Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico

[YddEd]

No the option of him knowing the scramble beforehand is not an option because it is cheating.

It COULD be a option, because other people have said that he has posted fake solves before, and this may just be another one. (Except that it's in a competition which is stupid)

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

We r not talking about him cheating to get the single, but if he is able to get the single legit. I don't know about you but when I was at 18s average a sub 10 single seem impossible to me, no matter how lucky. Cross was taking me 4sec at the time. Sub10single is still really rare for me, and I never had a sub 9. Even if its really lucky, u need to be sub10 to pull off a sub 5 single. He simply cannot do it.

I KNOW THIS.
Ok let's break it down a bit.

We r not talking about him cheating to get the single, but if he is able to get the single legit.

Agreed.

I don't know about you but when I was at 18s average

Ok yeah sure, but did you average 18s for over a year? I think he probably averages less than that at home, just because of the time that has passed if nothing else.

a sub 10 single seem impossible to me, no matter how lucky.

I got my first sub-10 single when I was averaging about 16, and that was on a standard scramble. I had found ridiculous scrambles before that people had posted and got sub-10s on those before this though. With a sufficiently easy scramble it is possible.

Even if its really lucky, u need to be sub10 to pull off a sub 5 single. He simply cannot do it.

No. no no no no no.
If it is SUFFICENTLY lucky, then anyone could get a sub-5 on it (e.g. Aperm)
If it is slightly harder, then less and less people will be able to do it, but its not IMPOSSIBLE, and definitely not SIMPLE.

How I see this now, is that there are 2 sides.

One side is claiming that he is "too bad" of a cuber to get the solve so it shouldn't be allowed. Or that it could never be possible to begin with.
The other side is trying to amass proof that the scramble didn't have this easy solution, or that other cheating/evasion of regulations has taken place.

At the end of the day, the first side can't get a resolution until the proof has been compiled anyway, so perhaps people could focus on trying to find this apparent solution and then try and practice it down to a similar time, this will actually tell us how fast you have to be to be capable of doing this with practice, and also let us see some other options on how the exploitation could have taken place.

Finally, Constantly saying things like "I will lose faith in the WCA if this is accepted" or "It simply isn't possible" is not helping this discussion and is starting to instigate a rather nasty sub-thread in these posts.

 

[KongShou]

No. no no no no no.
If it is SUFFICENTLY lucky, then anyone could get a sub-5 on it (e.g. Aperm)
If it is slightly harder, then less and less people will be able to do it, but its not IMPOSSIBLE, and definitely not SIMPLE.

But I through qqwerf has already proved that it isn't sufficiently lucky for him to be able to sub5? I'm sub 15 but with all the info about this solve I still can't get anywhere near 5 sec on it. I am just trying to say that there is no way this solve is legit. And I agree with your 2 side view, but I think we have proved it to be impossible in both sides.

 

[stoic]

I'd be interested to know if any of our esteemed FMCers can find a good triple X-cross on this scramble.
Surely for 17 moves there'd be blocks or pairs jumping out everywhere?

 

[jazzthief81]

It is not outright proof, but certainly interesting to note when you consider the other information presented.

Yes, it's definitely relevant information. It at least shows that it wasn't an unusually easy scramble.

 

[Kirjava]

However unlikely, it's entirely possible that this did indeed happen.

Discussing feasibility doesn't really add much other than wild speculation at this point.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

OK so it seems like what I'm trying to say about this keeps getting misunderstood or redirected, so I'm going to post my opinion and then not post on this thread anymore.

There is enough reasonable doubt to say that he did actually do a solve in this amount of time. Whether that solve was set up, cheated or somehow fiddled with is another matter entirely. Some people just seem to be writing off the fact that "He isn't good enough to do this" Even though it has happened.

I personally will wait for the WCA decision, but also hope that everyone else will as well, and also to accept what they decide for whatever reason they base their decision on. I think a lot of people will be very annoyed/upset if it is allowed to continue, but without any proof to the contrary, it will. And by proof, I mean real tangible proof, not just "He's too slow".

 

[kko14]

Questions

I have some questions about the WR...
We in the German Speedcubers-Forum are not sure what to think about that...
It would be pretty cool if someone could tell me:

-Who Judged the WR-solve?
-Did anyone else saw the solve?
-Who Scrambled the Cube?
-Who printed the Scrambles?

 

[jonathan90]

Answering the kko14 questions...
1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating
2)Yes, theres 2 or 3 cubers claiming that they saw the solution and swearing what Martin Telésforo has said.
3)I don't know that, but Ernesto checked the scramble
4)Our delegate, Uriel Gayosso Ruiz

As a mexican cuber, I really don't think that this is legit... but, nobody has found any solid evidence against him. I personally think that if the scramble was so lucky, a lot of better cubers than him would had seen the solution...

 

[kko14]

Thanks.
So if he cheated he probibly knew the Scramble before...

Another idea?
Are you sure that the timer worked fine?

Some broken v1 Timers sometimes start the time some seconds after they should....
Maybe the v2 timers too?

 

[jonathan90]

Thanks.
So if he cheated he probibly knew the Scramble before...

Another idea?
Are you sure that the timer worked fine?

Some broken v1 Timers sometimes start the time some seconds after they should....
Maybe the v2 timers too?

No idea, but I think that if that was the case the judge or the delegate would had seen that the timer didn't work well, so I don't think so.

 

[Stefan]

I know I have judged a person that showed up late (pre-announced) and I just initialled the first one and drew the line down

That is really bad. At the very least, you should obviously sign the last one, not the first. If you just sign the first, someone else could have drawn the line, pretending to be you! Such a score sheet should never be accepted!

 

[amostay2004]

Answering the kko14 questions...
1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating

Err..but signing on the time sheet before the solves?

 

[Stefan]

I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.

On the other hand, the board might have better things to do than to read a loooong thread filled with junk.

 

[pjk]

On the other hand, the board might have better things to do than to read a loooong thread filled with junk.

Isn't it called research? Clearly if someone was interested in the topic, they would read what the community thinks. There is a bit of good stuff here worth reading.

 

[Kirjava]

I wonder what's going to happen if we end up having no proof either way.

If someone has to make a judgement in this case, is it likely that the cuber will be given the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Stefan]

There is a bit of good stuff here worth reading.

That bit being maybe 5-7 posts. Plus I'd assume their authors have told or will tell the board directly.

 

[Goosly]

If there are indications that a misscramble might have happened, or that anything might not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.
We will have to wait until the board has discussed this with the delegate and made a decision.

 

[Kirjava]

If there are indications that a misscramble might have happened, or that anything might not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.

That's not how the idiom works.

I was wondering if they will give the cuber the benefit of doubting the accusations are true if no hard evidence is presented.

 

[Arsonist]

If there are indications that a misscramble might have happened, or that anything might not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.

Grezgorz Prusak didn't.