What is considered a "skip"?

[TDM]

New question. I love J perms. They are my fastest PLL. When I get a J perm is it considered "lucky"?

Not by my definition, but by others' definitions maybe.

 

[kinch2002]

Not sure if you at directing that at me , but...



"Full step" is a fact of the solve, is it not?

I was directing it at anyone who wants to listen.
"Full step" is indeed generally a fact, and a much better phrase to use than "lucky solve". There are many solves that are unambiguously full step. However I could find grey area, such as methods without a defined number of steps, or an intentional xcross. Or how about cancelling algs into one another.
That's why I prefer to state the basic facts of the solve rather than try to declare an overall term for the solve. E.g. "I did COLL and I knew it would skip" rather than trying say "I did ZBLL but does it count as ZBLL when actually it's my normal COLL alg? Does the answer to that depend on whether I know full ZBLL? Does that make it a lucky solve? Is it full step if I know ZBLL?"

As I implied before, there's no point keeping 2 single solve pbs - one lucky and the other filtered in some way - because both will mean very little anyway and in fact the line for filtering for "non-lucky" pb could be put in any place so it has less point than the "lucky solve" pb imo.

 

[mark49152]

There are many solves that are unambiguously full step. However I could find grey area

...

As I implied before, there's no point keeping 2 single solve pbs - one lucky and the other filtered in some way - because both will mean very little anyway and in fact the line for filtering for "non-lucky" pb could be put in any place so it has less point than the "lucky solve" pb imo.

Fair comment, I agree with most of what you said. Single PBs don't mean much, but they are memorable. When I get one, I either feel really good about it because I did an awesome solve, or a bit less good because I didn't do all the work I expected to have to and so the result doesn't reflect the same achievement. Meaningless they may be, but they happen, and I remember them involuntarily, rather than "keeping" them by intent.

As for the grey area, I guess it's subjective - as a vanilla CFOP user usually the full step line is satisfactory for me. Occasionally I will get a full step PB single and think "that was a two move cross and two ready made pairs" and feel like it's less "worthy" than my last PB, as Kirjava put it, but my personal choice is to count it as long as it's full step rather than ponder the definition of lucky

Ultimately it depends what your PB means to you. To me it's the answer to the question "what's the fastest you ever solved that thing". My answer is "just over 16 seconds, although once or twice I was even. faster when I got a lucky break and skipped some steps". Others might give their lucky PB, which is fine too.

 

[Rocky0701]

Fair comment, I agree with most of what you said. Single PBs don't mean much, but they are memorable. When I get one, I either feel really good about it because I did an awesome solve, or a bit less good because I didn't do all the work I expected to have to and so the result doesn't reflect the same achievement. Meaningless they may be, but they happen, and I remember them involuntarily, rather than "keeping" them by intent.

As for the grey area, I guess it's subjective - as a vanilla CFOP user usually the full step line is satisfactory for me. Occasionally I will get a full step PB single and think "that was a two move cross and two ready made pairs" and feel like it's less "worthy" than my last PB, as Kirjava put it, but my personal choice is to count it as long as it's full step rather than ponder the definition of lucky

Ultimately it depends what your PB means to you. To me it's the answer to the question "what's the fastest you ever solved that thing". My answer is "just over 16 seconds, although once or twice I was even. faster when I got a lucky break and skipped some steps". Others might give their lucky PB, which is fine too.

If someone asks me how fast i can solve it, i say "My record is: (My PB), but i usually solve it around: (My global average)"

 

[mark49152]

If someone asks me how fast i can solve it, i say "My record is: (My PB), but i usually solve it around: (My global average)"

That's a different question, in answering which I wouldn't even mention my single PB. How fast != fastest.

 

[Rocky0701]

That's a different question, in answering which I wouldn't even mention my single PB. How fast != fastest.

Yes, but my PB single is almost half of my PB ao100, so i just add what my average is because otherwise it may lead them to think that i usually solve faster than i do.

 

[kcl]

Yes, but my PB single is almost half of my PB ao100, so i just add what my average is because otherwise it may lead them to think that i usually solve faster than i do.

That's basically how I respond as well. When they ask what my fastest time is I have no issue telling them my PB single though.

 

[Bindedsa]

You've lost me now.

A PB single is an anomaly by definition. The reason you filter out anomalies, like a skip, is to get a more accurate reading, like one might want in an average. When you filter PB singles, you are getting rid of certain anomalies, only to give yourself an anomaly that just happened to meet your qualifications for a fair solve. This makes your PB singles closer to your average or your anomaly more accurate.

These two examples are really just the same concept - filtering solves to try to mitigate the extremes of luck and make the result a better indicator of performance. Yes the criteria are different, but in both cases they are somewhat arbitrary. I could make a case that filtering non-full-step singles is less arbitrary than filtering times from averages - the best solve deleted from your ao5 might not have been lucky at all, and could have just been an awesome solve.

By getting rid of certain times in an average you stop very fast/slow times from making averages inaccurate, but when you get rid of them to find a PB single anomaly that is closer to your average. The point of filtering the solve in the average is too lessen the affect of anomalies, In mean of 3's one good singles can turn a bad average into a great one, in an average of 5 you have to be at least be able to get a time twice, which means the solve was not too ridiculous or you got ridiculously lucky. The fastest time in an average has to be somewhat lucky, at least when compared with your other times. Maybe it didn't make your move count low, but just seeing everything so that you don't have to pause is lucky, because you do not do that often. The only non-arbitrary judge of a time, is the actual time, which is what an average uses.

 

[~Adam~]

6 move cross, 4 x 3 move F2L pairs, FRUR'U'F', H-Perm. 30 turns.

Full step? Yes
Non lucky? No

PBs involve luck. Deal with it.

 

[XTowncuber]

If I'm ever not sure if a solve should be called "lucky" or not I just say "easy" instead of "lucky". It's less ambiguous.

 

[Mr Cubism]

If I have not learned 2 look PLL yet, and know just ONE PLL; the E-permutation (very unlikely though), that means that I have very big luck if the E-PLL comes up (or else I cannot finish the cube) but not so lucky for a person who uses 2 look PLL……..?!

 

[mark49152]

Wow I had no idea the concept of filtering non-full-step single PBs was so contentious.

 

[kinch2002]

Every time I get a PB it's lucky, because most solves aren't PBs. Therefore all PBs are lucky hence the uselessness of the term when describing any type of best solve

 

[mark49152]

Another example of an event where a bit too much luck is deemed an unfair advantage:-

Climatic conditions, in particular air resistance, can affect performances in the 100 m. A strong head wind is very detrimental to performance, while a tail wind can improve performances significantly. For this reason, a maximum tail wind of 2.0 m/s is allowed for a 100 m performance to be considered eligible for records, or "wind legal".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

 

[GuRoux]

Another example of an event where a bit too much luck is deemed an unfair advantage:-

Climatic conditions, in particular air resistance, can affect performances in the 100 m. A strong head wind is very detrimental to performance, while a tail wind can improve performances significantly. For this reason, a maximum tail wind of 2.0 m/s is allowed for a 100 m performance to be considered eligible for records, or "wind legal".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

that's actually very interesting

 

[Logiqx]

Someone who can run 10s at sea level will run about 0.1s faster with a 2 m/s tail wind (i.e. force 1 on the beafort scale).

With a 2 m/s tail wind limit these runners will not see more than 1% improvement in their times. Any more wind assistance and the time is invalid for records / rankings, etc.

We see a much bigger variation in our cube times so I'm not sure much can be taken from this analogy.

 

[Ollie]

I think Kir stumbled on this already, but what does this thread actually achieve?

Most cubers already understand the concept of luck and have already developed a good system for determining whether to call something lucky based from 1000s of solves. For example, OLL/PLL skips are generally luckier than full-steps, skipping stages completely unexpectedly are luckier cases than forcing skips, shorter solutions are generally luckier than longer ones. We also understand that exceptions exist within all of these examples and that skill level plays a big part, and that 'lucky' official solves are widely acceptable since getting lucky isn't a crime. Anyone can get a lucky scramble at any time - it is a part of speedcubing.

I would go as far as saying that most cubers understand this and have the same sort of objective system for determining luck. So why go into semantics?

 

[Rocky0701]

Someone who can run 10s at sea level will run about 0.1s faster with a 2 m/s tail wind (i.e. force 1 on the beafort scale).

With a 2 m/s tail wind limit these runners will not see more than 1% improvement in their times. Any more wind assistance and the time is invalid for records / rankings, etc.

We see a much bigger variation in our cube times so I'm not sure much can be taken from this analogy.

If Mats Valk's WR single was 1% faster it would've been counted as 5.49 instead of 5.55 which could've made a huge difference if the previous record was 5.50.

 

[Logiqx]

If Mats Valk's WR single was 1% faster it would've been counted as 5.49 instead of 5.55 which could've made a huge difference if the previous record was 5.50.

Agreed. 1% can be a big difference when talking about world records but the expected fluctuations in cube times are much higher than 1%. We don't see 100m sprinters who usually get 10 seconds getting an occasionally "lucky" 7 second result.

If you take the times of any 100m sprinter you will find they are very consistent. The standard deviation of a 100m runner would be at least an order of magnitude better than any cuber. I had friends who would spent entire seasons running 11.0 +- 0.1 and their current form dictated their times. Altitude, temperature and track surface all play a bigger role in 100m times than a legal tail wind.

We don't see the same level of consistency in our cube times. I guess the closest thing in the cubing to 100m is something like sexy move x 100 or possibly a PLL time attack. You aim for "perfect" execution at your current skill level.

Luck is a part of cubing but quantifying it in a single solve is highly subjective. Looking back at my notes, I had an easy 18.56s when I was globally averaging 38s with 4LLL (~26s were typically my best singles). It was "full step" but consisted of 3 move F2L pairs, Anti-Sune and U-Perm. I had no lookahead skills but turned fast and the pairs jumped out at me. It was very lucky and stood as my best single for a long time. Whenever I get a "good" time it is easier than I'd normally expect even if it is just easier case recognition.

I'm inclined to say that 50% of my solves easy/lucky and 50% hard/unlucky to some extent.

 

[mark49152]

If you take the times of any 100m sprinter you will find they are very consistent. The standard deviation of a 100m runner would be at least an order of magnitude better than any cuber.

Why does that make a difference? Results still fall into a distribution (probably a skewed bell curve), there is still a best and worst 1%, and there are still factors that make it easier or harder to get a result in the best 1%, regardless of standard deviation.

Likewise sexy move x100. With that you remove variations in the move sequence, which means other factors will become more significant in helping or hindering you get a result at the good end of the distribution.