldn't make any sense becase the scrambles are the same. A random scramble can not be inherently lucky. It is a lucky occurence to get a scramble that is easy for you, but that does not mean the scramble is lucky or that the fast times are due to luck and not skill.

 

[Anthony]

If you and I use the same scramble and you get a 1.xx and I get a 8.xx is the scramble lucky for you and not for me? This wouldn't make any sense becase the scrambles are the same. A random scramble can not be inherently lucky. It is a lucky occurence to get a scramble that is easy for you, but that does not mean the scramble is lucky or that the fast times are due to luck and not skill.

lololol. I don't see how he could argue against this, but wait a minute, I'm sure he'll try.

 

[cmhardw]

There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.

This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.

Chris

 

[reThinking the Cube]

There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.

This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.

Chris

Thank you Chris. I knew that this forum had somebody that could see this rationally. BtW- 9992 for 5 moves away, and that is pretty lucky too.

 

[moogra]

Actually you haven't listened to anyone. Like I said before you can't be good at being lucky. There is no skill in being lucky. If someone saw a 4 move solution, that is skill right there. In 2x2, almost all of them can be solved in 10 moves. If you can see the solution, then that is skill, not luck.

actually the guy you mentioned in the possibly fictional story sounds like me

I have actually listened, but I don't need to always agree. I do agree with your statement "you can't be good at being lucky", but I try to only use the term lucky in reference to those scrambles that produce lucky outcomes for the lucky competitors that just happened to get lucky with them, and also be able to have the on-board skill to exploit the lucky scramble that is available to them. The difference between a lucky 4-move scramble and a 10-move scramble is the WR or something similar. I think that it is fair to consider those to be lucky. They are also random and easy, if that makes anybody feel better.

If you can get a 10 move scramble and solve it in 10 moves, that's like solving a rubik's cube in 24 moves. Assuming 5 tps (nothing great if you can see the whole solve), that's a sub-5 solve. However, seeing a cube solve in 24 moves is definitely skill. I wouldn't call that scramble lucky, because if someone like me were to go and solve it, it'll take me 200 moves.

What I meant with a 10 move solve is that the optimal solution, provided by the scramble can be done in 10 moves. Of course, there many scrambles that are easier. IIRC the worst case is 11 moves but I'm no 2x2 expert. If someone got the 10 moves, then that is skill, especially if no one else got it so the solution was not trivial, which is the scenario given.

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.

 

[Hyprul 9-ty2]

But how can we tell if the scramble is easy/lucky if you don't post it for us

 

[DavidWoner]

There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.

This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.

Chris

Thank you Chris. I knew that this forum had somebody that could see this rationally.

Nobody claimed that a scramble with a 4 move solution was not lucky. The problem arose when you asserted that all scrambles faster than average had to be lucky. Rowe had a 1.83 what was 13 moves. Is it lucky? If you get a .75 magic solve and a 1.1 average, was the .75 solve lucky? No, you just had better than average execution of a normal solution. That is what you do not seem to understand. Sometimes outliers are created by the solver performing exceptionally, not the scramble.

 

[Anthony]

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.

I don't think it's not really the TPS that kills a possible sub 2 if the solver didn't realize it would be solved. What kills it is the reaction time it takes to realize it's solved, AUF if necessary, and slam it down without +2ing.

 

[RyanO]

Just so you know, some of the sub 2 "lucky" solves in your last thread were ~8 move solutions, which is only a few turns below the upper bound for a optimal 2x2 solution.

 

[moogra]

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.

I don't think it's not really the TPS that kills a possible sub 2 if the solver didn't realize it would be solved. What kills it is the reaction time it takes to realize it's solved, AUF if necessary, and slam it down without +2ing.

Yeah you're right. It is definitely the reaction time. I can usually do AUF, but seeing that is solve takes a good split-second to slam down, especially if you're standing up.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Actually you haven't listened to anyone. Like I said before you can't be good at being lucky. There is no skill in being lucky. If someone saw a 4 move solution, that is skill right there. In 2x2, almost all of them can be solved in 10 moves. If you can see the solution, then that is skill, not luck.

actually the guy you mentioned in the possibly fictional story sounds like me

I have actually listened, but I don't need to always agree. I do agree with your statement "you can't be good at being lucky", but I try to only use the term lucky in reference to those scrambles that produce lucky outcomes for the lucky competitors that just happened to get lucky with them, and also be able to have the on-board skill to exploit the lucky scramble that is available to them. The difference between a lucky 4-move scramble and a 10-move scramble is the WR or something similar. I think that it is fair to consider those to be lucky. They are also random and easy, if that makes anybody feel better.

If you can get a 10 move scramble and solve it in 10 moves, that's like solving a rubik's cube in 24 moves. Assuming 5 tps (nothing great if you can see the whole solve), that's a sub-5 solve. However, seeing a cube solve in 24 moves is definitely skill. I wouldn't call that scramble lucky, because if someone like me were to go and solve it, it'll take me 200 moves.

What I meant with a 10 move solve is that the optimal solution, provided by the scramble can be done in 10 moves. Of course, there many scrambles that are easier. IIRC the worst case is 11 moves but I'm no 2x2 expert. If someone got the 10 moves, then that is skill, especially if no one else got it so the solution was not trivial, which is the scenario given.

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.

I agree. The problem is that many cannot, for some phobic reason - have both "easy" and "lucky" used in reference to the scramble. To me, a 4-move solution is obviously both. I am not finding fault with anything here, just stating my opinion. I realize that convention dictates that I should not use the term "lucky" when referring to a 4-move solution scramble, but I just can't come up with a more suitable term. If I got a 4-move solution scramble, then I would feel pretty lucky - wouldn't you?

 

[cmhardw]

I don't understand what the argument is here. How is a 2x2x2 scrambling algorithm that produces a cube state 4 moves away from solved not considered a lucky scramble?

Chris

 

[RyanO]

Only if I found the 4 move solution, which I might not because I suck at 2x2. Which means...the luck comes from the solution not the scramble. How do you not get this?

*EDIT*

Chris you should read the lucky 2x2x2 scramble thread to understand that reThinkingTheCube's claims extend far past this extreem 4 move situation and that is what everyone is concerned about.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.

I don't think it's not really the TPS that kills a possible sub 2 if the solver didn't realize it would be solved. What kills it is the reaction time it takes to realize it's solved, AUF if necessary, and slam it down without +2ing.

Yeah you're right. It is definitely the reaction time. I can usually do AUF, but seeing that is solve takes a good split-second to slam down, especially if you're standing up.

Spotting a 1 turn + SUNE from a WCA scramble can also be an easy sub-2. That scramble would be random, easy, and lucky. Is there a problem with the luck part of that?

 

[cmhardw]

Only if I found the 4 move solution, which I might not because I suck at 2x2. Which means...the luck comes from the solution not the scramble. How do you not get this?

Your failing to find the 4 move solution in no way, whatsoever changes the fact that the scrambling algorithm was still a lucky scrambling algorithm. How do you not get this?

Chris

 

[moogra]

I agree. The problem is that many cannot, for some phobic reason - have both "easy" and "lucky" used in reference to the scramble. To me, a 4-move solution is obviously both. I am not finding fault with anything here, just stating my opinion. I realize that convention dictates that I should not use the term "lucky" when referring to a 4-move solution scramble, but I just can't come up with a more suitable term. If I got a 4-move solution scramble, then I would feel pretty lucky - wouldn't you?

I would feel lucky, yes. I see where you are trying to go, but a better term has already been proposed, which is "easy". I would prefer to use "good", like in some games, this is a good game, if it's easier than normal. The scramble cannot be your definition of lucky because the solve is done differently for everyone else. I was practicing 2x2 a few days ago and solving it starting from white seemed to be horrible, but solving from blue face was really really fast and i got a barely 3 second solve (I average like 7 with ortega, just saying so i'm not good). I wouldn't get many of the lucky solves. For example, for the WR solve, I would see only to complete the first layer, which solves the cube, as I found out today. The reaction time for me to see that it was solved would maybe be .2 seconds. Over WR solve there for sure.

 

[oskarasbrink]

You really felt the need to make another thread so you could lose the same debate again?

I actually won the 1st one, but you don't know that yet.

you're JUST like a kid in school. you ALWAYS think you're right and even if you're not you just act like you do because you think losing is the end of your reputation

i don't get it how you still claim that "you won"

 

[reThinking the Cube]

There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.

This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.

Chris

Thank you Chris. I knew that this forum had somebody that could see this rationally.

Nobody claimed that a scramble with a 4 move solution was not lucky. The problem arose when you asserted that all scrambles faster than average had to be lucky. Rowe had a 1.83 what was 13 moves. Is it lucky?

As far as the claims go, I disagree. Some of the scrambles were already posted with 4-move solutions, and yet the claims kept coming in that NO scramble should ever be considered lucky, and that I was basically a stupid moron for even suggesting that. I am being faulted for simply not going along with the herd, on this ludicrous idea that a scramble can ever be considered "lucky".

Rowe's solve was not listed. Post the scramble for it, and I will look at it, and give you my opinion as to whether I think it was easy,or lucky, or both. You might be surprised.

 

[ElderKingpin]

"in an upcoming minor WCA Competition.."
upcoming means its hasnt happened yet