Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.
Let's say that you like screwed up your Pll and your time goes wayyyy off. Can you just stop the time randomly during the solve and accept the DNF? Does that mean that your worst time from your 4 will count as that one?
To add a bit to what TDM said, never do this. Please. Unless you've completely exploded your cube, always finish the solve. It's always possible to have a timer fail later on, which would give you a dnf average. A bad average is better than no average at all.
To add a bit to what TDM said, never do this. Please. Unless you've completely exploded your cube, always finish the solve. It's always possible to have a timer fail later on, which would give you a dnf average. A bad average is better than no average at all.
To add a bit to what TDM said, never do this. Please. Unless you've completely exploded your cube, always finish the solve. It's always possible to have a timer fail later on, which would give you a dnf average. A bad average is better than no average at all.
Someone will probably eventually make the statistic of highest percentage of successful 3x3 solves (# non-DNF / total # of solves), so it would probably still be a good idea to take a very slow solve over another DNF.
To add a bit to what TDM said, never do this. Please. Unless you've completely exploded your cube, always finish the solve. It's always possible to have a timer fail later on, which would give you a dnf average. A bad average is better than no average at all.
Someone will probably eventually make the statistic of highest percentage of successful 3x3 solves (# non-DNF / total # of solves), so it would probably still be a good idea to take a very slow solve over another DNF.
If someone did that, there would be a lot of 100%s from people with very few comps...
(unless you mean as a statistic on the WCA website - I was thinking something in the stats request thread - in which case you're right)
(Now I just need a good name for solves+DNFs+DNSs, preferably one that strengthens the usage of "attempts" for solves+DNFs (because solves+DNFs+DNSs could be called "attempts" as well))
[NOPARSE]SELECT personId, Solves+DNFs Attempts, solves/(solves+DNFs) 'Solves[%]', Solves, DNFs, Competitions
FROM
(SELECT
personId,
sum((value1>0)+(value2>0)+(value3>0)+(value4>0)+(value5>0)) Solves,
sum((value1=-1)+(value2=-1)+(value3=-1)+(value4=-1)+(value5=-1)) DNFs,
count(distinct competitionId) Competitions
FROM Results
WHERE eventId = '333'
GROUP BY personId
HAVING DNFs) tmp
ORDER BY 3 desc, 2 desc
LIMIT 101;[/NOPARSE]
Someone will probably eventually make the statistic of highest percentage of successful 3x3 solves (# non-DNF / total # of solves), so it would probably still be a good idea to take a very slow solve over another DNF.
But someone might take a statistic for a competitor's average of all solves (not counting DNF/DNS), so in that case, the competitor should just take the DNF.
I was just about to be an advocate of stopping the timer during a bad solve (I'm sure a lot of people have got frustrated during a terrible solve and just stopped the timer on the spot)
But then I saw I'm very high on your list with 308/309 solves correct.
That 1 DNF was a J-Perm I mistook for a PLL skip btw :/
But someone might take a statistic for a competitor's average of all solves (not counting DNF/DNS), so in that case, the competitor should just take the DNF.
True. These stats are competing, and one cannot go for both when in an average with at least 2 DNFs already and in a solve that is going poorly. It comes down to what the competitor values, that is minimizing total number of DNFs or minimizing their global average.
I read the entire WCA regulations the night before my first comp, and I never had to ask a question ever again. It doesn't take long, and will benefit you a lot. The only reason I'm saying this is because I've noticed you've asked this a couple of times already, including making a new thread, so please just read the regulations.
It's interesting, because deliberately DNFing was brought up recently (I'm pretty sure it was only amongst the delegates, can't remember), and Lucas Garron seemed extremely opposed to it, almost to the point where he was thinking of changing the regulations to prevent it. I thought that rather odd, as I much prefer to DNF a horrible solve than have the time on my profile. I don't care if that means getting a DNF average.
I would rather get horrible times than have a DNF. I think the point of competing in competitions is to successfully solve puzzles, so purposefully DNFing for any reason other than a major explosion would be against the reason for competing.
After I broke my wrist last spring, I was constrained to only using one-hand for solving Rubik's cubes. I still attended Dixon Spring 2014 and did all my events one-handed. I got a 36 average for 3x3 even though I average sub-20.