Throwing out scrambles in competitions?

[Kirjava]

As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...

This isn't even a remotely valid comparison.

 

[aronpm]

And what about a more emotional argument:
What "value" would you attach to a 0.78s 3x3x3 solve where only 4 moves are needed?

Not important

And what would the general non-cuber public think of a 4 move WR solve?

Not relevant

As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...

Not an applicable comparison

 

[Godmil]

As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...

That would actually be cheating, you need to think of something that would statistcally be unfeasably improbably, like all three of his throws missing the board then bouncing off something and hitting the treble-20.

 

[Erik]

The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:

Is speedcubing:
'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?
or...
'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?

 

[Cubenovice]

I know the darts comparison is flawed but I'm more referring to the general idea of " in that way, I can do it too"

I think that public or non-cuber perception does matter (yeah, I know; personal opinion)

I'm sure that quite some people would call "solving a cube that is almost solved before you even start" cheating

 

[aronpm]

I'm sure that quite some people would call "solving a cube that is almost solved before you even start" cheating

There's also people who say that inspecting the cube is cheating and that knowing algorithms is cheating. That doesn't mean we should change for them

 

[Kirjava]

" in that way, I can do it too"

I seriously doubt that a non-cuber could get 0.69 with a 4 move scramble.

 

[Cubenovice]

There's also people who say that inspecting the cube is cheating and that knowing algorithms is cheating. That doesn't mean we should change for them

I originally had a reference to inspection time
Anyway: I do think we should consider (to a certain extent) how we want cubing to be perceived by non-cubers.

I shared my views so I'm out untill new arguments come up.

 

[Godmil]

The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:

Is speedcubing:
'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?
or...
'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?

Well speedcubing is solving a scrambled puzzle as fast as possible. The argument is how scrambled must a scramble be?

 

[Erik]

Pointing out the obvious, we cant solve a solved cube... so you just rephrased what I said, but called it 2 different things. Scrambled = not solved.

Certain people like Thom want the cube to be in a random state, other people like to filter states so that 'easy' ones dont get through. People are arguing, but from 2 different points of view. This discussion is not new, people pro random state have their reasons and people who like filtering have their arguments. There is no possibility to compromise between the 2.

 

[Kirjava]

The argument is how scrambled must a scramble be?

This still comes down to random vs difficult.

 

[Lucas Garron]

That solve was 22 moves in the same metric that the 25 move scrambler uses

That is not a good reason to doubt that it was unnecessarily lucky, though. Our current scrambler has a tendency to produce long scrambles that are also easy.

 

[tim]

Today I thought about it, and have decided that nothing should be thrown out. It's too difficult to draw a line somewhere, so we'd better not draw one anywhere. Most people realise that 2x2 singles (and pyra single to some extent) mean very little so I don't think it's really a problem at all to let some people get insanely lucky and set crazy times.

I also thought about it and came to the same conclusion as you. Especially for 3x3 BLD I can think of "many" easy scrambles which would lead to "unbeatable" times (all edges solved, all corners solved, superflip + scrambled corners, ...). So, my point is: We don't gain much by limiting the scrambles to specific lengths. To make it reasonably fair, we should also remove valid, but still incredibly lucky scrambles. And that's way too difficult or even impossible (there might be this guy with his secret method who benefits greatly from Scramble #4).

 

[Stefan]

That solve was 22 moves in the same metric that the 25 move scrambler uses (I think. Each face+slice = 1 move)

Where are the 22 and 25 from? Here's the scramble that Arnaud posted and the solution that Simon posted:

Scramble: (3,0) / (-3,6) / (0,1) / (0,3) / (3,0) / (0,3) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (0,3) / (6,4) / (6,5) / (5,1) / (0,3) / (4,2) / (6,4) / (0,2) / (-4,4)
Solution: (1,2) / (-3,-3) / (-2,3) / (3,0) / (2,0) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) / (-3,-3)

If that solution is where the 22 came from, then the scramble is 40 (which is the length used by WCA). And the optimal solution is just 18:
(0,6) / (0,3) / (1,0) / (-3,0) / (2,0) / (0,3) / (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-2)

You didn't reply to these - maybe you didn't see them?

I did see them, I just agree with your own evaluation that "None of this is important" . But ok, I'll reply:

- "It's too hard to draw a line and say how easy is too easy and how short is too short."
Again, I find it reasonable to throw out scrambles of 3 moves or less, because I believe everybody agrees these are very easy and because that matches with what has happened so far as far as I know (<=3 scrambles having been thrown out, no >3 scrambles having been thrown out, 4-movers having set records). And... because I think that's about the limit where scrambles are not just "easy" but so "trivial" that even non-cubers can solve them.

- "I would prefer to be given a solve from a pool of all states, not a subset of them."
Pretty much the same importance as saying the opposite, that one prefers to not get some trivial states.

- "I don't like it because David Salvia suggested it."
Um, ok...

Is speedcubing:
'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?
or...
'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?

I'd say replace "DIFFICULT" with "NON-TRIVIAL" there. When we're talking about whether removing 2-move scrambles... those are so trivial that even non-cubers can solve them.

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think they are important. They were pointed out because you requested them.

4 move scrambles can be just as trivial as 3 move ones.

Your complaint is against triviality and non-cubers being able to perform those solutions. Rubik's Magic?

 

[qqwref]

The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:

Is speedcubing:
'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?
or...
'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?

Neither... speedcubing is "solving a puzzle from a SCRAMBLED state, as fast as possible" The most important thing is that the puzzle subjectively looks scrambled before it is solved, and to an experienced cuber, I think a 4qtm 2x2 solution definitely doesn't look scrambled. I don't think the randomness is totally necessary; we've just started using it because it's more fair and can't result in scramble memorization/pre-knowledge.

 

[Zane_C]

If there were to be restrictions enforced on scramble positions, I feel as if they should be based on the number of pieces solved, rather than the moves needed get to solved state. Obviously this will produce fairer scrambles for BLD, but that's not my point.

To me, it just doesn't seem right to call a scramble a 'scramble' if a large proportion of the pieces are already solved. Since the purpose of a scramble is to jumble the pieces.

However, this might mean a 2x2x2 off by a J-perm isn't 'scrambled' enough, where as a 2x2x2 off by a U2 is fine.
But because this is only 2x2x2 single, I don't think this issue would have much significance.

Of course, puzzles up from 2x2x2 are less and less likely to experience a situation similar to the example above.
So I don't believe a 3x3x3 scramble off by a D2 R2 U2 should be considered as a threat.

 

[Erik]

Neither... speedcubing is "solving a puzzle from a SCRAMBLED state, as fast as possible" The most important thing is that the puzzle subjectively looks scrambled before it is solved, and to an experienced cuber, I think a 4qtm 2x2 solution definitely doesn't look scrambled. I don't think the randomness is totally necessary; we've just started using it because it's more fair and can't result in scramble memorization/pre-knowledge.

As often happens people nag about details. Replace 'state' with scramble if you like, a scramble is a non-solved cube. Have fun defining 'well scrambled' or 'scrambled enough', to me cubing is solving a cube from a random state (scramble for qq), as fast as possible. You will find that it is not possible to define an easy or hard scramble. My 0.96 was 7 moves, so do me a favor and filter out every scramble solvable in 6 or less moves...
Filtering out the best and worst solve of an average already deals with the 'problem' that you are trying to get rid of. It is not for no reason competitions are won on averages. (besides in 1982)

 

[cuBerBruce]

People keep using the argument that winner is decided by an average are forgetting that who advances from a round is not always decided by an average. A "best of" format may be used in a round or a combined round. I don't think we would want a "best of" round decided by a 2-move scramble.

I would also argue that 2-move scrambles are basically a waste of time. A waste of scramblers' time, a waste of judges' time, a waste of venue time, etc. If it is in a "best of" round, the other scrambles in the round won't matter at all (for all practical purposes), and in an "average" round, the 2-move scramble will be discarded for everybody, so what's the point in wasting everyone's time with the 2-move scramble (other than giving people a great opportunity for setting records)?

 

[Kirjava]

what's the point in wasting everyone's time

I do not see it as a waste of time. They are valid scrambles.