Proposal: allow a move limit for FMC

[goodatthis]

Can we please add a poll to get a public opinion?

 

[cubernya]

I would like to see the overall limit lowered from 80 to 60. Even an average solve would still fall under 60, but under 50 could take some skill not everybody has.

 

[Kit Clement]

I would like to see the overall limit lowered from 80 to 60. Even an average solve would still fall under 60, but under 50 could take some skill not everybody has.

But even that's assuming quite a bit of knowledge from a cuber. Seriously, I don't think people realize how much the average person on this forum knows about twisty puzzles. Getting sub 20 on 3x3 seems relatively easy given the people here, and oftentimes, people say it is easy. In reality, most people put months of learning and practice into achieving that goal. Same idea for FMC, only more dependent upon time and knowledge. An 80 move solution may be easy for most of us, but it isn't trivial.

I've run FMC several times, and I can't think of a time where solution checking in any way hampered my ability to delegate/organize. There were many more pressing problems I was facing besides checking long solutions. And really, cutting ~20 moves is such a small chunk of time, I can't see it making my job noticeably easier. If people want the ability to have move limits, that's fine, but I would never implement one.

 

[Mikel]

I have an alternative proposal that would still save time but allow competitors who take 40+ moves in FMC to compete.

Instead of restricting arbitrarily long solutions, time limits should be set for competitors who achieve certain move counts. The counts are as follows:

71-80 move solution: Competitor will only be allowed 20 minutes to turn in his attempt.
61-70 moves: 30 minutes
51-60 moves: 40 minutes
41-50 moves: 50 minutes
<= 40 moves: 60 minutes

e.g) 1) At 15 minutes a competitor turns in a solution. The judge would put it into a "20 minute pile" If the solution was 80 moves or less, it would be a success.
2) At 21 minutes a competitor turns in a solution. The judge would put it into the "30 minute pile." If the solution was >71 moves, it would be a DNF, anything less, success.

The piles are just a way to keep track of who was at what move count limit.

This would work the best if a solution checker were available during the attempt. This way, if someone had an 80 move solution, an extra 40 minutes would be gained for checking the solution compared to the people taking the full hour.

Even if a solution checker were not present, during the "extra time" within the attempt, the competitor would be under rule of an organizer/ the judge. This means that the competitor would have to assist with certain manual tasks e.g) cutting scorecards, judging the attempt, data entry, teaching others how to judge for later rounds, going on a coffee run for the delegate, etc. This would save a lot of time and would negate the fallacy that long FMC solutions waste time.

I feel it would be better to hinder the time limit for a competitor instead of restricting move count. This seems like a more fair approach in my opinion.

Spoiler

Note that I still think the current system is best, but that this would be better than the proposal in this thread.

 

[Erik]

No reason? Are you not aware of this? (I suspect that's Dene's reason)

Yes I am. I don't think it's any justification in acting like this though. The competitor is not breaking any rules, nor is he holding up the competition. It's different from stretching a 3x3 solve to the time limit, since you'd actually be occupying the timer. Also: Mikel's post is totally on topic and has some valid points in it.

Even if he was breaking any rules (for example, you could say it's non-sportsman like) , you should either address the issue to the board and try to get some sort of ban, or give him an official warning at a competition after which this would be communicated back to the board via the delegate report. Threatening people in public with disqualification and sheer rudeness is not an acceptable way of getting what you want, especially if you are a delegate.

But enough of this.

Mikel: your last post contains a proposal which would seriously change the FMC event and has a serious amount of probably unwanted effects. It's even way more strict than Dene's original proposal. For those who are not very good and average maybe 55 moves, this means they now even get less time, considerably increasing the chances of DNF'ing.

Yesterday we brainstormed a bit on the IRC chat, to find quicker ways to check FMC. An OCR is not fool-proof enough and frankly, scanning the solution takes just as long as checking it 'by hand'. The optimal way would be if you could provide a solution digitally and let the computer check if the solution works, but that's of course not practical nor cheat-proof. Conclusion: the current way is probably the fastest already.

 

[Laura O]

Instead of restricting arbitrarily long solutions, time limits should be set for competitors who achieve certain move counts. The counts are as follows:

71-80 move solution: Competitor will only be allowed 20 minutes to turn in his attempt.
61-70 moves: 30 minutes
51-60 moves: 40 minutes
41-50 moves: 50 minutes
<= 40 moves: 60 minutes

And next, we limit the inspection time? If you want to have 15 seconds inspection in 3x3 you have to do a sub10 solve?

Sorry, but your suggestion is just nonsense. FMC is not a strategy game where you need tactical considerations to get good results. It's just about using 60 minutes as effectively and efficiently as possible to find the shortest solution.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

How about a sort of "soft" cutoff? If an attempt is over 40 moves, they don't get another attempt; they don't get to try for a FMC mean. That's what's done for big cubes, and I don't see why it wouldn't work here. I'm not sure I agree with having a move limit at all, but this at least seems like it balances time efficiency with fairness to less skilled solvers better than DNFing anything over 40. It's not particularly easy to find solutions under 40 if you don't know a full LL method, which many solvers don't.

I think Kit had some very good points.

 

[guysensei1]

How about a sort of "soft" cutoff? If an attempt is over 40 moves, they don't get another attempt; they don't get to try for a FMC mean. That's what's done for big cubes, and I don't see why it wouldn't work here. I'm not sure I agree with having a move limit at all, but this at least seems like it balances time efficiency with fairness to less skilled solvers better than DNFing anything over 40. It's not particularly easy to find solutions under 40 if you don't know a full LL method, which many solvers don't.

I think Kit had some very good points.

This. Many events have this soft cutoff thing too, so we should have this for FMC if there absolutely has to be a cutoff.

 

[Renslay]

Relating to this thread, I have a proposal. I don't know if something like this already mentioned, so forgive me.

Change the FMC sheet in a way that the competitor do not write down the rotations, rather he check little checkboxes indicating what moves does he or she want to apply in the solution.

Here is an example sheet:

In this example, the solution is the inverse of the scramble, because only had room for 18 moves. More moves require at least one more paper sheet.

Then the judge or delegate can scan them, and the validation can be done automatically.

Advantages:
- Checking is done automatically, once, fast, and the error in the validate process is minimal.
- Only one person is required (scanning)
- Validating doesn't require an expertise

Disadvantages:
- Scanning: can take a little time, requires a scanner device
- Requires to write the validation software (but only once, and I don't think it's a difficult task)
- More papers? (Writing / checkboxing the solution requires more space.)

 

[kinch2002]

This is the only valid argument I've read in this thread, so I feel like it somes up the arguments against this proposal. Arguments like Antoine's could apply to any event. I learnt all EP algs, CO algs and all non-3 corner CP algs and did a lot of Mega practice a while ago but failed to make the cutoff. So Antoine's argument could be applied to any event.

Anyway Daniel are you saying you compete in FMC and solution check? Because I offered to, as neither of our delegates are particularly fast, whereas I scramble 3x3 a lot and used to check my own FMC solutions under speed conditions, but Dene thought (and I agreed) that competitors in the event shouldn't check solutions (I could've altered solutions that beat me with a ' for example).

Do you feel it'd be fair to have competitors checking them? Me and Jay are probably at least twice as fast at checking for example.

Yes I compete and check solutions (except my own). It's usually myself or James (who also competes) or both, but we also get help from other experienced competitors occasionally. I don't have a problem with myself competing and checking, because after all I'm in a position of trust and there are a hundred other things I could do instead. I also like to see other people get good results, so I don't even have any motive to alter solutions and DNF them. I also don't have a problem with using experienced competitors that I trust. There really isn't much motivation to try and alter someone's solution just so you come 5th instead of 6th at a FM in a UK competition.

 

[Sebastien]

Yes I compete and check solutions (except my own). It's usually myself or James (who also competes) or both, but we also get help from other experienced competitors occasionally. I don't have a problem with myself competing and checking, because after all I'm in a position of trust and there are a hundred other things I could do instead. I also like to see other people get good results, so I don't even have any motive to alter solutions and DNF them. I also don't have a problem with using experienced competitors that I trust. There really isn't much motivation to try and alter someone's solution just so you come 5th instead of 6th at a FM in a UK competition.

Same here in Germany. We alwaysw check the solutions right after FMC with 2-4 experienced people, most of the time including myself. Just as Daniel, I just never check my own solutions and I don't see any other problem.

Relating to this thread, I have a proposal. I don't know if something like this already mentioned, so forgive me.

While I respect your thought behind this, this proposal is just.....NO! If I ever have to write down an FMC solution like this, please kill me!

 

[Renslay]

While I respect your thought behind this, this proposal is just.....NO! If I ever have to write down an FMC solution like this, please kill me!

Why?

 

[Sebastien]

With this form, I would expect taking 5 minutes more for writing down (or "entering", as writing is not really necessary) the solution and especially for checking it within the attempt. Also, how would you correct mistakes in these forms or change your solution? And so on...using this kind of form would just be terrible, sorry.

 

[Renslay]

With this form, I would expect taking 5 minutes more for writing down (or "entering", as writing is not really necessary) the solution and especially for checking it within the attempt.

Adding 5 more minutes for "entering" the solution?

Also, how would you correct mistakes in these forms or change your solution?

Uhm, the same way you correct mistakes in the current form? "To delete moves, clearly erase / blacken them."

But I see your concern, it can be less comfortable. But I don't think it is so terrible - in the current form you have to be careful just as much.

 

[Laura O]

One thing I don't understand: there were several postings which weakened or also disproved the initial reasoning of this proposal ("waste of time") and pointed out that the actual problem is probably a wrong approach (checking solutions several times).
So why put effort in all these optimization ideas when there isn't any problem for the vast majority?

 

[Antonie faz fan]

Isn't the limit already80 moves?
I have seen it at all comps with FMC in the Netherlands and Belgium so I assume it would be the same in other countries.
Also if there is a problem with checking scrambles taking too long you can most likely find some voulantairs who can help.

 

[Dene]

Way too many posts to respond to everything. I just want to clarify something, because it seems putting in the "40 moves" example was the biggest mistake I could have made. I want to put this out there loud and clear:

IT WAS AN EXAMPLE. I DIDN'T MEAN ANYTHING BY "40 MOVES". I DIDN'T STATE, NOR IMPLY THAT I THINK 40 MOVES IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE ELITE AND THE AMATEURS. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THE 40 MOVE THING PLEASE!!! Personally, if I were to utilise this rule I would probably use 50 moves as a limit.

I am not trying to be mean here but it really sounds like the reason you use so much time checking FMC is not because of long solutions but because of a bad approach to the checking process!

If a solution solves, why check it again more than twice? A solution doesn't solve by coincidence. Twice is really the max if a solution is correct on first try

I do it quickly twice to see what happens. If I get something different (which does happen, due to all sorts of factors, not the least people writing messy) I obviously need to go again. Once I'm happy I've checked whether it works or not, if it does work I need to go through it slowly to see if I can figure out what was going on to ensure nothing naughty has been done. This should be the bare minimum for anyone checking FMC solutions. I sleep a lot better at night knowing the results going into the database are 100% accurate.

And yes I know there are going to be competitors using advanced techniques that I simply can't follow. This concerns me even more, as I want to be very careful to ensure they aren't utilising the scramble in an illegal way. If I don't check, how am I going to know the competitor is using advanced techniques? If I see they are, I check their paperwork to see if I can find any clues at to what is going on (I'm no expert, but I'm aware of a few techniques). I do the best I can, but if nothing obviously untoward is going on I'm happy.

Again: why don't you get help from other competitors if you know the both of you aren't the fittest for checking solutions?

I have done this in the past, however this time that wasn't a practical option.

This is a very inappropriate reaction! Threatening to not allow someone to compete for no reason and sheer rudeness is not appropriate behavior on the forums and especially not for a delegate. It wasn't too long ago I saw you name-calling here as well. Why do you do this? (yes I am aware of the issue going on)

I am a person that tends to develop very strong opinions. You should understand, as you seem to be the same. It's just the way I am. And I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to as "name-calling", but I say things as I see them. If I see someone being stupid, I'm not one to cotton-wool my views. As for this particular person, he is behaving in a way equal to someone with the maturity of a 15 year old. It looks to me like he is just taking the **** out of all the hard work people put into the WCA and competitions, for his own childish jokes. He needs to grow up. (and yes competitions are meant to be about having fun and all that, but there is a serious side to everything and people need to understand where to draw the line).

It took me several months and 1000+ solves to finally make the cutoff for 4x4. And that was mainly because the cutoff was 20 seconds slower than most comps I've been to. I've spent tons of hours doing 6x6 and 7x7 solves and wasn't even close to the cutoff at Nats. I've put even more hours in since then, and I'm still not even close. But apparently, by your sickeningly elitist statement, I don't take the event seriously, and I haven't put in dedicated practice.

Anyway, I don't agree with this at all. Cutoffs are put in place to make sure the competition doesn't drag on forever. FMC is one hour, every single time, so you don't save time at all. And how dare you say that someone who isn't sub 40 doesn't care about the event and is wasting your time? Sub 40 is actually pretty hard sometimes. Besides, if you look at FMC rankings, 61% of FMC competitors aren't sub 40 anyway. Does it really take that long to score a 60 move solution?

I'm going to give you a bit of my time because I feel that you have unfair views about certain cubers and I want to clear the air a bit.

First of all, I assume you're referring to USNats, which I know nothing about so just bear that in mind.

Looking at your profile, you haven't been around for all that long, and you seem to be doing reasonably well considering how long you appear to have been cubing. I know people that have spent more than twice as long as yourself to achieve those 4x4 times (myself included). But you're going to need to spend more than a few hours on bigcubes to get fast enough to reach tight cut-offs. Surely you understand this, and understand the need for having tight cut-offs?

I think it's unfair to call my judgements "sickeningly elitist". Cubers put in years of work to get to top level speeds. You've been doing it for a few months. How about some perspective. You think Roger Federer got to be the best tennis player in the world after 6 months in the job? Or even close? I feel like you're unreasonably resentful of people like myself, because you aren't as fast as we are even though you're trying hard. Let me say, I can assure you when I had been cubing for 6 months I was barely sub20 on 3x3, and was slow as hell on everything else. It took me years and years of hard work and long hours practising to get as fast as I am (and tbh I'm not that quick).

Let me tell you a little story. At the first competition I delegated (NZ Champs 2009) I forgot to enforce cut-offs, and some kids spent almost an hour getting through five 5x5 solves. We could have had a whole extra event in the extra time put into that. It's not fair for everyone else to watch a few people take ages to do their solves.

The thing is, we have a competition to run. We have to keep things moving. So we have to have cut-offs. What would you suggest a reasonable cut-off to be? We organisers have to make these decisions to try and suit as many people as possible. Personally I think it is very reasonable to use a time generous enough to fit anyone that has worked hard at a puzzle (and by "hard" I mean "putting in the time and effort"), or at least is fast enough to get through anyway (e.g. someone that practises 5x5 hard, doesn't care about 4x4 but still manages to get through 4x4 simply because of 5x5 practise). You've only been around for a few months, and while you might be passionate about a particular puzzle, "success" takes time, and if you don't realise this or think it's fair then life is going to be very hard for you. (Consider this words of wisdom from Uncle Dene).

It isn't about being elite, it's about being practical and fair. For example, usually I'll use 2:30 as a 5x5 cut-off, which is more than generous enough for someone who has put in a lot of time and effort, but not too slow to drag things on for hours. If I were an "elitist" I would use a 1:30 cut-off, which in my personal opinion is relatively slow compared to the top cubers these days (50% more time than Feliks or Hays would need), but still achievable by people like myself who have put in years of dedicated practise (although these days there's a good chance I wouldn't make that cut-off).

In short, you need to realise that cut-offs are going to be hard to reach sometimes, and you can't expect to be able to reach every cutoff when you're still new to everything. Getting faster is going to take time, no matter what you do. Be patient, keep working hard, and you'll soon reach every cut-off that you want to.



Now to FMC. You say cut-offs are there to prevent a competition going forever, but this isn't true. I could have no cut-off for 5x5, and simply schedule it for 2 hours and not have 6x6 or 7x7. The actual reason we have cut-offs is to find a balance between time spent on events.

Regardless, this doesn't affect FMC, which as you rightly pointed out goes for an hour anyway. I'll ignore your comments about the 40 moves thing (refer above). But I want to say in general, it isn't about time spent. Obviously the difference is minimal. My issue is with the fact that half of the people doing FMC (at ausnats) hadn't ever done it before. I got questions like "can you do rotations?" or, after the fact, comments like "I didn't realise you can do rotations!"

Let's try this from another angle. Imagine someone who doesn't know how to solve a cube blindfolded. What if they were to submit 10 cubes for multibld, and spend an hour on the side pretending to memorise and solve these 10 cubes. At the end of the hour they take off the blindfold with nothing solved and find the whole situation rather amusing. Even if they weren't wasting needed resources, I doubt many people (other than all the other childish people) would find this behaviour acceptable. They're having a joke at the expense of all the hard work people are putting into hosting a competition for them.

If we wouldn't allow people to make a mockery of what we do in any other event, why do we accept it for FMC? There needs to be a balance between having fun, and having a competition. If you aren't someone that "does" multibld, why should anyone be forced to spend their time watching you muck around? If you aren't someone that "does" FMC, why should anyone spend even a second giving you the time of day?

In my opinion, it should be up to the organiser to decide whether they wish to give you the time or not, hence why there should be an option for using a move limit.



In all honesty I don't know why there is so much negativity towards this idea. Perhaps people feel like I am being "elitist", because I mentioned 40 moves, but hopefully after reading this people will see that I wasn't implying anything of the sort, and will see things from a more reasonable point of view.

 

[Erik]

And yes I know there are going to be competitors using advanced techniques that I simply can't follow. This concerns me even more, as I want to be very careful to ensure they aren't utilising the scramble in an illegal way. If I don't check, how am I going to know the competitor is using advanced techniques? If I see they are, I check their paperwork to see if I can find any clues at to what is going on (I'm no expert, but I'm aware of a few techniques). I do the best I can, but if nothing obviously untoward is going on I'm happy.

Ok, so if you would be the delegate of a European competition you would be asking 50% of the competitors to show their thoughtprocess and let them explain their techniques? That's just simply unpractical and unecessary.

I have done this in the past, however this time that wasn't a practical option.

Why not? 2 experienced delegates, who also are good FMC solvers have already given their approach on checking the results in like 10 minutes.

I am a person that tends to develop very strong opinions. You should understand, as you seem to be the same. It's just the way I am. And I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to as "name-calling", but I say things as I see them. If I see someone being stupid, I'm not one to cotton-wool my views. As for this particular person, he is behaving in a way equal to someone with the maturity of a 15 year old. It looks to me like he is just taking the **** out of all the hard work people put into the WCA and competitions, for his own childish jokes. He needs to grow up. (and yes competitions are meant to be about having fun and all that, but there is a serious side to everything and people need to understand where to draw the line).

Strong opinions are fine. Name calling and being rude isn't. Especially for a delegate. Don't you think so?

You were calling someone a 'moron' on that post I was talking about. You can maybe ask a moderator to retrieve the exact post. I assume it has been deleted after I reported it. If this is the behaviour you think is appropriate, I seriously doubt your qualification being a delegate representing the WCA.

 

[TimMc]

Ok, so if you would be the delegate of a European competition you would be asking 50% of the competitors to show their thoughtprocess and let them explain their techniques? That's just simply unpractical and unecessary.

It'd be less time consuming for a delegate/organiser to enter an FMC solution into a system and have it automatically checked.

Would the time/effort to create a system that analyses the solution, beyond simply checking whether it solves the puzzle, outweigh the combined time/effort of people manually checking solutions all over the world?

In the mean time, a regulation that allows a maximum move limit to be set for a competition would make it slightly easier for organisers.

Tim.

 

[Dene]

Ok, so if you would be the delegate of a European competition you would be asking 50% of the competitors to show their thoughtprocess and let them explain their techniques? That's just simply unpractical and unecessary.

Preferably not. I don't even see why this is under discussion as it isn't the point of this thread. If I was a delegate in Europe with lots of good FMCers I would ask some of them to assist with the judging process. The reason we didn't get help at this competition is because we were flat out, and concerned about various factors which we hadn't dealt with before (number of competitors, and number of new competitors). Judging FMC sheets wasn't a priority. We had to be out of the venue at the end of the day, and everyone else went home. Myself and Tim were left doing it in the evening. Obviously we accept this responsibility and it wasn't an issue at all. However it did bring about some frustrations within me than lead to this thread.

Strong opinions are fine. Name calling and being rude isn't. Especially for a delegate. Don't you think so?

You might call it name calling and rudeness. I might call it honestly and bluntness. I guess it depends on the sort of person you are how you see it. If you feel this makes me an unworthy delegate then perhaps you should talk to the Board. If they feel I should step aside then I'll respect their decision. Regardless, this is not the appropriate place to have such a discussion so it ends here now. If you wish to continue this topic I suggest you choose a different medium.