SpartanSailor
Veteran
How so? Not trying to rehash any bad feelings, just not sure to what you are referring...
-
Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!
You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.
Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.
Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.
Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
Older cubers discussions
- Thread starter MarcelP
- Start date
AvGalen
Premium Member
There were 171 people that made the cut-off for Pyraminx in the first round. 187 participated in the second round. Having more people do an average in the second round than in the first round shouldn't happen, especially not in a big tournament like Euro.
I am referring to my trust in the WCA to provide fun was broken by unnecessarily putting a cut-off on an event. There are many reasons why this was such a big disappointment for me:
* This cut-off barely saved time for the competition
* I had to pay about 6 Euro for just these 12 seconds of solving.
* It was also a 9 AM event with my only other event that day 7 hours later which means it occupied the morning-routine for me and my 4 year old son.
* After I missed the first solve I even considered to do layer-by-layer hoping for a skip. Motivating gambling shouldn't be result of WCA-decissions.
* 40 people did an average above 6 seconds meaning they basically got lucky in their first 2 solves.
If you want to make sure that you don't run out of time you would have to account for 2 minutes per person (scrambling, collecting participants from the waiting area, finding a table, 1 minute preparation time, 15 seconds inspection, 6 seconds solving time). Of course normally you will not really need those 2 minutes per solve but every competitor would have that right. The overhead is too big to make cut-offs that are so small feel justified. My feeling is that a cut-off should never be smaller than the allowed inspection time. Again, we are talking about trust that got broken, not regulations.
P.S. Only 9 people out of >400 needed more than 15 seconds
mark49152
Premium Member
The overhead still counts though. I haven't looked at Euros but let's say a comp has 1000 entrants for an event. The organisers may decide that the schedule can only afford time for ~3000 solves in the first round. That could be achieved by setting a cutoff such that <400 competitors are expected to do 5 solves. 5*400+2*600 = 3200.
I'm not saying it was a good decision in the specific case you mentioned, I'm just pointing out that it's a legitimate way to save time and there's of course a trade off otherwise, like holding fewer events or rounds or having tougher qualifying criteria.
I hope you enjoyed Euros anyway, despite your disappointment in this event!
SpartanSailor
Veteran
Thanks for the info. I was unaware that this occurred at Euros 2018...
Feel free to skip over this long post (this is what happens when my mind starts going and I’m suffering of insomnia)
To really illustrate my point about cutoffs and limits. This weekend the comp I am attending planned for 800 participants. I just checked, 178 registered. Perhaps they set cutoffs and limits with a far exaggerated expectation of how many people would actually show up.... then again, perhaps their stringent cutoffs made people think, “why bother”.
Let’s talk 666 to illustrate my point about forgiving limits/cutoffs. This weekend the 666 cutoff/limit is 3:30/5:30.
Of the 178, there are only 64 registered for 666. Of those, there are 40 that either have an average under 3:30 or have posted an official sub-3:30 single. For planning purposes, it safe to estimate that those 40 people will complete a mean and let’s say they average 4:00–even though we KNOW they will be much faster than this... the top half of competitors in 666 are sub-1:30 means, but for planning purposes, 4 minutes works.
That gives us 4min x 40 competitors x 3 solves = 480 minutes of solving time, but spread over 12 stations, so roughly 40 minutes/station (480 min/12 stations).
Of the remaining 24 registered, 9 have posted a single in the 4-5 minute range and the other 15 have never posted a single.
What SHOULD the limit be?
Let’s do the math... if the expected 40 REALLY do average 4 minutes on there 3 solves even after getting a sub-3:30 cutoff that leaves 20 minutes to fill the planned hour of competition time dedicated to 666. With 12 stations, and no real expectation that any of the remaining 24 should get more than a single attempt, that really leaves roughly 10 min/station (24 people/12 stations = 2 ppl/station, 20min/2ppl = 10 min/station).
Why then, does the limit have to be 5:30 rather than say... 7:30? The fastest 12 people are going to be so much faster than 4 minutes that there should not be much risk of running out of time. However, the 5:30 DOES limit the chance that newbies will have “fun” and be able to try a new event. We are talking about adding 2 min per solve (max) for 24 people. As a personal example, I am among the 15. But have decided that I’m not even going to show up for the 666 comp because it’ll waste everyone’s time and I won’t enjoy sitting down KNOWING that I’ll get stopped mid-solve. I’m sure I’m not the only one... and how many didn’t even register for similar reasons?
With a 7:30 limit, there still should be little risk of falling behind schedule. That said, it’s a large comp and they have actual staff. We can rule out the fact that only one person volunteers to run or judge or scramble, etc.... All those positions have been filled with the expectation of 800 participants. We can expect that part of the process will work smoothly.
Again, when the limits are set so “fast” I am left wondering: Is there really an underlying desire to increase participation, or have we lost the forest for the trees and are more concerned about giving the fastest cubers as many events as THEY can do in a day? Was increased participation even a desire at all? Or can we rely upon the interest in 333 alone to keep these comps going?
I would argue that it is important to grow interest in more events and support people trying new things. I realise it is a competition after all, but the first round of any event should be “fun” and obtainable to most competent cubers, not just the elites.
Someone else mentioned qualifying times for US Nationals and other comps. To be clear, I’m ALL for this. If you want to limit the pool and have all fast people, have qualifying times. But then I also think organizers should stop people when they are competing and fail to achieve a time that was required for qualification (for example, 4 min qualifying time for 3BLD at US Nationals... anyone that hits 4:01 on any solve should be stopped and awarded DNF to keep the comp moving since that was a published qualifying time).
Feel free to skip over this long post (this is what happens when my mind starts going and I’m suffering of insomnia)
To really illustrate my point about cutoffs and limits. This weekend the comp I am attending planned for 800 participants. I just checked, 178 registered. Perhaps they set cutoffs and limits with a far exaggerated expectation of how many people would actually show up.... then again, perhaps their stringent cutoffs made people think, “why bother”.
Let’s talk 666 to illustrate my point about forgiving limits/cutoffs. This weekend the 666 cutoff/limit is 3:30/5:30.
Of the 178, there are only 64 registered for 666. Of those, there are 40 that either have an average under 3:30 or have posted an official sub-3:30 single. For planning purposes, it safe to estimate that those 40 people will complete a mean and let’s say they average 4:00–even though we KNOW they will be much faster than this... the top half of competitors in 666 are sub-1:30 means, but for planning purposes, 4 minutes works.
That gives us 4min x 40 competitors x 3 solves = 480 minutes of solving time, but spread over 12 stations, so roughly 40 minutes/station (480 min/12 stations).
Of the remaining 24 registered, 9 have posted a single in the 4-5 minute range and the other 15 have never posted a single.
What SHOULD the limit be?
Let’s do the math... if the expected 40 REALLY do average 4 minutes on there 3 solves even after getting a sub-3:30 cutoff that leaves 20 minutes to fill the planned hour of competition time dedicated to 666. With 12 stations, and no real expectation that any of the remaining 24 should get more than a single attempt, that really leaves roughly 10 min/station (24 people/12 stations = 2 ppl/station, 20min/2ppl = 10 min/station).
Why then, does the limit have to be 5:30 rather than say... 7:30? The fastest 12 people are going to be so much faster than 4 minutes that there should not be much risk of running out of time. However, the 5:30 DOES limit the chance that newbies will have “fun” and be able to try a new event. We are talking about adding 2 min per solve (max) for 24 people. As a personal example, I am among the 15. But have decided that I’m not even going to show up for the 666 comp because it’ll waste everyone’s time and I won’t enjoy sitting down KNOWING that I’ll get stopped mid-solve. I’m sure I’m not the only one... and how many didn’t even register for similar reasons?
With a 7:30 limit, there still should be little risk of falling behind schedule. That said, it’s a large comp and they have actual staff. We can rule out the fact that only one person volunteers to run or judge or scramble, etc.... All those positions have been filled with the expectation of 800 participants. We can expect that part of the process will work smoothly.
Again, when the limits are set so “fast” I am left wondering: Is there really an underlying desire to increase participation, or have we lost the forest for the trees and are more concerned about giving the fastest cubers as many events as THEY can do in a day? Was increased participation even a desire at all? Or can we rely upon the interest in 333 alone to keep these comps going?
I would argue that it is important to grow interest in more events and support people trying new things. I realise it is a competition after all, but the first round of any event should be “fun” and obtainable to most competent cubers, not just the elites.
Someone else mentioned qualifying times for US Nationals and other comps. To be clear, I’m ALL for this. If you want to limit the pool and have all fast people, have qualifying times. But then I also think organizers should stop people when they are competing and fail to achieve a time that was required for qualification (for example, 4 min qualifying time for 3BLD at US Nationals... anyone that hits 4:01 on any solve should be stopped and awarded DNF to keep the comp moving since that was a published qualifying time).
Last edited:
Old Tom
Regular
Says it all!
AvGalen
Premium Member
Agreed. The whole post is excellent and makes what I previously wrote but couldn't post due to a login timeout.
"hardly relevant" copy/paste of timed-out message:
I fully understand that letting people do full solves takes more resources then just the solve time. I am strongly opposed to limiting very short solves to try to save time because now I feel like we are really wasting time.I hope you enjoyed Euros anyway, despite your disappointment in this event!
I did enjoy Euro a lot, unfortunately mostly not for the actual cubing. The whole competition was too massive and because the soundsystem was horrible there was hardly any communication between organazition and competitors. There also was no announcer/speaker and there was no "psyc"-music during the finals or awards. And this was by far the most expensive competition that I went too with one of the lowest amounts of solves I have ever done. It was the city, the people, the general excitement, the partying and my son that made it worth while
mark49152
Premium Member
I agree to a point, but the reality is that resources and time are finite. Longer first rounds have to be traded off against more events or rounds. For smaller comps that can offer fewer events there is more scope for doing that, and I'm all in favour of comps offering better chances to complete averages or means (personally don't have 6x6 or 7x7 means and sometimes miss 5x5 averages due to cutoffs, so I'm happy whenever I'm given a better chance). For national and continental championships there is an expectation that all events should be held, and that makes it more difficult to make that trade off.
I like the suggestion of having cutoffs set the same as qualification limits.
Old Tom
Regular
Big progress on my blind quest (using OP). Doing solves semi-blind or in stages now, with enough successes to know I can do it (plenty of DNFs also). Memo is strong and fun, though still slow and with lots of review. Not using an actual blindfold, I am guessing most of you don't while practicing? Expect to attempt a full blind solve very soon. Main problems now are with un-setups, with locating unsolved spots for new cycles, and with knowing when I am done. These should be all a matter of practice and with finding my own way to handle them.
Two questions:
(1) I am using GAN magnetic cubes, both stickered and stickerless. I find I can fairly easily detect the white center cube (with the logo) just by feel, both types. I understand this is improper and illegal. How do you guys handle this?
(2) Right this minute I am looking at a half-solved practice cube, edges done. The corners are a bit weird: four of the pieces are in the correct position but twisted! So each will require a double-swap, using OP. Do you actively look for such pieces at the start of inspection, or normally just stumble on them during the trace? One of the pieces happens to be the buffer piece, so I guess I could just double-swap the other three right at the start. Would this be a sensible way to proceed?
Thanks guys. I have put that cube aside (I have others) while waiting to see what you say.
(I think I am getting addicted. Every person/thing/action I see now is becoming a Double Letter to be filed away.)
Two questions:
(1) I am using GAN magnetic cubes, both stickered and stickerless. I find I can fairly easily detect the white center cube (with the logo) just by feel, both types. I understand this is improper and illegal. How do you guys handle this?
(2) Right this minute I am looking at a half-solved practice cube, edges done. The corners are a bit weird: four of the pieces are in the correct position but twisted! So each will require a double-swap, using OP. Do you actively look for such pieces at the start of inspection, or normally just stumble on them during the trace? One of the pieces happens to be the buffer piece, so I guess I could just double-swap the other three right at the start. Would this be a sensible way to proceed?
Thanks guys. I have put that cube aside (I have others) while waiting to see what you say.
(I think I am getting addicted. Every person/thing/action I see now is becoming a Double Letter to be filed away.)
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,923
- Location
- Indianapolis
- WCA ID
- 2007HUGH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
@Old Tom , awesome progress! You should get a blindfold (or just make one from a big shirt or towel or something) and use it for your first real solve and video it (if you can) - it would be quite inspirational for many people, I'm sure! (If you can't video it, of course it's okay; I'm just saying people would love to see it if you could.)
I use a blindfold at home on most of my Weekly Competition blindsolves on our website here, but I generally just close my eyes (and make a motion as if I were pulling the blindfold on) during other practice solves.
1. I now always remove all logos as soon as I get new cubes, since I care most about blindsolving them. I don't have any GANs, so I can't speak to how to deal with them.
2. When I memorize corners, I place a finger on each one as I memorize to keep track of which ones I've hit. Whatever is left, I see if they're a new cycle. If so, I start the new cycle. But if they're twisted in place, I just memorize them separately and use a twisting algorithm to solve them before solving the other corners. If there's just one corner twisted, I twist it one way and the buffer piece (wherever it is) the other way before beginning solving. If there are two twisted pieces the same direction, I twist both plus the buffer piece, all 3 the same direction. Etc.
I use a blindfold at home on most of my Weekly Competition blindsolves on our website here, but I generally just close my eyes (and make a motion as if I were pulling the blindfold on) during other practice solves.
1. I now always remove all logos as soon as I get new cubes, since I care most about blindsolving them. I don't have any GANs, so I can't speak to how to deal with them.
2. When I memorize corners, I place a finger on each one as I memorize to keep track of which ones I've hit. Whatever is left, I see if they're a new cycle. If so, I start the new cycle. But if they're twisted in place, I just memorize them separately and use a twisting algorithm to solve them before solving the other corners. If there's just one corner twisted, I twist it one way and the buffer piece (wherever it is) the other way before beginning solving. If there are two twisted pieces the same direction, I twist both plus the buffer piece, all 3 the same direction. Etc.
SpartanSailor
Veteran
@Old Tom congrats on the progress. It’s pretty fun, right?
1. I too remove the logos right away. There’s not other option, really. But, I inspect/memo my cube and before donning my blindfold (or closing my eyes) I place my cube in my standard orientation— the one used to apply my letter scheme. That way I know it’s properly oriented before I begin. After that... it remains that way unless I make an error and fumble the cube. If I fumble the cube, there’s no way to ensure I have properly oriented it before continuing. That’s just most likely a DNF attempt.
2. I actively look for twisted corners or flipped edges and make mental notes prior to the rest of my memo. My back/right edge is T-N. If it is flipped, for example, I note that I need TeNessee at the end of my edge memo. Similarly for any other edge or corner twist.
I have recently taken less effort to look for these pieces as my confidence with tracing has increased a little. But I still sometimes take this “extra” memo step.
1. I too remove the logos right away. There’s not other option, really. But, I inspect/memo my cube and before donning my blindfold (or closing my eyes) I place my cube in my standard orientation— the one used to apply my letter scheme. That way I know it’s properly oriented before I begin. After that... it remains that way unless I make an error and fumble the cube. If I fumble the cube, there’s no way to ensure I have properly oriented it before continuing. That’s just most likely a DNF attempt.
2. I actively look for twisted corners or flipped edges and make mental notes prior to the rest of my memo. My back/right edge is T-N. If it is flipped, for example, I note that I need TeNessee at the end of my edge memo. Similarly for any other edge or corner twist.
I have recently taken less effort to look for these pieces as my confidence with tracing has increased a little. But I still sometimes take this “extra” memo step.
openseas
Veteran
@Old Tom / Congrats on your progress!
1) How to remove logo:
- Stickered logos are easy - just peel off the logo'd sticker (usually transparent, and not the colored sticker).
- Stickerless Gan: The best way is to use Ethylalcohol (not Acethone!). Use swab - rub it hard with wet (with ethylalcohol or ethanol). You'll see the progress. Others rub with rubber or some silicons but ethanol is way easier to do. Actually, it is also very useful to clear your cube surface. Recommend to purchase one bottle (plenty in Amazon)
2) Two ways:
- just handle individual sticker (color) as one single target. But this is easy but way too slow.
- memorize twist algs and flip algs. Corner twist algs are not that intuitive. Many people just settled with left-Sune/anti-Sune method but it is better to learn at least one alg and apply to the rest. The best and most representative algs are:
--- Corner twist: when UFR needs to go to FUR: U2 R' D R D' R' D R U2 R' D' R D R' D' R: For this, finger trick is the key. There is no re-grip. D and D' need to be done with left ring finger.
--- Edge flip: The most representative is flipping UF and UB (after this alg, UF becomes FU, UB becomes BU) or vice versa. It's (M' U)x 3 M' U2 (M' U) X3 M' = meaning repeating M' U four times. Once you're used to M' (much easier than M), it is really fast. So, setup any flipped edges to the opposite side of your buffer, then rotate the cube to make both flipped edges are located on top (like UF / UB position) then do this. A tip, I always do this flip alg in the last (after finishing all) so that I don't have to re-rotate the cube after executing this algorithm.
1) How to remove logo:
- Stickered logos are easy - just peel off the logo'd sticker (usually transparent, and not the colored sticker).
- Stickerless Gan: The best way is to use Ethylalcohol (not Acethone!). Use swab - rub it hard with wet (with ethylalcohol or ethanol). You'll see the progress. Others rub with rubber or some silicons but ethanol is way easier to do. Actually, it is also very useful to clear your cube surface. Recommend to purchase one bottle (plenty in Amazon)
2) Two ways:
- just handle individual sticker (color) as one single target. But this is easy but way too slow.
- memorize twist algs and flip algs. Corner twist algs are not that intuitive. Many people just settled with left-Sune/anti-Sune method but it is better to learn at least one alg and apply to the rest. The best and most representative algs are:
--- Corner twist: when UFR needs to go to FUR: U2 R' D R D' R' D R U2 R' D' R D R' D' R: For this, finger trick is the key. There is no re-grip. D and D' need to be done with left ring finger.
--- Edge flip: The most representative is flipping UF and UB (after this alg, UF becomes FU, UB becomes BU) or vice versa. It's (M' U)x 3 M' U2 (M' U) X3 M' = meaning repeating M' U four times. Once you're used to M' (much easier than M), it is really fast. So, setup any flipped edges to the opposite side of your buffer, then rotate the cube to make both flipped edges are located on top (like UF / UB position) then do this. A tip, I always do this flip alg in the last (after finishing all) so that I don't have to re-rotate the cube after executing this algorithm.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,923
- Location
- Indianapolis
- WCA ID
- 2007HUGH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
@openseas - I really need to learn to do corner twists that way. I still rely on very old beginner methods for twisting corners. That algorithm is really nice; I really need to learn to do it. (Edit: I realize now it's just a slight variation - a little more optimized - of what I do, but much more fingertrickable. How do you rotate 3 corners in the same direction - is there a similar algorithm for that?)
But I don't understand your edge flip algorithm? If I do (M' U) x 4 I get 4 flipped edges - UB, UL, DB, DF? (I'm figuring if I'm confused, even if it's just because I don't understand the notation correctly, it's possible Old Tom might also have trouble with it?) I'm still using M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2, which I don't doubt is probably an inefficient way to flip two edges; I'd love a better one.
But I don't understand your edge flip algorithm? If I do (M' U) x 4 I get 4 flipped edges - UB, UL, DB, DF? (I'm figuring if I'm confused, even if it's just because I don't understand the notation correctly, it's possible Old Tom might also have trouble with it?) I'm still using M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2, which I don't doubt is probably an inefficient way to flip two edges; I'd love a better one.
Last edited:
openseas
Veteran
@Mike Hughey / My bad: pasted a wrong algorithm (fixed it).
Also, another way to handle flip: Breaking into flipped edges by Tim
openseas
Veteran
@Mike Hughey / They usually float two twists: 2 twist alg take care of 3 or more. (2 with floating, 1 with buffer).
mark49152
Premium Member
I use (R U R' U') R' U' R' U' (R U R' U') R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' and inverse, but only when no or one move setup. More complex setups make it not worth it (for me).
Old Tom
Regular
Might be time for a laugh.
Just noticed: Older Cubers Discussion = OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Just noticed: Older Cubers Discussion = OCD = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
SpartanSailor
Veteran
I still do twisted corners as a pair and just shoot to one face then to wherever that sticker is supposed to go. For edges, I just shoot to one of the targets then the other. It’s not efficient, but at this point I still have too many pauses to add new algs and stuff to think about. Getting the two-at-a-time with FU and BD paired with a non-M-slice edge is about as advanced as I am willing to go right now. When all this becomes a smooth and with relatively few (hopefully none) pauses, I’ll add some efficencies. I understand them (well, some of them), I just want to limit the number of things I have to think about at this point.
SpartanSailor
Veteran
HAHAHAHAHAHA... too true.
newtonbase
Premium Member
I watched that this morning. It's interesting but not as fast for me at the moment. He says 2 comms are faster than a comm and a flip but my flips are much faster than my comms. I know quite a few of them well enough to do in anger including your UB and UL one.
I like the RD twist alg. I've only ever really learned Sexy, Sexy, L', inverse Sexy, inverse Sexy, L plus the reverse and L2 versions.
SpartanSailor
Veteran
That twists my UFL corner... and is WAY faster than doing OP corners twice. If that turns up this weekend and I’m feeling bold, I may try that.
