[WR2][WR3] Kyeongmin Choi FMC Single: 17 and Average: 21.00

[OtaMota]

First 17 mover since 2021!

 

[siwoo]

Yay kyeongmin!

 

[bldcuber314]

Wow. Nobody else seemed to get anything close to him on that scramble but most got their best single. Big FMC records can only be broken on some scrambles, even with optimal solutions, but I guess you could say the same about events like 2x2.

 

[bcube]

Big FMC records can only be broken on some scrambles, even with optimal solutions

It's not clear to me how WCA can claim "fair and equal conditions for all competitors".

 

[OtaMota]

It's not clear to me how WCA can claim "fair and equal conditions for all competitors".

I think it is fair in the sense that the scrambler is unbiased towards who gets the good scrams.

Definition of Fair: impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination.

From Oxford

 

[bcube]

I think it is fair in the sense that the scrambler is unbiased towards who gets the good scrams.

Why do we need to distinguish between good and bad scrambles if all scrambles can be equally good/bad for everyone?

Definition of Fair: impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination.

My point exactly, why are some competitors discriminated if fair and equal conditions can be set for everyone? Why do we currently punish a solver who performed equally good/optimal solution?

 

[fes_77]

ANOTHER 21 FMC MEAN RAAHHHHHHHH

 

[bldcuber314]

Why do we need to distinguish between good and bad scrambles if all scrambles can be equally good/bad for everyone?



My point exactly, why are some competitors discriminated if fair and equal conditions can be set for everyone? Why do we currently punish a solver who performed equally good/optimal solution?

How are all 200,000 people in the WCA going to get the same scramble? All scrambles cannot be equally good/bad for everyone.

 

[bcube]

How are all 200,000 people

I am only talking about the 3x3x3 Fewest Moves event.

in the WCA going to get the same scramble?

Assuming by the same you mean fair, by providing a scramble requiring 18 optimal moves to solve the cube, as outlined in this post.

If that's not an option, then by changing the ranking system - rewarding "harder" scrambles more, not the other way around, while keeping a theoretical chance of getting (tieing) the WR on every attempt, just like it is in any other WCA event.

All scrambles cannot be equally good/bad for everyone.

Please provide arguments for your statement. So far I haven't seen any.

 

[bldcuber314]

I am only talking about the 3x3x3 Fewest Moves event.



Assuming by the same you mean fair, by providing a scramble requiring 18 optimal moves to solve the cube, as outlined in this post.

If that's not an option, then by changing the ranking system - rewarding "harder" scrambles more, not the other way around, while keeping a theoretical chance of getting (tieing) the WR on every attempt, just like it is in any other WCA event.



Please provide arguments for your statement. So far I haven't seen any.

1. After hitting 18 records will no longer be able to drop. There'll end up being a whole bunch of people tied for WR. For your second idea about the proportional system, there are still lots of tied record holders.
2. Not all 18 movers are as hard to find, meaning some scrambles are still luckier than others.
3. It would make the event too complicated and is no longer 'finding the shortest solution to a Rubiks Cube'.
4. Nearly every event has an element of luck, so why remove it for FMC only?
If you have any more points, we should use the thread you created in February because we're getting in the way of the actual thread.

 

[bcube]

bldcuber314, I think I made my point earlier. In order to prevent running in circles, consider this to be my last post on the topic (unless, of course, relevant arguments are given to the discussion).

After hitting 18 records will no longer be able to drop.

So? What is the problem here? You can't get lower then mathematically lowest possible.

There'll end up being a whole bunch of people tied for WR.

So? What is the problem here? Equal results will be ranked equally.

For your second idea about the proportional system, there are still lots of tied record holders.

So? What is the problem here? Equal results will be ranked equally.

Not all 18 movers are as hard to find, meaning some scrambles are still luckier than others.

I don't care how lucky the scramble is as long as fair scrambles are given to all FMC competitors.

It would make the event too complicated

The event would be exactly same as is now, only the ranking system would be changed in order to stop discriminating vast majority of competitors.

and is no longer 'finding the shortest solution to a Rubiks Cube'.

The shorter solution a competitor finds, the higher he will be in rankings.

Nearly every event has an element of luck, so why remove it for FMC only?

I don't see how comparing, say, 6-mover to, say, 16-mover is not luckier for a 6-mover. I don't have a problem with that as long as ranking system is reflecting that.

 

[bldcuber314]

I don't think people will be very interested in an event where scrambles are filtered, a bunch of people have WR and most big records can mathematically be no longer be broken. Also, experienced FMC solvers have most likely all received a 16 mover- an 18 mover is only 29 times more likely to appear than a 16 mover. Tronto was the only one who took advantage of this. Maybe when most world class solutions(not just their best ever) are optimal, this would make more sense.

 

[IsThatA4x4]

I don't care how lucky the scramble is as long as fair scrambles are given to all FMC competitors

Scrambles are generated the way they are because they are (effectively, barring states requiring very few moves to solve) random state. To do what you're suggesting would require scrambles to be filtered to a given optimal movecount. If by fair scrambles you mean that we don't allow sub 20 movecounts as 20 is the highest possible optimal count, then you are only keeping 500 million or so of the 43 quintillion possible states you could get, which is incredibly non-random. I'm assuming you have different requirements for what you consider a fair way to generate scrambles to be, so I guess the question is how do you define a fair scramble?

 

[bcube]

If by fair scrambles you mean that we don't allow sub 20 movecounts as 20 is the highest possible optimal count, then you are only keeping 500 million or so of the 43 quintillion possible states you could get, which is incredibly non-random.

In my example above I have chosen 18 as the highest probability (cca. 67%) of all random positions.

I guess the question is how do you define a fair scramble?

A scramble every competitor could theoretically get/tie a WR with (as in any other WCA event). It depends rather on a ranking system if fixed optimal move count is not set for scrambles.

 

[cubenerd74]

It's not clear to me how WCA can claim "fair and equal conditions for all competitors".

FMC is held under fair and equal conditions because everyone has the same chance of getting 16 movers (or any other movecount).

 

[JDAW6]

A scramble every competitor could theoretically get/tie a WR with (as in any other WCA event). It depends rather on a ranking system if fixed optimal move count is not set for scrambles.

Then there isn’t no reason to get good at the event, any unskilled person could get wr ez then.

 

[OtaMota]

I feel like the proposal is based on a notion that the best FMCer can be found by single. If you look at what they average, not just a set of 3 solves, but say the average of all their results in the last 12 months, you can find the best FMCer without luck influencing it.