Yes and I agree with the title of this threadA delegate who doesn't use a properly generated scramble would be removed from their delegate position, and any solves that were affected by it would be disqualified and made unofficial.
What this rule DOES do, though, is to allow for the extremely unlikely event that the official TNoodle scrambler might generate a 2-move scramble someday, leading to perhaps having a 7x7x7 single WR that is faster than the 2x2x2 single WR. But the odds of this happening are astronomically low.
In terms of probability 10 or 2 moves barely makes a differenceYes and I agree with the title of this thread
Like why 2 moves??? That is just stupidly low to say the least
If it was like 10 moves it would be reasonable because you can't really reverse it but 2?????
@wca change it NOW
sub 1sec 7x7 imagine tholol sub1min 7x7 record
trueIn terms of probability 10 or 2 moves barely makes a difference
i hope if that happens wca will just disqualify itsub 1sec 7x7 imagine tho
I'm pretty sure the reason for that is how long it would take a computer to check for a solution within more than two moves on cubes such as 5x5-7x7 and megaminx.Yes and I agree with the title of this thread
Like why 2 moves??? That is just stupidly low to say the least
If it was like 10 moves it would be reasonable because you can't really reverse it but 2?????
@wca change it NOW
The regulation should be modified and a minimum moves for big cubes and mega should be stated and followed.why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp
Makes me wonder if there is a way to determine the existence of a solution less then 10 (or x) moves without computing the actual solution.I'm pretty sure the reason for that is how long it would take a computer to check for a solution within more than two moves on cubes such as 5x5-7x7 and megaminx.
It’s so statically unlikely that it doesn’t matter.why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp
Yeah, but there’s 2x10^160 possible 7x7 combos. There’s only a few hundred 2-movers possible. Let’s say a max of 1,000 (and that’s be liberal with it). That’s still 2x10^157. You’re more likely to get struck by lightning 26 times in a row (700,000^26) then to get a 2 move 7x7 solve. Another way to put it is that if each atom in the universe had a universe of its own, that would be about how many 7x7 combos there are. It’s similar with mega and 6x6 but I don’t know to what degree. While 2x2 has to be 4 move because there’s only about 3,000,000 combos.The regulation should be modified and a minimum moves for big cubes and mega should be stated and followed.
There is. This is fairly obvious from computer science. You do an "iterative deepening depth-first search" of the space or something more advanced. But for "x" that small (say 10), it doesn't even take too much compute resource/time -- at least not on 5x5 or Megaminx, but 7x7 has a lot more branching. Also depends on the turn metrics used.Makes me wonder if there is a way to determine the existence of a solution less then 10 (or x) moves without computing the actual solution.
I think if someone has a two second solve on 7x7 some flags would be raised.why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp