Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

By the way, I did update the results for the first round using the alternative moves + minutes scoring method. Interestingly, there was a rearrangement between fourth and fifth place. And third place was much more clear based on the linear method.

I'm in favour of the linear scoring system. The other system doesn't seem as LOGical . The 1/60 makes scoring easy understand and gives an nice way to know how much time has a factor (1 min is 1 move). I do agree on not requiring a hard cap in time limit with the linear system. Anything >10-15 or so minutes tends to not be worth it.

Okay. I realize this is unfair to those who have already gone this round, but the main purpose of this thread is to look for the best possible approach more than to compete, so let's say that round two is without time limit. So Kit's 10 minute solve definitely counts. And Jacck, if you'd like to go again with your own generated scrambles, please do so.

No time limit would help a little with judging this in an official setting - one judge to two people would be much more practical then, since you wouldn't have the big rush at exactly 10 minutes. Official competitions could still impose time limits for convenience, like 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 10 minutes for convenience/speed of schedule. Although clearly with a 10 minute schedule they would need to have lots of judges.

It would also be nice to eliminate the misery that comes from DNFing a couple of solves.

And it would make my life easier on the timer too! I will put off fixing the time expiration part of the code until we decide this.

Okay. I realize this is unfair to those who have already gone this round, but the main purpose of this thread is to look for the best possible approach more than to compete, so let's say that round two is without time limit. So Kit's 10 minute solve definitely counts. And Jacck, if you'd like to go again with your own generated scrambles, please do so.

No time limit would help a little with judging this in an official setting - one judge to two people would be much more practical then, since you wouldn't have the big rush at exactly 10 minutes. Official competitions could still impose time limits for convenience, like 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 10 minutes for convenience/speed of schedule. Although clearly with a 10 minute schedule they would need to have lots of judges.

It would also be nice to eliminate the misery that comes from DNFing a couple of solves.

And it would make my life easier on the timer too! I will put off fixing the time expiration part of the code until we decide this.

Yes, this is actually a lot like 7x7x7 in time requirements; I believe mean of 3 for 7x7x7 is a good official competition format, but average of 5 is clearly best for an online competition.

Time limit: I think there should be a time limit. 10 minutes, 15, 20, a full hour, or whatever, but there should be one. If you've already lost a bunch of points because you wasted (say) five minutes on a I-thought-this-was-good-but-it's-actually-bad start, it might still be the best option to continue spending time to search for better solutions. The log scoring system has a lower per-time penalty as you burn through more time, providing more incentive to spend more time; the linear scoring system isn't as pathological, but the optimal course of action might still be to continue burning through time. You could work around this by using a scoring formula like (moves + time^2) instead, but that probably has pathologies of its own and it's simpler to just outright set a time limit anyway.

(I'd say 10 minutes, 12 minutes (so five attempts fit snugly in an hour!), or 15 minutes would all be reasonable time limits.)

It probably should be discussed if the situation for #1 should be DNF or not, which I didn't think about until afterward (and probably wouldn't have DNF'd 5 if #1 was DNF'd). I think that it should work similar to MBLD, where you get the current result you have as time expires, and in real FMC you still get to turn in your solution/write your name once time expires. But whatever we think, we should decide before we put this on the SS comp!

At first I was confused by this - it seemed to me that of course it should count as a success. But then I realized - what you're talking about here is that you didn't stop the timer? Actually, after thinking about this, I really think we'd need to count that as a DNF. Just like with a regular solve, you must finish the solve, release the cube, and stop the timer in order for the solve to count, I think you need to release the pen (and/or any cubes) and stop the timer for this to count. If you don't stop the timer before it runs out, I think it should count as a DNF.

I think the important aspect of FMC is having a short solution written down, and if we're going to have a time limit, we shouldn't require the timer to be explicitly stopped. Just as in regular FMC, a solution written before the time limit should be accepted, even if time runs out. If there are multiple solutions written, as long as one of them is circled (or otherwise unambiguously marked), that should be accepted too. (If we're not implementing a time limit, this is irrelevant.)

R2 B' F U2 F' D U L U' L2 U B U B2 U' L2 B' U B L' U' B' F' U2 F U F' U F L2 U' B F' L2 F B' U' L2 U' B U2 (41)

R2 B' F U2 F' D //2x2x2
U L U' L2 U B U B2 /2x2x3
U' L2 B' U B L' //F2L-1
U' B' (B U2) //F2L
F' U2 F U F' U F //OLL
L2 U' B F' L2 F B' U' L2 U' //PLL

Slow for such a simple-minded solution

2. 38 in 6:46.87 (44.78 points)

Spoiler

U L U' L D2 F D2 L' D F L2 B2 L2 B' L D' B D L B2 L' B' L B' L' R D' R' U R D R' U' B' L B L' F (38)

U L U' L D2 F D2 L' D F //Pseudo 2x2x3
L2 B2 L2 B' L //Pseudo F2L-1
D' B D (L B L' F) //F2L
L B2 L' B' L B' L' //Leaving three corners
R D' R' U R D R' U' B' //Last three corners

3. DNF, didn't feel like it.

4. 41 in 6:44.52 (47.74 points)

Spoiler

R' F2 U' D2 L B L' F2 B U2 B2 U F //2x2x3
R' U R B2 R B R' //F2L-1
B' L' B L //Leaving four corners
R D' R' U2 R D R' U2 // Leaving three corners
L2 F' L B2 L' F L B2 L //Last three corners

Wasted time on something that didn't give anything good.

5. 39 in 10:18.75 (49.31)

Spoiler

U' R D F U F R2 B2 U R2 B R' U R2 U L U' R2 D R' U R D' R U' R' U2 F' U' F2 R' F2 U F U2 R2 U L' D2 (39)

U' R D F U F R2 B2 U R2 B (D2)//2x2x3
R' U R2 U L U' R U (L)// F2L-1
(U' R2 U2 F' U' F) //F2L
(F R F2 U F U2 R U R2) //Leaving three corners (Four moves cancel (lol))
(R D R' U' R D' R' U) //Last three corners

Time limit: I think there should be a time limit. 10 minutes, 15, 20, a full hour, or whatever, but there should be one. If you've already lost a bunch of points because you wasted (say) five minutes on a I-thought-this-was-good-but-it's-actually-bad start, it might still be the best option to continue spending time to search for better solutions.

I guess my question is: why exactly is this a bad thing? Is there general agreement that it is a bad thing?

I will admit that, with no time limit, if I am currently stuck with F2L done and a really high-move OLL and PLL, I would burn extra minutes looking for something on the finish of F2L with a better OLL/PLL combination, or AB3C (not to insert - just to apply the alg for last 3 corners, which is almost always shorter than a typical PLL). So having no time limit would make this strategy pay off pretty nicely. Do people feel that would be a bad thing?

R U B L //cross
D' R D R' D' L' D L //Pair 1
R D R2 D' R2 D' R' D' R D R' //Pairs 2+3
D L D' L' D2 B D' F' D F B2 //Pair 4
L B' R2 B L' B' R2 B2 D2 //PLL
43 in 3:00.91

I guess my question is: why exactly is this a bad thing? Is there general agreement that it is a bad thing?

I will admit that, with no time limit, if I am currently stuck with F2L done and a really high-move OLL and PLL, I would burn extra minutes looking for something on the finish of F2L with a better OLL/PLL combination, or AB3C (not to insert - just to apply the alg for last 3 corners, which is almost always shorter than a typical PLL). So having no time limit would make this strategy pay off pretty nicely. Do people feel that would be a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing per se, but I'm thinking that the event should have a hard time limit just so that the best strategy for approaching it doesn't result in attempts taking too much time. (It's speed FMC, right?) For example, with regular FMC, while you can spend as little or as much time as you want (under an hour), you would generally want to spend almost the whole hour on one attempt if you were taking it seriously, so it ends up being a very time-consuming event. If we had regular FMC without time limit, it's plausible that one might spend multiple hours on just one solve.

No-time-limit linear scoring might have a similar problem (although less extreme). Time that has already been burnt has no bearing on how you should continue to use your time: every unit of time costs the same amount of score no matter what the clock is saying now. (I don't know if this will really be a problem in practice, but it wouldn't hurt to just set a time limit anyway. The difference between no-time-limit speed FMC and no-time-limit regular FMC is that knowing how good/bad you yourself are at FMC allows you to judge how likely spending more time is to be worth it, so e.g. if you've been stuck at 40 moves for a long time, it's very unlikely to find something better.)

edit: For the record, I'm not married to the idea and I wouldn't be offended or anything if we end up going with no time limit.

I guess this is the part I have a problem with. I don't see it that way. A time limit guarantees a significant increase in DNFs, and I don't know that that is justified. Since this is an online competition, I'm currently inclined to say we shouldn't have a time limit, and we should see how that works out. Since the time required will be being stored, it will be simple enough to keep track of what happened in the past if we eventually decide to add a time limit, and we can even choose to invalidate solves retroactively that are over that time limit if we feel strongly about it (although I'm inclined not to).

Just so everyone knows, right now I am leaning towards the following:
Linear scoring: moves + minutes, with precision to hundredths of minutes.
No time limit. Time is determined by when you stop the timer; solution must be written and clearly indicated (for instance, by circling it) before stopping the timer, and cube and pen must be released before stopping the timer.
Average of 5.

I know that xyzzy objects to my choice of no time limit, but I am curious what other people think. Please speak up now - I'm working hard on the code, and the competition starts in less than 48 hours. I can still be swayed to change my mind, but not for much longer.

Whatever scoring method we use, we should compare results that give you the same score and ask yourself if they deserve the same score, like,
46 moves in 2 minutes
43 moves in 5 minutes
41 moves in 7 minutes
38 moves in 10 minutes
32 moves in 16 minutes
29 moves in 19 minutes
26 moves in 22 minutes
All give a score of 48.
I’m my opinion, they aren’t 100% equal but it’s pretty close. So, I totally support this type of scoring. I’m pretty sure most people do, so I hope it is going to be implemented.

Also, time limit? I don’t think so. No. If you spend a lot of time, like 30 minutes, then you’re going to get a really bad score, as ProStar said, no need for a DNF. I feel much more strongly about no time limit than linear scoring, so I’m really hoping it’s going to be put in!!
Also, I hold the unofficial-unofficial record single for Speed FMC, which really doesn’t even mean anything at his point lmao, getting just 25 moves in only 9:06.0, which is 34.1 points, although I’m sure that someone out there has gotten better, so it’s probably not even the best. I know I will take a loooonng long long time to beat that though.

Overall, I’m really excited to have Speed FMC in the Weekly Comp!

1. DNF (47 in 2:09.33 = 49.16)
2. DNF (50 in 2:26.85 = 52.45)
3. DNF (45 in 2:09.59 = 47.16)
4. DNF (52 in 2:29.58 = 54.49)
5. DNF (50 in 3:07.48 = 53.12)

The first three solves each had 1-2 missing apostrophes and I think the last two were misscrambles. I did rushed OH ZZ (5/5 [speed oriented] ZBLL) solves while writing down the moves, just to see if I could get a really good result that way. I guess not.

The thing that I found the hardest was figuring out if <L,B,D,F> moves were prime or not so there was lots of hesitation when writing down the moves. I did two warm up solves that were also both off by two and a single apostrophe. I think part of this was rushing but also I don't have a lot of experience doing FMC/writing down moves/solves.
I think if I did a bunch of solves and got used to remembering what moves do what and writing faster, sub1 could be possible. I don't know about an average, but a sub1 single is definitely possible.

Spoiler: solutions

1.
x2
R F L2 U B R D' R' D
R2 U2 R' U2 L' U L' U' L
R' U' R U2 R' U R
U' L U2 L' U L U' L'
R U R['] U R U' R D R' U' R D['] R2 U2

2.
x2
U F' U2 D' B R2 L' D
R; U R U L2 U['] R2 L' U L
R U' R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R'
y
R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R'
B[2] U' R L' B2 R' L U' B2 U'

3.
x2
D B' D2 L' U F['] R U D B2 L2
U R U' R' U2 R' U L'
U R' U2 R' U' R' U R U' R'
y'
L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U R U R' U' R U' R' U'

4.
x2
L F' R' U' B' R' L' D
R' U' L' U' L R U2 L' U' D R' U' R D' R
L U L U2 L U' L' U2 L U L' U L2
y
F U' R U' R' U R U R' U2 R U2 R' U F' U2

5.
x2
R F U2 R L' B' D R D
L U' L' U L U' R' U' R2 U R U' R'
U2 L' U2 L U L U L U L2 U' L' U L
y'
R U R' U LO R U R' U' R U2 R' U

E: forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but will there be an 80 move limit, as in normal FMC? If not, I feel like it should (but, as staff members don't need to count the moves, I understand why a limit is not necessarily necessary, but I still think that there should be one).
And, just to throw in my two cents, I'm inclined to say that there should be at least an hour time limit, as with normal FMC. I think it would encourage people to not troll as hard as they can with 8+ hour attempts, just to have the slowest solves in the database. I think a 10 minute limit would be a little bit too harsh, so, since as woowybaby demonstrated, it's not impossible to get good results past 20 minutes, I personally think a 30 minute time limit seems perfectly reasonable, as anything past that obviously isn't for a good result. I feel like the time within the limit should be able to produce results that could feasibly win/do well. A 25 in 20 minutes would be really lucky, and a 45 seems like it would stand a chance. However, a 20 in 30 minutes would be impossibly lucky, but still *possible*. I don't think a 15 in 45 or a 10 in 50 really makes much sense even if they're technically possible.
Even if you disagree with that view, I think just as a measure to keep trolls out of the system, a time limit of some sort, however long, should be implemented, but my vote is for an hour.