• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

The Event Debate Thread

What is the best event in your opinion?


  • Total voters
    37

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
1,060
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
My favorite event and the best event are 2 different things. 2x2 is my favorite event because it is so quick. You can grind through hundreds of solves in a couple hours. I think that the best event overall is either 4x4 or 5x5, but I'm leaning towards 5x5 because of double parity on 4x4.

  • Solving time (too fast? Too slow?)
  • How much can be done on the puzzle? As in, what options are there for turning and for moving pieces?
  • How complex is the event?
  • Is it based on luck? Or is there a lot of learning and skill needed to do it?
  • Is there room for improvement in this event?
Going by these qualifications:
1. There are a lot of people who average under 1 minute, so it is a spectator-friendly event (assuming you're watching high-level solvers).
2. There are a decent amount of options, though as @Sub1Hour said, a lot more can be done on 6x6 and 7x7 centers than 5x5 centers, but L2C and L2E on 5x5 are simple enough that they can be done algorithmically pretty easy.
3. It is more on the complex level as far as speedsolving events go, but nothing compared to the big blinds. It isn't something that most new competitors will be competing in in their first competition, but maybe after 2-3 comps.
4. There is absolutely no luck, because there is a very slim chance that there will be a center already done, like on Max Park's former 4x4 WR single.
5. I think that there is a lot of room for improvement in almost every event (except for things like 2x2, pyraminx, and skewb singles).
 
Last edited:

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
My favorite event and the best event are 2 different things. 2x2 is my favorite event because it is so quick. You can grind through hundreds of solves in a couple hours. I think that the best event overall is either 4x4 or 5x5, but I'm leaning towards 5x5 because of double parity on 4x4.


Going by these qualifications:
1. There are a lot of people who average under 1 minute, so it is a spectator-friendly event (assuming you're watching high-level solvers).
2. There are a decent amount of options, though as @Sub1Hour said, a lot more can be done on 6x6 and 7x7 centers than 5x5 centers, but L2C and L2E on 5x5 are simple enough that they can be done algorithmically pretty easy.
3. It is more on the complex level as far as speedsolving events go, but nothing compared to the big blinds. It isn't something that most new competitors will be competing in in their first competition, but maybe after 2-3 comps.
4. There is absolutely no luck, there is a very slim chance that there will be a center already done, like on Max Park's former 4x4 WR single.
5. I think that there is a lot of room for improvement in almost every event (except for things like 2x2, pyraminx, and skewb singles).
Wow, that's actually a fantastic case for 5x5! It's one of my favorite events, probably ranked 5 now though but in my first year of cubing it was definitely my best and favorite event. I'll go through the same qualifications specified by @VIBE_ZT but for 6x6

1. Depending on who does it, it doesn't take up a ton of time, although inexperienced solvers can take over 4 minutes which isn't great
2. There are probably more options for centers and possibly for edges on 6x6 than any other event since its the biggest without a defined true center. That way you aren't forced to solve into a certain orientation or color scheme, so you can take advantage of huge blocks a little easier. Not to mention that makes the process harder for centers than on 7x7 since the color scheme should be taken into account most of the time, although in a few cases doing the wrong color scheme and then fixing it later can save a lot of time.
3. Megaminx and 7x7 are the only speedsolving events that I would consider to be just as complex or more complex. Megaminx is definitely the most complex speedsolving event in my opinion with 6 and 7 right behind. I don't think that the complexity of 6x6 can be compared to stuff like Bld and FMC since they are complex in a different way than your normal speedsolving events. So in terms of complexity 6x6 is one of the highest in the WCA
4. Luck is only a factor during the first center. But what I like the most about 6x6 is that you can "manipulate luck" in your favor. It's very easy to manipulate future cases to be "lucky" on 6x6, but it doesn't even come close to the effectiveness of doing this technique on square-1.
5. There is so much room for improvement in 6x6. The world record has been dropping quickly ever since Max came on the scene, and there are people like Nahm, Arian, and Ciarán that are also improving very quickly, not to mention the leaps in hardware we have seen recently from the Shadow and almighty MGC.
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
319
Just curious, how is less luck and more freedom a bad thing?
Because there is no way I could average 2 minutes and get a 1:15 single. Everything in the solve is based on how I perform. Also, while you have more freedom, that comes at the cost of needing extremely good look ahead, which is something that I don’t have.
 

Nmile7300

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
352
Location
Arizona
WCA
2019MILE04
Because there is no way I could average 2 minutes and get a 1:15 single. Everything in the solve is based on how I perform. Also, while you have more freedom, that comes at the cost of needing extremely good look ahead, which is something that I don’t have.
It is perfectly okay to dislike something because you aren't good at it. It's just your opinion, and as long as you don't use that as an objective argument, you're fine. :)
 
Last edited:

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
Because there is no way I could average 2 minutes and get a 1:15 single. Everything in the solve is based on how I perform. Also, while you have more freedom, that comes at the cost of needing extremely good look ahead, which is something that I don’t have.
I actually really like that part of Megaminx.
I also really like that part of 6x6 and 7x7 as well. It feels like you really earned your time instead of just having a wacky scramble

I think square one because it's unique, a bit brain-breaking, yet simple after a while.
YES! This is why I love square-1 so much! It's by far the most unique event in the WCA along with clock and people simply overlook it because it's so much different from any other event out there. The only event that algs work on square-1 is 2x2, and even then that's only 2-3 PBL algorithms. Square-1 is totally separate from every other event, pretty much the opposite of 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7. On 5-7, if you are great at one, you are almost guaranteed to be good at the rest, but with square-1 there is not a single puzzle in the WCA that has this effect. Your square-1 times are completely separate from the rest of your times in other events, so you don't need to be good at anything else to become world-class at square-1. Another thing that I absolutely love about square-1 is misalignments. In no other event does making a slight move make such a difference in your times. It really rewards you for knowing what your algs do to which pieces and using that to your advantage to force skips and good cases.

I think that the only thing Square-1 doesn't have going for it is that it is pretty alg-based.
Well, its alg based that's for sure, but in a completely different way to things like 2x2. If you want to be world-class at square-1, it helps to learn some massive alg sets like OBL and PBL, but it's not completely necessary to unlike 2x2 where if you don't learn a ton of algs you won't be on top. You can actually mitigate how alg based the puzzle is by using misalignments to your advantage as I said earlier. If I asked you what pieces go where on a random OLL, would you be able to tell me? No, you probably wouldn't since that doesn't help you during speedsolves aside from knowing AUF, something that has instant recognition. Now, on just about every single algorithm that I know on square-1, I can definitely tell you what it does to the entire puzzle (excluding CSP because its very different from the other alg sets). Not only is this useful, but it's game-changing. You can force all different kinds of cool skips and good cases! I can tell you right now that at the speed I am at with square-1, my alg knowledge is abysmal, but because I know my way around every single alg I use, I can definitely hide that weakness. Sure, it could be argued that its the most alg based event, but you sure can get away with learning only a few!
 

Q--

Member
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
18
Location
I'm not sure either
WCA
2019MCGA02
Square-1 affects your 3x3 turning style a lot too, I execute an Nb perm faster than Ja. Square-1 caught my interest almost as soon as I got into cubing because of how unique it is. It’s also a bit underrated in my opinion and has a lot of room to grow (especially because I want to see if OBL will ever be viable).
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
Square-1 affects your 3x3 turning style a lot too, I execute an Nb perm faster than Ja. Square-1 caught my interest almost as soon as I got into cubing because of how unique it is. It’s also a bit underrated in my opinion and has a lot of room to grow (especially because I want to see if OBL will ever be viable).
I do find RUD algorithms on 3x3 (Especially GA and GD) to be extremely fast on 3x3 due to my experience with square-1. Also, if you are wondering of OBL is going to be viable or not, my boy Calvin Nielson is making a trainer specifically for OBL and I think that it could be viable, especially with someone as skilled as he is working on it.
 
Top