Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[Benyó]

I think rounding is rounding. If the result is displayed with 2 decimal places of accuracy, I don't think you can rank it by anything but that. It stinks that some averages are .001 from being better than another, but thats the nature of speed. They weren't quite fast enough for it to count as a different result.

it's just luck. At 10.396666 vs 10.400000 they weren't fast enough but at 10.333333 vs 10.666666 the difference is big enough? the equal result is given by the division by 3. if we just sum the 3 counting times we get the difference.
maybe we should multiply the times by 0 and everybody would win.

 

[Vinny]

Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?

That's a good point. I think that what they should do is that a +2 should add something like 25% of your solve for 2x2-3x3, and 10% or your solve for 4x4 and up... That would be logical.

 

[Benyó]

That's a good point. I think that what they should do is that a +2 should add something like 25% of your solve for 2x2-3x3, and 10% or your solve for 4x4 and up... That would be logical.

ooooooor just check my post

 

[masterofthebass]

I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.

 

[Vinny]

ooooooor just check my post

Yes, I saw your post. My opinion is different.

 

[Benyó]

I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.

sorry, 10.33333 and 10.336666, my mistake, but the others are true i was just confused
and why do we have to measure by stackmat the average?
there is a finishing photo in running or swimming too to decide who crossed the line first even if their times are the same, where differece couldn't be measured in time. but the difference in cubing can be measured!

 

[masterofthebass]

Because in running and swimming, you are measuring 1 instance of a solve. You aren't using a photo finish for the average of who won.

 

[Benyó]

no, but instead of counting exactly the average, we just use a totally indifferent number from the point of the average, the best time. Than use the sum of the times, and there will be the difference.

 

[masterofthebass]

The point here is that we don't shouldn't really consider the average to anything other than a number that is 2 decimal places, because that is how precise we actually measure the solves. So unless you want to change to truncation (which would be totally dumb), rounding the average of 3 counting times to 2 decimal places results in the final number which is attributed as the average. Looking at anything more precise shouldn't be done, because we aren't even measuring the individual times to that amount.

--edit--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (thanks pj)

 

[PatrickJameson]

Sig Figs anyone?

 

[cmhardw]

Perhaps what Benyo is saying is that if two competitors have the same average in a magic event, then something similar to the following should be done:
1) The competitor with the lowest sum for all five times obtains the higher ranking
1a) If the sum is the same, then the competitor with the quicker fastest solve (quicker 2nd fastest, 3rd fastest, etc. for ties) obtains the higher rank.

 

[masterofthebass]

I don't think thats fair though, because the average result isn't the sum. It is the result of rounding the average of the 3 counting times, and since we would be ranking everyone else by average time, I don't think we should do anything different because of a tie.

 

[Benyó]

the average time isn't the sum, but the average time isn't the best time either. so we have to agree in a way we rank the results, it could be the best time or the sum too.
but i know we won't convince each other.

 

[iasimp1997]

I agree with Y3k9 on the issue of KO cubes. Personally I don't see the issue with them being used as long as they don't give the competitor an unfair advantage.

 

[masterofthebass]

the average time isn't the sum, but the average time isn't the best time either. so we have to agree in a way we rank the results, it could be the best time or the sum too.
but i know we won't convince each other.

but at least the best time is counted somewhere. The sum is this new figure that isn't used for anything else. It seems silly to create a new number thats used for only specific occasions, and then confuse the results when you look at them. Just by looking at the 3x3 rankings from TCA, it can be derived why Piti won. If we used the sum, then there wouldn't be an easy way to tell, unless you knew to sum the 3 middle solves.

 

[flan]

I agree with Y3k9 on the issue of KO cubes. Personally I don't see the issue with them being used as long as they don't give the competitor an unfair advantage.

The wca agrees with you and y3k9. KO's do not give an unfair advantage and they ARE allowed. The WCA quite rightly does not care where your cube came from, just as long as it doesn't change the basic object of the puzzle etc.

 

[hr.mohr]

There's no advantages or disadvantages of the two styles, but now every third cuber could be punished because of this rule.

So two thirds are not punished then? That sounds like a good reason for not changing the rule...

I agree that if there is no advantage over how you start the timer, then it would be a good idea to simplify the regulations on this rule.

 

[qqwref]

I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhh :fp

Bence isn't trying to "change math" or "take on how math works". He's suggesting that we - shockingly! - round to the thousandth place instead of the hundredth place if more accuracy is needed. The only problem is the complaints from people who don't fully understand the theory behind significant figures. So hey, how about this, to deal with people like Dan who think they know everything about arithmetic, let's rank people in competitions by the SUM of the three counting times. Crazy! (Hey, the ranking would be exactly the same as now, except for ties.) The averages would still be recorded, but we wouldn't be losing any information by rounding it.

In similar news, I'd really like to change to a timer with perfect 100 Hz timing resolution.

So two thirds are not punished then? That sounds like a good reason for not changing the rule...

I agree that if there is no advantage over how you start the timer, then it would be a good idea to simplify the regulations on this rule.

I think he meant that 1/3 of people break this rule by accident and 2/3 don't, but that it's a silly rule and we shouldn't punish one of those two groups.

 

[cmhardw]

In similar news, I'd really like to change to a timer with perfect 100 Hz timing resolution.

I completely agree on this. I feel that the flaws in the Stackmat timer are probably one of the most severe things that should be changed whenever is feasible to do so. Even if that means we can't do it this year, I still think it should be done whenever an opportunity presents itself.

 

[masterofthebass]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhh :fp

Bence isn't trying to "change math" or "take on how math works". He's suggesting that we - shockingly! - round to the thousandth place instead of the hundredth place if more accuracy is needed.

But why would it be appropriate to round to the 3 decimal places if we are only measuring the solves in 2. Unless we decide to change the entire ranking system by using 3 decimal places, this doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if you read the rest of the discussion, it was clear what the point I was trying to make was.