[Help Thread] Skewb Discussion

[uberCuber]

How fast do they have to be to not be silly?

For average, I'll give sub-7 as my answer.

As for single, it's only a matter of time before it becomes absurdly fast due to the nature of the puzzle, but in all honesty Walker's 4.63 isn't bad, since it's a time that's difficult to beat on a normal solve for today's best skewbers.

 

[Stefan]

but in all honesty Walker's 4.63 isn't bad

Does that mean you take your "silly" for it back, or are "silly" and "not bad" compatible here?

 

[kcl]

Does that mean you take your "silly" for it back, or are "silly" and "not bad" compatible here?

Stop being stupid about this. You obviously understand our point. Point is, skewb has been an official event for all of 5 days. Plenty of people can easily beat both WR's for it at the moment, thus it's kind of stupid to call "WR" at this point, when plenty of people can beat it.

I just thought of an even better example. A world record is meant to be a benchmark of how fast a given event can be at a specific time. With 3x3, it's pretty accurate. 6.54 is faster than anybody except for maybe the top 3 solvers. With skewb, so many people have yet to compete. I'm sure there's 100 people who could beat the WR, thus it's not really a "benchmark" for how fast it can get, if many people can beat it. Do you see at all what I'm saying?

 

[Ranzha]

Stop being stupid about this. You obviously understand our point. Point is, skewb has been an official event for all of 5 days. Plenty of people can easily beat both WR's for it at the moment, thus it's kind of stupid to call "WR" at this point, when plenty of people can beat it.

I just thought of an even better example. A world record is meant to be a benchmark of how fast a given event can be at a specific time. With 3x3, it's pretty accurate. 6.54 is faster than anybody except for maybe the top 3 solvers. With skewb, so many people have yet to compete. I'm sure there's 100 people who could beat the WR, thus it's not really a "benchmark" for how fast it can get, if many people can beat it. Do you see at all what I'm saying?

So the relative silliness of a world record should be judged by the number of people who could possibly beat it?

 

[kcl]

So the relative silliness of a world record should be judged by the number of people who could possibly beat it?

To a certain extent, yes. Like I'm trying to say, a record is meant to be the absolute limit of something at that time. The skewb record currently, is definitely not that. You for one could beat it without thinking.

 

[Stefan]

Stop being stupid about this.

I'm not stupid about this. You stop evading the question.

You are trolling me, aren't you? I even made it as simple and explicit as I could with my yes/no/maybe questions and you're still running away.

Plenty of people can easily beat both WR's for it at the moment, thus it's kind of stupid to call "WR" at this point, when plenty of people can beat it.

What are "plenty of people"?

I'm sure there's 100 people who could beat the WR

I doubt that. Is there a record list somewhere for this, or how did you pick that number?

But wow, we're actually kinda making progress, you've provided a semi-useful number. If you would tell how small that number would have to be so that the records wouldn't be silly, and if you would tell what "could beat" means, and if you would show a ranking or so where I could determine the explicit time myself, I'd be happy with that. I think it would be easier for both of us if you just answered my twenty previous yes/no/maybe questions, though

 

[Ranzha]

But wow, we're actually kinda making progress, you've provided a semi-useful number. If you would tell how small that number would have to be so that the records wouldn't be silly, and if you would show a list or so where I could determine the explicit time myself, I'd be happy with that.

What do you mean by "wouldn't be silly"? Earlier I made the comment that I think the WR single will stay silly no matter what it is, but different kinds of silly.
4.63 single makes me think, "Okay, that's pretty good, but it's silly to think that's the limit."
1.63 single makes me think, "Okay that was a ridiculously easy solution." Then the silliness is like 2x2 WR single's silliness for being so incredibly difficult to beat because of the luck of the scramble/solution.

 

[Stefan]

So the relative silliness of a world record should be judged by the number of people who could possibly beat it?

In some way, I think so, too. But of course you can't judge without some kind of judging mechanism, otherwise you'd just be pulling the judgement out of your ass (what kclejeune appears to be doing, as super-evasive as he is acting). You could for example define what "could beat" means (maybe "has a 0.1% or higher chance of beating it in one attempt") and how to pick the number of people required and how to find out the number of people who "could beat" a certain time. Then for a given time, you could determine those two numbers of people and just have to compare those.

What do you mean by "wouldn't be silly"?

I mean "you wouldn't find them silly", with "you" being kclejeune. So I don't know what it really means, only he can tell, and I'm trying to find out.

Earlier I made the comment that I think the WR single will stay silly no matter what it is, but different kinds of silly.

Saying "silly no matter what it is" is alright. I won't ask you where you've drawn the line if you're saying there is no line.

kclejeune however has already said that it depends on how many people can beat it. Since 0.5 seconds is really hard to beat, that must be non-silly for him. And 20 seconds is really easy to beat, so that muyst be silly for him. He now has non-empty sets of silly times and non-silly times, so he must have a line. Which I'm trying to find, at least approximately.

I could of course ask you how you determine the different judgements that you mentioned . But your examples look reasonable to me, so I have no real reason to wonder and ask.

 

[uberCuber]

Does that mean you take your "silly" for it back, or are "silly" and "not bad" compatible here?

A little of both I think. I say "not bad" because at least it's faster than anyone's global average. But considering how easy/common it is to get fast individual solves with skewb, it's still slow enough for it to be kinda silly to think of it as a "world record" (in the general sense that a world record should be difficult for anyone to beat, otherwise it wouldn't be the record).

I haven't slept in too long, it was absurdly difficult to conjure up the brain power to write this little post ;_;

 

[KiwiCuber]

The last page or two of this thread is just a testament to stefan and his "i like arguing" personality on the forums (same in a few of the reg threads)
Really why do you have to try and argue with a hell of a lot of the things people say in any thread. I realise some of it is when people say something blatantly wrong but the majority is someones opinion (which they are entitled to) and you just push and push until people get sick of you and you can have a feeling of "winning" an argument.

Here kclejeune has posted about thinking the record is silly (he could have chosen a better word here) because of the ability of many other people known of who could beat this with relative ease as well as only being official for 5 days. I would have to say that i partially agree with him and would have much preferred a grace period for skewb (a month or two maybe) where the fastest at the end of this period is recognised as the first WR. Stefans need for a number wont help either since this will be determined by an individuals view on/experience with the event. Can we just stop this pointless argument here

 

[kcl]

My point is that it isn't a given number. If nobody else were sub 10 on skewb, I would say that the skewb WR is pretty solid. However, Sarah could beat current WR. Rhanza could beat current WR. They're both like sub 7. I can think of at least 3 others off the top of my head who could fairly easily beat this WR. A record is a limit, if other people can beat it easily, it just doesn't seem right to call it a record, because then it isn't really a limit. Do you get what I'm saying? I'm sorry if you're not actually trolling, but I assumed you were before. Anyhow, I'm going to bed. I can't even think straight.

I'd also like to briefly point out that I hate the word "silly". I wasn't the one who originally said that.

 

[Carrot]

I thought You already have a good Mefferts one.

Something called Christmas came in the way...

EDIT: for Stefan, kclejeune and ubercuber:

kclejeune and ubercuber, pay good attention to the answer below and post something like that. Stefan has been asking for it for pages now, you two are just being silly and evading his point.

WR average should be under 6 before it's okay and and under 7 before it's not silly anymore.
WR single should be under 4 but over 2 to not be silly (4 is a fast solve for a decent skewber, under 2.5 it is just too fast, but probs to anyone doing that with the 7 move filter)

above is my own opinions based on the what I see from the current skewb landscape. (give skewb a year or 3 and the WR average will be around 4.5)

 

[Stefan]

stefan and his "i like arguing" personality on the forums

I don't like this one bit. It's 9:36 am here, I have not slept, I'm pissed off. I would have much preferred if he had just answered once and then it would've been over immediately. I just find it extremely hard to let go, earlier today I thought I have an "accuracy fetish". And yes, I just checked "fetish" in a dictionary to confirm it indeed applies here.

the ability of many other people known of who could beat this with relative ease

They're not known to me. I don't know how many people are how good. I haven't followed Skewb. And I couldn't find statistics, either. So if I'm curious - and I was/am - I have to ask.

this will be determined by an individuals view on/experience with the event.

I agree. Which is why I have asked a specific individual. Who has already determined it for himself. All I want to know is how.

My point is that it isn't a given number.

And my point is that you claim to be able to judge 4.63 but are act like you're unable to judge any other number, and that that's fishy.

However, Sarah could beat current WR. Rhanza could beat current WR. They're both like sub 7.

4.63 is quite a bit lower than 7. How does sub 7 relate to 4.63?

A record is a limit, if other people can beat it easily, it just doesn't seem right to call it a record, because then it isn't really a limit. Do you get what I'm saying?

No, this I actually find confusing. Now it's not even just a "silly record" but no record at all? A record is simply the best that has already been achieved. And it has been. But what really confuses me is the "limit" parts.

I'd also like to briefly point out that I hate the word "silly". I wasn't the one who originally said that.

Yes, I know. And you didn't say something explicit like "they are silly", just expressed it indirectly by saying you agree, etc. That's the reason I [post=939636]earlier[/post] didn't say "Because you said they're silly" but the rather convoluted "Because you expressed that you think they're silly".

Oh look at that, it's 10:10 am now, 34 minutes for this post until here. At least I'm more relaxed again. Anyway, this is not healthy. I'll try to stay away from the forum until let's say February. First step to self improvement shall be that I won't look up whether I should remove the space in "9:36 am" and "10:10 am" (well I might still do that to know it for the future, but I don't intend to edit this post).

Ok one last thing: I anticipate that kc might say that he was talking about average only. In that case my reply is that this whole thing [post=939523]started[/post] and is about the statement "First WR of 2014 (not counting the silly skewb ones)!", which means that the 4.63 is silly as well, plus I've repeatedly made clear that I'm talking about both single and average, and 4.63 has been mentioned a couple times as well.

Good night.

 

[Izanagi]

On another note, Sarah: you said on your skewb website that learning the advanced method is not really useful sometimes since there are too many sledgehammers and that cuts efficiency.
Are you working on simplifying, or rather, optimizing, the advanced variation?? It would be really useful to learn it, and I surely will xD

 

[Carrot]

On another note, Sarah: you said on your skewb website that learning the advanced method is not really useful sometimes since there are too many sledgehammers and that cuts efficiency.
Are you working on simplifying, or rather, optimizing, the advanced variation?? It would be really useful to learn it, and I surely will xD

Personally I think the intermediate version is more than enough to get fast. (then learn to catch horrible cases before you get them so you can cancel lots of moves)

 

[antoineccantin]

Hmmm. I'll say fast enough that there aren't people beating the WR times on a daily basis in the accomplishment thread. I don't think I've ever seen someone post a sub 6.54 average of anything unless they're faz..

So OH WR average is silly?

 

[Izanagi]

Personally I think the intermediate version is more than enough to get fast. (then learn to catch horrible cases before you get them so you can cancel lots of moves)

I've been skewbing for about 3 weeks now, i am addicted XD I use intermediate, and average around 10 (my solves go down the drains if theres a Z or a H perm tho...) But i wonder how to do what you said in bold.... Could you please elaborate?? :3 Sorry if Im asking a lot of questions, I love this puzzle and wanna know everything about it, especially how to cancel out moves.

 

[Carrot]

I've been skewbing for about 3 weeks now, i am addicted XD I use intermediate, and average around 10 (my solves go down the drains if theres a Z or a H perm tho...) But i wonder how to do what you said in bold.... Could you please elaborate?? :3 Sorry if Im asking a lot of questions, I love this puzzle and wanna know everything about it, especially how to cancel out moves.

for Z-perm It's just bad luck unless you know a decent Z-perm

H-perm can be spotted earlier in the solve, and if you spot it you can make H-perm into a 4 move case (good luck finding the hack.)

 

[XTowncuber]

Are there nice algs for the 2 Pi-U cases that have dashes instead of algs on Sarah's page? I end up doing double sledge then Z perm, which is awful.

 

[Robert-Y]

R U' B R' L' B' U' L U R
R B R' U' B' U B R B' R'
R B' L U L' R B' R' B' R
R B' L' B U B' L B' U B'
R B' U L U B' L' B' L U'
R' L' U' R U B' R U L' B
L U' L U L' B' L' R U' B
L U' L U' L R' L' U L U'
L B' L' B R L R L U R
L' U B' L' U L' R' L B U
L' U' B U' R U L' U B' R
L' B U' L R B L' B' U B'
U L B' U' L' U R B L' U'
U' R U' L R U' R' L' U R
U' R' B L U L' B' R U' R
U' R' B' R' B' L' R' L R B'
U' R' B' L U L B L' R U'
U' L U' R U' B' R U' L B
U' L B R U' L B' U' L U'
U' L' R U' L R B' U' B L
B' U' B L U' B' L R' B R

R L U' B' L B U' B R' B'
L R L R B R L U' B' R
L R L U' R' B' L' B U' L
L R L' U' R' B L U' L B'
L R' U R' L' U R B L' B'
L B R' U R' L' R U B' U'
L B' L U' B R U' R U' R'
L B' U' R' U R' U B R' L
L' R' L U B U' B' L' R L
U R U' R U' L' B L' R B'
U R' L B R' L R B' U' L'
U B' L U' R' U' B U L' R
U' L U R' B' U' R' B' L' B'
U' B U' R L' U R B' R' L
U' B U' R' B L B U' L R'
B U R B' R' B R' B' U R'
B' R L' R' U' B R U R' L
B' R U B' L' U B' U L' R
B' R U' B' U B' R B R B'
B' R' B L U L' R' B' R B
B' L U' R U R L B' L' B'

These are all optimal for those cases. I'm sorry but I don't know how to find decent algorithms, I only know how to use ksolve to find algorithms. I don't own a skewb yet.