Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Unofficial World Records"

From Speedsolving.com Wiki
Line 146: Line 146:
  
 
2) 15-puzzle OH is very different than regular 15-puzzle solving, and you'd need 8TPS at the very least to average sub-10 like me. The event is also an official GUINNESS WORLD RECORD event and I was also the former GWR holder.
 
2) 15-puzzle OH is very different than regular 15-puzzle solving, and you'd need 8TPS at the very least to average sub-10 like me. The event is also an official GUINNESS WORLD RECORD event and I was also the former GWR holder.
 +
 +
3) All of my claims towards Soma Cube events have been approved and recognised by GWR and UNISON WORLD RECORDS, so again, I believe this requires no explanation.

Revision as of 20:22, 14 September 2021

Tymon Kolasinski's 4x4 time

The general consensus seems to be that Tymon Kolasinski accidentally executed a 3bld scramble on a 4x4. "L2 R2 D2 U' B2 D2 L2 F2 L2 F2 D R2 L' B' U' B' L2 U2 F2 L2 R2 Rw2 Uw'" is not a scramble that cstimer.net would ever give out for 4x4. Please do not add Tymon's 10.86 as a 4x4 UWR. If you wish to discuss this, please do so here and not in the article. Dancing jules (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

LMFAO who said he used a 3bld scramble, he said he checked it and it was legit. Don't say "the general consensus seems to be", when its just your opinion, im gonna add this time back until you stop.

Have you seen the facebook discussion? It's impossible. He may be lying, he may be in denial, but it IS IMPOSSIBLE! Dancing jules (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I have seen the discussion. Again, he literally checked it. It isn't impossible.

Although the creator of cstimer did say it is technically possible tomgive out the scramble, I think removing the column was the best course of action, just like 3x3 single years ago. Galaxy

Should 3x3 UWR be tracked?

In my opinion, no. It's too controversial, like 2x2 single and ao5. There have been 8 sub-2.8 times that have been claimed by various people, most of these almost definitely fake, but me and the majority of people agree that the 2.82 is legit. Just removing it is the best course of action to stop the controversy. Now, I'm not saying the 2.88 is fake, not at all! If there's anyone you can trust, it's probably Max, just like nobody contests Patrick's 2.99: just that there is too much controversy, for the millionth time! For those who are curious, here are those mentioned sub-2.88 times.

Kim Roger Hoyland Larsen 2.82, Etienne Guay 2.82, Sameer Aggarwal 2.78, Vyacheslav Zhuravsky 2.72, Uranium Cuber 2.71, Etienne Guay 2.65, Etienne Guay 2.62, Anrii Simonov 2.59, andreicuber123 2.36

Galaxy

Can we stop accepting UWRs that have no video footage attached?

I think it's fine if the person is trusted, like Max Park for example. But when it's a random person who claims an UWR, for all we know, they could've just made up their time. Of course, we could just trust the person, but I do not believe trusting is enough. There must be verification and some form of evidence (preferably by video) in order for these solves to have validity. Sure, it's not like there are any WCA regulations or guidelines in place for UWRs, but isn't the most important and obvious thing about claiming timed solves is proof that it actually happened? Imagine if you had the power to submit times solves to your WCA profile without proof. This is comparable to what the UWR page is here.

I think a solution to this issue would be to try an approach similar to what cubers.io has been doing for a while. Where moderators (or even community members!) ask someone who wishes to claim an UWR for verification/evidence of their result. Should the person not have any video of the result, they can be asked to record a solve that would be considered as 'close enough' to their UWR to gain their trust. For instance, if a person claims to have a 30 second 4x4 PB single but did not film it, they could just record a 40 second average of 5, for example, and it would be enough for anyone to believe that their 30 second single is legit. This approach can easily be implemented, by making a thread on the forums and allowing only moderators to have permission to edit this page. Only when the UWR is validated it may be added to the page.

Thanks for reading, and I hope someone considers my idea

Nice idea, but I think it would kinda be a hassle to implement, I'm not a mod so take what I said with a grain of salt. - Just a cuber
I agree, it's a great idea, but we would need people who are willing to moderate the page all the time, which is definitely a lot of work. If anyone really wants to do this, you could PM pjk about it on the forums (since I think that's he's most active on there) and ask him for permission (mainly admin rights for protecting the page) to do this. - RedstoneTim (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

2x2x4 UWR

Earlier today, my 2x2x4 UWR of 4.27 has been broken by someone else with a 3.76. Props to the guy who broke it but i cant seem o find any footage so if anyone can show any "proof" that person broke it, I would be really happy. I ain't saying L don't believe it, I would just believe it more if I found any footage of it. I also need to know if that person used a bandaged 4x4 because I used an actual Rubik's Brand for my UWR. Anyways this is all I need so please find an answer if you can. - [LukasCubs]

After clearing up your vandalism (I hope you didn't do it on purpose, please don't repeat that), I've reverted the current 2x2x4 UWR back to yours as you've supplied video evidence. Usually, I wouldn't do this since I don't actively moderate this page and a video isn't required, but considering that User:Ccubing's account doesn't have any at all and the new record only contains name and time, I've changed it back. This doesn't mean that I don't believe User:Ccubing's record is real, I just want to ensure it's not someone who created an account, added a record and then never replies back, especially because we can't tell if the correct puzzle was used. So in case you read this, User:Ccubing, just answer User:LukasCubes' question here and I'll add your record back. In the meantime, User:LukasCubes' record will be the one displayed on the page. - RedstoneTim (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yo it's LukasCubes. I changed it back becaue I already told like 50 people my record has been broken so ims try to break it again on camera. I did getlike a 4.22 and a 4.09 off cam but that isnt a 3.76. Anyways if you are this, im gonna try to break it again. In the meantime, ima keep it to Zach Nyarko's WR.

Hey it is LukasCubes again. I got my WR back so this topic is pretty much over until somebody breaks it again (probably Zach Nyarko). Even though I was live on facebook and the is linked, PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT!

Guess what, I (LukasCubes) am back for this topic. For the few hours Zach Nyarko had it, he beat my UWR so I would just like to congradulate him. I will let him keep the Ao5 and Ao12 but im taking the single. Again congrats on breaking it AGAIN its nice to have some compitition with stupidly lucky scrambles we both seem to get (mstly me) but Zach if you are reading this, CONGRATS!

Lego Cube

The "Lego Cube" is just the same as 3x3 but with lego tiles, right? In that case there shouldn't be a category for it, but i don't know if I'm missing something about the puzzle

I'm the one who put it there, so I'm biased. But it's under the "Variations of 3x3" section, which has different sized cubes and other challenges. I would say it's definitely more different to solve than a smaller 3x3.

Edit: I'm Frozen Cuber, the most recent WB holder for this event and yes, I do agree with the previous WB holder that the puzzle is indeed a lot harder to speedsolve in comparison to a regular 3x3, since the extended and bumpy times of the Lego Cube would make it significantly harder to turn fast, also owing to the fact that that its corner-cutting is almost non-existent due to the presence of the tiles, making solving times approximately 1.5x slower than on a regular 3x3.

2x2-9x9 Relay

Hey, so I deleted the time from Michał Halczuk for the 2x2-9x9 relay. I did some searching and can't find any posts or videos of it, and it seems weird that he would have gotten the exact same time as Max Park down to the hundredth of a second. Ganc says Michal got it first. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to put it back, but I can only find Max's relay, which seems to be the record.

What is Frozen Cuber doing

I feel it shouldn't be allowed for someone to just say they own over 400 records and put them in, with no actual proof other than pictures of the solved cube next to a timer sometimes. I feel like we should take all their records away

     I completely agree. Some of their "records" had video evidence but they were very obviously fake scrambles or fake solves. I can't even find any of their cubing videos now, and I wonder if they took them down.

Frozen Cuber is the current Guiness World Record holder for 4 events and 90% of his solves are supported with valid proof. Although not all of his solves were caught on cam, he does have valid recons and scrambles to support the claim, attached with appropriate links beside the claim.

The "invalid" records you were referring to are most likely his claims towards minor events like the 1x2x2 and the Corner Twisting Pyraminx, to which both puzzles can be solved within a max of 3 and 4 moves respectively, hence scrambles and video evidence were not provided due to the simplicity of the events.

To the one who asked if the "proof" has been removed, the answer is no. All links are still working and if you'd click on them it'll redirect you to valid sources, whereby all videos and recons and as well as legit scrambles by Twisty timer are still accessible.

Not here to start an argument, but I can assure you that none of my solves are fake. I'm the current Guiness World Record holder for "The Fastest Time To Solve a 4x5 Klotski Puzzle", the "Fastest Time To Solve a 4x5 Klotski Puzzle One-Handed", the "Fastest Time To Solve a Soma Cube" and the "Fastest Time To Solve a Soma Cube Blindfolded", and this is the most legitimate proof that I make my attempts legit and that they are completely valid both on and off cam, as proven by Guinness' recognition.

I understand you'd be confused as to how would it be possible for someone to break 400+ WBs, but if you really don't believe all of the evidence submitted, you can even contact me privately through the links over at the Frozen Cuber page, and I will be glad to answer your questions.

As to why you'd think my solves are fake, I think it's bcs most of my video submissions are in the form of single solves, and not averages. I still can prove it to you if needed, whereby you can reach out to me if you really want a footage of me solving live for multiple solves in a row. You can take my word, and as you can prolly tell from my GWR titles, I'm not the kind of kid who would randomly put his times up here on the page. Just tap on my links for more significant events like the Fisher Cube and the Pyramorphix, and you'll see why I'm not lying.

NEW PERSON: I understand that you may have proof, but still, adding 400 records by yourself seems like it shouldn't be allowed, especially when some of the events you added. I can find a rare cube and get the record on it cause almost no one else does it. the events should be added only if multiple people decide that it should be there, not because one person got the record on it and they want it put on the sheet.

Replying to the response above: I actually agree with you on this, but the 400+ plus records of mine actually consist of single-ao1000s, hence the actual number of puzzles that I've claimed WBs for is closer to 80. But considering I also do OH, BLD, Speed BLD, Double-OH/Simultaneous Solving, MULTI-BLD, Feet, One-Footed and One-Fingered solves, the figure is closer to 50 puzzles from multiple disciplines. And outta those 50 puzzles about 30+ are common and well-known puzzles such as the Fisher Cube, Windmill Cube, Pyramorphix, Gear Cube and so on, with the remaining 20+ being some lesser-known but still mass-produced puzzles such as the Klotski (GWR recognises this, so I'm sure this should be accepted), the 8-Puzzle, the Panda 2x2 and so on.

Point is, I do agree with you that most of my WBs are indeed pretty uncommon, but it's not like I submitted rookie-level result sjust for the sake of claiming WBs. I do in fact practice each and every event for a while b4 making any submissions, to ensure the quality and legitimacy of the results submitted.

But personally, I don't really agree with you on the statement that WBs should only be approved if multiple parties agree on the Approval. For instance, there could be a well-known event with multiple people racing each other towards clinching the WBs for the single, mo3, ao5, ao12, ao50 and even the ao100 for the event, but what if all of a sudden someone like me joins the battle and manages to snatch all the WBs for each discipline? Surely, that'll induce dissatisfaction amongst the previous WB holders, and that'll sure be enough for them to come to concensus that the event should be removed, even when the newly crowned WB holder has legitimate proof to back up their claims.

This basically was the case for me when I claimed all WBs in relation to the Pyramorphix, and that's also how I got ranked #1 on the Global Pyramorphix Solvers Rankings. It's pretty clear that ever since I got all WBs, there wasn't much of a competition for the #1 spot, and thus the rankings kinda went dead soon after.

Point is, I understand that you'll still feel that I shouldn't be trusted even when I have legitimate claims for all of my WBs, but I'll just be honest with you, if you really wanna have these WBs of mine to be taken down, I would suppose that breaking them by yourself would be the best and most convincing way to do it.

NEW PERSON: I feel some of the puzzles you added make sense but there are some things you added that feel like they shouldn't be included. 2 pyramorphinx's doesn't really make sense, unless there are multiple other puzzles with 2 or 3 at a time, but its only 3x3, pyramorphinx, and 2x2 mirror blocks. 3x3 makes sense but the 2 others were made by you. you did include explanation but i feel like just "pyramorphinx is hard lets try 2" doesn't really make sense. also, we can see that you were talking in third person at the start, please don't do that, it seems weird.

Replying to NEW PERSON- The "2-Pyramorphix Relay" is actually recongnised by the Global Pyramorphix Solver Rankings, and you can tap on the link I left to check for yourself. [[1]]

I've been speedsolving the Pyramorphix b4 TheSeppomania even started to post his 4.75s former WB ao5 on YouTube, and I can say that I know why exactly is it hard to speedsolve, let along in a relay. The event is indeed weird, but tbh that's the case for 80% of the WBs in this list, and yet I'm not bothered by claims towards events that are rather less-known such as the Mini Geranium, and even the VeryPuzzle Slip3 by some dude from China.

But still, if you really still want more of an explanation from me, you can simply state the events of mine that you find ridiculous, and I'll be sure to provide a satisfactory explanation.

NEW PERSON: i made a google doc for the more confusing categories, you will see that none of them are by their own, original cubes, as i believe every puzzle deserves to get a spot here, instead, they are either challenges like OH, FMC, feet, or blind, or they are just other puzzles with no extra challenge other than slightly harder grip like the panda 2x2 or the lego cube. i feel the challenges should really only be for wca events or the more common non wca events such as kilominx or the guildford challenge, sorry for taking al here is the list, 4x5 Klotski with Feet 4x5 Klotski with Feet ("Passing Through the 5 Barriers" Layout) 4x5 Klotski with One Foot 4x5 Klotski OH 4x5 Klotski One-Handed ("Passing Through the 5 Barriers" Layout) 4x5 Klotski with One Finger 15-Puzzle OH Soma Cube OH 1x2x2 OH Christmas Tree 1x2x3 OH Corner Twisting Pyraminx OH 2 Pyramorphixes 2 2x2 Mirror Blocks Asymmetrical Cube Panda 2x2 YuanFang 2x2 Pillowed Pyramorphix Corner Twisting Pyraminx Lego Cube Bubble Cube Concave Cube Button Cube 2x2 OH Real Man's Average of 5 Pyramorphix Real Man's Average of 5 Ivy Cube Real Man's Average of 5 2x2 Mirror Blocks Real Man's Average of 5 4x5 Klotski Real Man's Average of 5 4x5 Klotski Real Man's Average of 5 (w/ the "Passing Through the 5 Barriers" Layout) Snake Cube Real Man's Average of 5 DUTCH Snake Cube Real Man's Average of 5 Corner-Twisting Pyraminx Real Man's Average of 5 Mini Gear Cube PLUS Mini Rubik's Twist Mini 4x5 Klotski Pyramorphix FMC Ivy Cube FMC Christmas Tree 1x2x3 Speed BLD Corner Twisting Pyraminx Speed BLD Rubik's Twist BLD Soma Cube BLD Soma Cube OH BLD 4x5 Klotski BLD 4x5 Klotski BLD ("Passing Through the 5 Barriers" Layout) 4x5 Klotski OH BLD 4x5 Klotski w/ One Finger BLD 1x2x2 Speed BLD Christmas Tree 1x2x3 OH Speed BLD 1x2x2 OH Speed BLD Corner Twisting Pyraminx OH Speed BLD Rubik's Clock Team BLD (Blindfolded Cuber, Direction-giving non-cuber)

Replying to NEW PESRON: Well this is indeed quite a long list, so ig I'll start providing the explanation then.

For all of the Klotski events, the results have been verified and approved by Guiness World Records and as well as by UNISON WORLD RECORDS based in Finland. (Links to the sources are available in the UWR List)

An 81-move solution executed in 9s using one finger isn't a "slight challenge", as it's most likely that getting a sub-10 with two hands would already be tough for those who have no experience in speedsolving the puzzle, so I suppose there really is no further explanation needed for my claims towards the Klotski events, as like I said, they've already been approved and recognised by GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS and UNISON WORLD RECORDS.

2) 15-puzzle OH is very different than regular 15-puzzle solving, and you'd need 8TPS at the very least to average sub-10 like me. The event is also an official GUINNESS WORLD RECORD event and I was also the former GWR holder.

3) All of my claims towards Soma Cube events have been approved and recognised by GWR and UNISON WORLD RECORDS, so again, I believe this requires no explanation.