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

[Litz]

Can someone please translate all of this, just so we have it for reference.

Here:

First image: Translation already posted.

Second image:
1. The 3x3 WR (4.41) is right, I'm the one who broke it. Very short [solution]. To be honest I made a mistake, but it is right (i.e. truth). I'm working on the reconstruction right now.

2. In the solve, three blocks were solved, the last f2l was lucky, oll skip and a sub1 J perm.
-> Comment1: My error was during the blocks.

3. (same thing as before, but different forum).

4. Time to study: <link to paper>
-> Comments: All irrelevant but mentions he wants to do the reconstruction

Third image (judge):
1. [...] I was Martín's judge and the solve was very lucky. For me it, what happened was very lucky, although he mentioned he made a mistake during the cross. 4.41 is too low of a time to react [correct] a mistake. If he can reconstruct the solve, it will be official. Otherwise, I doubt it (i.e. "doubt", not official). As a judge, I evaluate that there was no mistake during the solve, but pre-solve [problems] must be verified, which will be discussed with the right people. [...]

2. I don't see it as a deal (i.e. bribe the scrambler), because Nitram (the scrambler) is a 12 years old boy who doesn't even think of this stuff, I know him. [...] (additional stuff about the general organization, such as mentioning two of the organizers never had been to a competition and such).

3. More stuff about the organization.

[...] = random stuff and ramblings about the organization.

 

[Hays]

I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.
Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true

I know you probably believe this solve to have actually happened since you've been defending it in this entire thread, but seriously please be aware of a lot of the facts presented.

in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second.

First of all he said he solved, white, not yellow.

Second of all, he said he made a mistake in execution. Mistakes take time, and that's going to add to his total solve.

Third, it's already been proven there is no "easy" triple x cross from the scramble provided. The shortest one possible is 16 moves.

Fourth, watch this video. I used one of the 17 move + R U R' + J perm solutions, and after practicing over 100 times I was barely able to complete the solve in under 4.41 seconds. And I'm much more capable than he is.
And of course there are other ways to solve the cube into the same triple x cross + R U U' + J perm solutions that could have been more finger friendly, and true it could have been possible, but stop talking about this solve like there is a good chance he was able to actually achieve the 4.41 time on that scramble in the way he said he did. He would have had to have luckily found the most finger friendly, almost optimal triple x cross solution, and then have had perfect execution for the rest of the solve to even have the chance of finishing in 4.41 seconds. And this is with a break for the fact that he "made a mistake at the execution." I really don't think you understand how fast 4.41 seconds really is. This is all possible of course, but extremely extremely extremely unlikely.

Fifth, please make an attempt to write with some descent grammar and spelling.

 

[Sin-H]

The wiki knows it:

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Matyas_Kuti
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Sebastián_Pino_Castillo
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Haiyan_Zhuang

The "External Links" section has links to the official announcements. Okay, not for Matyi, but you might find it on the WCA forum.

 

[cubizh]

Found a more complete video (~35mins) of Perry Open 2013:

Spoiler

 

[rubikmaster]

Found a more complete video (~35mins) of Perry Open 2013:

Spoiler

And surprisingly there's no video of any of Martin's solves there. I mean you'd expect somebody to film the rest of the solves of the "new WR holder". Obviously the rest of his solves we're all like 17s and 18s or maybe they didn't even exist. Anyway, i think the one 18 second solve we do have on video is enough proof that he isn't capable of something like this. You'd have to be at least sub-9 to get a sub-5 single even if it's insanely crazy super duper mega ultra lucky. If he really was that good he would be able to get a much better time than 18 seconds even with all the excitement he was filled with, his poor lookahead and slow tps are very obvious. I bet he couldn't even do a prepared solve like that in under 8 seconds. Now, of course these are just my speculations, I'm not stating any of this as a fact, there is a chance (although an INSANELY small chance) that he really is capable of doing this and that he just messed up his second solve really badly because there was nothing in the world he cared about anymore after getting the WR, but anyway I think his 18 second solve and Kevin Hay's 4.34 PREPARED solve is enough proof for my statement,

 

[jayefbe]

When he says he made a mistake at the execution I think he means when he was about to execute, like when the inspection time was running out and it was time to execute (solve) he switched his original plan. But it isn't 100% clear to me if that is what he meant or he actually started to execute and then changed his plan (sdoubt it).

Didn't you "talk" to the judges at the comp, and didn't you say the WCA was about to verify the solve? Again, who are you? And where is your information coming from?


And can we all just agree that this is all just speculation, and without verifiable first hand accounts we are getting nowhere? The competition setting should ensure that something exactly like this should never happen. The fact that it has, and a week later this solve has neither been verified or exposed, indicates a major failing in the system. I don't think it's WCA's fault, but it is certainly true that the judges and delegates at the competition are partly responsible. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to other judges and delegates to be a little more diligent in their jobs. This is exactly why we have judges, and appointed scramblers, to keep situations like this from happening.

It's been a week without any official statement. Each day that passes, it appears more and more like we'll never know the truth. I'm sure all of us "know" that this solve is fake. It's just so far beyond the realm of possibility. And yet we have no evidence of his cheating, so what can we fall back upon? We're running around in circles, analyzing and re-analyzing the same brief statements and videos that represent only a fraction of the whole truth. Unless more information comes forward there's nothing more that can be done, and the only people with official capacity to try and gain more information are with the WCA. The horse is dead, it's been effectively beaten to nothing, and it's left to the WCA to eventually choose between a rock and a hard place.

 

[ben1996123]

a sub1 J perm

pssh, his y perm was over 2 seconds so I doubt that
he should make a video

 

[qqwref]

Yeah, that's actually a good idea, if it's possible... Ask the guy to make a video, and when he's warmed up and ready, give him some scrambles over a chat and have him do them immediately. Then we can see how he can really do under optimal conditions. It still kinda annoys me that we don't know the rest of his times from the Perry Open :|

 

[Dene]

The competition setting should ensure that something exactly like this should never happen. The fact that it has, and a week later this solve has neither been verified or exposed, indicates a major failing in the system. I don't think it's WCA's fault, but it is certainly true that the judges and delegates at the competition are partly responsible. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to other judges and delegates to be a little more diligent in their jobs. This is exactly why we have judges, and appointed scramblers, to keep situations like this from happening.

Cheating even happens in top international FIFA matches. How are WCA delegates supposed to prevent cheating when the biggest sporting organisation in the world can't? You need to think more about what you say.

Fifth, please make an attempt to write with some descent grammar and spelling.

I hate to do this, because I agree with what you're saying completely, but I just had to because it's hilarious

 

[jayefbe]

Cheating even happens in top international FIFA matches. How are WCA delegates supposed to prevent cheating when the biggest sporting organisation in the world can't? You need to think more about what you say.

The fact that cheating exists in FIFA is neither here nor there. Does it take FIFA a week to make any official rulings? Does FIFA have a judge for every single competitor? I know cheating is inevitable, that's not what I have a problem with. My issue is that it shouldn't be this easy. A week after the fact, we should know more about this competition than second and third hand partial statements. For example, something definitive from the delegate or the judge? We're left looking at scrambles, or considering timer malfunctions, when if the system had worked, a statement from the judge should clear everything up. My issue isn't that cheating occurred. If cheating never happened we wouldn't need judges. My issue is that a week later, we still don't know anything.

 

[AvGalen]

Right, cause your scrambler not scrambling properly (which is a possibility here) makes you just as guilty as those cases.

Would you people please stop being dumb?

I think it has been established that the correct scramble was used. (My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct. source: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42174-4-41&p=857323&viewfull=1#post857323)

I am very curious how this was verified because if that is really true the only possibility would be a switched cube, or a timer-stop during the solve that the judge missed. Or the scrambler/judge/organiser/delegate was in on it. The other possibility (the 17 move failed F2L, RUR', OLL Skip, J-Perm) has been debunked more than enough I would say.

 

[Dene]

The fact that cheating exists in FIFA is neither here nor there. Does it take FIFA a week to make any official rulings? Does FIFA have a judge for every single competitor? I know cheating is inevitable, that's not what I have a problem with. My issue is that it shouldn't be this easy. A week after the fact, we should know more about this competition than second and third hand partial statements. For example, something definitive from the delegate or the judge? We're left looking at scrambles, or considering timer malfunctions, when if the system had worked, a statement from the judge should clear everything up. My issue isn't that cheating occurred. If cheating never happened we wouldn't need judges. My issue is that a week later, we still don't know anything.

Sometimes it takes years for FIFA to make decisions... And they needn't have a judge for every competitor, because they have cameras everywhere.

A delegate doesn't have eyes on the back of their head. They simply can't see everything. I can think of numerous ways of cheating in competitions. If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me. As for the judge, what if they're in on it? I'm not stating my opinion about this case, I'm just giving just one of many examples of why this is not something simple.

And you have to give the WCA Board time; they are normal people with normal lives. They are not paid to work on this 24/7 until they have answers. I'm sure they are doing all they can to come to a conclusion. Some patience would do you some good.

 

[MWilson]

I don't know what's been verified, but if it was an incorrect scramble then anything is possible. Even something like:

Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U (green front, white top)

The cube looks fairly scrambled at a glance, especially if you're only inspecting for CFOP starting on the white cross. There are several great openings visible to an experienced inspector, but that doesn't mean luck cannot play a major role and allow a less experienced inspector to have an incredibly fast solve.

So looking at the scramble, the white cross is pretty easy. Say this solver he does the cross on top, so maybe he would figure out a solution that starts with U' F' L' to place the green/white edge and red/white edges. Then they notice that with a D2 between the F' and L', the blue/white would be in place for an R2 after the L'. This is not a correct solution, but they don't notice. So the inspected solution may be U' F' D2 L' R2 U'. A simple edge orientation oversight under pressure of competition.

Let's assume that this hypothetical solver notices their mistake as the blue/white edge is moving past them on the bottom front of the cube during the D2, and instinctively start reversing their moves, also undoing the F' such that U' is essentially all that has been applied since starting.

Maybe in their confusion they take a look at the bottom left of the cube to get a look at the blue/white culprit, and happen to notice the glaringly obvious block that can be made on the bottom left of the cube with L'. After that, they in turn notice the back of the cube has an enticing bar along it and they decide to D'. None of this is unreasonable to see quickly, especially if the solver is sub-20, which is an indication that the solver has significant experience rather than an indication that they are "bad" as some seem this think in this thread. Sub-20 is more than enough experience to "improvise some moves" when the moves are trivial enough. Whether they can do it fast enough for 4.41.. :/

So now of course they would be looking for the last cross piece, the green in this case, and see that it is at UR, and clearly connected to a corner. It would again not be unreasonable for a solver at this point to see F' U F2.

That leaves an obvious "first" pair right in front of the solver, even with poor look ahead any remotely decent CFOP solver would immediately see and react with R U R'. Now there's a blatant J perm just sitting there which would again trigger an instant reaction in any decent CFOP solver.

In all:

Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
Finish F2L: R U R'
PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.

Just for the record, I'm very doubtful of this being legitimate. However, I don't believe that my, or anyone's, mere intuition and biased logic should result in a condemning verdict. The point made with this post is extremely hypothetical, and even the proposed lucky solution to this designed-to-be-lucky scramble would still require very fast recognition and execution for 4.41s, but it's not impossible, which is the issue. @&$! happens.

 

[qqwref]

[snip]Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
Finish F2L: R U R'
PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.

This is a really cool pseudo-reconstruction-y thing. Nice job finding a position that could theoretically be solved in the same way as Martín said his solve went.

The problem, of course, is that the existing scramble has no such easy blocks, and requires a minimum of 16 moves to get to a position where you can solve the cube with a RUR' trigger and a J perm (plus AUFs as necessary). Your scramble takes 6 moves. I can see someone intuitively thinking through 6 moves in 3 seconds (giving Martín a pretty small 1.41 seconds to deal with the F2L pair, recognition, and J perm)... but not 16. And there's no obvious way to come up with that 16-move solution (or a slightly suboptimal one), either.

 

[jayefbe]

A delegate doesn't have eyes on the back of their head. They simply can't see everything. I can think of numerous ways of cheating in competitions. If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me. As for the judge, what if they're in on it? I'm not stating my opinion about this case, I'm just giving just one of many examples of why this is not something simple.

And you have to give the WCA Board time; they are normal people with normal lives. They are not paid to work on this 24/7 until they have answers. I'm sure they are doing all they can to come to a conclusion. Some patience would do you some good.

Again, FIFA has nothing to do with WCA, so I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.

I understand all of this, and I've tried to make all of my comments while making it abundantly clear that I have all the respect in the world for the WCA. All said and done, I think they have done an amazing job. My main point, is that in this instance, no comment from the WCA has led to rampant speculation. Some transparency on what they are doing, and a timetable for when we can expect a ruling would likely end some of this speculation. Additionally, no comment from the judges or delegates at the competition is a bit disconcerting. I understand it takes time. I understand that everyone has their own lives to attend to. But since this competition we've had scrambles analyzed, we've had someone practice a near optimal solve just to show how difficult it is to have a sufficient TPS to get this time, we've had every comment analyzed and re-analyzed, we've had video clips broken down again and again, and still no clear statement from the judge or delegate. I'm a patient person. I'm not pulling my hair out over this. I'm simply stating, a week without a statement about something that has turned into one of the biggest controversies in cubing? That's a long time to let people hypothesize and spread rumors, which is not helping things.

My second point, is that cheating shouldn't be so easy, which you actually appear to be making for me, so I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. If the judge was in on it, then there needs to be more careful discrimination when it comes to choosing judges.

 

[Sin-H]

If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me.

Being a delegate, wouldn't it be even easier to cheat in a comp? I mean, of course you are given some sort of responsibility, but in fact the delegates could pretty much do anything they like in terms of results. For instance, just take a look at the 3x3 scrambles beforehand. That's too easy. However, we need some trusted entity to rely our recognition of results on.

 

[scotzbhoy]

Again, FIFA has nothing to do with WCA, so I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.

I think the point is that you're putting too much onto the WCA. Cheating occurs in the world of football, in spite of the fact that the governing body is a huge multi-national organisation with vast amounts of money behind it and delegates all over the world working full time for the organisation. By comparison, the WCA is nothing. As you've said, everyone has their own lives, they don't revolve around cubing and certainly not around this forum. If FIFA are unable to stop cheating or come to major decisions within a week then it's unreasonable to expect the WCA to do so. Bear in mind also that the WCA have probably considered everything that's been said in this thread, and probably more having spoken to the people involved. A fair bit of information has been provided here, and still no-one knows for sure what happened. Given all this, how can you expect the WCA, with the extra information they most likely have available to them, to have already made a decision bearing in mind how big a decision it is for them to make and how important it is that the correct decision is made?

 

[cubernya]

Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
Finish F2L: R U R'
PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.

I think this is possible. On my first try I got a 4.48 with this solution, and I average 17 or so. Obviously this is knowing the solution, but I seriously think you could figure out that XXX-cross in inspection. At the least, I would have gotten the 2x2x3 and seen the XXX-cross during the solve.

Now, I'm not saying that it's legit, I'm just saying that this solution may be possible.

My only problem with the solution though, is that the first 5 moves (besides cancellations) are inverted from the scramble.

 

[scotzbhoy]

I think this is possible. On my first try I got a 4.48 with this solution, and I average 17 or so. Obviously this is knowing the solution, but I seriously think you could figure out that XXX-cross in inspection. At the least, I would have gotten the 2x2x3 and seen the XXX-cross during the solve.

Now, I'm not saying that it's legit, I'm just saying that this solution may be possible.

My only problem with the solution though, is that the first 5 moves (besides cancellations) are inverted from the scramble.

He didn't see them in inspection though, he started the cross, realised he'd made a mistake and improvised a XXX cross on the opposite side. This in itself I think is implausible in under 4.41, never mind the location/insertion of the final pair, OLL skip recognition and J-perm recognition and execution.

 

[cubernya]

He didn't see them in inspection though, he started the cross, realised he'd made a mistake and improvised a XXX cross on the opposite side. This in itself I think is implausible in under 4.41, never mind the location/insertion of the final pair, OLL skip recognition and J-perm recognition and execution.

That's what he said. I think others should consider the possibility that his description of him messing up the solve could be a lie to make the solve look even more impressive.

I also just completed an ao12 on that solution, and got a best of 3.52 (or 7.10 TPS) which is well under the 4.41 that is given. The ao12 was 3.85, with a best ao5 of 3.62