New Event Ideas: Quarantine Edition

[Silky]

Since quarantine has prevented WCA sanctioned competitions I've been thinking about some new non-WCA challenges/events. Given the unique circumstances it seems to me that now would be an excellent time to be exploring the viability/interest in nontraditional events (e.g. Kiliminx, Master Pyraminx, Team Blind, etc.).

As far as new event ideas I've been thinking about 2 people 1 cube. The event is pretty self explanatory, the only nuance being that there may need to be a restriction on the minimum number of moves per person. It would be an interesting mix of the technical aspects of OH with the team/communicative aspect of team blind. I'm sure this has been purposed elsewhere but I am interested to see people's thoughts on the matter.

I'd also would love to hear any other new event ideas people are interested in.

 

[ProStar]

Since quarantine has prevented WCA sanctioned competitions I've been thinking about some new non-WCA challenges/events. Given the unique circumstances it seems to me that now would be an excellent time to be exploring the viability/interest in nontraditional events (e.g. Kiliminx, Master Pyraminx, Team Blind, etc.).

As far as new event ideas I've been thinking about 2 people 1 cube. The event is pretty self explanatory, the only nuance being that there may need to be a restriction on the minimum number of moves per person. It would be an interesting mix of the technical aspects of OH with the team/communicative aspect of team blind. I'm sure this has been purposed elsewhere but I am interested to see people's thoughts on the matter.

I'd also would love to hear any other new event ideas people are interested in.

Are you talking about where people each use one hand and hold and solve the cube together? Or a mini Rob's challenge?

 

[Silky]

Are you talking about where people each use one hand and hold and solve the cube together? Or a mini Rob's challenge?

The former. Not really sure what a mini Rob's Challenge is

 

[Sub1Hour]

The former. Not really sure what a mini Rob's Challenge is

Robs challenge is 2 people 3 squans. Its very fun since most of the time if you are doing it with someone of a similar speed then one person does CS and CO and the other finishes the rest on one of the cubes.

 

[Silky]

Robs challenge is 2 people 3 squans. Its very fun since most of the time if you are doing it with someone of a similar speed then one person does CS and CO and the other finishes the rest on one of the cubes.

Thats pretty rad.

 

[Owen Morrison]

Since quarantine has prevented WCA sanctioned competitions I've been thinking about some new non-WCA challenges/events. Given the unique circumstances it seems to me that now would be an excellent time to be exploring the viability/interest in nontraditional events (e.g. Kiliminx, Master Pyraminx, Team Blind, etc.).

As far as new event ideas I've been thinking about 2 people 1 cube. The event is pretty self explanatory, the only nuance being that there may need to be a restriction on the minimum number of moves per person. It would be an interesting mix of the technical aspects of OH with the team/communicative aspect of team blind. I'm sure this has been purposed elsewhere but I am interested to see people's thoughts on the matter.

I'd also would love to hear any other new event ideas people are interested in.

We need to do that, Micah and I have practiced it before and we average sub 20 doing it, Our PB is better then the world recordo_O

 

[Silky]

We need to do that, Micah and I have practiced it before and we average sub 20 doing it, Our PB is better then the world recordo_O

Sweet! Do you have any footage? And what's your approach? Does one person focus more on look-ahead while the other focuses on execution?

 

[ProStar]

Robs challenge is 2 people 3 squans. Its very fun since most of the time if you are doing it with someone of a similar speed then one person does CS and CO and the other finishes the rest on one of the cubes.

Rob's challenge is just 2 people and 3 puzzles, not necessarily squans

 

[Owen Morrison]

Sweet! Do you have any footage? And what's your approach? Does one person focus more on look-ahead while the other focuses on execution?

Micah and I plan to try to film a sub 15 single and share it. We don't have an approach to it really, we use all the same algs which helps a lot, and we usually see the same F2L pieces and we both will turn to solve them. Every once and a while Micah will see on pair and I will see a different one, and we both try to execute for the ones we see, which often results in the cube falling out of our hands.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Rob's challenge is just 2 people and 3 puzzles, not necessarily squans

Traditionally it is done with square-1 puzzles and I have not seen a robs challenge that isn't squan

 

[fun at the joy]

Traditionally it is done with square-1 puzzles and I have not seen a robs challenge that isn't squan

10s of simple research, I can't find any Sq-1 videos though.

I actually think you trolled lol

 

[Sub1Hour]

I actually think you trolled lol

My apologies. The first time I did robs challenge was at a comp and where I live square-1 is the most competitive event in terms of pure speed (debatably clock too but fewer people care about that compared to squan in my area), so I just assumed that it was only squan

 

[ProStar]

My apologies. The first time I did robs challenge was at a comp and where I live square-1 is the most competitive event in terms of pure speed (debatably clock too but fewer people care about that compared to squan in my area), so I just assumed that it was only squan

It was made for 3x3, but the concept works for any puzzle

 

[Silky]

Micah and I plan to try to film a sub 15 single and share it. We don't have an approach to it really, we use all the same algs which helps a lot, and we usually see the same F2L pieces and we both will turn to solve them. Every once and a while Micah will see on pair and I will see a different one, and we both try to execute for the ones we see, which often results in the cube falling out of our hands.

Post it whenever you do! Sounds like it would be sick.

 

[Username: Username:]

I have an idea for a new event, so its basically 3x3 speed, and two people will duke it out, so how it works is you get points based on who is faster or who is having the lowest movecount between them. so for example person a is playing with person b then, person a starts the solve and gets a 8.59 single and 50 moves, then person b will start solving and he gets 8.78 single and 49 moves, person b gets 1 points because person b's solve movecount is smaller than person a. whoever gets to 5 points first will be the winner but you can also get points based on who is faster, so if person a's time is < person b, then he gets 1 point.

 

[Silky]

I have an idea for a new event, so its basically 3x3 speed, and two people will duke it out, so how it works is you get points based on who is faster or who is having the lowest movecount between them. so for example person a is playing with person b then, person a starts the solve and gets a 8.59 single and 50 moves, then person b will start solving and he gets 8.78 single and 49 moves, person b gets 1 points because person b's solve movecount is smaller than person a. whoever gets to 5 points first will be the winner but you can also get points based on who is faster, so if person a's time is < person b, then he gets 1 point.

This is definitely a cool idea, particularly the concept of heaving a head to head. Ever since the Red Bull event a while back, head to heads are something in which we should be experimenting. The only problem with the proposal is that there is a possibility of stalemates. If person (a) always goes for speed and person (b) always goes for move count then neither will gain a point advantage nor will be incentivized to do so.

I believe Tony Snyder (despite my hesitation) proposed a similar event which composites move count and speed (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Tony_Snyder).

 

[Username: Username:]

This is definitely a cool idea, particularly the concept of heaving a head to head. Ever since the Red Bull event a while back, head to heads are something in which we should be experimenting. The only problem with the proposal is that there is a possibility of stalemates. If person (a) always goes for speed and person (b) always goes for move count then neither will gain a point advantage nor will be incentivized to do so.

I believe Tony Snyder (despite my hesitation) proposed a similar event which composites move count and speed (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Tony_Snyder).

if there is a stalemate, maybe do another round?

 

[Silky]

if there is a stalemate, maybe do another round?

Well you still run into the same problem.

For example:

Feliks Zemdegs (best 3x3 avg) vs Cale Schoon (best FMC average). Feliks will always get faster times so he'll never worry about move count and Cale will always have the more efficient solves so will never worry about speed. Even if you added another round each competitor would continuously tie ad infinitum. If the goal of the event is to promote fast AND efficient solves than you need to balance move count and speed relative to one another.

Let's say person (a) gets a 7 second solve in 54 (HTM) moves and person (b) gets a 14 second solve in 44 (HTM) moves.

Person (a) gets a score of 7+52 = 59
Person (b) gets a score of 14+46 = 60

So person (a) wins! This helps to ensure that there is a balance between the two approaches. This would mean that CFOP, which is more optimized for speed, and Petrus, which is more optimized for efficiency, would both be viable options. This mixed with the head to head would be particularly interesting as each competitor would have to react to their opponent. In the example above person (a) may want to slow down a bit to shave off a few moves while person (b) may want to increase their speed sacrificing efficiency. This means that the event would be much more dynamic that both FMC and 3x3 events.

That being said, you would need to lab it out to find the balance that you would want. I'd definitely like to participate in a mini online comp to see where things would go. I really love Petrus and would be excited to use it in an event where it would be relatively competitive.

Note on scoring/point system:

Another thing to add is that I really like the idea of having an alternative scoring/point system instead of the standard mean/average. It gives a bit more variety and a more dynamic style in the head to head (adjusting your solving style based on the score of the other person after each solve).

Here are some ideas that I've come up with based on your proposal (head to head):

(1) The most basic system would be to have 5 solves and whomever has the least score each solve wins that round (get +1 point). Whomever reaches 3 points first wins the head to head.

(2) Another system would be to set a cap on the total sum of points. So whomever reaches X total points first loses (just adding the score from each solve. If both break the score cap than whomever has few total points wins). This approach would be nice as for less experience solvers they'd take fewer rounds to win while for more experienced solvers there would a lot more room for competition and comebacks and such.

(3) The last system I thought of would be similar to (2). The competitors would have 3 solves and whomever has the least sum within a certain difference wins. This would be similar to tennis in that you would need to win buy a certain amount of points to win the head to head. For example lets say you have 3 solves and you need to win by 10 points. Person (a) get a total of 150 and person (b) gets a total of 165. So person (a) wins. But let's say person (a) gets a total of 155 and person (b) gets a total of 160. Then you would go into a sort of 'overtime'. Each competitor would go head to head in 2 more solves and whomever has the lesser sum wins.

(Online comp/ labbing):

(1) For an online comp the above options wouldn't be viable without some kind of stream setup and bracket system. So most likely we would have people submit times and move count and just rank them based on score. Lowest score wins.

Okay finished. Sorry for the wall of text (sorry not sorry).

 

[GenTheSnail]

Let's say person (a) gets a 7 second solve in 54 (HTM) moves and person (b) gets a 14 second solve in 44 (HTM) moves.

Imo thats not realistic. 7 seconds extra isn't enough to optimize a solve that much. Ironically the people who can solve in 7 seconds is partly due to advanced techniques that lead to efficiency, so in a real world situation it's the person who can solve in 7 seconds who gets the 44 HTM and the person who solves in 14 who gets the 54 HTM. Even if you take it slower to something like 30 seconds, it isn't enough to get a significantly more efficient solve.

I think for the form's weekly competition there was a trial speed-fmc event with a time limit of around 10 minutes. I think the way they decided to score was moves+minutes, but they also looked at logarithmic scoring. It was obviously less speed-focused than the event that you're proposing, as it was just essentially 10 minute FMC, but this sounds like something that you're trying to get.

 

[Silky]

Imo thats not realistic. 7 seconds extra isn't enough to optimize a solve that much. Ironically the people who can solve in 7 seconds is partly due to advanced techniques that lead to efficiency, so in a real world situation it's the person who can solve in 7 seconds who gets the 44 HTM and the person who solves in 14 who gets the 54 HTM. Even if you take it slower to something like 30 seconds, it isn't enough to get a significantly more efficient solve.

I think for the form's weekly competition there was a trial speed-fmc event with a time limit of around 10 minutes. I think the way they decided to score was moves+minutes, but they also looked at logarithmic scoring. It was obviously less speed-focused than the event that you're proposing, as it was just essentially 10 minute FMC, but this sounds like something that you're trying to get.

As I said there would need to be some labbing to see how to balance move count and speed so that one approach doesn't have a significant advantage over the other.

When Snyder proposed the idea, way back when, the cubing scene was very different being that people were must slower (so proposing a similar event now would need to be readjusted to fit the current scene). One of the other parts of the proposal was to have a 40 second inspection so that you would have more time to come up with creative/efficient solutions which could help mitigate the problem (?).