Should official 3BLD mo3s be ranked? (Read the first post)

[Deleted member 19792]

The idea is to rank both, of course. Competitions would still be decided by single, but there would be a mean of 3 ranking as well.

Ah. I didn't understand that in the first place.

If you are talking about competition being m3, then definite no. But if it is only a rank in the WCA for kinks, then yeah.

 

[KiwiCuber]

Ah. I didn't understand that in the first place.

If you are talking about competition being m3, then definite no. But if it is only a rank in the WCA for kinks, then yeah.

How many times can noah possibly say this.

He is proposing the way competition 3bld is determined remains unchanged (fastest single wins), BUT there will be a WCA official ranking of 3bld Mo3
I dont know why people are having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept here

 

[elrog]

That would be a very extreme change to the regulations, and also a system that could be taken advantage of pretty easily. For example, if you're going to get a bad time on your third solve after getting two good solves, you could DNF on purpose, and that would be counterproductive. It is also very easy to DNF, especially if you're going for your fastest times, so it would basically punish people for trying to get good times.

I understand that it is easy to DNF, but DNFing more than half of your solves is a bit extreme. Also, If my idea were taken, it wouldn't keep people from trying to go as fast as they could unless they already DNF'd once. I'll bet that there would also be some people who would try going for the single (if they were close to the WR) if they saw they had a good scramble weather it risked the average anyway despite the average winning the competition.

 

[Noahaha]

more than half of your solves is a bit extreme

Not in BLD, especially for beginners. Any situation where you HAVE to get a success should be avoided. No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve. There are just too many factors that come into play.

 

[elrog]

I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could, and I know that me making this statement kind of proves your point. But I still stand where I'm at.

 

[uvafan]

I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could, and I know that me making this statement kind of proves your point. But I still stand where I'm at.

That is just not true. May I ask how much experience you have with blindsolving?

Even so, you admit that you may need go slightly slower to raise success rate. Why would you ever want to encourage competitors to not perform to their best ability?

 

[Noahaha]

No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve.

I think you could probably guarantee 100% success if you didn't go as fast as you could

No BLDer can 100% guarantee a success on any one solve.


EDIT: Often going slower hurts your accuracy

EDIT2: ninja'd. I'd also like to know what BLD experience you are drawing this information from, since all of my past experience says otherwise.

 

[Sebastien]

While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:

The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.

 

[Torch]

While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:

The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.

This is exactly what I was saying in my last post, for anyone who was confused.

 

[cubizh]

I think a Mean of 3 is an obvious way to go here.
It all depends on who you want to win your competitions: the person who is skillful/lucky/fast on only one solve, regardless of the other two or someone who is a better blind solver and is consistent and completes all attempts in the fastest way.
It's not an easy decision, but some of the 1/2 mbld reasoning can be applied here: how many of the actual DNFs people have in 3BLD are a result of "meh, this scramble is too hard, can never beat my previous one. Sorry for the scrambling time wasting. Let's see if the next one is better. DNF"
I believe the same is currently being thought out for FMC. With the implementation of mean of 3, it will make people actually bother to check that they have a valid solution written down.

It's worth to note that adding "Mean of 3" doesn't necessarily result in "Best of X" being abandoned at all.
Noah can still go and enjoy "Best of X" 3BLD competitions, but there's the possibility to have official ranking for Mean of 3 3BLD, for competition organizers that choose to have it implemented.
For additional information, a note regarding the evolution of Best of X 3BLD events according to the adopted format:

Spoiler: 3BLD Comps by Format

Spoiler: 3BLD Comps Percentage

tl;dr
I think "3x3 blindfolded" should be added to 9b2).
Question: Is ao5 too far fetched?

 

[Noahaha]

While I'd like to see more recognition going to great 3BLD-Means, there is one big thing bothering me:

The proposal includes providing official records for a format, that we do not officially offer for that event. I'm afraid of this being a precedent followed by the demand of recognizing other arbitrary records to be recognized.

While this would break the precedent of "Best of X" events only having single rankings, I don't think that a slippery slope argument works, because it does not break the larger precedent of only ranking singles, averages of 5 and means of 3. Because of that, the only demand that this could possibly be followed by is a demand for means in 4BLD, 5BLD, MBLD and FMC to be ranked. I'm not going to touch FMC, but for the other three events, single is a much better representation of skill than it is in 3BLD. If 4BLD started having the same problems that 3BLD has right now, I would definitely argue for 4BLD means to be ranked.

I think a Mean of 3 is an obvious way to go here.
It all depends on who you want to win your competitions: the person who is skillful/lucky/fast on only one solve, regardless of the other two or someone who is a better blind solver and is consistent and completes all attempts in the fastest way.
It's not an easy decision, but some of the 1/2 mbld reasoning can be applied here: how many of the actual DNFs people have in 3BLD are a result of "meh, this scramble is too hard, can never beat my previous one. Sorry for the scrambling time wasting. Let's see if the next one is better. DNF"
I believe the same is currently being thought out for FMC. With the implementation of mean of 3, it will make people actually bother to check that they have a valid solution written down.

It's worth to note that adding "Mean of 3" doesn't necessarily result in "Best of X" being abandoned at all.
Noah can still go and enjoy "Best of X" 3BLD competitions, but there's the possibility to have official ranking for Mean of 3 3BLD, for competition organizers that choose to have it implemented.
For additional information, a note regarding the evolution of Best of X 3BLD events according to the adopted format:

Spoiler: 3BLD Comps by Format

Spoiler: 3BLD Comps Percentage

tl;dr
I think "3x3 blindfolded" should be added to 9b2).
Question: Is ao5 too far fetched?

I think we want the person with the fastest time to win. As I said earlier in this thread, I think it would be a mistake to put BLDers in a position where they would have to get a success. It just won't happen a lot of the time.

 

[Sajwo]

nobody said that getting wr single is easy. just practise more man..

 

[Noahaha]

nobody said that getting wr single is easy. just practise more man..

That's not the point. The point is to make BLD better for BLDers, and to have another degree of accuracy in rankings.

 

[sneze2r]

I agree that mo3 should be officialy ranked, but there is one point argument it i dont get:

1. The WR single has basically gotten to the point that anyone who wants to beat it would need a fairly lucky scramble (Marcell included).

I disagree. At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it can be easilly improved. And i wouldn't say that fairy lucky scramble is nessesary to beat it. I think that even 12/8 with good algs would be enough to beat it.

 

[Stefan]

At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it can be easilly improved.

Then why hasn't he, in his 57 attempts since then?

 

[Noahaha]

I agree that mo3 should be officialy ranked, but there is one point argument it i dont get:

I disagree. At this moment WR is weak, even Zalewski says it can be easilly improved. And i wouldn't say that fairy lucky scramble is nessesary to beat it. I think that even 12/8 with good algs would be enough to beat it.

12/8 with or without good algs is fairly lucky in my opinion. If what you say is true though, then I did overestimate the speed of the WR a bit.

 

[sneze2r]

Then why hasn't he, in his 57 attempts since then?

1. He's switching from solving corners first to edges first
2. He changed at least 200 algs form that time
3. Learning speed optimal algs for every pairity case

 

[cubizh]

That's not the point. The point is to make BLD better for BLDers, and to have another degree of accuracy in rankings.

I don't see anything wrong with promoting accuracy in the outcome of certain blindsolving events. The added pressure can be an interesting difficulty added to that event, but not all.
Again, adding Mo3 official DOES NOT imply Best of X is going to dissapear at all. It doesn't change the current way things are done.
It just adds another degree of freedom for organizers to choose what they want to implement.
I leave here some other facts about 3BLD Best of 3 in competitions:

Spoiler: Number of Solved cubes in "Best of 3"-only events (All Rounds)

[TABLE="class:grid,align:left"]
[TR][TD] Year/Solved cubes [/TD][TD] 0 solved [/TD][TD] 1 solved [/TD][TD] 2 solved [/TD][TD] All 3 solved [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2004 [/TD][TD] 2 [/TD][TD] 1 [/TD][TD] 4 [/TD][TD] 0 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2005 [/TD][TD] 10 [/TD][TD] 13 [/TD][TD] 9 [/TD][TD] 3 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2006 [/TD][TD] 40 [/TD][TD] 35 [/TD][TD] 24 [/TD][TD] 11 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2007 [/TD][TD] 121 [/TD][TD] 111 [/TD][TD] 62 [/TD][TD] 16 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2008 [/TD][TD] 386 [/TD][TD] 358 [/TD][TD] 150 [/TD][TD] 59 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2009 [/TD][TD] 579 [/TD][TD] 446 [/TD][TD] 230 [/TD][TD] 55 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2010 [/TD][TD] 1061 [/TD][TD] 855 [/TD][TD] 385 [/TD][TD] 111 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2011 [/TD][TD] 1312 [/TD][TD] 1192 [/TD][TD] 542 [/TD][TD] 161 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2012 [/TD][TD] 1340 [/TD][TD] 1294 [/TD][TD] 663 [/TD][TD] 167 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2013 [/TD][TD] 1580 [/TD][TD] 1538 [/TD][TD] 827 [/TD][TD] 294 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] TOTAL [/TD][TD] 6431 [/TD][TD] 5843 [/TD][TD] 2896 [/TD][TD] 877 [/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]

Spoiler: Number of competitors that have had all 3 successes and in how many competitions that happened

[TABLE="class:grid,align:left"]
[TR][TD] # of Competitors [/TD][TD] # of Competitions [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 0 [/TD][TD] 667 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 1 [/TD][TD] 319 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 2 [/TD][TD] 117 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 3 [/TD][TD] 51 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 4 [/TD][TD] 23 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 5 [/TD][TD] 6 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 6 [/TD][TD] 2 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 7 [/TD][TD] 1 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 8 [/TD][TD] 1 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 9 [/TD][TD] 1 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 10 [/TD][TD] 0 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 11 [/TD][TD] 0 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 12 [/TD][TD] 0 [/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD] 13 [/TD][TD] 1 [/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
So this reads: in 667 competitions, no one solved all three attempts; in 1 competition, 13 competitors solved all 3 attempts.

 

[Marcell]

I voted yes. Accuracy must be recognised in BLD. I agree with Noah and support his arguments.

[off]And I'm also pretty sure it would be better if we changed the way we rank competitions to something like "mean of the best 2 of 3 attempts". We need to change the way we think about BLD - "I can solve the cube blindfolded... sometimes" means you can't really.[/off]

 

[szalejot]

I voted yes. Accuracy must be recognised in BLD. I agree with Noah and support his arguments.

[off]And I'm also pretty sure it would be better if we changed the way we rank competitions to something like "mean of the best 2 of 3 attempts". We need to change the way we think about BLD - "I can solve the cube blindfolded... sometimes" means you can't really.[/off]

This. +1, Like, whatever...