[WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed: Alternative formats for 3x3x3 BLD

[Radu]

Shortly. The proposal is to change the format of 3x3 bld event from "Best of 2/3" to "Average of 5 (Best of 2/3)"

First of all, I am not a bld cuber so my interest in adopting this is 0. I just heard some time ago some bld cubers mentioning about this as being a good change. I think a discussion on this would be useful.

- 3x3 bld solves have become much faster nowadays and an "Avg. of 5" format would be more suitable. Also, it is probably the most interesting event for the public and making it a bit longer would be only benefical for us (speedcubing publicity).
- We can always set a limit for Best of 2 for 2min, 3min etc. The "worst" competitors will only do 2 solves, like now, while the best, obviously 5 and get an average too.
- Swtiching to "Avg. of 5" might lead to slower times, but more successes as the competitor will want to get the average.
- The only cons I see is that the competitions will become a bit longer due to this. Still, having this format, the event wouldn't be longer than a megaminx or 7x7 event. So it's not really impractical.

Sebastien said that Avg. of 5 is impractical for bld and he thinks that we should switch to "Best of 5". My opinion is that this is good too. More bld solves, the better. He obviously speaks from a blindfold cuber point of view, so his solution might be better. It's up to you now, the blindfold cubers, to share your thoughts on this topic.

 

[Kirjava]

Yeah, Best of 5 is a much more sensible proposal.

Topic title change please?

 

[Hippolyte!!!]

I think organizers could have the choice to host more blind attempts, 5 seems good to me, but avg of 5 is definitely not a good idea, because of the unfairness that would involved: a verry good blinder who can get times very better than the others at a comp could often only solve successful 2 cubes, and he would be last? It isn't possible. Even tough the success rate is important, I think it can't be more than time.

 

[TimMc]

Does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time?

Should an average format be introduced to distinguish competitors who can consistently and quickly solve blindfolded from competitors who are less consistent?

Enforcing strict time limits in other speedsolving events forces competitors to DNF and filters for fast and consistent competitors.

Tim.

 

[Tim Major]

Best of up to 5, and you have 15 minutes total?

 

[Escher]

How about best of 2/3 going up to 5, with average being calculated through mo3 fastest successes?

In competitions where time for only 3 attempts is possible this may change the meta slightly - but those that can afford 5 will probably see more BLD cubers able to go all-out.

Edit: to clarify - best of 5 for definite please <3 If there is no agreement on the different possible solutions for the average suggestion then it should just be left for discussion throughout 2012 and implementation in 2013.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I changed the title, but unlike Kirjava, I think there's room for discussion as to possible formats. This should work well enough.

I see Escher has already suggested an interesting alternative, which makes me like my title even better. No point in stifling ideas.

 

[Kirjava]

Best of up to 5, and you have 15 minutes total?

Leave time limits up to comp organiserz plz.

22:48 <+Kirjava> you know what the one thing
22:48 <+Kirjava> that will stop the BLD format being changed
22:48 <+Kirjava> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS?
22:49 <+Kirjava> LACK OF AGREEMENT
22:49 <+Kirjava> "I WANT X FORMAT"
22:49 <+Kirjava> "WELL I WANT Y FORMAT"
22:49 <+Kirjava> "WELL I WANT Z FORMAT"
22:49 <+Kirjava> "LOOKS LIKE WE HAVEN'T AGREED ON ANYTHING YET LETS CHANGE FOR NEXT YEAR"
22:49 < trolo> Kirjava: pshh I never said I disagreed
22:49 <+Kirjava> if everyone goes for best of 5
22:50 <+Kirjava> and agrees that that is a good idea
22:50 <+Kirjava> it has a chance of working.

If people suggesting formats could also say what other formats they would be happy with, that would be peachy.

 

[hcfong]

Does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time?

What do we mean by superior? It's the average that determines your ranking in a competition, but it's the single times that people remember, because that's what they can see on the display. Ask any speedcuber what Feliks 3x3 single WR is, and he will almost certainly without hesitation answer 5.66. Ask what the average WR is, and chances are that they can't answer that question without looking up the WCA rankings. So, does the community consider an average to be superior to a single time? According to the regulations, yes, but informally and socially I think a single time is considered to be superior by the community.

 

[Kirjava]

As far as averages for BLD go;

BLD and speedsolving are seperate things. You're attempting to treat BLD like speedsolving when it is entirely different.

 

[Dene]

I'm open to a best of 5 format, although if we were to do this at an Australian competition I would have a cutoff of maybe 1:30 or 2 minutes in one of the first two solves. This way slow people are filtered out, and fast people can do a safety solve or two, then have three or four fast attempts.

 

[Cheese11]

I don't think an average would work, what if the person got two DNF's?

 

[macky]

We've argued against average before.

 

[hcfong]

in terms of going for a best of (up to) 5, that's already been allowed for by the current regulations (9d), which names 'best of x' as the possible and preferred format for BLD. So if we're going for a best of 5, which seems to be the consensus, there is no regulation change necessary, as far as I can see.

 

[Kirjava]

in terms of going for a best of (up to) 5, that's already been allowed for by the current regulations (9d), which names 'best of x' as the possible and preferred format for BLD. So if we're going for a best of 5, which seems to be the consensus, there is no regulation change necessary, as far as I can see.

9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.

 

[hcfong]

9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.

Sorry, you're totally right. I withdraw my comments.

 

[cubeflip]

I propose that competitions have a choice of how many attempts a competitor is given, with a max of 5. Not individually, though.

So a competition could have Best of 1, Best of 2, Best of 3, Best of 4, or Best of 5. (with cutoff times, if decided so by the organizer)
for example: Best of 5 if the sum of the first three times (DNF or success) is <15 minutes

 

[kinch2002]

I'm onboard the best of 5 train. I don't feel strongly for it, but I see no harm in allowing it, so sure

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

I remember a point made a while ago which I liked. Something along the lines of having an average format makes sense, since single and average are almost like different events. People who want to go fast go for single and risk DNFs, and people who want to be consistent go for average. I support best of 5 format, but with an average/mean result calculated if they have enough successes.

 

[EeeeeWarne]

Averages are a bad idea, but allowing up to best of 5 is fine, although organizers can still use best of 3 or 2 if they have a small amount of time.

9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 5) attempts, with the best attempt counting. There may be a combined time limit, example: 30 minutes for 'Best of 1' or 'Best of 2'.