• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Official] Max Park 4.68 OH single (misscramble)

Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
979
Likes
600
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
Thread starter #21
Why not? To my knowledge, you can do a 3x3 solve in a competition with one hand and it will still count as an official 3x3 solve. You could do the same thing with feet and 3BLD. It therefore seems logical to count OH as well as 3BLD and feet in the overall rankings for 3x3. If someone were to get a sub WR 3x3 solve, only it's in a OH event, it is still the fastest official solve of a 3x3, is it not?
If I do 7x7 1 minute but my 6x6 pb is 4 minutes then should the wca count my 6x6 pb as 1 minute too since 7x7 is harder anyway? It’s still basically the same thing and it’s only fair I should get the 6x6 wr too
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
982
Likes
293
Location
P(r)oland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
SajwoPL
#23
Why not? To my knowledge, you can do a 3x3 solve in a competition with one hand and it will still count as an official 3x3 solve. You could do the same thing with feet and 3BLD. It therefore seems logical to count OH as well as 3BLD and feet in the overall rankings for 3x3. If someone were to get a sub WR 3x3 solve, only it's in a OH event, it is still the fastest official solve of a 3x3, is it not?
if I get easy xxcross and LL skip does it also count as FMC WR?
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,878
Likes
1,899
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#25
Someone should create a thread about the above debate.
Not really; it doesn't seem there's room for debate. If we allowed this, we'd have to really include all 3x3x3 OH, WF, and BLD results in the regular 3x3x3 results, and that is silly, and requires a lot of overhead. The events are held separately and therefore should be maintained separately. Doing otherwise creates more confusion and more unnecessary work for the WCA.

If this were to happen, it would be enough to say to people who ask, "The fastest ever official solve of a 3x3x3 was actually done as a one-handed solve," or whatever.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
126
Likes
56
Location
Vienna, Austria
#26
Why not? To my knowledge, you can do a 3x3 solve in a competition with one hand and it will still count as an official 3x3 solve. You could do the same thing with feet and 3BLD. It therefore seems logical to count OH as well as 3BLD and feet in the overall rankings for 3x3. If someone were to get a sub WR 3x3 solve, only it's in a OH event, it is still the fastest official solve of a 3x3, is it not?
No. For a time to count in 3x3 you'll have to achieve it by participating in 3x3. Everybody gets the same opportunities of 5*(number of rounds) 3x3 solves. Not more.

Of course you can participate in the normal 3x3 event and solve your cube with one hand or blindfolded - if you think you're faster that way (Regulation A1c).
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Messages
10
Likes
10
#28
My apologies for causing such a stir, everyone. FWIW, I don't actually think the situation I'm describing should actually happen. It just seems unfair to not get a record for completing the exact same objective faster and in a harder way than normal. Maybe we can have a real discussion when Max or Feliks actually gets a sub 3x3 WR time, one handed, with not a misscramble. Seems unlikely, doesn't it? :) At any rate, here are my replies to you all:

If I do 7x7 1 minute but my 6x6 pb is 4 minutes then should the wca count my 6x6 pb as 1 minute too since 7x7 is harder anyway? It’s still basically the same thing and it’s only fair I should get the 6x6 wr too
In 7x7 and 6x6, you solve different puzzles. In 3x3 and OH, you don't.

if I get easy xxcross and LL skip does it also count as FMC WR?
No, because 3x3 and OH are both events where you solve a 3x3 as fast as possible. FMC isn't.

Not really; it doesn't seem there's room for debate. If we allowed this, we'd have to really include all 3x3x3 OH, WF, and BLD results in the regular 3x3x3 results, and that is silly, and requires a lot of overhead. The events are held separately and therefore should be maintained separately. Doing otherwise creates more confusion and more unnecessary work for the WCA.
I agree. It is really silly, and it would create a lot of unnecessary work. But the OH record being faster than the 3x3 record would also be really silly, albeit possible, as Max just showed us!

If this were to happen, it would be enough to say to people who ask, "The fastest ever official solve of a 3x3x3 was actually done as a one-handed solve," or whatever.
There's a decent chance that the people you say this to would say the same thing I did :D

No. For a time to count in 3x3 you'll have to achieve it by participating in 3x3.
Sure. As the rules currently are. As I said, should it count?

Everybody gets the same opportunities of 5*(number of rounds) 3x3 solves. Not more.
This does make sense. People who don't do OH are at a disadvantage since they don't get as many solves on to the 3x3 leaderboard. How about if a OH solve only counted on the 3x3 leaderboard for times that beat a 3x3 record, or for someone's personal WCA stats page?
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
982
Likes
293
Location
P(r)oland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
SajwoPL
#31
In 7x7 and 6x6, you solve different puzzles. In 3x3 and OH, you don't.
3x3 and 3x3 OH are different events.

No, because 3x3 and OH are both events where you solve a 3x3 as fast as possible. FMC isn't.
3x3 and 3x3 FMC are the same puzzles.

Sure. As the rules currently are. As I said, should it count?
No it shouldn't, because that would be retarded.


This does make sense. People who don't do OH are at a disadvantage since they don't get as many solves on to the 3x3 leaderboard. How about if a OH solve only counted on the 3x3 leaderboard for times that beat a 3x3 record, or for someone's personal WCA stats page?
All the results in the WCA database should be treated the same.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
605
Likes
323
Location
Kirkkonummi, Finland
WCA
2010RONK01
YouTube
Rubikscuber96
#32
why are you keep going with this?
I feel like this is one of times when someone says something so dumb that everyone resorts to being blunt instead wasting their time typing a well thought out reply, because there is nothing to be gained from arguing with him, which leads to him believing that he might have a point.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Likes
636
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
#33
I feel like this is one of times when someone says something so dumb that everyone resorts to being blunt instead wasting their time typing a well thought out reply, because there is nothing to be gained from arguing with him, which leads to him believing that he might have a point.
Exactly me. I started typing half a sentence yesterday and thought "What's the point".

Anyway, in reply to @Glomnipotent's question, here are a couple of scenarios to consider.

During the one handed event at some competition, imagine there's a ridiculously easy scramble. During inspection, a top cuber knows that this scramble has definite two handed WR potential. He sacrifices his solve and uses two hands, getting a DNF for OH but also breaking the two hand WR. Should that time count as the WR?

A competitor is at a competition warming up, but he wants to simulate a realistic environment. So he gets one friend (who happens to be a delegate) to generate some scrambles using Tnoodle and scramble the cube for him, and another to judge. He beats the WR time. Should that solve be recognised as the WR?

Now imagine the above scenario, but the three friends meet at one of their homes, and the time isn't even set at a competition. Now should the times be recognised?

As you explore these scenerios, you start see that the decision of where to place the line between WR and UWR is actually a little arbitrary. It should be very obvious that the WCA shouldn't accept times set by someone scrambling their own cubes during a practice session at home. But as you get closer and closer to official competition conditions, the line gets more and more fuzzy. The decision to only accept solves that happen as part of that specific event at an official competition, although strict, seems very reasonable to me. Times at outside of those can safely be compared to every other unofficial solve.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
126
Likes
56
Location
Vienna, Austria
#35
I'm surprised that this argument hasn't come up yet. Some people are faster at OH than 3x3. They are different events using different skills. They should stay different.
And those people are perfectly welcome to do their (two-handed) 3x3 attempts with only one hand. But again, those times only count for 3x3 pbs and records and not for OH pbs and records.
 
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
49
Likes
15
WCA
2018SEGA02
YouTube
The Ananymous Cuber
#39
Easy cross + 4 free pairs + sune, PLL skip = every 30-second solver's way to pretend they're world class

I mean, I guess he didn't know for sure, but it logically seemed too good to be true. :p
Actually instead of doing R U R' for the last pair and then doing a sune, there was a really easy Winter Variation case where you do R U2 R' which makes the pair go past the insertion point and then you can do U and then R U2 R' to insert the pair. If you don't know how Winter Variation works (I assume you do, but just in case), this gives you an OLL skip and in this case Max got an entire LL skip without any AUF. Pretty sure anybody faster than about 15-17 seconds would have found this solution immediately. It is so obvious that I believe it may not have been only a misscramble, but potentially a setup for Max. Not accusing Max of being in on it or anything, but it would make sense that some dumbass would try to set Max up like that. It is a crazy solve that even I, being a 13 second solver, was able to look ahead to first 2 pairs and I remained two steps ahead the entire solve first time I tried it (before seeing his solution) and I don't even know Winter Variation but I'll try to preserve blocks like that sometimes so I ended doing that case anyway. Meaning yeah, it's definitely too good to be true haha although Yusheng Du's single was pretty amazing as well (although he did use a ZBLL).

Reconstruction-
Scramble: L2 B2 R2 U2 R2 U F2 L2 D R2 F2 B' L' F L' R2 U B2 L2 F' R2
Inspection: x'
Cross: D L U' Rw'
F2L#1: y R U' R'
F2L#2: U' R' U R
F2L#3: y2 U' R' U' R
F2L#4: R U R'
OLL: R U R' U R U2 R'
PLL: Skip
25HTM/4.68 = 5.34 TPS

Credit goes to Tommy Kiprillis.
Actually the solve went as follows (he used Winter Variation)
Cross: D L U' Rw'
F2L#1: y R U' R'
F2L#2: U' R' U R
F2L#3: y2 U' R' U' R
F2L#4 (WV): R U2 R' U R U2 R'
*full LL skip with no AUF)
 
Top