Why wont Kilominx w/others become an event?

[Hazel]

I'd love to see that, the argument I've heard against it is time, mostly scrambling. I've figured out a basic design for a mechanical scrambler that could likely be built for <$100, and alleviate that problem (although it would still likely take 2-3 minutes to execute a full scramble), but that hasn't been built yet. One good thing about gigaminx is the lack of parity means that it shouldn't be a problem to base rankings on single times.

It probably would have to be a single-time event, considering the scrambling...

 

[One Wheel]

It probably would have to be a single-time event, considering the scrambling...

Mostly I Just want a stickerless magnetic gigaminx, sculpted or ridged of course, and I doubt that will happen if it's not an official event.

 

[Sion]

Here are puzzles I hope to someday become an event (actual new puzzles)

-Kilominx (It is easier than mega, but is isn't as trivial in my opinion.)
-Master pyraminx (PLEASE)
-Astrolabacus (Don't ask me why. I just think it would be a fascinating event.

 

[CornerCutter]

I agree that Master Pyraminx would be awesome!

 

[xyzzy]

One good thing about gigaminx is the lack of parity means that it shouldn't be a problem to base rankings on single times.

I don't understand this reasoning.

Parity contributes a significant amount of variance to a square-1 solve for people who don't use CSP/CPP, so yeah, square-1 singles for non-CSP/CPP users is silly. On 444, parity is almost irrelevant unless you're super consistent with everything else. On 555 and up it contributes basically nothing to the variance. (I crunched the numbers for this a while back, but disclaimer: I might be remembering wrongly, and I don't know if my performance is representative of others'. This is all assuming intermediate-level alg sets like L2E are used.)

For any puzzle beyond 444, getting lucky with parity is not fundamentally different from getting lucky with centres/edge pairing, except that it's often one of the last things you do in a solve and so it's the part you remember most vividly; the part you attribute good/bad times to. The easiest litmus test is to plot a histogram of your solve times for a puzzle with parity (squan, big cubes, even-order minxes): if it doesn't look multimodal, parity probably matters less than you think it does.