WCA Multi-BLD Ranks

[Rune]

Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

It looks a bit ugly now, but I am sure we forget about it in a few months, once everyone has broken their best results.

I think you severely overestimate the number of competitions most people go to. Ryosuke Mondo has only done multiple blindfolded at three competitions ever; he might not have another chance for a while. Maybe it will settle down after a year or so, but definitely not a few months...

Agreed. Not everyone has the opportunity to go to eight competitions a year. And many competitions don't even run a multi-BLD event because it takes so long.

Some, however, put in multi-BLD in place of 5x5 because many would take longer doing 5x5 than 2 multi, 4x4 BLD, and megaminx combined, apparently... I'm not going to name any upcoming competitions that do this.

 

[Bryan]

Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?

Look at the rules at http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/ and see if you can find the answer for yourself. If you read through them and can't find your answer, repost here and I'll point you to the correct rule number.

 

[Rune]

Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?

Look at the rules at http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/ and see if you can find the answer for yourself. If you read through them and can't find your answer, repost here and I'll point you to the correct rule number.

The article is H1a, of course. The question is; How do I "tell" the number; loudly, in someone´s ear or do I have to write it down on a paper.

 

[Inusagi]

I think this is very unfair...

 

[Rune]

Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?

Look at the rules at http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/ and see if you can find the answer for yourself. If you read through them and can't find your answer, repost here and I'll point you to the correct rule number.

The article is H1a, of course. The question is; How do I "tell" the number; loudly, in someone´s ear or do I have to write it down on a paper.

OK, the article H1a2 gives indirectly the answer to the question.

 

[alexc]

I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.

 

[Harris Chan]

May be the perfect accuracy is because there is less amount of cubes Obviously a person that can do 5/8 can certainly do 2/2 (I hope), not like they're going to get 5/8 percentage when they do 2 which is er, 1 and 1/4 cubes correct.

A way to change the rule as Joel put it: Only perfect accuracy gets the WR, but less accurate but more cubes (after the subtraction) gets a higher rank (it might not make sense to most people as they would think WR is the highest rank, but yah...)

 

[alexc]

One thing I find about multi bld is, that, more cubes doesn't feel any harder, it just takes longer. I don't find 6 any more difficult than 2, but 6 takes more time to memorize and solve. (Keep in mind that I have a good memo method that works for me. If you try to do 6 cubes w/ visual... good luck.. ) So, the main reason I don't always get perfects on multi is because I miss a two cycle, misoriented piece, etc. So, isn't it really just a test of accuracy if a higher number is really not any harder to memorize/recall?

My best multi bld is 6/6. So far, I have found what I have stated to be true. However, I really don't know if there is a x number of cubes with a "jump" in difficulty to memorize. Other multi bld'rs: Let me know your opinion on this. (Especially Tim or Dennis.)

 

[hait2]

I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.

actually in fact, these new rules DO promote striving for greatest accuracy. and it doesn't necessarily mean that the "almost perfect, huge number" multiers are ranked over the perfect-but-less-cube multiers. consider the case of 16/20 losing to 13/13.

obviously i like this new rule, since I recall bringing this idea up on this very forum a while back. props to whoever else (in wca or otherwise) came up with it

 

[anders]

I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.

I agree. As I stated before, my opinion about multi-blindfolded is that the event is about judging one's ability, and then show it. Thus, in this respect, 2/2 is better than 9999/10000.

 

[Dene]

I totally disagree with that. 9999 cubes multi-BLD? That would be insane.

I would only be more impressed by the 2/2 if it was done sub1 and the 9999 cubes took 1 hour each per cube.

 

[masterofthebass]

You guys know that Rowe was going to quit multi but when they changed the rules, he decided to keep at it. I think that the new regs represent more, as Ryosuke would've had a much better result. I definitely think that 17/18 is far superior to 2/2 and even 5/5. The new rules are more representative of a person's ability in relation to another persons. Also, I do think that the old results should be transfered over as the new regulations just allow people to do MORE cubes. If the regs dictated smaller numbers then it would be a different story, but if, for example, ryosuke was to try 18 cubes before, he would definitely try it now, as it would be better for him.

 

[qqwref]

I agree with Dan - the new regulations actually make it easier for someone to try a given number of cubes. Under the old regulations it would only be useful to try 18 cubes if you believed you had a good chance of getting every one; if you didn't think you did, you should only do two or three, because that would beat your failed 18 attempt if you could get that comparatively trivial task done. But with the new regulations, trying 18 is fine as long as you can get 9 of them. In fact, if you get 11 or more, you are guaranteed to beat anyone who attempts two or three cubes. So this new rule actually encourages people to go a little beyond what they think they can do, because even if they make a few mistakes or forget a cube or two they will still come out with a high number of points, and do better than they would have if they had done an attempt with a small number of cubes. For a more extreme example I don't think Rowe had done a success with 30 cubes before he tried it, but even though he didn't quite finish all the cubes his result of 22/30 was still good enough to place 2nd in the world, well ahead of any 2/2 or 3/3 attempts. Before, he would just place right after all the 2/2s, so it would probably not be worth the four hours.

More concisely - trying large numbers was more risky before the old regulations. Apart from the time limit, any changes in the strategy would be to make people try higher numbers of cubes, not lower, so high-numbered attempts from before the regulation switch are even better. It seems to me that the rule saying that old records should stand after a regulation change was designed so that new regulations stipulating stricter policies of some sort would not simply obsolete old records. Personally I think that all attempts from before which would count as successes in the new regulations should be counted as such (the ones which would not, such as attempts that took too long or 1/3 etc, should be kept grayed out). I'm not sure what to do with national records but perhaps we could keep them as what they are until they are broken (while still giving people who did them high rankings in the database), since it doesn't make much sense to me to retroactively have someone break a record when at the time the attempt was considered low-scoring.

 

[Ron]

Hi guys,

I agree with Michael.
Still there is no need to rush. We have had only two new multiblind competitions yet. Plenty of time to see what happens.

I am sure Ryosuke will compete again in the upcoming months and easily finish in top 10 of the ranking. Btw, we informed Ryosuke before he travelled to Canada to compete.

The reason why the regulation is there is quite simple: there is no need (or 'we have no right') to take someone's records away just by changing the regulations. Normally record changes do not have much effect on existing records. This one has. This one would even change the winners of past competitions.

Thanks,

Ron

 

[masterofthebass]

Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed. I totally agree that if you won the competition, then you won it. However, I don't think that the fact that you won the competition negates the fact that the other person still did more cubes. In the grand scheme of things, the WCA rankings are independent of what happens within a competition (at least in my thoughts).

 

[Ron]

Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed.

Me neither of course.

For the record, there are now 90 persons on the world ranking.
44 of these have a ranking under the new regulations.
Of the other 46 only the following 5 persons would benefit from reevaluating their results:
Mondo 17-18
Louis 7-8
Poinsot 4-6
Kohn 3-4
Sechet 3-5
The other 41 would not benefit (most would have DNF or 0), some could be higher on the ranking, but with the same result.

 

[Dene]

This is a very good point. It would only benefit a few people, most of which will outdo this at least sometime.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed.

Me neither of course.

For the record, there are now 90 persons on the world ranking.
44 of these have a ranking under the new regulations.
Of the other 46 only the following 5 persons would benefit from reevaluating their results:
Mondo 17-18
Louis 7-8
Poinsot 4-6
Kohn 3-4
Sechet 3-5
The other 41 would not benefit (most would have DNF or 0), some could be higher on the ranking, but with the same result.

Note that of these 5 people, only Mondo has a time that would be valid under the new rules - the others took too long. (Well, Sechet's time isn't even recorded, so I guess I don't know about that one.) So moving the others up by scoring like the new rules would actually seem a little unfair.

So now this really only affects one person in a significant way, and I'm sure we all hope Mondo will eventually beat his current best. I certainly do!