Should Square-2 be an Official Event?

[tseitsei]

As always when someone proposes new event for WCA I say this:

It's already hard enough to fit all events in 2-day comp so why should we add new events?

Besides sq-1 is not really that popular currently so why should we add another event of "that kind"? I could understand it better if sq-1 was one of the most competed events and many people would want more of something little bit like that...

 

[qqwref]

I think it would be nice to have a non-bandaged dihedral puzzle. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having Square-2 as an event, but it's quite unpopular, they generally don't turn particularly well, and due to the shape of the pieces it's kind of an annoying puzzle (easy to accidentally swap blue/green on one side, easy to accidentally swap U/D, hard to recognize what goes where, etc.). There may be a better dihedral puzzle.

 

[stoic]

Seriously there are more ways to solve a square 2 than just reducing it to a square 1. Just because barely anyone has explored the puzzle much doesn't mean it doesn't "add much new".

Robert, I'd be interested in your insights on this. There's not much in the way of method documentation online, and I'm pretty sure you're on record previously saying that better speedsolving solutions need to be found. What approaches have you tried?

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Square-2 doesn't seem to be popular. Might be interesting to solve (never even seen one in person) but it will be similar to what is already a side event. Also, if you do choose to reduce to square-1, parity is much easier to solve so it doesn't even have that to make it interesting. Still, it would be cool to see some effort on unofficial speedsolving of it, like what was posted recently with the bump cube.

 

[Lazy Einstein]

I'd say no. Honestly, if you find yourself getting bored, push to be good at sum of ranks.

If another puzzle HAD to be added, I would like to see either:
a Cuboid like the 3x3x5;
Geared mixup puzzles;
or different puzzles like the curvycopter.

 

[Hssandwich]

If there was a new event, I think that 3x3x2 should be it. It is quick and easy to solve, it wouldn't be a long event really. There aren't any cuboids in the WCA competitions yet, I think this should be the first

 

[Robert-Y]

Robert, I'd be interested in your insights on this. There's not much in the way of method documentation online, and I'm pretty sure you're on record previously saying that better speedsolving solutions need to be found. What approaches have you tried?

I've tried a few things. Here are some ideas which I find more interesting:

1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.

2. Reduce to a 2x2x3. Group all pieces with the same coloured stickers together and simply solve like a 2x2x3. I think this method could be the "best" but it's limited by how awkward it is to turn a square 2.

I'm sure there are other interesting methods to discover but people haven't explored square 2 enough.

 

[DGCubes]

I don't know. It bothers me when people are so opposed to adding new events, regardless of what they are. I wouldn't choose Square-2 as a new event, but I wouldn't really object to it either. Personally, I feel that 3x3x5 (cuboids + shapeshifting = really cool to watch and kind of a necessity) and Team-Blind (this is seriously getting popular and it adds a team aspect to cubing) would be the best events to add at the moment.

 

[CiaranBeahan]

I'm going to say no because there are a lot other events that I would prefer to become official before square-2

 

[Bh13]

I would say no because there's already such a limited interst in square-1 (as stated earlier) that adding square-2 would be like adding 6x6 BLD or 4x4 with feet

 

[brandbest1]

Personally, I wouldn't mind having this as an official event (not that I'm any good at it or anything), however I don't feel as if Square-2 has the same popularity as Skewb when it was added. If anything Team BLD should be added beforehand.

 

[Jimmy Liu]

No, because Brandon will get another NAR

 

[JasonDL13]

I don't care if it's added. But here is my opinion on "adding too many events:"

I personally think we should just add lots of cubes that are in high demand. If people want Sq2 then add it. Everyone hates feet and they still have it, is it popular?
Add varieties, why not do every event different ways? Maybe not FMC or MBLD for every event, but BLD and OH would be fun. Depending on the puzzle of course.

And if you want to say "it will take forever for competitions to hold the events:" MBLD, FMC, 5BLD, 4BLD will take forever to hold. So should we remove them? No. Lets just let competitions host what they want.

What's better, have too little events or too much?

I'm probably in the minority for this point of view, but that's my opinion.

Fun fact: I thought Skewb was pronounced Skweb for aolong time

 

[waffle=ijm]

No one can scramble sq-1 at competitions which begs the question who will scramble sq-2s

 

[TMOY]

1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.

Yep, that's basically how I solve it.

I'm sure there are other interesting methods to discover but people haven't explored square 2 enough.

Of course there are many possible methods. But most cubers would just follow the herd and solve it by reducing it to a square-1, which is, if you think of it, really absurd (do you solve a 3^3 by reducing it to a bandaged 3^3 ?)

 

[Dene]

Personally I just don't see any need for it. As far as priorities for new events, I consider it low.

Of course there are many possible methods. But most cubers would just follow the herd and solve it by reducing it to a square-1, which is, if you think of it, really absurd (do you solve a 3^3 by reducing it to a bandaged 3^3 ?)

That is a horrible comparison. Most people solve 4x4+ by reducing to a 3x3.

 

[Robert-Y]

Reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 reduces the 4x4x4 to a smaller move group. This isn't the case with square 2 to a square 1. The second method I've mentioned makes more sense to follow in this way.

 

[Dene]

Not sure what exactly you mean? Doesn't reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 reduce it to a smaller move group?

 

[Robert-Y]

Ok, then tell me what is this move group?

 

[Dene]

Well I don't know, that's why I'm asking. You reduce the 4x4 to the move group of a 3x3 don't you? And you reduce a Square-2 to the move group of a Square-1 right?

Unless we're using some sort of technical term I'm not familiar with.