regulation 4b3e is dumb

[jouke]

• 4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.

why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp

 

[BenChristman1]

Because that defies literally every single regulation in article 4, 4b for example, which says:

4b) Puzzles must be scrambled using computer-generated random scramble sequences.

 

[Mike Hughey]

A 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.

 

[NigelTheCuber]

A 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.

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

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

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

In terms of probability 10 or 2 moves barely makes a difference

 

[Deleted member 36445]

lol sub1min 7x7 record

 

[lucazdoescubingstuff]

lol sub1min 7x7 record

sub 1sec 7x7 imagine tho

 

[NigelTheCuber]

In terms of probability 10 or 2 moves barely makes a difference

true

sub 1sec 7x7 imagine tho

i hope if that happens wca will just disqualify it

 

[Cuber987]

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

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.

 

[abunickabhi]

why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp

The regulation should be modified and a minimum moves for big cubes and mega should be stated and followed.

 

[espeed]

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.

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.

 

[FenTheGoat]

why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp

It’s so statically unlikely that it doesn’t matter.

 

[FenTheGoat]

The regulation should be modified and a minimum moves for big cubes and mega should be stated and followed.

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.

 

[UMichSpeedCubist]

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.

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.

 

[Ayce]

why can't we just do two moves as scramble then? what if a delegate has a friend in the comp

I think if someone has a two second solve on 7x7 some flags would be raised.