[WCA Regulations 2014] Mean of N for FMC

[Julian]

I like the idea for championships, but not in general. I know that it has been mentioned that the FMC Mean rankings "wouldn't mean anything," but I still don't like having formats appear on a WCA profile that are so rare, as a significant amount of competitors simply wouldn't have the resources to attend a competition where an FMC Mean of 3 is offered.

Since awards can be given at the organizer's discretion, why not simply award the winners based on Mean of 3? I know the WCA competition results page will not reflect the actual award winners, but I think at a major championship with large prize money at stake, this will be the competitors' main goal rather than appearing on the WCA page.

I like this. Or maybe the competition results page could sort by best mo3, and display the mo3s, but not actually have mo3 results come up on competitors' pages/rankings pages?

EDIT: or maybe just in the missing averages section.

 

[AvGalen]

So the first competition with Mean of 3 was held this weekend. It proved just how bad this Mean-of-3 idea is:

What Sebastien said would happen: Good solvers would not be pushed down by lucky solvers (true) and the results will be a better representation of the skills of people (this is false)
This is what actually happened:
New system;
1 30,00 Sébastien Auroux
2 30,33 Marcel Peters
3 32,67 Jan Bentlage
4 51,00 Leon Schmidtchen
5 52,67 Willi Mickein
6 DNF Andreas Pohl
7 DNF Laura Ohrndorf
8 DNF Heike Zbierski
9 DNF Adrian Lehmann

Old system;
1 27 Sébastien Auroux
2 29 Marcel Peters
3 32 Jan Bentlage
6 36 Andreas Pohl
7 43 Laura Ohrndorf
4 48 Leon Schmidtchen
5 49 Willi Mickein
8 56 Heike Zbierski
9 DNF Adrian Lehmann



The ranking for the top cubers would have been exactly the same with the old and the new rules
The ranking for the mid-level fmc-ers changed. They became bottom level fmc-ers because of DNF's
The ranking for the low-level fmc-ers change. They became mid-level fmc-ers because they got 3 solves.

This is what Sebastien said: FMC is the event where you are least likely to have a DNF if you pay attention to time and writing. For the top that turned out to be true but not for the middle-class
The amount of DNF-results is much bigger than normal, as is expected

This is what Sebastien said: This will not influence the results because of "safety solves". Yet he and the top 3 got worse results than normal. Apparently all scrambles were really hard. But then the difficulty of the scrambles seems to be what influences the results and not the luckyness

Also, the poll was about ADDING mean of 3 as an option, but in reality mean of 3 has now replaced best of 3 so we now basically have 2 different FMC events:
Best of 1 and Mean of 3: You need to solve all attempts, so you have to show up for all solves to get a ranking, maybe do a safety solve, cannot make a single error in writing it down or do anything else that would cause a bad result or DNF
Best of 2: This is suddenly still like the old event, where you can choose to skip a solve (because you have to catch a train or can't make it on a Friday-night) or can have a DNF but still win the event.

I couldn't make this competition on Friday, so I had no chance of getting into the ranking for FMC. Because of that I also choose not to do the 3rd solve on Saturday morning, although I love FMC.

Sebastien keeps saying that there is lots of community support for this, but I claim he has tunnel vision and didn't listen or even respond to most of the comments in this thread. Especially the ones about there never having been 3 attempts at a major competition (quite the opposite actually, most competitions with 3 attempts were small and some specialised for FMC and some (co)organised by him) and the different approaches to allow for a DNF. He keeps saying that he wants to make it more in line with blind and 666/777 but those are not events that are taking 3 hours and spread over several days. He should compare FMC to bigblind and there a single is what counts and DNF's are acceptable.

The retro-active awarding of records has no support as far as I have heard. Not even by people that got some of those WR's!

If it looks like I am personally attacking Sebastien that is partly true because it was his suggestion and support for this proposal that made it all happen. I strongly believe he is misrepresenting facts (asking about adding a format but instead replacing a format) and that is not acceptable for a man in his position.

I believe this rulechanged (and many others that are off-topic here) was "for the few, by the few" and not "for the people, by the people". It changed my view of the WCA from a group of fun-loving-hard-working-volunteers to a dictatorship

 

[Stefan]

the first competition [...] proved

You've got to be kidding.

The retro-active awarding of records has no support as far as I have heard. Not even by people that got some of those WR's!

I support it.

And it's consistent with the retro-active acceptance of old multiblind results as new multiblind results.

 

[qqwref]

Wow, really interesting post Arnaud. It's very cool to see how a change like this actually influences results. A few things I have comments about:

you can choose to skip a solve (because you have to catch a train or can't make it on a Friday-night) [...]

I couldn't make this competition on Friday, so I had no chance of getting into the ranking for FMC. Because of that I also choose not to do the 3rd solve on Saturday morning, although I love FMC.

Does this mean that even with these European competitions that manage to hold three solves of FMC, they are still not done in one round, but rather spread throughout the competition? It seems crazy to me to consider something a single round, and take a mean, when the solves are on different days. Especially since, as you said, many people are not present for the entire competition. A round of any other event would not do this.

Especially the ones about there never having been 3 attempts at a major competition (quite the opposite actually, most competitions with 3 attempts were small and some specialised for FMC and some (co)organised by him) and the different approaches to allow for a DNF.

Being used to 3-FMC-attempt competitions seems to only really exist in Asia (specifically China and Japan) and western Europe. The only person outside Europe/Asia to ever complete an FMC mean was José Garrido of Chile, who was the single FMC competitor at a Peruvian competition exactly a year ago. (I wonder what was the situation behind that - very weird to give someone 3 attempts and not have anyone else who's interested.)

I'm sure the number of FMC means will increase in 2014, but I think at the moment the people who want FMC means form small groups concentrated in a few areas of the world. The majority of serious cubers who regularly attend competitions have never done an FMC mean, and maybe have never even been to a competition which offered it.

 

[AvGalen]

You've got to be kidding.



I support it.

And it's consistent with the retro-active acceptance of old multiblind results as new multiblind results.

I am not kidding of course. I meant the normal human being meaning of proved, not the mathematical meaning. You can call it a wrongly oversimplification if you want. However I would appreciate a response that is more content based. Just because of 1 word the content of my post doesn't change and there is a lot in there that addresses the issues.

I am unhappy to hear that you support them, but that makes 1 now. I am very interested why you think that is a good idea but maybe that belongs in another topic? Even Sebastien told me that he didn't really like them. So did everyone else I asked about it at that competition. I would like to compare it with highjumping. That is also a sport where you get a fixed amount of attempts and only the best result counts. Participants use that knowledge and then determine a strategy that might include trying a height, skipping another and then trying for the best (all-or-nothing). I don't think anyone would consider it a good idea to change the preferred format for that to "the average height of all your jumps and if the bar wobbles and falls of your entire result is DNF" and "also, we calculated who would have had the best average in the past and made those WR's"

Answer to qqwref: 3 solves are mostly done in 1 round, but spread over multiple days (this weekend it was 2 on Friday-night and 1 on Saturday). However there have also been comps where there were 3 solves in round 1 on Saturday and 3 in round 2 on Sunday. Or a comp where round 1 is only 1 solve and round 2 is only 1 solve on the same day. Basically it is done "whichever way is legal, suits the organiser and delegate and fits the schedule". Because of this variety and the fact that best of 3 is only rarely held it makes no sense to me that suddenly mean-of-3 became the preferred format

 

[Noahaha]

I think it's too early to say anything about frequency of FMC means because they were only just introduced. I think that the fact that they exist means that more of them will happen. For example, if an FMC mo3 does not show up in New England within the next six months, I will happily include it in the next competition I organize. I'm sure other people feel the same way. There was simply no reason to do it before.

EDIT: However, I strongly believe that the infrequency of FMC means in pre-2014 competitions is grounds for not counting retroactive WRs in FMC. 3BLD ones make a little bit more sense because people have always been doing 3BLD means, but I don't think it is good to have so many records where the people setting them did not know that anything was at stake.

 

[tim]

So the first competition with Mean of 3 was held this weekend. It proved just how bad this Mean-of-3 idea is: [...]

What Sebastien said would happen: [...]

This is what Sebastien said: [...]

This is what Sebastien said: [...]

I don't think it's fair quoting Sébastien after just one(!) competition with nine(!) competitors and trying to disprove his statements based on that extremely low sample size.

 

[Bob]

I'm sure the number of FMC means will increase in 2014, but I think at the moment the people who want FMC means form small groups concentrated in a few areas of the world. The majority of serious cubers who regularly attend competitions have never done an FMC mean, and maybe have never even been to a competition which offered it.

Quite an understatement. I've been to more cube competitions than almost anyone else in the world, but not a single one of them offered 3 FMC solves. I agree that it is easy enough to avoid DNF in FMC (just look at my results), but I still find mean of 3 in FMC to be ridiculous because no event should take 3 hours for so few people. There are better uses for time. Even at LSC 2013, it took less time than this for 135 competitors to compete in 3x3.

I think it's too early to say anything about frequency of FMC means because they were only just introduced. I think that the fact that they exist means that more of them will happen. For example, if an FMC mo3 does not show up in New England within the next six months, I will happily include it in the next competition I organize. I'm sure other people feel the same way. There was simply no reason to do it before.

EDIT: However, I strongly believe that the infrequency of FMC means in pre-2014 competitions is grounds for not counting retroactive WRs in FMC. 3BLD ones make a little bit more sense because people have always been doing 3BLD means, but I don't think it is good to have so many records where the people setting them did not know that anything was at stake.

There was a reason not to do it before and there's still a reason not to do it now: it takes three freaking hours.

 

[Noahaha]

There was a reason not to do it before and there's still a reason not to do it now: it takes three freaking hours.

I'm just saying that the frequency will go way up because of the regulation.

It's also pretty easy to run FMC alongside other events, given that it only needs one judge.

 

[AvGalen]

I don't think it's fair quoting Sébastien after just one(!) competition with nine(!) competitors and trying to disprove his statements based on that extremely low sample size.

It wasn't just based on this sample, it was also based on historic knowledge. Sebastien basically claims that if you care for FMC and are somewhat decent at it you will not DNF. I think this previous World Record holder has a different opinion: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982RAZO01#333fm
Sebastien also claimed that safety solves are not needed, but yet he needed a 33 moves solution. For most people that is good, but for him we have to go back 40 competitions and almost 70 solves to see him do so badly (ignoring the 6 DNF's in there)

mean of 3 changes the way you have to approach fmc when you compare it to best of 3. That is obvious for blind, bigblind and should be obvious for fmc as well. Making it the preferred format is absurd. Giving retro-active world records is absurd. Having this rule so suddenly implemented and implemented differently than suggested (replacing best of 3, not adding best of 3) by a board member that feels robbed of his 2013 WR-title reflects horribly on the WCA

I don't think I have ever been to a competition that has FMC running alongside other events. It is certainly possible, but that would mark it as a freak-event (like bigblind) and that is certainly not what we would like to accomplish. Having it run for 3 hours is a choice of the delegate. If someone wants to organise 3 rounds of best of 3 fmc that is fine by me but don't expect a lot of people to come to that comp

 

[Bob]

I'm just saying that the frequency will go way up because of the regulation.

It's also pretty easy to run FMC alongside other events, given that it only needs one judge.

Yeah. The problem is that it excludes those competitors from those events. Keep in mind that almost every competition held in North America is a one-day competition. Even the ones that have had FMC as a Best of 2 typically (maybe always? I'd have to double-check) did it over more than one day.

 

[uberCuber]

Yeah. The problem is that it excludes those competitors from those events. Keep in mind that almost every competition held in North America is a one-day competition. Even the ones that have had FMC as a Best of 2 typically (maybe always? I'd have to double-check) did it over more than one day.

I was about to say this as well. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like there are a whole lot of people (especially in NA) who care enough about FMC and care little enough about other events to want to give up their ability to compete in multiple other events just to get their FMC mean.

 

[Noahaha]

Yeah. The problem is that it excludes those competitors from those events. Keep in mind that almost every competition held in North America is a one-day competition. Even the ones that have had FMC as a Best of 2 typically (maybe always? I'd have to double-check) did it over more than one day.

I think it's fair to offer a trade off for something that takes as long as FMC, especially if we're offering 3 solves. The people who really want an official FMC mo3 will be happy to give up two or three events that happen way more often than FMC.

I was about to say this as well. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like there are a whole of people (especially in NA) who care enough about FMC and care little enough about other events to want to give up their ability to compete in multiple other events just to get their FMC mean.

It depends on what the other events are. If they are Megaminx, Clock and Square-1, then I am sure that plenty of people will not care. I guess I have a different perspective because I get to compete often and only care about a few events, but I would give up anything that is not BLD in order to do a FMC mo3.

 

[uberCuber]

It depends on what the other events are. If they are Megaminx, Clock and Square-1 then I am sure that plenty of people will not care. I guess I have a different perspective because I get to compete often and only care about a few events, but I would give up anything that is not BLD in order to do a FMC mo3.

Yep, I realized the perspective issue a few seconds before you edited in this comment. I was basing my statement off my own mentality of having comps be a special thing where I need to take every opportunity seriously (a mentality that still persists despite the increased number of comps I can get to now that I'm in California), but I can see how someone who has easier access to a larger number of comps wouldn't necessarily feel this way.

 

[Stefan]

I meant the normal human being meaning of proved, not the mathematical meaning
[...]
Just because of 1 word

If I had wanted to complain about the word "proved", then I would have only quoted that. But I also quoted "the first competition", did you think I did that with some extra effort (the two parts weren't together before, I brought them together using "[...]") just for fun? The point is that it's utterly ridiculous to take a single small competition and pretend it is representative for the general case, at least for many of your arguments.

It wasn't just one word, I even quoted four, and those four summarized at least half of your post and what's wrong with it.

I am very interested why you think that is a good idea

I am very interested why you think that is a bad idea.

They are/were the best results, thus records, I don't see why we would *not* show that, especially now that we officially have these categories.

I would like to compare it with highjumping. That is also a sport where you get a fixed amount of attempts

I believe this is false. What is that fixed amount?

I don't think anyone would consider it a good idea to change the preferred format for that to "the average height of all your jumps and if the bar wobbles and falls of your entire result is DNF"

Right, in high jumping it would make no sense to me. Because there is no randomness like we have in cubing. Failed analogy.

However there have also been comps where there were 3 solves in round 1 on Saturday and 3 in round 2 on Sunday.

False/misleading. There has only been one such competition.

it makes no sense to me that suddenly mean-of-3 became the preferred format

Why do you say it's the preferred format? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

 

[Stefan]

Sebastien basically claims that if you care for FMC and are somewhat decent at it you will not DNF. I think this previous World Record holder has a different opinion: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982RAZO01#333fm

How many of those DNFs were mistakes, how many times did he give up? (Or does that not matter? I can't tell because I don't quite understand your point.)

Sebastien also claimed that safety solves are not needed, but yet he needed a 33 moves solution.

You make it sound like that's a contradiction, but I don't see it. What exactly do you mean with a safety solve?

we have to go back 40 competitions and almost 70 solves to see him do so badly (ignoring the 6 DNF's in there)

Haha, ignoring the results that don't fit your narrative. Bold step.

Giving retro-active world records is absurd.

Why?

Btw, I don't recall you ever expressing a problem with Minh Thai's record recognized by WCA.

by a board member that feels robbed of his 2013 WR-title reflects horribly on the WCA

Robbed? Did he say that?

But if he did, I guess that's the reason [post=684932]he proposed it in 2011[/post]? He must have a time machine.

 

[AvGalen]

I don't have time to respond to all your questions right now, but I say it's the preferred format because this is in the guidelines:

• 9b+) ADDITION The preferred format for the final of an event is "Average of 5" or "Mean of 3", if possible.

Sebastien didn't say the word robbed, but again that is nitpicking on a word.
Sebastien didn't propose mean of 3 in 2011. He just made a remark that he would love mean of 2 or mean of 3. If you read this thread from the beginning you can see that he actually was in favor of mean of 2 at first. Then this thread died out. Then he reanimated this thread just after not becoming the world champion in Las Vegas. Jimmy Coll, István Kocza, Steven Xu and Devin Corr-Robinett are the reasons we are having this discussion.

(for highjumping the rule is "3 failed ones in a row and you are out". The analogy isn't perfect, they rarely are, but if you have ever seen a bar wobble but stay-in-place/drop you know that luck is a factor and that strategies get adopted to it)

 

[porkynator]

Technical question: what does "preferred format" mean? Can I still organize a competition with a "best of 3" FMC round, if I wanted to?

 

[Erik]

Preferred format is what it describes: the format that is adviced/preferred/the better one (if time and resources allow).

So organizers can choose which one to use. 'Best of x' or 'mean of 3'.
Yes you can use a best of x format, but x can not be 3 anymore.
You can only do a 'best of 1' or 'best of 2' if you want to do a 'best of' FMC round.

 

[mycube]

Then he reanimated this thread just after not becoming the world champion in Las Vegas. Jimmy Coll, István Kocza, Steven Xu and Devin Corr-Robinett are the reasons we are having this discussion.

You know he wasn't the person who remained this thread but I was? Not after the world champs but 4 months earlier after the BW Open and Moritz Karl's ER - the same frustration he had as a good FMCer

And in LV he first had the chance to talk to other Board Members directly