Random Cubing Discussion

has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?

a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'

so OLL would be perhaps 6 (8 u layer stickers, but you only -need- to see 6 of them), and also PLL (as PLL can be recognised from 2 sides). and then OLLCP would be 9-10 (6 for OLL, 3-4 for CP), and EPLL 2.

needs a bit more thought, but i'd be interested to hear if anyone else has tried this before :)
 
ottozing said:
Whether one hour off was a +2 or a DNF would've still cost him the record, so I don't really know what you're on about.
Click to expand...

Hmm, good point.
But I still don't like the Clock regs :P

RhysC said:
imo you should really be complaining about the clock companies
Click to expand...

This is the truest post ever.

PenguinsDontFly said:
I think as a community we should learn from this
(video)
Click to expand...

The post that got Justin banned.
Well really his post got him banned but you know what I mean.
 
ryanj92 said:
has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?

a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'

so OLL would be perhaps 6 (8 u layer stickers, but you only -need- to see 6 of them), and also PLL (as PLL can be recognised from 2 sides). and then OLLCP would be 9-10 (6 for OLL, 3-4 for CP), and EPLL 2.

needs a bit more thought, but i'd be interested to hear if anyone else has tried this before :)
Click to expand...

This sounds really cool, and I'd like to see this explored for sure. Another thing that would have to be taken into account is the number of places you have to look for such pieces. Stuff like second block of Roux, F2L pairs, basically anything where what you solve after recognition leaves unsolved pieces (Obviously OLL is different because you're involving all of the pieces and only involving one sticker on each piece). Not sure how that would work out though, and I'm not really cunning enough to think of anything more codified beyond that :p
 
ryanj92 said:
a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'
Click to expand...
An obvious extension would be +1 point for every additional face involved. Because a hypothetical recognition system that involves looking at one sticker on each of the 6 faces is far inferior to OLL recognition where all 6 stickers are on the same face.

Also needs a means of taking into account blocks, because recognising a 2x2x1 block is easier than recognising 3 different stickers (excluding a centre?)

Needs more thought, but I like the idea.
 
ottozing said:
This sounds really cool, and I'd like to see this explored for sure. Another thing that would have to be taken into account is the number of places you have to look for such pieces. Stuff like second block of Roux, F2L pairs, basically anything where what you solve after recognition leaves unsolved pieces (Obviously OLL is different because you're involving all of the pieces and only involving one sticker on each piece). Not sure how that would work out though, and I'm not really cunning enough to think of anything more codified beyond that :p
Click to expand...

AlphaSheep said:
An obvious extension would be +1 point for every additional face involved. Because a hypothetical recognition system that involves looking at one sticker on each of the 6 faces is far inferior to OLL recognition where all 6 stickers are on the same face.

Also needs a means of taking into account blocks, because recognising a 2x2x1 block is easier than recognising 3 different stickers (excluding a centre?)

Needs more thought, but I like the idea.
Click to expand...

very good points! my first thought is to suggest 1 point for each 'layer' involved - so last layer stuff would score 1, <R,U> stuff 2, etc.
either added on to the total or displayed like x+y or x/y...
i'm surprised nobody has thought about this much before - i might start a thread about this tomorrow when i've given it some more time :)
 
ryanj92 said:
https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82

when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...

EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay
Click to expand...
What an awful, pointless change. Yes the icons look OK, but the information is not as well laid out or clear, and it is horribly slow and buggy on mobile. A classic case of making cosmetic changes for the sake of it at the expense of practical utility. I do hope they don't ruin the rest of the WCA site by making similar changes. IMHO the current WCA site design is one of the best I have seen - simple, clear, compact and uncluttered.
 
ryanj92 said:
has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?

a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'

so OLL would be perhaps 6 (8 u layer stickers, but you only -need- to see 6 of them), and also PLL (as PLL can be recognised from 2 sides). and then OLLCP would be 9-10 (6 for OLL, 3-4 for CP), and EPLL 2.

needs a bit more thought, but i'd be interested to hear if anyone else has tried this before :)
Click to expand...

Recognizing blocks is easier than recognizing difficult patterns of adjacent/opposite colors. So this metric should probably include the type of comparison that you have to apply to the stickers. Not sure if this was your intention or how to formalize it though.
Example: E-perm recognition (Do you have to do a U before the alg or not?) is way harder than PLL-skip recognition.
 
I do not own a rubiks clock, I am signed up for clock in a comp that's less than a month away, there's no time to get a physical one, so I intend on borrowing one on the day itself to use. But I know how to solve one (I did it once on a simulator)
I did this for pyraminx too last year

Anyone else do this? Lol
How easy is clock to sub-30? Because that's the cutoff.
 
guysensei: Clock is very easy to sub-30, especially if you are familiar with the method and recognition. The hardest part for you will be knowing how much you have to move your fingers to turn the corners a given amount. If you warm up a bit with the clock you're going to use you should be able to do it with only minor corrections. Each solve has only 14 turns so you have plenty of time.


A 3x3x3 alg I found in a word document I made on 3/31/2000:
LB’T’RBTR’BL’D2RFD2B’F’DBDL’D’LD2R’DRDFD’FT2B’T2B’F2DBDRD’R’L’DLDBD’B’F’D’FLDL’F’DFDR’D’RD’R’D2RD’
Or in modern notation:
LB'U'RBUR'BL'D2RFD2B'F'DBDL'D'LD2R'DRDFD'FU2B'U2B'F2DBDRD'R'L'DLDBD'B'F'D'FLDL'F'DFDR'D'RD'R'D2RD'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Xishem
Random Blindfold Cubing Discussion
99 100 101
Replies
2,007
Views
261,327
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
n0nco
send your random facts/information about cubing
2 3
Replies
53
Views
7,440
Caleb Valenzuela
Caleb Valenzuela
Cuber.Hello.com(:
Cubing memes I found online (: (also being rickrolled by random people. Come with me if u want to cringe) XD
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
9,496
MeGrimlockKing
MeGrimlockKing
CubeRed
Random cubing facts
Replies
2
Views
1,155
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
That70sShowDude
Selling 2 random assortments of Rubik's Cubes and cubing accessories on ebay
Replies
0
Views
1,100
That70sShowDude
That70sShowDude
Back
Top