[WCA Regulations 2014] Mean of N for FMC

[Forte]

You surely got a valid point there. What I dislike about this, is that this focusses on the ranking only. But the ranking for Mean of 3 in FMC is just a secondary result of the format being added in order to provide fairer conditions in FMC, especially for major competitions, which is the main point of the whole thing. How would you ensure that Mean of 3 is used as the format at a competition when fairer conditions are needed, i.e. because some title is given away?

I skimmed through the regs, so I might have missed something, but doesn't the same argument apply to all those events with "Best of X"? Like if an organizer really wanted, they could just make 3x3 Finals at Worlds a "Best of 1" round. It seems like the standard right now is to have many options available and leave them to the organizer's discretion, instead of limiting the options so that the organizers are forced to choose the "fairer" option.

 

[keemy]

Could you just elaborate on how you use to check your solutions please?

That's how I do that and I'm sure this is the easiest and safest way to make sure your solution is correct:

1. Take a solved cube
2. Apply the scramble
3. Apply the solution
4. If the cube is solved, then your solution works.

I cannot and will not believe that you performed such a check ~20 times with a positive result and that your solution was still wrong.

Yes that is the process I used to check my solution. I mean I can't force you believe me but that's what happened.

Like, I'm not even mad about that or anything, I just think the statement that FMC is the easiest event to not DNF is blatantly false just based off the format of the event, in speedsolving you can see your puzzle solved, the only room for error I see is if you have a hard time differentiating colors and maybe you are off by a (U2L2)*3 or something similar. But in FMC to verify you have finished a solve you have to apply a 20ish move scramble then your solution (20~35 moves lets say) and ensure you have written it down legibly and with no small mistakes. This is clearly harder than ensuring you have completed a speedsolve, if you want to disagree with me on this then arguing with you is pointless.

 

[Kit Clement]

Because we have preferred formats and the change from issue #109 for a reason. Given two formats that take the same resources, there should be a consistent one that the competitor should expect to encounter.

To reiterate: In this case, there is a significant argument that the two formats don't take the same resources, but *apart from that* I'm uncomfortable with making this the organizer's choice.

What if Mean of 3 were the default, but Best of 3 could be an option only with Board approval? That way we can be sure that the organizer is using Best of 3 for scheduling reasons rather than personal preference.

 

[Sebastien]

Yes that is the process I used to check my solution. I mean I can't force you believe me but that's what happened.

I can try to believe you, but that must have been a massive failure then.

Like, I'm not even mad about that or anything, I just think the statement that FMC is the easiest event to not DNF is blatantly false just based off the format of the event, in speedsolving you can see your puzzle solved, the only room for error I see is if you have a hard time differentiating colors and maybe you are off by a (U2L2)*3 or something similar. But in FMC to verify you have finished a solve you have to apply a 20ish move scramble then your solution (20~35 moves lets say) and ensure you have written it down legibly and with no small mistakes. This is clearly harder than ensuring you have completed a speedsolve, if you want to disagree with me on this then arguing with you is pointless.

There are apparently some things that you miss, like puzzle defects leading you to exceed the time limit or timer malfunctions. It is indeed pointless to discuss about this though. I don't think there is an objectively correct answer for this, because personal preferences are a big factor.

 

[uberCuber]

I skimmed through the regs, so I might have missed something, but doesn't the same argument apply to all those events with "Best of X"? Like if an organizer really wanted, they could just make 3x3 Finals at Worlds a "Best of 1" round. It seems like the standard right now is to have many options available and leave them to the organizer's discretion, instead of limiting the options so that the organizers are forced to choose the "fairer" option.

I believe you are correct, as Ctrl+F-searching "Best of ", "Mean of 3" and "Average of 5" didn't lead me to any regulation that would actually prevent them from making Worlds finals be Best of 1. Didn't even think about this, great point. So in this case, my initial idea of leaving FMC Bo3 vs. Mo3 as a judgment call to be made by the organizing team should be perfectly valid, unless Sebastien also thinks we should add regulations to deal with all the other events as well.

EDIT: Oh yeah there is the guidelines page too. There, 9b+) says "The preferred format for the final of an event is "Average of 5" or "Mean of 3", if possible." But "preferred" isn't exactly a strong word, so there is still nothing in the regs actually preventing Worlds 3x3 finals from being Best of 1.

 

[cubizh]

I skimmed through the regs, so I might have missed something, but doesn't the same argument apply to all those events with "Best of X"? Like if an organizer really wanted, they could just make 3x3 Finals at Worlds a "Best of 1" round. It seems like the standard right now is to have many options available and leave them to the organizer's discretion, instead of limiting the options so that the organizers are forced to choose the "fairer" option.

I believe you are correct, as Ctrl+F-searching "Best of ", "Mean of 3" and "Average of 5" didn't lead me to any regulation that would actually prevent them from making Worlds finals be Best of 1. Didn't even think about this, great point. So in this case, my initial idea of leaving FMC Bo3 vs. Mo3 as a judgment call to be made by the organizing team should be perfectly valid, unless Sebastien also thinks we should add regulations to deal with all the other events as well.

EDIT: Oh yeah there is the guidelines page too. There, 9b+) says "The preferred format for the final of an event is "Average of 5" or "Mean of 3", if possible." But "preferred" isn't exactly a strong word, so there is still nothing in the regs actually preventing Worlds 3x3 finals from being Best of 1.

There's a guideline that addresses that specific point.

EDIT: Obviously Ninja'd

I believe preferred is used in the sense of "to use generally unless under specific conditions/exceptions priorly approved by the Board" (?)

 

[TMOY]

I cannot and will not believe that you performed such a check ~20 times with a positive result and that your solution was still wrong.

IMHO it's a case of cognitive dissonance: there's, say, a U in your solution but for some reason you think it's a U', so you write down U'; when you check your solution, you still perform your U thinking "U'", and since you get a solved cube, you have no reason to corrrect the faulty U' on your written solution. Yes it sounds weird, but it happens.

 

[BaMiao]

IMHO it's a case of cognitive dissonance: there's, say, a U in your solution but for some reason you think it's a U', so you write down U'; when you check your solution, you still perform your U thinking "U'", and since you get a solved cube, you have no reason to corrrect the faulty U' on your written solution. Yes it sounds weird, but it happens.

I understand this completely. I'm getting flashbacks to the days of doing problem sets and not being able to figure out where I made a mistake because I'd make the same mistake every time I redid the problem.

 

[Carrot]

You failed at checking

(At the other two, the three FMC attempts were divided into two rounds (best of 2 then best of 1, so no mean for anybody there, granted.)

I actually did check those competitions, I'm stupid, just forget that post. I'm stupid...

 

[Noahaha]

IMHO it's a case of cognitive dissonance: there's, say, a U in your solution but for some reason you think it's a U', so you write down U'; when you check your solution, you still perform your U thinking "U'", and since you get a solved cube, you have no reason to corrrect the faulty U' on your written solution. Yes it sounds weird, but it happens.

Protip: Check the inverse of your solution. I used to make that mistake.

 

[Sebastien]

I believe you are correct, as Ctrl+F-searching "Best of ", "Mean of 3" and "Average of 5" didn't lead me to any regulation that would actually prevent them from making Worlds finals be Best of 1. Didn't even think about this, great point. So in this case, my initial idea of leaving FMC Bo3 vs. Mo3 as a judgment call to be made by the organizing team should be perfectly valid, unless Sebastien also thinks we should add regulations to deal with all the other events as well.

EDIT: Oh yeah there is the guidelines page too. There, 9b+) says "The preferred format for the final of an event is "Average of 5" or "Mean of 3", if possible." But "preferred" isn't exactly a strong word, so there is still nothing in the regs actually preventing Worlds 3x3 finals from being Best of 1.

I will not conceal that I still have some doubts about this, but in sum you convinced me:

https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/150

 

[Worms]

I don't like Mean of 3 format, I was second easily...

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=MolinaOpen2014&allResults=1#333fm

 

[Methuselah96]

I don't like Mean of 3 format, I was second easily...

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=MolinaOpen2014&allResults=1#333fm

How did you DNF your other two solves (just out of curiosity)?

 

[Worms]

No
I was second
I'm Alexandre Toledo

Javier Cabezuelo and Alexander Olleta are much better than me (I have never practiced fewest at home), but I won them because mean of 3 format allow it.

 

[Methuselah96]

No
I was second
I'm Alexandre Toledo

Javier Cabezuelo and Alexander Olleta are much better than me (I have never practiced fewest at home), but I won them because mean of 3 format allow it.

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying that you should have been second. Do you know how Javier and Alexander DNF'd their other 2 solves?

 

[Worms]

(Sorry, my english is very bad )

Javier Cabezuelo had a mistake writting his solution (he forget an ').
Alexander Olleta had a solution but the time finished, he can't copy the solution.

The second solve, I don't know why they had a DNF.

 

[Tim Major]

Your English isn't bad. I could tell it's not your main language, but it's readable.

 

[okayama]

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying that you should have been second. Do you know how Javier and Alexander DNF'd their other 2 solves?

Javier Cabezuelo had a mistake writting his solution (he forget an ').
Alexander Olleta had a solution but the time finished, he can't copy the solution.

The second solve, I don't know why they had a DNF.

I think the second scramble is hard. You can see all three scrambles here.

This was my first comp for Mean of 3 FMC, and that (I must not have DNF) put me under pressure, especially after 40 min on the second attempt. Mean of 3 is surely different from Best of 3, and I (and also other all competitors) should change the strategy for time-management depending on the format. Maybe all participants (including me) were not well-prepared for it.
Hopefully I will get a better result next time.

 

[Tim Major]

I think the second scramble is hard. You can see all three scrambles here.

This was my first comp for Mean of 3 FMC, and that (I must not have DNF) put me under pressure, especially after 40 min on the second attempt. Mean of 3 is surely different from Best of 3, and I (and also other all competitors) should change the strategy for time-management depending on the format. Maybe all participants (including me) were not well-prepared for it.
Hopefully I will get a better result next time.

I feel similar about 3bld. Before, depending on your goal (comp podium, personal/regional records) you had two strategies.

Go super fast on all 3 attempts (going for records)
Go safe on first solve to guarantee podium. Rush next two.

Now, if you want the mo3 record, you need to go a combination of safe+fast on all 3. You're far less likely to break a single record.

You basically have to decide "do you care more about a mo3 record or a single record?" because if the single record is very competitive, you can't go for both.

Personally I don't care much about mo3, so I'll continue my safety attempt->super rush the solves after a success. But if one of the fastest bldsolvers in a region have my approach, "2nd best" solvers can go for the mo3, for a semi shallow record.

I feel this change, and the change to fmc definitely change the overall approach to the event.

Marcin Zalewski has the 3 fastest 3bld singles
https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...gionId=&years=&show=100+Results&single=Single
Yet he's 5th in the world for mean...

 

[EMI]

I feel this change, and the change to fmc definitely change the overall approach to the event.

I don't think this really changes the approach of FMC. You still try to get as few moves as possible on every single try, the only difference is you don't want to get a DNF. But it really is not hard to not DNF an FMC attempt imo.