Lucas Garron
Administrator
There's a difference between "easy solve" and "lucky scramble", although they overlap. Adjacent solved pieces tend to be lucky for most cubers.Yes, you do.
There's a difference between "easy solve" and "lucky scramble", although they overlap. Adjacent solved pieces tend to be lucky for most cubers.Yes, you do.
We'll just have to disagree then - for me, keeping extremely inherently easy scrambles/averages is entirely a question of fairness.Right, I don't see anything wrong with those scrambles themselves. If they were created by the WCA program in the normal way (*), I think they're totally fine and you're not "highly dishonest" if you use and keep them.
I can't see how that would force him to lose more than 1 second if he's on top of his game. Assuming Feliks averages about 8 seconds, I can easily generate many very easy scrambles which would usually take him about 4 seconds. But there is no way I can see to generate a scramble which would usually take him about 12 seconds - such a scramble probably does not exist at all.Let's give Feliks scrambles where color-neutral cross needs 9qtm and see how well he can solve cross and look ahead to F2L
We're talking about inherently easy scrambles, which tend to give easy times for most people, and they certainly do exist. (This differs from scrambles which give normal times to most people, but end up giving you a very fast time because of the specific way you solved it.) Still, it's always possible to use a method that ignores the easiness of a scramble.I have a slight problem with "easy scrambles". Doesn't it depend on what method you use?
We'll just have to disagree then - for me, keeping extremely inherently easy scrambles/averages is entirely a question of fairness.
I can't see how that would force him to lose more than 1 second if he's on top of his game. Assuming Feliks averages about 8 seconds, I can easily generate many very easy scrambles which would usually take him about 4 seconds. But there is no way I can see to generate a scramble which would usually take him about 12 seconds - such a scramble probably does not exist at all.
You can't draw a mathematical line, it has to be at the discretion of the delegate, who should understand this type of thing. A 3x3 which has a 13f* solution is probably okay, unless it has tons of blocks; a 3x3 which has a 5f* solution is definitely not okay. And I only think things that are extremely unlikely should be removed - one in a million level stuff. Like an entire average being made of 1-in-20 easy scrambles, or a 3x3 with a 5f* solution.If you keep them for everybody, then everybody has the same chance to get them. If at one competition "easy scrambles" are kept but at another, equivalent scrambles are removed, that creates an unfairness. And since you want to remove some scrambles but not all, you have to draw a line somewhere. Where's that line? Any "easy" scramble (and what exactly is "easy"?)? Two or more in an average? Three? Four? Five? Where? And how do you know at another competition they draw the exact same line, so that everybody has the same chance?
Exactly. The point I was making about scrambles being as hard as others are easy is that easy scrambles can have far more effect on times, and so there's no point in removing hard scrambles. A one-in-a-million lucky hard scramble is maybe slightly worse (and it depends how you solve it anyway), but a one-in-a-million lucky easy scramble is obviously better, and by far. If someone gets lots of hard scrambles, sorry, but that's just how luck is - I'm not talking about drastically altering the probability landscape, just removing some outliers.Well, nobody said they're as hard as others are easy, or as unfair as easy ones can be.
The question arose with irontwig asking about removing too hard scrambles as well.
What was the solution of your WR, Erik?
¿ its magic ?
You can't draw a mathematical line, it has to be at the discretion of the delegate, who should understand this type of thing. A 3x3 which has a 13f* solution is probably okay, unless it has tons of blocks; a 3x3 which has a 5f* solution is definitely not okay. And I only think things that are extremely unlikely should be removed - one in a million level stuff. Like an entire average being made of 1-in-20 easy scrambles, or a 3x3 with a 5f* solution.
This is a suggestion for future WCA/delegate behavior, not a suggestion for current delegate behavior.How are the delegates supposed to know they shall do this? I think the regulations don't say anything about it, and I believe we talked about it in the WCA forum and nothing came out of it. Everything points to using what the WCA gives you, not overruling the WCA.
Since 100000000 million is more than 1 million, my point stands about 5f* being astronomically lucky.A 5f* isn't one-in-a-million, btw, more like one-in-100000000-million.
No. You logon and said "Hey Pino, **** you ".
No. You logon and said "Hey Pino, **** you ".
The "secret method" stuff reminds me of matyas.