# Geneva Open 2008



## mati rubik (Nov 9, 2008)

new world records:

2x2 single twice!! 1.36 by Chambon (8 mov solve) and Erik in the same cube 0.96, the same solve

2x2 avg by Edouard Chambon

congratz!!


----------



## ShadenSmith (Nov 9, 2008)

Wow. Just, wow.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Nov 9, 2008)

oh wowee.... 

my EXACT words were very close to shadens.
it was.

"Wow... OH WOW"


----------



## pjk (Nov 9, 2008)

A couple others got 1.xx solves on the same scramble. It was only a matter of time before a simple 2x2 scramble came up again.


----------



## Kian (Nov 9, 2008)

i agree with shaden.

i have no words.


----------



## Escher (Nov 9, 2008)

lol i got a 6 move solution in the UK Open and completely failed to utilise it at all. i got so excited i locked up massively and got a 4.13. still, nobody else seemed to see it and i got second best solve of the comp...
anyway, well done erik and eduoard!


----------



## TMOY (Nov 9, 2008)

Don't forget Sheriff who got what's probably the fastest solve with a +2 penalty ever. I am jealous


----------



## Zava (Nov 9, 2008)

at hungarian open, we had a 8 move EG case as scramble (white was already done, with an adjacent swap) we asked for another scramble because we found it easy...
anyway, congrats Erik! világrekord!


----------



## Erik (Nov 9, 2008)

lol lucky lucky, but hey.. luck is not a crime 
Scramble #2 of finals: F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F
Solution: x2 U R' U' R U R' U'
hint: got to know your sexy moves to see what will happen in inspection...

Can't say I'm proud of it, was too easy, but at least I'm the first person to get WRs on all of the cubes now 

Actually Arnaud and me were very sure it was 8 moves, but apparently it was only 7? But it was 8 moves! But actually it wasnt....??

Did you know?

Erik and Arnaud are still talking in English although they are alone and at Arnaud's place now?
Switzerland has no mountains when it's dark outside? But a lot when the light is on?
People in Switzerland drive too.....strict to the rules?
Swiss gas is cheap?
Swiss alcohol is Expensive? (with a captical E)
About everything else in Switzerland is also expensive?
Empty parking places in Switzerland occur less often than a sub-10 on 3x3?
We (Arnaud, Sébastien and Erik) arrived at Svens place at 1:30?
Sven was not even there?
Instead of that a French guy opened the door???? (clement)
Swiss are known for their good clocks but not for their punctuality?
This is because we were running 3 hours behind on schedule?
Kate Voegele makes good music? (click to check myspace)
We did an average of 5 listening to it? (the whole album!)
We also played Luther Vandross once?
Other artists that came by were Offspring and.. well just Offspring? 
Arnaud has a LOT of music on his iPOD?
Erik couldn't find much GOOD music on it though?
Erik will now make a list for Arnaud with artists he considers good?
You should check out these results of Arnaud and Charlie?

(bold are the averages)
(Germany 2008) Arnaud van Galen 18.25 *25.53* Netherlands 25.71 26.66 24.21 18.25 26.77 
(Germany 2008) Charlie Cooper 21.84 *25.53* United Kingdom 24.41 21.84 24.59 30.09 27.58 

(UK open 2008) Charlie Cooper 21.59 *23.81* United Kingdom 21.59 21.75 24.53 25.16 27.84 
(Geneva open 2008) Arnaud van Galen 21.13 *23.81* Netherlands 21.13 22.11 23.90 26.93 25.41 

Speaking of a equal marriage...


----------



## Waynilein (Nov 10, 2008)

I couldn't come to this competition, but hopefully I'll be able to go to the Swiss Open in January... I'd love to meet some of you guys IRL ^^.




Erik said:


> People in Switzerland drive too.....strict to the rules?



Pretty much everything, not just driving 



Erik said:


> Other artists that came by were Offspring and.. well just Offspring?



Offspring is awesome. Offspring is AWESOME.


----------



## philkt731 (Nov 10, 2008)

any videos?


----------



## Doudou (Nov 10, 2008)

Erik, you're right, that's 7 moves. Is this scramble the official scramble ?

About videos, someone (Fédérico I think) recorded the best time of the comp (my 10.52), that's all that I know.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 10, 2008)

Arnaud seriously what the hell! We keep getting the same averages!!


----------



## Erik (Nov 10, 2008)

Doudou: yeah, I made a picture of the scramble with my cam to post later on


----------



## Laetitia (Nov 10, 2008)

Did you know...

I wake up earlier during the week-ends than during the week ? (my train on saturday was at 7 am...) ?
My megaminx solves in the train from Lyon to Geneva were sub-1:30 and without pop, and my solves at the competition were sup-1:30 and with a pop on the last ?
I popped 3 times in the semifinal of 3x3x3, with a cube that never pops ?
I went to Geneva with 2 megaminxes, and went back from Lausanne with 4 ?
Now I have to break in 3 megaminxes so I have to teach people in my school how to solve a megaminx ? 
It was difficult to scramble 2x2x2 in the final because everybody not in the final wanted to see the second scramble and try it?
We were late, so at the end on the competition : "Well, I have to take the last train to Lyon.... 45 minutes ago, I think I will stay in Switzerland tonight" ?
Finally, I stayed at Sven's place, with Clément, Arnaud, Sebastien, Erik and François ?
We asked Sven to practise clock, because he is Swiss and it would be normal if Swiss were good at clock  ?
The organisation of this competition will count for the "maturité" (which is the Swiss equivalent of A-level, or High-school diploma) of the organisers ! ? (I'm jealous, I want that cubing competitions count for my master)


----------



## Rosson91 (Nov 10, 2008)

i recorded some videos...i'll upload them on my youtube channel soon....
I enjoyed myself very much!


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

Laetitia said:


> I went to Geneva with 2 megaminxes, and went back from Lausanne with 4 ?


I went to Switzerland with four megaminxes and came back with four. But not the same four 
Now I own seven megaminxes of six different types. Laetitia, I'm better than you in at least one thing involving megaminx


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

Laetitia said:


> Did you know...
> 
> ...
> The organisation of this competition will count for the "maturité" (which is the Swiss equivalent of A-level, or High-school diploma) of the organisers ! ? (I'm jealous, I want that cubing competitions count for my master)



I think they did a sufficient job, but it could have been so much better if they would have been more "present". I missed a seperate competitors area, time-control and judges just to name a few.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 10, 2008)

They already had big problems with the computer... And I think they did their best. 
That was their first competition ever, and that can explain few things...

Another big problem was how hard it was to find judges and scramblers. And the organization team did his best to find some people.

Another great thanks to Clément. I think he deserves the WR to "Most help given during a competition".


----------



## joey (Nov 10, 2008)

CharlieCooper said:


> Arnaud seriously what the hell! We keep getting the same averages!!



What are you guys doing :|


----------



## Zava (Nov 10, 2008)

Erik said:


> lol lucky lucky, but hey.. luck is not a crime
> Scramble #2 of finals: F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F
> Solution: x2 U R' U' R U R' U'



wow, that was just a first step of guimond on orange-red faces (if scrambled like U=white, F=green) without auf!
I'd do it like z' R U' R' U R U' R'.


----------



## sheriff (Nov 10, 2008)

I am 4th in the finals (Manuel) and appear to be the 6th with a better average than 4th and 5th!


----------



## Ron (Nov 10, 2008)

> I am 4th in the finals (Manuel) and appear to be the 6th with a better average than 4th and 5th!


OK, corrected


----------



## shelley (Nov 10, 2008)

Laetitia said:


> It was difficult to scramble 2x2x2 in the final because everybody not in the final wanted to see the second scramble and try it?



???
Nobody besides scramblers should have access to the scrambles until the competition is over.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 11, 2008)

I was scrambling too (in fact I spent half of the 2^3 finals scrambling and the other half judging); everybody was so excited about this scramble that it was really impossible to tell people to go away from the scrambling table...


----------



## shelley (Nov 11, 2008)

Impossible? Where were the tournament officials? Did they see any of this going on? Only scramblers should be seeing the scrambles. They certainly shouldn't be made accessible to others while the round is in progress.


----------



## pjk (Nov 11, 2008)

To anyone at the competition who competed in 2x2 finals:
Did any of you know that one of the scrambles was really easy before going to solve it? Was the word already going around about a 7 move scramble before most people solved that scramble?


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 11, 2008)

shelley said:


> Laetitia said:
> 
> 
> > It was difficult to scramble 2x2x2 in the final because everybody not in the final wanted to see the second scramble and try it?
> ...



The competition or the event?
And where does it say this in the WCA-rules?

PJK: I didn't see Edouard solving any 2x2x2, but after he did his 1.3x time he raised his arms and attriacted attention to his WR. I didn't know which solve it was done on, which method or which color. All I knew was that Edouard did a really good solve. A while after that I was called to the stage for my solve. I immediately saw a 7 + 5 move layer by layer solution. A second later I saw the 7 move "inverse sexy move" solution, told the judge that it would be a much better solve than the first one because I really liked the scramble, smiled and did a 1.6x solve.
At that moment people noticed that one of the first scrambles was easy, but still no-one knew which scramble and how or why. One or two others did the second scramble, but didn't see the 7 move solution.
Then Erik got on the stage, solved the 2x2x2 in sub 1 and then everyone pretty much knew that the second scramble could be done very fast. However I don't think any of the other competitors (except Sherrif) profited from this knowledge. Sherrif was doing his solves later than most others and might have had more information. He did a 1.00 solve with a +2.

Also, both Edouar, Erik and me were convinced it was an 8 move solution for some reason. We still don't know why we all thought it was.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Laetitia said:
> ...



4b. Seriously, I would expect you'd be familiar with the rules.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 11, 2008)

Bryan said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


I am familiar with the rules, that is why I asked. To be precise, 4b says:


> Puzzles must be scrambled using a computer-generated random scramble sequence or scrambled position, that must be kept secret for all but the scramblers.


It doesn't say anywhere "until the competition is over" or "until the event is over".
In this competition a computer-generated random scramble sequence was used (not a scrambled position). 4b states that "that" must be kept secret for all but the scramblers. "that" refers to the "computer-generated random scramble sequence". As far as I know, nobody except the scramblers saw "that". I think what happened was that some spectators were shown the result of the scramble though which isn't really against the rules (I agree this is dodgy).

What should be important is "can it be proven that anyone had an unfair advantage" and as far as my personal solve was involved, the answer would be no.


----------



## pjk (Nov 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Laetitia said:
> ...


Ah, okay. That is what would be expected.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

pjk said:


> To anyone at the competition who competed in 2x2 finals:
> Did any of you know that one of the scrambles was really easy before going to solve it? Was the word already going around about a 7 move scramble before most people solved that scramble?



Everybody knew it, except me, because I was the first to solve. The order of solving decided who gets the WR. (i tried the scramble again after 2x2 finals in competition conditions, i did not remember the moves, just i knew i'll get a skip for sure, and got 0.88).

I think that was too weird to be validate by the WCA, and too unfair.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 11, 2008)

shelley said:


> Impossible? Where were the tournament officials? Did they see any of this going on? Only scramblers should be seeing the scrambles. They certainly shouldn't be made accessible to others while the round is in progress.


We were really late, the organisers were too busy trying to finish the competition in time to worry about such a minor problem. What matters is that none of the competitors has unduly seen them.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 11, 2008)

Doudou said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > To anyone at the competition who competed in 2x2 finals:
> ...


No it didn't. The order was 1.3x, 1.6x, 0.9x, 1.00+2.

If you would order them by age (ignoring the +2) it works perfectly. I guess you and I are just to old Edouard


----------



## jazzthief81 (Nov 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I am familiar with the rules, that is why I asked. To be precise, 4b says:
> 
> 
> > Puzzles must be scrambled using a computer-generated random scramble sequence or scrambled position, that must be kept secret for all but the scramblers.
> ...



Haha, seriously! That's blatantly taking the mickey with the rules. It's not because you used a computer generated scramble sequence to get to the scrambled position that the scrambled position shouldn't be kept secret. It would have been fine to show the scrambled position to the competitors, then?

From what I hear, people just got suspicious after the reactions from the spectators and other competitors from the same round. I don't think this is something you can avoid. The main thing is that no real information about the scramble was passed on.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

jazzthief81 said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I am familiar with the rules, that is why I asked. To be precise, 4b says:
> ...



The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Nov 11, 2008)

Doudou said:


> The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.



... but you would have told the WCA it was unfair that you beat the WR and not have it validated, right?

Well than we should just completely abandon the 2x2x2 single WR since there is no fair way of beating it in the current conditions.


----------



## DavidCalvo (Nov 11, 2008)

jazzthief81 said:


> The main thing is that no real information about the scramble was passed on.



As far as I have been told (first hand information) at least one of the competitors already knew the SOLUTION of the solve before starting, and he was practicing and kidding about getting the WR and then getting the solve-time cancelled because of the cheat.

Difficult to take an overall decission, anyway.... Personally I'd cancel the whole event, since some rules seemed to be violated...


----------



## jazzthief81 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidCalvo said:


> jazzthief81 said:
> 
> 
> > The main thing is that no real information about the scramble was passed on.
> ...



Now, that's bad!  For me that makes it totally not done to accept the results of this round and that would be unfair because Edouard deservedly got the average WR.


----------



## DavidCalvo (Nov 11, 2008)

Of course Edouard deserves his WR average! I have no doubts on it.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

jazzthief81 said:


> Doudou said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.
> ...



Well... That's hard to say. As soon as I finished my cube, I went to Clément and told him that we should delete this scramble. He told me that it already happened and most of the people thought that the scramble should have been kept. 

Let's forget this (what is still called a) "WR".


----------



## Erik (Nov 11, 2008)

Doudou said:


> The fact that someone broke the WR before you go is more than a main thing on 2x2. If was 75% sure it was LL skip, but if someone would have had a 1.xx before, I would have forgotten the other 25%.



That makes no sence at all, basically you would not be allowed to cheer or show your time to other competitors after a solve because they would know there is possibly easy scramble somewhere if you want to prohibit that.

Fact is that nobody (except maybe Sheriff) knew anything about the solution of the scramble or the number of it. It was weird that Sheriff solved that scramble after everyone was almost like done with 2x2. 

To add something, I don't even think scrambles like this should be taken away. This if for several reasons. 

One of the reasons is that there is probably at least one in 5 scrambles on ALL tournaments which can be solved in 7 moves. It's not a coincidence only 3 (well maybe 4 if you include Sheriff) people saw and did the 7 move solution. It has to do with the ability to look ahead and your knowledge about 2x2.

2nd of all, rules say that we should have random states of scrambling. This was a random scramble. Lets not make this a new thread discussing about trying to prohibit 'lucky scrambles' it's done before and will not add anything else than that we have another agreement in the end that the rules about scrambling are good as they are.

3rd of all, if you forget about my 2nd argument. There were already done solves with the scramble. If you want to take it out (which is not even allowed by the rules now I think) you should do it before you give people the scramble.

Finally one thing to add: 
It's just the 2x2 single record! I mean: come on! Everyone knows it doesn't say anything about skills, besides maybe your ability to look ahead a bit.

The very last thing I'd like to say to Doudou: with all respect, you sound a bit childish. After Arnaud did a 1.xx you didn't complain about anything and you cheered a lot when you did the WR, you didn't say anything about deleting the scramble then (and of course it shouldn't be). Only after I did a better time you started muttering about that the scramble should be removed. Also with phrases like 'lets forget about this "WR"' is somewhat unapropriate. I'm the first to say it's not meaning anything about skill, but in my opinion it is not apropriate to say such things.


----------



## Laetitia (Nov 11, 2008)

Erik said:


> It was weird that Sheriff solved that scramble after everyone was almost like done with 2x2.


It was because he used the same 2x2x2 than Alejandro Aguado.

If I believe wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Cube, about 8% of the positions of the 2x2x2 can be solve in 7 moves or less.
So, it's not something rare. (OK, the 7 movements are not always R and U).
The problem with deleting scrambles is : where is the limit?


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't think you really know what happened so in this case, you should just not say anything.

Just read what has been written before. Clément and I talked about this scramble and if it must be kept or not. And even before that Arnaud or you or everybody else solved it. The matter is not to know if the scramble must be taken away or not. Clément and I decided to keep it.

I was talking about fairness between competitors. Ok, that's just a single, only matter of luck. I know. The goal is to change/improve the regulations in a good way. But you can not see that and just look after your record.


End of the discussion.


----------



## Erik (Nov 11, 2008)

Sorry but I won't listen to a command of not speaking since this a free forum.

Besides article:_
A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check. _

Which is a weird article since it would require skill from the judge (not delegate) and is how it seems only ment to not give people a cube which is seen as scrambled when there is only done an accidental U move on it.

There is only this which would legalise a remove from the scramble:
_
11d)If the WCA regulations are not fully clear or if the incident is not covered by the WCA regulations, then the main judge must make his decision based on fair sportsmanship, after consulting the WCA delegate._

You didn't do this (delete the scramble) and it's good you didn't. It would not be possible to back up the story of a lucky scramble. I assume you knew this and is together with the opinion of others the reason why you didn't delete the scramble.

I would like to see a rule in the regulations about the posibility to delete scrambles. Also with the addition of the posibility to delete one after the scramble was already used. I will ask Ron about it this weekend if he doesn't reply here (I know Ron is a busy man ). Also it should be more clear what the exact regulations are about messages other people can get from any scramble.

You will hopefully see that I'm not after keeping my record, personally I don't care that much about that record (though of course I don't want to lose records just like you don't want to use records I assume. I'm in favor of making clear rules about this just as you are. 

I'm only against the fact that you, being a WCA delegate are whining and almost made decisions based on the wrong things, namely your emotions, your feeling of injustice. Also I'm against your attitude with a tone like 'shut up because you don't know anything and just want to keep your record and don't care about the rest, listen to me because I'm a delegate'. This is at least how you are sounding to me at the moment and also how you were sounding to me at Geneva. I hoped you were more mature than that, WCA didn't make you a delegat for nothing I assume.

I am not the only one who shares the feeling about the bad opinion about the incident from a delegate.

I'm not whining because you have a lucky scramble that partially made your average record possible and I don't want people to forget your record which you deserved a lot.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

I think it was clear when the competitor was talking and when the deleguate was.

I mean, I, as deleguate, decided with Clément to keep the scramble. If you have any problem with what I did as deleguate, tell me in private. And don't talk about I almost do or did, because it has no sense and is so useless... And tell me which incident you had with me as deleguate. You are right when you say that my emotions wanted to delete the scramble immediatly after doing it. But as you can see, you and others could solve it. 

In this topic I gave my feelings, so I talked as a competitor. Of course there was no way to delete the scramble once everybody did it, because such a decision must be token by the WCA. That's not the first case, and some scrambles already have been deleted (I'm thinking to two cases when it happened).

For the rest, I don't really care, and it does not matter. I can feel i find unfair how things happened and tell it. You can feel it's fair and tell it. It's not necessary to be so aggressive. I would prefer to see the whole round deleted, because, as a competitor, i found it really weird. Even if I lost this WR. That's my opinion. And I can understand you feel differently. 

But I don't know the opinion of the WCA. Again, don't be so aggressive. I was not telling "end of the discussion" as "I am right and you are not" but as "I gave my opinion, so I don't need to talk again".


----------



## TMOY (Nov 11, 2008)

Laetitia said:


> If I believe wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Cube, about 8% of the positions of the 2x2x2 can be solve in 7 moves or less.
> So, it's not something rare. (OK, the 7 movements are not always R and U).


7-moves solutions are not sometinng rare but such easy ones are much rarer.
At Dutch Masters for example, there was a 7-moves solution on the second scramble of my group, which was certainly not that obvious and probably not foreseeable at preinspection. I stumbled into it by pure luck, by solving my cube as I usually do and getting xLL skip. That's why I was so slow (4s11) .


----------



## Erik (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm not agressive I'm only reacting to your behaviour against me.
Sentences like: 'lets not talk about this "WR"' 'you should just say nothing' 'you don't know what you are talking about' and assumptions about how I think are more aggresive I think.

In my previous post I merely cleared up how I think about things.

I'm glad you realise the difference between delegate and competitor, I was afraid you lost it a bit at Geneva but I see you didn't now 

Let's stop this pointless discussion and get back to Geneva open or discuss how we can make more clear rules?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 11, 2008)

Doudou said:


> some scrambles already have been deleted (I'm thinking to two cases when it happened)



Please let us know more about these. I have never heard of this being done and I'm interested to know the justification.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 11, 2008)

I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).


----------



## Erik (Nov 11, 2008)

Odd, I had at least 2 scrambles ever with a face done (no layer)
At least one other occasion is a competition in Poland where Ron removes a scramble which could be solved in 3 moves I think.


----------



## sheriff (Nov 11, 2008)

Hey everyone. First of all I'd like to justify something about 'Sheriff knowing the solution'. I would have solved the cube that way for sure, but I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING. Well, I didn't know it ended with U', that's why I had +2.

The thing I hate most is people cheating, and that's something I would never do. In this case, some may think I did. Rigurously, I did. I don't approve of this world record, I think it is not fair. I wanted to get the WR, and then try to cancel it, since (I think) if the WRholder agrees with it it is much much easier to erase it. That's all, and some people who I talked with know I did it because of that, and I told them before solving. I wouldn't like to have that 'WR', since I, or Erik in this case, had more information than Doudou when solving.

With that said, and you perfectly know what I think Erik, I don't think this WR is 100% fair. 

But the main point of the post was to justify my 'knowing the scramble'. Hope you understood.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 11, 2008)

sheriff said:


> I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING [...] I wanted to get the WR, and then try to cancel it



Yeah, messing around with organizers and the WCA is so cool!


----------



## Erik (Nov 11, 2008)

Sheriff: I understand what you are meaning. You mean that we knew way too much info about the scramble, but as I said before and as other people also said before, we didn't know anything about the scramble besides that there was a scramble on which Edouard did a 1.39. If you say this gives too many information about anything then I suggest you message Ron or post in the official forum and request for all solves to be secured, no people are allowed to cheer about a good time and no people are allowed to see other people's times.

Your way of trying to let the times be not approved is not funny, though I had to laugh a lot that you +2'd it. It's probably the fastest +2 ever on a solve. I was not aware that you practised the scramble because of the mess there, actually I was quite sure you already did the solve.

I agree with Stefan on this one.


----------



## sheriff (Nov 11, 2008)

By the way, after thinking for a while I have another thing to say. It is the only thing we know, but we also know Doudou, his ability, talent, and knowing a bit of 2x2 the only possible thing to happen was white-face LL skip.

But supporting you, what else could you have done? You did what everyone would have done, it would of course be ridiculous not trying to beat that WR. But seriously, would you have liked to be the first to do that solve? Would you have gotten that sub1?


----------



## Escher (Nov 11, 2008)

it is probably not appropriate to post surrounded by people who know much more about this situation than i do but to sum up what i can see...
- sheriff cheated, no ifs or buts, or 'i intended to do x'.
- edouard was the first to discover the easy scramble, and then got a new WR (well done).
- Erik then deduced that it must be easy (so had some minor preparation), and also discovered the simple solution, beating edouard in execution time (well done erik).

in effect, sheriffs actions are in consequence equal to me getting a friend to scramble in my round, and getting him to set up a 4 move x-cross and OLL skip for me, and so breaking the WR. whether or not i intended to come clean later, i still did something very wrong and unfair.


----------



## sheriff (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't intend to come clean you *******! I don't even mind about a non deserved WR in 2x2, since I don't even practise 2x2. Simply, that was maybe, and sadly, the only way to erase that 2x2 solve/round. So you may say I did something wrong; which I find completely justified, don't feel bad about it, and would do it again; but don't say I'm trying to come clean because my ONLY aim was to get rid of that 2x2 scramble. I would never cheat, and feel agressive when someone says I do (in this case I do undestand though, because it may be seen that way).


----------



## Escher (Nov 11, 2008)

nice.

well...



sheriff said:


> I DID KNOW THE SOLUTION AND PRACTISED BEFORE COMPETING.



in your own words, you satisfy most peoples criteria for the action 'cheating'.
im glad you dont mind that you might've had a completely undeserved WR.

ill leave it to other cubers to draw parallels to events comparable to this.

EDIT
vault312 has a lot of good things to say.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 11, 2008)

sheriff said:


> By the way, after thinking for a while I have another thing to say. It is the only thing we know, but we also know Doudou, his ability, talent, and knowing a bit of 2x2 *the only possible thing *to happen was white-face LL skip.



not true at all. Edouard could easily get a 1.39 if it was a 2 move FL and easy CLL case that he could see from inspection.



Erik said:


> It's just the 2x2 single record! I mean: come on! Everyone knows it doesn't say anything about skills, besides maybe your ability to look ahead a bit.



Agreed, I think the same holds true for single solves for all puzzles, although to a lesser extent as the times increase. Erik's 7.08 is just a case of getting lucky on an already good solve(although it still would have been a very fast solve without the skip). Yu Nakajima said that Yumu Tabuchi described the edges on his 4x4 WR as very easy, almost like they were lucky. average is a much better determinant of skill. the average that went with Javier's WR was 7.12, and the avg that went with Patrick Jameson's 1.72 NAR was 7.37. Edouard, your WR avg says way more about your skill at 2x2 than a 1.39 single ever could. You are still the best, even without the single.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 12, 2008)

I want a salary now 

Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?

Furthermore, if you haven't competed, you really shouldn't be staring at the competition that's going on.

(Note: I am not accusing anyone. I'm just saying, if you're competing in BLD, and you haven't done the first solve, don't sit in the front row and study everyone doing the first solve. We have baseball bats to rectify this problem if it should occur.)


----------



## hr.mohr (Nov 12, 2008)

sheriff said:


> Simply, that was maybe, and sadly, the only way to erase that 2x2 solve/round.



I'm sorry but that is really not up to you to decide. You can't just go vigilanti because your own set of ideals are challenged.

As Laetitia wrote "The problem with deleting scrambles is : where is the limit?". It's very hard to regulate luck and why would you even want to do that? Luck is a part of the sport and the best example are right there in this 2x2 event. Why was it that only a select few was able to utilize the lucky scramble?

Again you tried to tamper with the competition and in my opinion that's just as bad as cheating for personal gain.

(This is just my personal opinion, i don't know you and i might not even understand exactly how the events unfolded)


----------



## TMOY (Nov 12, 2008)

Tyson said:


> I want a salary now
> 
> Whereas I understand clapping and applauding by the audience is an uncontrollable element of the competition, why was anyone but the scramblers allowed near the scrambling table?


Did you read what I wrote ?


----------



## jazzthief81 (Nov 12, 2008)

Doudou said:


> I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).



Because a *face* was done?! Why not exclude all 3-moves-or-less white crosses on 3x3x3?


----------



## joey (Nov 12, 2008)

jazzthief81 said:


> Doudou said:
> 
> 
> > I know it has been done recently in Hungarian Open, because the first face was done (not a layer).
> ...



Yes please 

Joey - Green cross user


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 12, 2008)

Erik said:


> To add something, I don't even think scrambles like this should be taken away. This if for several reasons.



Agree.



Erik said:


> One of the reasons is that there is probably at least one in 5 scrambles on ALL tournaments which can be solved in 7 moves.



Wrong, only 289,896 out of 3,674,160 (about 1:12) are that short or shorter (HTM).




Erik said:


> 3rd of all, if you forget about my 2nd argument. There were already done solves with the scramble. If you want to take it out (which is not even allowed by the rules now I think) you should do it before you give people the scramble.



Not good, then someone must choose scrambles, and what are the rules for that? scrambles that solves in 7-8+ turns? Even if one layer is solved? and so on, as you wrote, it was up before and we found it is not much to do but accept easy scrambles (even if it makes you loose your new WR in a minute =)

And finaly: a scramble that skips the last layer after 5-6 turns to solve FL would be "easy"... but no one would start from that side, you don't start from a side that needs 5-6 turns when there are others that needs 2-4 turns (but does not skip the LL). what I'm saying is that not many of the "easy" scrambles are easy for real and many of the "hard" scrambles are really easy (example, all solved but 2 unoriented corners are 11 tiurns)


----------



## Tyson (Nov 12, 2008)

TMOY said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > I want a salary now
> ...



Yes I did. If the organizers did not have the resources to run a proper competition because they are bad at time management, it is not to be used as an excuse to not follow WCA protocol.

That's like saying you didn't have time to finish your homework because you were too busy installing a new operating system on your new computer. Your professor isn't going to accept that excuse. I can't imagine the authorities here accepting a similar excuse for a cubing competition.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 13, 2008)

Tyson said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > Tyson said:
> ...


WCA protocol was followed as much as it was necessary to ensure both fairness of the competition (as much as possible) and fun for everybody. That's all that matters, period.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 13, 2008)

Yes, thank you for your opinion.


----------



## supercube (Nov 13, 2008)

if someone had an unfair advantage then you have to assume that they all did except of course the first person to solve. if its not a level playing field then how can these times be compared to other times at comps where scrambles were actually kept secret? the guy who is standing next to the scramble table is just as guilty as the scrambler who quietly sits there not asking people to leave the area. if a scrambler didn't see this kid standing there watching him then how many people did he not see? knowing the scramble sequence, someone can figure out the scrambled state and the converse is also true with a little more effort. so without breaking the rules down to the definition of the word scramble it should be assumed that no one is to see it either.


----------



## MistArts (Nov 13, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Furthermore, if you haven't competed, you really shouldn't be staring at the competition that's going on.
> 
> (Note: I am not accusing anyone. I'm just saying, if you're competing in BLD, and you haven't done the first solve, don't sit in the front row and study everyone doing the first solve. We have baseball bats to rectify this problem if it should occur.)



Then, we could make the competitors that are not competing in another room.


----------

