Odd WCA stats/ Stats request Thread

[JasonK]

Chances of getting 3 PLL skips in a row for 2x2?

1/216

 

[moralsh]

This doesn't really fit here but it would be nice to have a "next comps" space in each WCA member's page showing the comp he/she has already registered for

 

[Sebastien]

Number of people with first Success on nth attempt
[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr][td]Attempts[/td] [td]Count[/td] [td]Percentage[/td] [td]Cumulative[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td] [td]482[/td] [td]28.79%[/td] [td]28.79%[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Success rate on each attempt
[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr][td]Attempt[/td] [td]Successes[/td] [td]DNFs[/td] [td]Success Rate[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td] [td]482[/td] [td]2133[/td] [td]18.43%[/td][/tr]
[/table]

How comes that those percentages are different?

This doesn't really fit here but it would be nice to have a "next comps" space in each WCA member's page showing the comp he/she has already registered for

I don't see how this would be possible as LOTS of competitions don't use the WCA registration system.

 

[moralsh]

How comes that those percentages are different?

My guess is that the second list takes into account the people who are yet to have a success and the first one doesn't.

I don't see how this would be possible as LOTS of competitions don't use the WCA registration system.

It would be nice to have it at least for the comps that use it

 

[Kian]

How comes that those percentages are different?

Not everyone has had a success.

 

[antoineccantin]

Best/worst 3x3 single : # of competitions attended ratio

 

[Sebastien]

It would be nice to have it at least for the comps that use it

that could be a bit misleading though...but a nice idea in general.

Not everyone has had a success.

Damn, I knew I was having a simple logical mistake.

 

[Dylann]

Top 3 2x2 single records worldwide were on the same scramble and same competition. It must have been an extremely obvious 3/4 move solution as their averages were nowhere near that (4-5 seconds). Poor scramble really... if it wasn't for the poor scramble then Felik's would be no.1 single for 2-5 order rubik's cubes (excluding 4x4)

 

[kinch2002]

Poor scramble really... if it wasn't for the poor scramble (computer generated yeah [-I hope!] ) then Felik's would be no.1 single for 2-5 order rubik's cubes.

Define 'poor'. Of course it was computer generated. Feliks was also presumably not too many moves, just like everyone else with a 1.5 single

 

[Noahaha]

And also he wouldn't because his 4x4 single got broken on Saturday.

 

[Escher]

And Felik's solve was 11 moves. Christian's was about 4.

Nope, Feliks' 1.12 was 11 moves. A 1.12 or 1.21, idr exactly which.

 

[Dylann]

Nope, Feliks' 1.12 was 11 moves. A 1.12 or 1.21, idr exactly which.

Oh right yeah sorry ! Either way, my point was I found it funny the top 3 single 2x2 solves were at the same competition!

 

[antoineccantin]

Nope, Feliks' 1.12 was 11 moves. A 1.12 or 1.21, idr exactly which.

I think it's the 1.28

 

[cparlette]

A scramble that either was really short, or went back on itself leaving the cube solvable in very few moves. Obviously it was computer generated sorry for suggesting it wasn't! Shouldn't there be a double-check that the scramble isn't ridiculously easy? What if a 3x3 get's randomly scrambled so that it's solved by 2 moves? Would that be accepted?

And Felik's solve was 11 moves. Christian's was about 4.

So what constitutes "ridiculously easy"? Where's the line between "ridiculously easy", "really easy", "easy", and "not easy"? Would you be able to quantify what scrambles would get thrown out?

This is why averages are a better representation of skill.

 

[TMOY]

A scramble that either was really short, or went back on itself leaving the cube solvable in very few moves. Obviously it was computer generated sorry for suggesting it wasn't! Shouldn't there be a double-check that the scramble isn't ridiculously easy? What if a 3x3 get's randomly scrambled so that it's solved by 2 moves? Would that be accepted?

At Phalsbourg open 2012 I was scrambling for 2^3 when we (the scramblers) noticed that the 5th scramble of the group had a 2-move solution. So we called the delegate (Clément), and after saying "oh no, why does it happen to me ?" and trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make a phone call, he told us to replace that silly scramble by the first scramble of an extra group he had generated scrambles for just in case.

 

[Kian]

A scramble that either was really short, or went back on itself leaving the cube solvable in very few moves. Obviously it was computer generated sorry for suggesting it wasn't! Shouldn't there be a double-check that the scramble isn't ridiculously easy? What if a 3x3 get's randomly scrambled so that it's solved by 2 moves? Would that be accepted?

And Felik's solve was 11 moves. Christian's was about 4.



Just noticed, thanks!

Delegates are not allowed to throw out scrambles, as per the regulations.

The possibility of a 3x3 scramble of 2 moves being created randomly is basically zero. It's not likely to happen in the history of the universe.

2x2 single records are silly because randomly generated scrambles can be easy. They are not and should not be taken to be a good measure of skill. In addition, the line of "easy" is difficult to decipher. For example, my best 2x2 single was solved with antisune and an AUF. The scramble was not noticeably short, but it was easy. Far easier than many 4 move solutions.

 

[TheNextFeliks]

DNF rate for each nonBLD event.

 

[That70sShowDude]

Any way to find out the longest streak or active streaks of breaking at least one official pb in any event at every comp since they started?

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

http://esk.staticcling.org/cubers/

I wrote some ugly code to calculate peak rankings. May not be totally accurate for singles (you might have a slightly better ranking).

 

[ottozing]

List of worst official 3x3 averages with a counting sub-10 or best official 3x3 averages with a counting sup-10 would be cool to look at