Do you have a link to an optimal solver for megaminx that will reach just 1 solution this year? We are using these scrambles for speedsolving competitions, not for scientific analysis
Okay, I give up. It looks like now you are just being a troll; we both KNOW I am right about much fewer positions being reached than normal (only one in 10^50 positions!), you just seem to be trying to convince yourself that this cannot possibly have any effect on times. Of course it can, the question is whether you are willing to do longer scrambles to have a FAIR megaminx event. After this post I am out of this discussion.
Even if you would get more corner or edge skips that would only matter for blind.
Do I need to explain how your own F2L method (working corner) works? Skipping a piece in the F2L will save time. If you do 12 random moves and solve the cross, more F2L pieces will be solved on average than normal. If you don't believe this happens, do a simulation. If you don't believe this affects times, it's because you can't solve the 3x3 quickly to save your life anyway. Ask Erik if skipping an F2L pair would make your time faster.
My whole point is that a scramble that requires a lot of optimal moves doesn't need to be hard (again, consider the superflip). For Megaminx the chances of a scrambler messing up a scramble is much bigger than a competitor benefitting from "the easiness of 2^70" scrambles.
The superflip is only easy because you know it as a pattern. Go solve it with Fridrich and see if you still think it's easy. Alternatively, go memorize ANY 20-move scramble, and imagine you get it in competition and recognize that it's your memorized scramble. Will it take you a normal 20 seconds? Of course not.
As for Megaminx scrambling, who's going to mess up a scramble now? They're ridiculously easy to execute. That's the whole reason we're using this new system. As for "the chances ... [are] much bigger", don't even TRY to compare probabilities which you have no idea about. You have no idea about either one and neither do I, and I'm not the kind of person you can convince with pseudomathematical babble.
You should do the analysis if you are interested, but don't loose track of the practical implications.
You mean "don't lose track of the fact that I don't think it has an effect", don't you? If you really want to know, let's have a fast megaminx solver do a long session with someone else scrambling, where they randomly do scrambles from the Pochmann and Jaap scramblers and see if there is a difference in the average times. It doesn't matter if you don't THINK there is no effect, the only way to prove there isn't is to actually test it.
That was indeed what I meant. I think the part that says "After the first sixty moves, there was not a single unbroken pair left." is important
Unbroken pairs are irrelevant. They just make the puzzle look more scrambled. The 3x3 scramble M E S breaks EVERY corner-edge pair, but is it an easy scramble? Of course. You have to take into account how many moves it takes to join the corner and edge together again. I would not be surprised if an abnormally large number of pairs are just one or two face turns away with this scrambling scheme.
so, what's the conclusion?
is his "method" correct? do we need 250+ moves with the current scrambler?
If you want to even have a chance of getting to every position, you need at least ln(1.007 * 10^68)/ln(2) = 226 moves counting cube rotations. I'm not sure it is necessary to do this, but I do think we should check to see exactly how scrambled our "scrambled" megaminxes are. For complicated puzzles like this, positions which look scrambled can still be much easier than average.
P.S. Arnaud, I don't know what's come over you, but you used to be a LOT nicer. I see you being argumentative for no reason, and criticizing people who say "7x7" instead of "7x7x7"... what's wrong? This is NOT the Arnaud I know. I'm having a really bad day today, what's your excuse?
) as well as I don't believe in lucky solves at 4x4x4 or bigger cubes.
