Older cubers discussions

[newtonbase]

7/10 MBLD in 54:43 (41:26). Had plenty of time for an extra review. Execution was my fastest for 10 and faster than all but one of my attempts at 9. One failure was an edge flip I saw on 1st pass but missed in my reviews. Another was an F move out. Best score for 10 too.

 

[Logiqx]

It looks like it'll just be @Shaky Hands and myself representing the oldies in Hastings this weekend. I'm only planning to do the Sunday which means 3x3, OH and Pyra... hopefully 2 rounds of each event.

Following that event and going on holiday, Peterborough doesn't look too well attended at the end of June either - @Shaky Hands, @mark49152 and myself. Again, I'll only be doing the Sunday - 3x3, OH, 2x2, Mega.

I'm hoping to attend the UK Champs in Stevenage (end of October) where hopefully I'll get to see the rest of you - @Selkie, @bubbagrub, @newtonbase @SenorJuan.

 

[Logiqx]

I didn't practice much OH in the last 2-3 months and getting fast again it's taking me much more effort than I thought. I'm still around one second slower, but...

3x3 OH Ao12 PB: 23.625 (was 23.942 from 2/Feb)

Nice Ao12!

I can relate to the effort required. It's taken about a month of practice to get back to my global averages from February.

 

[mark49152]

I'll take a shot at it.

Interesting responses. I'll take a shot too and answer my own question, since I exaggerated when I said I had no idea .

Those two algs look very different to the typical CFOP algs. Having M and D moves in the same alg, and a different pattern with none of the usual RUF triggers, seems a bit alien at first. I still maintain they are not that hard, but I can see why they might throw some people.

 

[newtonbase]

It looks like it'll just be @Shaky Hands and myself representing the oldies in Hastings this weekend. I'm only planning to do the Sunday which means 3x3, OH and Pyra... hopefully 2 rounds of each event.

Following that event and going on holiday, Peterborough doesn't look too well attended at the end of June either - @Shaky Hands, @mark49152 and myself. Again, I'll only be doing the Sunday - 3x3, OH, 2x2, Mega.

I'm hoping to attend the UK Champs in Stevenage (end of October) where hopefully I'll get to see the rest of you - @Selkie, @bubbagrub, @newtonbase @SenorJuan.

I was late registering for Peterborough so I'm 7th on the waiting list. It's my only chance to qualify for MBLD for the UKs so I'm planning to turn up for that event anyway and see if they'll let me compete. Unfortunately I'll miss you @Logiqx as that's on the Saturday. Definitely going to the UKs.

 

[bubbagrub]

I was late registering for Peterborough so I'm 7th on the waiting list. It's my only chance to qualify for MBLD for the UKs so I'm planning to turn up for that event anyway and see if they'll let me compete. Unfortunately I'll miss you @Logiqx as that's on the Saturday. Definitely going to the UKs.

Yup, I also missed registration for Peterborough and haven't bothered to get on the waiting list... Will be at Euros and UKC, for sure.

 

[Jason Green]

Hey guys, did you see this?

You can follow users on there so it seems pretty cool, not sure what it might be missing compared to the spreadsheet we have shared. I haven't checked it out yet but I plan to.

One other thing that I have been thinking about is on the age based rankings. I have Jeremy Fleischman's email so I am going to ask him about this. The way I understand it they cannot do the age rankings because of exposing people's age without permission. However, what if they had an opt in age ranking that was anonymous for those not opted in. In other words, if someone is not opted in it does not show any of their information, but it still counts their times in computing the rankings. You might have someone ranked at 10th for 3x3 single, and then the next name might be 15th, because 11-14 people had not opted in (for example). But at least if you were ranked 15th you would know that is truly from all WCA competitors in that age group.

Does it make sense? What am I missing?

 

[SpartanSailor]

Hey guys, did you see this?

You can follow users on there so it seems pretty cool, not sure what it might be missing compared to the spreadsheet we have shared. I haven't checked it out yet but I plan to.

One other thing that I have been thinking about is on the age based rankings. I have Jeremy Fleischman's email so I am going to ask him about this. The way I understand it they cannot do the age rankings because of exposing people's age without permission. However, what if they had an opt in age ranking that was anonymous for those not opted in. In other words, if someone is not opted in it does not show any of their information, but it still counts their times in computing the rankings. You might have someone ranked at 10th for 3x3 single, and then the next name might be 15th, because 11-14 people had not opted in (for example). But at least if you were ranked 15th you would know that is truly from all WCA competitors in that age group.

Does it make sense? What am I missing?

I’m not a computer guy much at all for writing programs to do this type of data sort, but I kind of like the idea. Of course, I think it’s important that the time for an age group only count if the competitor was in that age group at the time of the comp. For example, if my birthday was yesterday and I’m in a new age group, then my current (new) age group ranking would have no times.

As much as I’m interested, unless there’s going to be official age groups this doesn’t really do much other than allow for another random data sort. One thing I like about the WCA is that in comps all that matters is your time. No age groups, no genders... nothing. It’s the one place that is universally baselines for everyone. Once we start adding age groups, then there’s M/F and suddenly for every record there’s a dozen new ones.

Again, for fun to sort amongst outselves, I like the idea and would be interested to know where my times fall into the hierarchy.

 

[Logiqx]

I was late registering for Peterborough so I'm 7th on the waiting list. It's my only chance to qualify for MBLD for the UKs so I'm planning to turn up for that event anyway and see if they'll let me compete. Unfortunately I'll miss you @Logiqx as that's on the Saturday. Definitely going to the UKs.

There's a reasonable chance that you'll get in but as you say... just turn up anyway. I'm pretty sure they'd let you compete in MBLD. I would offer to judge if I was attending on Saturday but it's most likely I'll be going on Sunday only.

 

[SpartanSailor]

I just registered an account. I’ll have to actually look at our spreadsheet to find my PBs for some stuff.

 

[Logiqx]

Hey guys, did you see this?

You can follow users on there so it seems pretty cool, not sure what it might be missing compared to the spreadsheet we have shared. I haven't checked it out yet but I plan to.

Spoiler

One other thing that I have been thinking about is on the age based rankings. I have Jeremy Fleischman's email so I am going to ask him about this. The way I understand it they cannot do the age rankings because of exposing people's age without permission. However, what if they had an opt in age ranking that was anonymous for those not opted in. In other words, if someone is not opted in it does not show any of their information, but it still counts their times in computing the rankings. You might have someone ranked at 10th for 3x3 single, and then the next name might be 15th, because 11-14 people had not opted in (for example). But at least if you were ranked 15th you would know that is truly from all WCA competitors in that age group.

Does it make sense? What am I missing?

Yes, that makes good sense. The idea / intention was always for people to opt-in but having gaps in the rankings for people who have not opted in / opted out has the advantage of entirely accurate rankings. You could even include the times but leave show the names, countries and competition details as "anonymous". That way the list would be complete but you wouldn't know the identities of everyone. Well... other than a unique time existing in the database.

 

[pglewis]

I still haven't been drilling 3bld enough, or mbld at all; just a handful of maintenance 3bld solves daily. I believe I've maintained roughly where I left off at least. I need to do a pushed memo session again soon, just for the friendly rivalry with @SpartanSailor .

 

[SpartanSailor]

@pglewis you better practice... I’m coming for ya! Lol

 

[Jason Green]

I’m not a computer guy much at all for writing programs to do this type of data sort, but I kind of like the idea. Of course, I think it’s important that the time for an age group only count if the competitor was in that age group at the time of the comp. For example, if my birthday was yesterday and I’m in a new age group, then my current (new) age group ranking would have no times.

As much as I’m interested, unless there’s going to be official age groups this doesn’t really do much other than allow for another random data sort. One thing I like about the WCA is that in comps all that matters is your time. No age groups, no genders... nothing. It’s the one place that is universally baselines for everyone. Once we start adding age groups, then there’s M/F and suddenly for every record there’s a dozen new ones.

Again, for fun to sort amongst outselves, I like the idea and would be interested to know where my times fall into the hierarchy.

They used to have some cool age rank options I was told but had to remove them (or did so proactively before getting in trouble). People do track female records and stuff unofficially, but all I was suggesting is a more accurate version of our oldie rankings. But that's a good idea if the software was flexible enough you could filter by sex or whatever you were interested in. But yes for age it has to be at the time of the comp of course.

Yes, that makes good sense. The idea / intention was always for people to opt-in but having gaps in the rankings for people who have not opted in / opted out has the advantage of entirely accurate rankings. You could even include the times but leave show the names, countries and competition details as "anonymous". That way the list would be complete but you wouldn't know the identities of everyone. Well... other than a unique time existing in the database.

Of course if there was someone that didn't want to tell their age and you suspected they were age X (say 40), then if their PB showed up as just a time on the rankings it might be a pretty big clue.

 

[pglewis]

@pglewis you better practice... I’m coming for ya! Lol

I'm afraid those tables already turned and you passed me. It is I who needs to go on the attack

 

[Logiqx]

I just registered an account. I’ll have to actually look at our spreadsheet to find my PBs for some stuff.

Looks quite nice. I've added the events that I'm doing this coming weekend.

https://cubepb.com/user/52933

 

[SpartanSailor]

I'm afraid those tables already turned and you passed me. It is I who needs to go on the attack

Well then, I need to be getting to it so it isn’t too easy for you to recatch and surpass me!

 

[Logiqx]

I didn't practice much OH in the last 2-3 months and getting fast again it's taking me much more effort than I thought. I'm still around one second slower, but...

3x3 OH Ao12 PB: 23.625 (was 23.942 from 2/Feb)

Sorry David but I forgot to update the PB spreadsheet last week - 23.50 on May 22.

 

[openseas]

Looks quite nice. I've added the events that I'm doing this coming weekend.

https://cubepb.com/user/52933

Looks good + competition information based on your preferred distance range is also cool.

https://cubepb.com/user/26215 <-- looks like there is a glitch. It found my son's WCA id and just assigned it as mine.
I can't find a way to change the WCA profile / no information how to contact administrator, lol..

 

[Mike Hughey]

There's a reasonable chance that you'll get in but as you say... just turn up anyway. I'm pretty sure they'd let you compete in MBLD.

I would think regulation Z4a would prohibit that. Does it not?