Matt11111
Member
It was a corners first method I think.
I think so too. That's how most people solved it back then.
It was a corners first method I think.
I think so too. That's how most people solved it back then.
Yeah but idk whether or not he did that cause he didn't learn from anyone so he may have done blocks/faces like most people start with.
Wojciech Knott missed clock WR average by one hour on one clock dial:
Wojciech Knott missed clock WR average by one hour on one clock dial:
ouchy
this is why I don't like the clock regs
ouchy
this is why I don't like the clock regs
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.
imo you should really be complaining about the clock companies
I think as a community we should learn from this
(video)
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
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.a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'
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
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.
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.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
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