What constitutes a lucky solve?

[amateurguy]

Ok...I used the search function and I didn't find anything related to this topic besides the thread discussing about personal super-lucky scrambles. (Sorry if there is another thread!)

Well, I'd like to know what really would count as a lucky solve or a non-lucky solve. Because, I keep track of my personal record and when I get a fast time that beats some previous time, I wonder whether it should be recorded as a non-lucky or a lucky record. I understand that if you skip a step in your usual method, that's a lucky solve but I'm not too sure of the exceptions. I got these definitions from speedcubing.com:

1) You worked for it, f.i. by anticipating the next step.
2) The chance to skip the step is 20 percent or more.
3) The skipped step represents 3 percent or less of the total moves of the complete solution.

Ok, if I'm not mistaken, working for it also means using a different algorithm from your norm based on the current situation to skip a step on purpose. But I have absolutely no idea how to calculate whether the chance is 20 percent or whether it represented 3 percent etc.

Can anyone clarify this? Better yet, can anyone tell me the exceptions for my method:

Cross --> Intuitive F2L (4 steps) --> 4-look LL (EO --> CP --> CO --> EP)

So, does that mean if I use a more advanced step (i.e. 2-look LL), the chance for me to get a 'lucky' solve will be less (as I don't skip small steps like EO etc.)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Radu]

i'm also waiting for an answer to this question from an "expert" .
my opinion: for fridrich..a lucky solve is when you completely skip oll or pll. if you only skip EO for example..i don't think that's lucky. anyway...i'm also looking forward to hear some other opinions

 

[ExoCorsair]

http://www.speedcubing.com/records/records-rules.html

#3

 

[LarsN]

Not being an expert or anything I would say that skipping a step in your method (any step) would be a lucky solve. For edge permetuation you will get a solved state 1/12 times, a lot less then 20%. For edge orientation you will get a skip 1/8 times (I think) which is also less then 20%. I think the numbers are pretty much the same for corners, but I'm not completely sure. And remember that f2l is a single step and I've never heard of anyone having a f2l-skip.

And for the 3% rule, I would estimate that you solve the cube using 70 moves on average. Which means a step of 2 turns could be skipped without the solve being lucky. None of your steps can be done i only 2 steps.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (any experts here today?)

 

[Radu]

i think i get it wrong...if i get any of the oll cases where the edges are oriented correctly does it mean that's lucky? any of these cases? http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=3x3x3/cfop/oll/ollcasealledgesflippedcorrectly
i don't think so...i find it weird

so..after finishing the f2l (excluding the case where you skip f2l..lol) you'll get one of the...oll 57 cases...why would be one luckier than another, since all have algs with an average of 12 moves.
so..if i get a C Shape and solve it => i finish the topp face, so i move on to pll, which will be solved with another alg
where am i missing the point?

 

[Lofty]

Because before you guys were talking about 4LLL and now you are bringing in 2LLL. When you learn enough algorithms to orient everything in one step no matter what orientation you get (save for the completely oriented state which is the only lucky case) you are still using one algorithm so you aren't skipping any steps so it isn't lucky...

 

[h3ndrik]

you are skipping a step, when you are doing a 4 look last layer and after the f2l you have one of those olls with edges already oriented. with doing a 2 look last layer this isn't considered a skip.

 

[LarsN]

I think the "lucky system" only looks at the steps of your method. This means you will get a lucky solve if the edges are oriented and you have edge orientation as a single step (which will then be skipped). If you use oll as a single step your solve will not be lucky if the edges are oriented. It's only lucky if its a complete oll skip.

 

[jeff081692]

I had 5 PLL skips in the past 24 hours. I would think that is lucky.
EDIT:make that 6 skips

 

[Radu]

oh...i got now everything...in fact this is what i was also thinking, i guess it's somehow a subjective point of view.

but as an observation...in a competition don't think the referee, or anyone knows if you know full OLL and PLL, or if you usually solve it with 4LLL. so i think a lucky case will be considered a full OLL or PLL skip ( excluding F2L cause i don't think anyone will get this ...ever )

 

[joey]

Having a lucky case in competiton doesn't make a difference.

 

[Radu]

Having a lucky case in competiton doesn't make a difference.

but can a lucky case (oll/pll skip) be considered a world record..will it be taken in consideration?

 

[Foxpapa]

Having a lucky case in competiton doesn't make a difference.

but can a lucky case (oll/pll skip) be considered a world record..will it be taken in consideration?

Look at the new world record By Erik : It's a PLL skip ...

 

[clincher]

Having a lucky case in competiton doesn't make a difference.

but can a lucky case (oll/pll skip) be considered a world record..will it be taken in consideration?

Look at the new world record By Erik : It's a PLL skip ...

exactly what I was going to say

 

[Radu]

ok. i saw yesterday the other thread in the "speedcubing section" i didn't pay too much attention to it. i just checked the wca site.
anyway..if for the officials doesn't matter if it's lucky or not, why should this count for us?

 

[AvGalen]

People do thousands of single solves at home. The chances are much higher that you get a very lucky solve at home compared to getting it at a competition. It would be very bad if people used their lucky solves at home to give an indication of their skills. For me, my lucky single solve is 16.69. My best average in an official competition is about 25.5. Which gives the best indication of my skills?

 

[Radu]

i totally agree with you , but for the same reason i wonder if it's right to consider a lucky solve an official record

ps-i don't have anything against erik or any other ex-world record holder

 

[Johannes91]

i wonder if it's right to consider a lucky solve an official record

We don't even have a good definition for "lucky" solves.

 

[masterofthebass]

If you look, the avg requirements for the UWR allows "lucky" solves. There is no way that anyone would look into removing a time due to the fact that it was a PLL skip. There is also no standard for telling that a skip was actually a skip, unless that person who solved it made the announcement. I don't think there will ever be a way to constitute removing a solve from the records. For UWRs the "non-lucky" tagline just assures that the best people are at the top. I have a PB of 11.67, which isn't that great, but my best avg is 16.9x. I haven't been to a competition in 4 months, and my official average is a horrendous 25 (no offense Arnuad!), so my official average doesn't really represent my skills. This also applies for almost every other puzzle. That's what the unofficial rankings are for. They're for people who don't get to make it to competitions, to show they're abilities, not lucky solves.

 

[AvGalen]

Most judges at competitions have enough trouble recognizing a good solve and a +2 solve. At worlds, some people got DNF-ed after a +2 solve

And I judged one of Eriks other solves at the Dutch Open. He finished F2L, waited a second before starting his regular OLL and than did a 1 look last layer instead by using a different method for the last layer (time: 13.10). How would a judge ever rule if that was lucky or not without knowing Erik personally like I do?