Throwing out scrambles in competitions?

[Erik]

No, I don't think that's the case now. Give the current WR scramble (apparently U'F'R'U) or a harder 4-mover (including half turns) to non-cubers and I'm convinced they'll have trouble with it that they won't have with a 2-mover. Don't you think so?

Lol that depends on who you give it to (semi-seriously). The argumentation that 2 move scrambles would completely put 2x2 single into the 'meaningless record' area and 4 move scrambles doesn't, is flawing imho. 2x2 single is already meaningless, filtering doesn't change that. There is a reason we select winners of events based on their average...

 

[Stefan]

Lol that depends on who you give it to (semi-seriously).

Well, to the representative, i.e., average, person out there.

I think 2-movers are very easy for the average person and 4-movers are decently hard for the average person. The 2-movers leave four corner-pair blocks and all you have to do to solve it is to keep the blocks intact. Trivial. With the current WR scramble (or the harder 4-movers) you don't have such nice blocks and at least for the WR scramble, you do have to break a block. Not trivial.

 

[ThomasJE]

Well, to the representative, i.e., average, person out there.

I think 2-movers are very easy for the average person and 4-movers are decently hard for the average person. The 2-movers leave four corner-pair blocks and all you have to do to solve it is to keep the blocks intact. Trivial. With the current WR scramble (or the harder 4-movers) you don't have such nice blocks and at least for the WR scramble, you do have to break a block. Not trivial.

But what about 3 movers?

 

[Stefan]

But what about 3 movers?

Don't know, that's another debate. I'm just trying to argue that there does exist a difference between trivial "not-really-scrambles" and non-trivial "actual" scrambles and that the line is somewhere between 2 and 4 moves.

Btw, would be so awesome if this were the case. And I'll actually stop here now until the WCA board or someone with similar authority posts suggesting the introduction of filtering. The magic-removal at least had a discussion in the WCA delegates group before it was decided. New scramble filtering on the other hand, as far as I can tell, is just a rumor.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Scramble filtering has been discussed between the board and the WRC, and Ron's statement is consistent with what some of us want. Right now I think it's safe to say that we will not be introducing any filtering at least until it's implemented in TNoodle. In general we're not at a consensus, so I don't think this will be happening right now.

 

[Escher]

You're just misinterpreting what he said.

Not purposefully!
I'd had about an hours sleep previous to posting/replying before setting off for work, hence:

If with one attempt (year) you have a 5% chance, then with 12 attempts (years) you have about 50%:

1 - (1-0.05)^12 = 0.459639912
or
log(0.5) / log(1-0.05) = 13.5
(obviously he didn't use exactly 5% in his calculation)

I understand now

1. That benefit is not good.
2. It takes the benefit from a more skilled/deserving person.
3. Cubing looks less respectable if we have to admit that the WR was set on a "scramble" that everybody can solve easily.

Regarding point 1, apologies that my original sentence was very unclear - the only benefit is that it is listed next to WRs that actually have meaning, as opposed to it having almost no meaning.

As for 2, since it has such little meaning, it's like asking who is more deserving of a straight flush (if I'm allowed to continue that analogy). Anybody who is skilled or deserving is aware the record is inherently BS (unless we filter scrambles to something dumb like 7+ moves).

I think your 3rd point is pretty empty, firstly because appealing to the public understanding of cubing as an argument is pretty useless, and secondly, all it takes is a little explanation, and if explanation of the game doesn't increase respect then I couldn't suggest what would.

As said before, two moves is not just lucky, it's trivial. To the point that even non-cubers can easily see the solution. Not the case with 4-movers or even 7-movers.

I know plenty of non-cubers who couldn't see the solution to a 2 move case (it's happened in front of my eyes plenty of times), and several others who would happily play 'undo x number of moves to solve' with me, and solve 5 or 6 move positions.

The 'triviality' argument is fairly arbitrary if the definition of a 'trivial' state changes from person to person, surely?

Yup, the status quo *opposes* your agenda, as the status quo is that all scrambles less than four moves *have* been filtered out.

Well, yes, I am wrong here.

 

[Stefan]

unless we filter scrambles to something dumb like 7+ moves

Calling something "dumb" is a really good argument. And friendly, too.

several others who would happily play 'undo x number of moves to solve' with me, and solve 5 or 6 move positions.

On a 2x2? Then those non-cubers are better than me

The 'triviality' argument is fairly arbitrary if the definition of a 'trivial' state changes from person to person, surely?

There is just one average person.

 

[Escher]

Calling something "dumb" is a really good argument. And friendly, too.

Just hyperbole, nothing mean. I think it's pretty self-evident that having 7+ moves would be a little crazy, I do admit the difference between no filtering and filtering 2-3 is only marginal.

I had a couple of friends who were comfy with 5 and did the occasional 6 on a 3x3, 4ish was more usual on a 2x2.

I just find it a little odd that were the general public more interested in cubing, our ceiling for triviality would have to be lifted, although that way of arriving at triviality would seem to fit the word.

 

[Kirjava]

the 0.4x time some random noob inevitably gets will stay near the top of the rankings for many years.

So what? This is basically what we have already.

Defeatist, no? You're saying that, if some luck is inevitable, we might as well give up trying to minimize the luck.

Yes please.

 

[S1neWav_]

I know this is an old thread, but honesty, anyone has the potential to get lucky, so technically there is an equal chance for everyone to get lucky. And scramble filtering is bull to me

 

[turtwig]

Yeah. I think that we should allow anything more than or equal to 3 moves, the shortest DNF state. 3 moves is arguably trivial, but ask a non-cuber to solve R U2 F and they probably won't be able to see through the solution like they would a 2 mover. But I'm okay with minimum 4 moves, it's better than what we have now: 7 moves for Skewb, 11 for Square-1, 13 for 3x3, I think it's kind of arbitrary. People are bound to get lucky either way - try getting a sub-1.10 solve on any normal Skewb scramble or a sub-1.32 solve on a normal Pyraminx scramble.

 

[guysensei1]

Yeah. I think that we should allow anything more than or equal to 3 moves, the shortest DNF state. 3 moves is arguably trivial, but ask a non-cuber to solve R U2 F and they probably won't be able to see through the solution like they would a 2 mover. But I'm okay with minimum 4 moves, it's better than what we have now: 7 moves for Skewb, 11 for Square-1, 13 for 3x3, I think it's kind of arbitrary. People are bound to get lucky either way - try getting a sub-1.10 solve on any normal Skewb scramble or a sub-1.32 solve on a normal Pyraminx scramble.

3x3 is set at 2 moves minimum by the way

 

[biscuit]

3x3 is set at 2 moves minimum by the way

Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)

 

[guysensei1]

Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)

Lucas Garron said its 2 moves some time ago. IIRC the regs for that have not been changed yet

Indeed, 13 is incorrect. If you run TNoodle-WCA-0.10.0.jar and click on the question mark in, you can see:



13 would also be against the Regulations (specifically, 4b3), which are quite unambiguous about everything except big cubes and Megaminx.

EDIT: just curious, where did this misconception come from anyway?

 

[biscuit]

Lucas Garron said its 2 moves some time ago. IIRC the regs for that have not been changed yet

EDIT: just curious, where did this misconception come from anyway?

Really... Hmm. Good to know!

 

[Lucas Garron]

I know this is an old thread, but honesty, anyone has the potential to get lucky, so technically there is an equal chance for everyone to get lucky.

But only some people *will* get extremely lucky.

Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)

If you run TNoodle, http://localhost:2014/readme/scramble will report the current filtering limits:

2x2x2: ≥ 4 moves away from solved
3x3x3: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
3x3x3 Fewest Moves: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
3x3x3 no inspection: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
4x4x4: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
4x4x4 no inspection: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
5x5x5: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
5x5x5 no inspection: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
6x6x6: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
7x7x7: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
Clock: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
Megaminx: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
Pyraminx: ≥ 6 moves away from solved
Skewb: ≥ 7 moves away from solved
Square-1: ≥ 11 moves away from solved

If these don't agree with Regulation 4b3, then that's a problem, and needs to be fixed immediately. So if you ever want to know the actual scramble filtering limits, check the Regs.