# Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico



## etshy (May 26, 2013)

WCA Board official announcement can be read here.

was the 3x3 WR really broken ? I read on Crazybadcuber's Facebook page about a mexican guy who did it in 4.41 secs !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which personally I can't believe 

Any info about this ?







I still can't believe it , but it looks like it's real .

edit 2: *http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1053*

edit (hijack): 

more videos: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UPDPZRZtYo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=5XGfYydlovg (second solve)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJraOHeWU5w

Martín's WCA profile:http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011TELA01

Competition: http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=PerryOpen2013

Scorecard image: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2873&d=1369626042

The scramble he should have received: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2

Martín's results for that round: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53 => 16.64 


Important posts:




wontolla said:


> From the mexican forum:
> 
> The delegate:
> "Ya envié los resultados, no tengo comentarios con respecto al solve de Martín, eso ya está en manos del board de la WCA"
> ...





Tim Reynolds said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> The WCA Board and IAC are in active discussion with Uriel, who was the delegate at this competition. Please bear with us.
> 
> ...





luisgepeto said:


> Just to clarify some things about the video. This was filmed after he solved the cube. In the video you can actually hear how he takes the cube from the table and "purposedly" scrambles it One Handed and after that they take pictures.
> I dare to say that the mexican community is NOT claiming the WR. This guy has a history of cheating and in the very best case we would be talking about a badley scrambled cube.
> anyway, he has also posted on the mexican page that he is "studying" papers on studies of the proof of the God's Algorithm. It seems to me that his "reconstruction" has turned to nothing more than a "fewest move" competition where he is trying to find a triple X-cross, and OLL skip and a J perm as he previously stated. I would guess that he is not going to be able to do it (thanks to qqref who has also proved it is impossible).






jonathan90 said:


> kko14 said:
> 
> 
> > -Who Judged the WR-solve?
> ...





CubeRoots said:


> scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
> 
> 
> D L' B R2 U L2 B' D' B U D2 L' D2 R U F2 y R U R' U2 Jperm
> ...





CubeRoots said:


> I overlooked 1 case which can be solved in 29 moves. It is a 16 move xxxcross and no AUF on the Jperm, but it gives the 'bad' Jperm. It is F R2 B L F D2 L2 D B' D' F2 R' D2 F' R2 F2.
> 
> However, looking more closely at the sources I believe we can conclude that his last layer was in fact yellow. The result from those cases gives the lower bound as 30 still.





Hays said:


> video description said:
> 
> 
> > The claim is that the cube was solved using a triple x cross, R U R' last insertion, and a J perm.
> ...





Litz said:


> Litz said:
> 
> 
> > He posted it on the mexican forum facebook group. Here:
> ...





Compilation: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ry-Open-Mexico&p=858285&viewfull=1#post858285


----------



## qqwref (May 27, 2013)

There was no video of the solve, since obviously nobody expected him to beat the record. But it's obviously very suspicious for someone who got a 17 second average his last competition to suddenly get a 4 second time in competition. I think the two most likely possibilities are:
1) He somehow got an extremely easy misscramble, and got a ludicrously low movecount. In this case I would expect the same result as Grzegorz Prusak's Square-1 WR single - the result should be disqualified, hopefully with the cooperation of the cuber.
2) He received a setup scramble that he had already memorized a fast solution to, perhaps because he has a friend at the scrambling table. In this case I would expect some kind of punishment after the matter is investigated.


----------



## etshy (May 27, 2013)

qqwref said:


> There was no video of the solve, since obviously nobody expected him to beat the record. But it's obviously very suspicious for someone who got a 17 second average his last competition to suddenly get a 4 second time in competition. I think the two most likely possibilities are:
> 1) He somehow got an extremely easy misscramble, and got a ludicrously low movecount. In this case I would expect the same result as Grzegorz Prusak's Square-1 WR single - the result should be disqualified, hopefully with the cooperation of the cuber.
> 2) He received a setup scramble that he had already memorized a fast solution to, perhaps because he has a friend at the scrambling table. In this case I would expect some kind of punishment after the matter is investigated.



This proves what you're saying , he got a 18.9 secs solve after his 4.41 secs , definitely there is something very strange about this !!


----------



## qqwref (May 27, 2013)

I think it should definitely be discussed. It's not some kind of database mistake, it's a real person (and their community) claiming a real WR.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 27, 2013)

I agree, I find it pretty annoying that they did that. Why so serious. What is wrong with the thread?



qqwref said:


> I think it should definitely be discussed. It's not some kind of database mistake, it's a real person (and their community) claiming a real WR.



I agree. Why are you mods so serious?! Really, what qqwref said. This should be discussed, the thread should be open.


----------



## Sa967St (May 27, 2013)

It looks like they were just pulling a prank, so IMO there's no need to bring more attention to it -- it would just make their prank more successful and give the idea that it's acceptable. I closed the thread because most of the posts would probably just be bashing the guy, anyway.

edit: Someone re-opened the thread and the posts from Random Cubing Discussion have been moved here.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 27, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> It looks like they were just pulling a prank, so IMO there's no need to bring more attention to it -- it would just make their prank more successful and give the idea that it's acceptable. I closed the thread because most of the posts would probably just be bashing the guy, anyway.



*looks like*?

-_-

Where is the evidence? What if this is a "genuine WR"?


----------



## Noahaha (May 27, 2013)

I take it they didn't submit it as an official result? If they did, there would be a much bigger deal about this.


----------



## mitch1234 (May 27, 2013)

The average shouldn't even count anyway because of the score card. 



The judge signed all of the times before they even happened. At most of the competitions I've been to its okay if the competitor does this but if the judge does it there can be some really bad things.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 27, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I take it they didn't submit it as an official result? If they did, there would be a much bigger deal about this.



It was only on the 25th, so I don't think the results have been published anywhere yet


----------



## Sa967St (May 27, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> *looks like*?
> 
> -_-
> 
> Where is the evidence? What if this is a "genuine WR"?



I wrote "looks like" because "prank" might not be the right word. They might have done this for other reasons. 

In any case, based on other discussions in other places, it's clearly not a legitimate WR. Just wait for people to confirm it.


----------



## qqwref (May 27, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> It looks like they were just pulling a prank, so IMO there's no need to bring more attention to it


After seeing that picture, I'm not so sure. This is a real guy who's competed before, he's at a real competition, these are official attempts. It's going to have to be looked into.


----------



## wontolla (May 27, 2013)

From the mexican forum:

The delegate:
"Ya envié los resultados, no tengo comentarios con respecto al solve de Martín, eso ya está en manos del board de la WCA"

Translation:
I have already sent the results, I have no comments on Martín's solve, this is already on the WCA board's hands


The competitor:
borre la publicación debido a que se podía dar a malos entendidos, en mi resolución me equivoque a la hora de ejecutar y después decidí improvisar algunos giros, me percate que dos pares del f2l estaban resueltos, así que decidí empezar a armar la cara blanca y en eso vi otro f2l resuelto, entonces busque el par restante que se resolvió con R U R' quedándome un oll skip y una J que resuelvo en menos de un segundo. la prerreconstrucciÓn (POSIBLE) de los primeros movimientos es esta D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL aunque no es pero es una aproximación, aun me encuentro trabajando en la verdadera reconstrucción pero es lo que hasta ahora he podido hacer. Mi juez y el delegado me preguntaron inmediatamente después de hacer el solve de como estaba el cubo (el patrón de la cruz amarilla que había decidido armar y el f2l) ( esto fue a mi parecer para revisar que el sramble fuese correcto) y se confirmo que mi resolución estuvo bien ejecutada con el scramble correcto.

Translation:
I erased the previous post because it could have been taken the wrong way, in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second. The prereconstruction (POSSIBLE) of the first moves is this D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL although it is just an aproximation, I'm still working on the real reconstruction but this is what I've got so far. My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct.


----------



## Noahaha (May 27, 2013)

Seems like it shouldn't be too hard for him to reconstruct from the scramble if he knows it was scrambled correctly.


----------



## pjk (May 27, 2013)

This is very suspicious indeed.



> in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second.



It seems like that entire process would take much more than 5 seconds, especially considering it sounds like the look-ahead was off. I'd be interested in seeing the scramble.



mitch1234 said:


> The average shouldn't even count anyway because of the score card.
> 
> View attachment 2873
> 
> The judge signed all of the times before they even happened. At most of the competitions I've been to its okay if the competitor does this but if the judge does it there can be some really bad things.


A bit off topic: I never understand why people do this. Do people realize the whole point of signing to to confirm the time is correct? It makes sense to sign them all at once at the end, but doing it at the beginning makes no sense.


----------



## Noahaha (May 27, 2013)

You can only really make an argument to DQ the last 3 solves though, since there's no way to prove that proper procedure wasn't followed for the first two.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 27, 2013)

I doubt he could even get a triple xcross+OLL skip and solve sub5 if it wasnt a prepared solve.



Noahaha said:


> You can only really make an argument to DQ the last 3 solves though, since there's no way to prove that proper procedure wasn't followed for the first two.



he didnt sign the score card when he should have done


----------



## CubeRoots (May 27, 2013)

CBC is going off a comment on the video. This comment is a 'translation' of the title... saying that the title says 'not official'. However the proper translation was 'still not official'.

Still no evidence to suggest this isn't a real claim of a WR.


----------



## hcfong (May 27, 2013)

I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions too soon.

- Nothing's posted on the WCA website yet.
- The scoresheet shown in one of the posts might not be the real scoresheet. It may just be a lolsheet created to support a prank, and not the scoresheet that's been used for score entry.
- Following from this, the 4.41 might not actually be on the results sent to the WCA. In that case, there is no problem. It is allowed to pull a prank and have a laugh.
- If however, the scoresheet with the 4.41, was the official scoresheet and the 4.41 was included in in the results, I think it should be accepted as official in the first instance. There is no direct evidence yet that it was fake. The result is there. People can then dispute it at the IAC,who will investigate the matter. They can collect witness statements from competitors. And as the scrambles have to be sent to the WCA along with the results, they can ask him to reconstruct the solve. Of course, the competitor himself may come forward, which is probaby the best way for him to come clean. 

So I'd say, let's wait for the results to be posted. I think it's going to be a lot less dramatic than we all think it is. I think the scoresheet shown is just a lolsheet to support a prank and the real scoresheet doesn't contain the 4.41.


----------



## Faz (May 27, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I think it should definitely be discussed. It's not some kind of database mistake, it's a real person (and their community) claiming a real WR.



Yeah, I'd been sent a few tweets about this yesterday, and was wondering why there was no mention of it here. So of course, I didn't really think anything of it.



hcfong said:


> I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions too soon.
> I think the scoresheet shown is just a lolsheet to support a prank and the real scoresheet doesn't contain the 4.41.



That does seem like one of the more likely scenarios, in which case it's been a success for them I guess. 
But if it's not, and he is legitimately claiming this as a world record, then I think that this becomes a very serious issue. If the WCA has no evidence against him, then we'll have a world record holder whose second best solve is 15 seconds, which would seriously undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the WCA, and speedcubing as a sport/hobby. 
But until then, it seems like a practical joke by the Mexican community.

Did he even win the competition?


----------



## aceofspades98 (May 27, 2013)

No, he only came in second or third.


----------



## Skullush (May 27, 2013)

IIRC a few years ago when the record was 7.08, a time for one of the solves at a certain competition in Mexico was accidentally put into WCA as 6.xy instead of 16.xy and the Mexican community kind of went along with it saying he got a LL skip and he was exceptionally fast at F2L. Tried searching for a thread about it, because I remember a thread, but I can't find it unfortunately. The time was changed shortly after though

This whole situation reminds me of that. So if my memory serves me right then this isn't the first time something like this has happened


----------



## Andreaillest (May 27, 2013)

Skullush said:


> IIRC a few years ago when the record was 7.08, a time for one of the solves at a certain competition in Mexico was accidentally put into WCA as 6.xy instead of 16.xy and the Mexican community kind of went along with it saying he got a LL skip and he was exceptionally fast at F2L. Tried searching for a thread about it, because I remember a thread, but I can't find it unfortunately. The time was changed shortly after though
> 
> This whole situation reminds me of that. So if my memory serves me right then this isn't the first time something like this has happened



I don't remember this happening, but prank or not; I'm afraid that these two situations will make the Mexican community look bad. I have doubts about this being a legit solve and am calling major ish. If by some miracle this solve is real; then congratz are in order I guess. :/


----------



## Derads (May 27, 2013)

It seems everything was done right, the scramble was well-made, but the competitor has some antecedents of lies and fake solves on the mexican forum, unofficial solves but still, I'm not blaminc him directly cause I wasn't at the competition nor saw anything but this is very suspicious.


----------



## TMOY (May 27, 2013)

uyneb2000 said:


> What I find extremely odd is that in Felik's and Mat's WR videos, the applauding goes for just 15-30 seconds, and it's usually just clapping. In this guy's video, all the video is JUST cheering and applauding for over 2 minutes. And the cheering was as if it were at sports game. Everyone was chanting his name, whistling, and clapping. Everyone surrounds him, when in the 2 previously mentioned videos, only maybe 3-5 people surround him. Seems staged to me. :/



And in addition, the competition seems to have completely stopped, the other competitors don't seem to care about their own official solves anymore and just want to cheer together for several minutes. Sure. I've seen a number of WRs being broken at the comps I've attended, including Mats' 3^3 WR, and I've never witnessed anything like that. This is definitely a prank.


----------



## whauk (May 27, 2013)

imo you cant refer to the second solve when arguing about turning speed. he might be so happy about breaking the WR that his hands got shaky and therefore he couldn't turn fast anymore. and probably he didnt care about his other times anymore.



TMOY said:


> And in addition, the competition seems to have completely stopped, the other competitors don't seem to care about their own official solves anymore and just want to cheer together for several minutes. Sure. I've seen a number of WRs being broken at the comps I've attended, including Mats' 3^3 WR, and I've never witnessed anything like that. This is definitely a prank.



but imagine a competition where nobody expects a world record. suddenly the competition got important, the country got important. they are maybe just too proud of him/their country. and we also all agree that this was not "normal". and if sth unnormal happens it will attract people.

however things that make me suspicious are:
-the table is full of stuff in the video... nobody would do an official solve there and why should people put stuff there right after the world record?
-the cube isnt solved on the "WR picture". (however a pyraminx is) why should someone have scrambled it again? 
-people tend to get fast times by spamming tps or having lots of suddenly solved pieces, not by "improvising"

the rest was mentioned often enough.
btw it usually takes up to a week for official results to be on the WCA page. this time probably even longer because of this issue. there is no reason to conclude something of this.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (May 27, 2013)

Skullush said:


> IIRC a few years ago when the record was 7.08, a time for one of the solves at a certain competition in Mexico was accidentally put into WCA as 6.xy instead of 16.xy and the Mexican community kind of went along with it saying he got a LL skip and he was exceptionally fast at F2L. Tried searching for a thread about it, because I remember a thread, but I can't find it unfortunately. The time was changed shortly after though
> 
> This whole situation reminds me of that. So if my memory serves me right then this isn't the first time something like this has happened


It was a 67.XX that was accidentally put in as 6.XX. I don't remember the Mexican community claiming it was legit and that (she) was very good at F2L though


----------



## Bob (May 27, 2013)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> It was a 67.XX that was accidentally put in as 6.XX. I don't remember the Mexican community claiming it was legit and that (she) was very good at F2L though


It was a 16.xx that was accidentally put in as 6.xx. I remember because I uploaded those results and got yelled at afterwards.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (May 27, 2013)

Hi everyone,

The WCA Board and IAC are in active discussion with Uriel, who was the delegate at this competition. Please bear with us.

There is not much that I can say right now, except that a 4.41 second solve was submitted in the official results, and that this is not believed to be a data entry error.

We will provide more information when it is appropriate to do so.

Thanks,
Tim


----------



## ryanj92 (May 27, 2013)

heroicis said:


> I have a hard time believing this is real. The ONLY other sub 5 i have heard about is feliks' 4.68 and that was LUCKY!!! I doubt that it is real but if it is then i'm injecting 25cc of lube into my hard drive.


Alex Lau has done several sub-5 solves at home  Also see here and here 

(copies my comment from the other thread)
WR cheating is nothing new to the WCA (see Rowe Hessler's BLD WR disqualification, and Castillo's clock WR disqualification), I just hope someone comes forward and sets the record straight soon, if it is indeed fake. As the WCA organisation that has to put a lot of trust in its members to keep its integrity, it pains me to see things like this happen...


----------



## KongShou (May 27, 2013)

Oh they opened this thread again, I would like to express that if this does become the world record then cubing is completely ruined for me. The wr should only be held be someone who worked hard and deserved it. And someone who is extremely gifted and talented, like faz mats 5BLD, not a randomer with a suspicious sub5 single and 18s average


----------



## ryanj92 (May 27, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Oh they opened this thread again, I would like to express that if this does become the world record then cubing is completely ruined for me. The wr should only be held be someone who worked hard and deserved it. And someone who is extremely gifted and talented, like faz mats 5BLD, not a randomer with a suspicious sub5 single and 18s average


Sadly that's not how records work...  the hard work and talent however does tend to evoke respect within the community, which judging by the overwhelming reactions here, has not been earnt here.


----------



## Kirjava (May 27, 2013)

Tim Reynolds said:


> a 4.41 second solve was submitted in the official results



so it's now gone from a prank to cheating

if this was a case of a misscramble and the solver never owns up to it, is there any way to prove it isn't legit?


----------



## Faz (May 27, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> is there any way to prove it isn't legit?



I think that's the main issue, how much evidence should the competitor need to give in order to claim the world record in this situation? It doesn't seem like he'll be able to reconstruct it at this stage.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 27, 2013)

The 3x3 average IS all that matters.

Whether this guy's solve is legit or not shouldn't affect your opinion on the validity of cubing. You should come across the fact that easy scrambles, and EXTREMELY easy scrambles happen, that's why people put L single and NL single when they are posting their PBs. There have been hundreds of competitions with thousands of competitors, it is irrational to think that something like this couldn't actually happen through pure chance of truly random scrambles. Although I personally agree that it is fake, my point is that this will almost certainly happen again and be legitimate by a sub-10 solver that most people aren't as familiar with as they would be faz or 5BLD or valk. And there will be speculation, and there will be suspicion, and there will be haters and disbelievers, but it will ultimately be proven legit. Or not be proven, but either way it will happen and be approved by the WCA board. However, that is his LUCKY single, he still has 4 more solves to do, and unless he gets 4 more EXTREMELY lucky solves, his average will reflect his skill much more accurately. And since the best and worst times are omitted and the remaining 3 become mo3, his L single isn't even factored into the average.


----------



## Blablabla (May 27, 2013)

This guy became known in the Mexican community for his fake solves a couple of years ago.


----------



## Kirjava (May 27, 2013)

mitch1234 said:


> View attachment 2873



Honestly, this should be good enough for the WCA to remove the time.

This judge was not following the proper procedure which calls the validity of the times into question.


----------



## PeelingStickers (May 27, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Having never competed, what's proper procedure? Looks like a piece of paper with two (vastly different) times on. To my untrained eye.


The judge and competitor must sign their names AFTER a solve to prove it's validity. Used to prove DNF's, +2's did happen. Oh and 3x3 single world records.


----------



## Escher (May 27, 2013)

I'm not sure why Tim's post hasn't been the last in this thread. It contains all the information that the cubing community needs to know right now. Anything else is speculation, and people are inconsiderate of the fact that by WCA delegates and board members reading this forum, their opinions on the matter will have been coloured, and thus they can be less confident in their decision making. 

Please for the love of god close this thread; it can only have a negative bearing on the discussion. If anybody has relevant information (such as attachment 2873) then it ought to be submitted to the WCA board - not here.

Also, there have been multiple sub 5s, and several sub 4s. When people reach 8-9tps they are obviously going to hit those times, since they'll encounter a 30-odd move speedsolve solution at some point.


----------



## qqwref (May 27, 2013)

I'm running J-perm (in 4 positions on each of U and D), plus the scramble, on Cube Explorer. A short solution would mean that, once the scramble is applied, there is a short way to solve the cube into a J perm. There are no solutions on any of the 8 scrambles shorter than 17 moves, though. So this guy would have to be "improvising" at least 17 moves, plus a J-perm, in that time. I'm not sure he's capable of that, no matter the luck, if he didn't know the scramble beforehand.

EDIT: For example, one of the solutions was D' R U B2 R L F' U2 L D' F2 D B' L' D2 U' F2 (17f*), so we can solve the scramble F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 with x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm].


----------



## ryanj92 (May 27, 2013)

Escher said:


> I'm not sure why Tim's post hasn't been the last in this thread. It contains all the information that the cubing community needs to know right now. Anything else is speculation, and people are inconsiderate of the fact that by WCA delegates and board members reading this forum, their opinions on the matter will have been coloured, and thus they can be less confident in their decision making.
> 
> Please for the love of god close this thread; it can only have a negative bearing on the discussion. If anybody has relevant information (such as attachment 2873) then it ought to be submitted to the WCA board - not here.
> 
> Also, there have been multiple sub 5s, and several sub 4s. When people reach 8-9tps they are obviously going to hit those times, since they'll encounter a 30-odd move speedsolve solution at some point.



Just for context, the thread was closed there earlier, and has since been reopened. So it was, for a while


----------



## Arsonist (May 28, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'm running J-perm (in 4 positions on each of U and D), plus the scramble, on Cube Explorer. A short solution would mean that, once the scramble is applied, there is a short way to solve the cube into a J perm. There are no solutions on any of the 8 scrambles shorter than 17 moves, though. So this guy would have to be "improvising" at least 17 moves, plus a J-perm, in that time. I'm not sure he's capable of that, no matter the luck, if he didn't know the scramble beforehand.
> 
> EDIT: For example, one of the solutions was D' R U B2 R L F' U2 L D' F2 D B' L' D2 U' F2 (17f*), so we can solve the scramble F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 with x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm].



Maybe running on FBLR would give shorter solves? If he solves on an uncommon color...


----------



## qqwref (May 28, 2013)

Nah, he said something about "así que decidí empezar a armar la cara blanca" and "el patrón de la cruz amarilla que había decidido armar" so it's a pretty fair assumption that he solved on either U or D.

Anyway, I realized that I only used one of the two J perms, but doing the 8 positions with the other J isn't giving me any solves under 17 moves either.


----------



## fastcubesolver (May 28, 2013)

The judge filled out his initials before the average was complete. That alone should disqualify the average, for any circumstance, with a WR or not.


----------



## Ágoston Török (May 28, 2013)

I'm an avg14-15 cuber (which isn't good, but still better than this guy) and I had one sub 8 solve in my entire life, and about 20 sub 10 solves. I will NOT accept that solve as a World Record ever! I hope the WCA delegates won't let it happen! :/


----------



## mitch1234 (May 28, 2013)

I feel pretty confident in saying that this is what most likely happened. The judge signed for all 5 solves before they happened, the 4.41 happened by some fluke of stopping the timer while solving, and then the solver gets away with it becase the judge wasn't paying attention. They are saying its the WR because the judge indeed did sign for the solve. I've tried to talk to some of the people at the competition but they just either don't tell anything or they just say that the solve happened and claim it to be a WR while not seeing the solve themselves. Its just a bunch of bull, more regulation of procedures for solving might be needed so that things like this don't happen again.


----------



## Ágoston Török (May 28, 2013)

mitch1234 said:


> the 4.41 happened by some fluke of stopping the timer while solving, and then the solver gets away with it becase the judge wasn't paying attention. They are saying its the WR because the judge indeed did sign for the solve.



I agree. :/ It even feels bad to think about it's being a real solve... 
In the Cubing dare club Jonathan Esteban Rivera Castillón said: "Well, the fakes he made before weren't done in a competition, he was recorded solving the rubik's cube in 5 seconds, obviously it was fake and later he admit it"


----------



## KCuber (May 28, 2013)

Anyone notice he does cross on U?


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

AustinReed said:


> Would you say that if Mats or Faz got the same time?



The difference is that their solves would not be suspicious.


----------



## Zaratustra (May 28, 2013)

First of all, we mexicans are NOT claiming the WR. Second, it was NOT a prank. That guy, Martín, had fame in the mexican community years ago, for posting fake solves. Almost everybody in the community is saying that "WR" was fake. Unfortunately, we don't have proofs of him cheating. But I am 100% sure it was fake, hands down


----------



## TheCuber23 (May 28, 2013)

It might end up being like one of these... http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_World_Records/Disqualified


----------



## A Leman (May 28, 2013)

Zaratustra said:


> First of all, we mexicans are NOT claiming the WR. Second, it was NOT a prank. That guy, Martín, had fame in the mexican community years ago, for posting fake solves. Almost everybody in the community is saying that "WR" was fake. Unfortunately, we don't have proofs of him cheating. But I am 100% sure it was fake, hands down



I don't think it is the Mexican community's fault. There are good cubers in Mexico pushing the limits like everywhere else. I would be a bit surprised, but not shocked if Gabriel or Jorge did this. People are just lashing out at something that seems ridiculous. An individual does not define your community.


----------



## FernandoMunox (May 28, 2013)

I think less than 10% of the mexican community actually supports the WR as true, sadly that 10% made an excellent work posting it everywhere without a solid verdict from the WCA


----------



## Echo Cubing (May 28, 2013)

As one of the sponsors in the Perry Open,we hope there is a world record broken,but..we also need the truth...
Let's wait patiently to see what WCA will announce.



FernandoMunox said:


> I think less than 10% of the mexican community actually supports the WR as true, sadly that 10% made an excellent work posting it everywhere without a solid verdict from the WCA



Though i am not a Mexican,i still trust there are so many people who really like cubing and also supports the WR. It's ridiculous to deny them because of one exception.
And ,also,one thing we can do is waiting a solid verdict from the WCA.It's useless to blame


----------



## gpt_kibutz (May 28, 2013)

Just to clarify some things about the video. This was filmed after he solved the cube. In the video you can actually hear how he takes the cube from the table and "purposedly" scrambles it One Handed and after that they take pictures.
I dare to say that the mexican community is NOT claiming the WR. This guy has a history of cheating and in the very best case we would be talking about a badley scrambled cube. 
anyway, he has also posted on the mexican page that he is "studying" papers on studies of the proof of the God's Algorithm. It seems to me that his "reconstruction" has turned to nothing more than a "fewest move" competition where he is trying to find a triple X-cross, and OLL skip and a J perm as he previously stated. I would guess that he is not going to be able to do it (thanks to qqref who has also proved it is impossible).


----------



## qqwref (May 28, 2013)

luisgepeto said:


> anyway, he has also posted on the mexican page that he is "studying" papers on studies of the proof of the God's Algorithm.


This by itself suggests that he cheated and is now trying to come up with an excuse so people will stop questioning it. There's no paper with a nice simple proof of God's Algorithm (it was proven with extensive computer computation), and no way to easily come up with a near-optimal solution by hand. It certainly wouldn't help someone solve a cube extremely quickly, but maybe someone who doesn't know much about cube theory might think it could.



luisgepeto said:


> (thanks to qqref who has also proved it is impossible).


I wouldn't say it's impossible... there is just no incredibly short solution, nothing that you would expect someone to accidentally come up with on the fly.


----------



## samchoochiu (May 28, 2013)

fastcubesolver said:


> It doesn't matter who the competitior is. the judge can't put his/her initials in all the spots first off, because then any time could get written in and be made official.



We don't know that, the judge could have signed after the solve for the first two solves but decided to later fill the last three blanks.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 28, 2013)

samchoochiu said:


> We don't know that, the judge could have signed after the solve for the first two solves but decided to later fill the last three blanks.



people seem to not realise that the competitior should have sgnd the score card too after he finished the solve


----------



## samchoochiu (May 28, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> people seem to not realise that the competitior should have sgnd the score card too after he finished the solve


Then the scrambler was wrong to scramble for the second solve and should have rejected to scramble before the competitor signs for the first.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 28, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'm running J-perm (in 4 positions on each of U and D), plus the scramble, on Cube Explorer. A short solution would mean that, once the scramble is applied, there is a short way to solve the cube into a J perm. There are no solutions on any of the 8 scrambles shorter than 17 moves, though. So this guy would have to be "improvising" at least 17 moves, plus a J-perm, in that time. I'm not sure he's capable of that, no matter the luck, if he didn't know the scramble beforehand.
> 
> EDIT: For example, one of the solutions was D' R U B2 R L F' U2 L D' F2 D B' L' D2 U' F2 (17f*), so we can solve the scramble F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 with x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm].


QQ, have you submitted this evidence to the board? I think it's fairly important


----------



## adragast (May 28, 2013)

Odder said:


> qqwref, I accidently came up with 10 move F2L-1 while racing with Breandan the other day. And at one comp I accidently did 28 move OH solve. It is doable to find short solutions by accident.
> 
> I think he cheated though. He probably got like 7-9 but accidently stopped timer mid solve.



qqwref does not imply that it is impossible to find short solutions by accident. He simply tries to show that the scramble does not have a short solution to a J-perm which is supposed to be the used PLL (following an OLL skip).


----------



## pjk (May 28, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> QQ, have you submitted this evidence to the board? I think it's fairly important


I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.


----------



## Arsonist (May 28, 2013)

> implying the WCA can't run Cube Explorer by themselves


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

amostay2004 said:


> Nobody can prove the judge's signature on the paper was BEFORE the 4.41 solve, you can only disqualify his next 3 solves which were signed without any times on it. Hence not a good basis to disqualify the 4.41



You can say that the judge has shown to be unable to follow correct procedure (if this is the case) and this invalidates other judging he may have done.



Arsonist said:


> > implying the WCA can't run Cube Explorer by themselves



Not at all, just saying that they may not have thought about doing this check.



Odder said:


> qqwref, I accidently came up with 10 move F2L-1 while racing with Breandan the other day. And at one comp I accidently did 28 move OH solve. It is doable to find short solutions by accident.



Nothing fewer than 17 move F2L was possible on this scramble.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

Arsonist said:


> > implying the WCA can't run Cube Explorer by themselves



> Implying that the WCA may run cube explorer to judge the validity of getting a very easy solution on that scramble.

The WCA would probably default to things like getting statements from people, before escalating to investigate the validity of the skip, since that's harder to get an objective handle on.


----------



## Carrot (May 28, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Nothing less than 17 F2L was possible on this scramble.



True, but he could have found a sub 20 move F2L anyway. but I must admit 17/3.41 = 5 TPS... he averages above 15, so he is definitely not doing 5 TPS in every solve


----------



## Sin-H (May 28, 2013)

Odder said:


> but I must admit 17/3.41 = 5 TPS...


even more: try to do 5tps while improvising an optimal solution (which is usually not fingertrick-friendly) including an execution mistake (which usually leaves you staring at the cube for at least half a second) and saying "OHAI, I'MA SOLVE A DIFFERENT SIDE NOW" (it also takes time to decide if it's worth it, if he did that decision) - speedsolving ain't free jazz, to quote corny.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 28, 2013)

qqwref you can do better than that with about 8 times more computation if you taken into account the last slot also. You could potentially find out that it takes 17 moves to get to: R U R' J perm AUF instead of just Jperm AUF. And so you could potentially increase the lower bound on solution legnth from 27 (=17+10) to 30


----------



## jazzthief81 (May 28, 2013)

I honestly don't believe this brings a lot of new evidence to the table.

The reconstruction he posted himself already implied that his F2L was 20 moves (17 moves 'improvising' and an easy RUR' pair to follow).

The fact the there is an optimal 17 move solution means that there could be dozens of other 17 move solutions (and there could be thousands if not millions that are 18, 19 or 20 moves long). Who's to say that one of them is not a nice finger-friendly solution that ends with a RUR' pair?

It's already well established that a random cube state has either a 17 or an 18 move solution in approximately 94% of the cases (see http://kociemba.org/performance.htm for empirical evidence). Solving a random state to a J perm gives the same distribution as solving a random state to the solved state. So no surprises there.

What's so special about improvising 17 moves? Don't people who use block-building methods improvise all the time?


----------



## Sin-H (May 28, 2013)

Arsonist said:


> Did he say he actually changed his side during solving?
> 
> Would be a reason for qq to run J+scramble on RLFB on Cube Explorer


yes, but if I remember correctly the quote said that he "switched to white" [his cube doesn't even have a white side] and started on yellow, so checking U/D is okay. I thought qq knew that, he already read the "switch to white" part.


----------



## Dene (May 28, 2013)

Ágoston Török said:


> I hope the WCA delegates won't let it happen! :/



Be careful now, this has nothing to do with the WCA delegates in general; only the one(s) involved with the competition matter. Rather, it is the WCA board, and possibly the IAC that this is relevant to.


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

jazzthief81 said:


> I honestly don't believe this brings a lot of new evidence to the table.



It is not outright proof, but certainly interesting to note when you consider the other information presented.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

Goosly said:


> Second page of this thread, second post:
> _"he got a 18.9 secs solve after his 4.41 secs"_



Yes, but that still doesn't mean he can't turn that fast.

He may still average like 17+ or w/e but if you are cubing for a year you are going to improve in at least one way. I was just saying that it isn't impossible for him to be able to have that TPS since he's been cubing for a while. You can't say the 4.41 shouldn't count just because he got an 18 after that, since neither solve tells you anything about him.

Like I said, the focus should be on whether he was given a mis-scramble, or if not, what solution he used to get that time. These are the bits in question, not his TPS.


----------



## ryanj92 (May 28, 2013)

What were the other times in the average that wasn't the second solve? I'm not saying that it provides a remotely solid basis from which we can judge, but extra context is always good and I can't find the rest of the average...


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

Ágoston Török said:


> /video/
> They say it is a solve after the 4.41.



Ok fine, but in places he was turning fairly quickly.

You see, people seem to miss this so I'm going to write it bigger.

He has been cubing for a while and it is therefore possible for him to turn sufficiently quickly to pull of that solve if he did indeed get a 17move F2L + Jperm. The emphasis of this should be on whether or not this solution exists, or whether he knew it in advance, I would say that his skill level is not what should be brought into question here.


----------



## KongShou (May 28, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Ok fine, but in places he was turning fairly quickly.
> 
> You see, people seem to miss this so I'm going to write it bigger.
> 
> He has been cubing for a while and it is therefore possible for him to turn sufficiently quickly to pull of that solve if he did indeed get a 17move F2L + Jperm. The emphasis of this should be on whether or not this solution exists, or whether he knew it in advance, I would say that his skill level is not what should be brought into question here.



No Chris the problem here is that even if an 17 move f2l and j exist, AND he executed it during the solve, he isn't skill enough to do it under 5 second, as you can see in the above video he has almost no look ahead whatsoever. If faz or mats claim to have done the same thing, I don't think many of us will be questioning the validity.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

KongShou said:


> No Chris the problem here is that even if an 17 move f2l and j exist, AND he executed it during the solve, he isn't skill enough to do it under 5 second, as you can see in the above video he has almost no look ahead whatsoever. If faz or mats claim to have done the same thing, I don't think many of us will be questioning the validity.



No, because if he KNEW the solution, then look ahead isn't needed.

Also he does have the skill to pull it off, I think most people would. The problem is that because he isn't fast, people are quick to discredit. I'm not saying it should be allowed or w/e, I'm just trying to keep this thread CONSTRUCTIVE and move it away from the WITCH HUNT that is starting to take place.


----------



## Goosly (May 28, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Yes, but that still doesn't mean he can't turn that fast.



Since I average around 17-18, I would like to get the reconstruction, practice the solve a few times and try to get 4.41. I highly doubt I would be able to do that, let alone doing that while improvising. Plus, mostly, an OLL-skip is so surprising that you stare at you cube in amazement for at least half a second.

I agree that a misscramble or a timer-stop during the solve might have occurred, and should be investigated, but I'm just trying to explain that a 4.41 solve, with improvising, is very suspicious for someone who averages 17


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

Goosly said:


> Since I average around 17-18, I would like to get the reconstruction, practice the solve a few times and try to get 4.41. I highly doubt I would be able to do that, let alone doing that while improvising. Plus, mostly, an OLL-skip is so surprising that you stare at you cube in amazement for at least half a second.
> 
> I agree that a misscramble or a timer-stop during the solve might have occurred, and should be investigated, but I'm just trying to explain that a 4.41 solve, with improvising, is very suspicious for someone who averages 17



Yeah I agree with that, but I also wouldn't say that he necessarily averages 17, because that would mean that he hasn't improved in just over a year, which I think is less likely.

Do bear in mind that another option is that he knew the scramble and solution in advance.


----------



## KongShou (May 28, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> No, because if he KNEW the solution, then look ahead isn't needed.
> 
> Also he does have the skill to pull it off, I think most people would. The problem is that because he isn't fast, people are quick to discredit. I'm not saying it should be allowed or w/e, I'm just trying to keep this thread CONSTRUCTIVE and move it away from the WITCH HUNT that is starting to take place.



We r not talking about him cheating to get the single, but if he is able to get the single legit. I don't know about you but when I was at 18s average a sub 10 single seem impossible to me, no matter how lucky. Cross was taking me 4sec at the time. Sub10single is still really rare for me, and I never had a sub 9. Even if its really lucky, u need to be sub10 to pull off a sub 5 single. He simply cannot do it.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Yeah I agree with that, but I also wouldn't say that he necessarily averages 17, because that would mean that he hasn't improved in just over a year, which I think is less likely.
> 
> Do bear in mind that another option is that he knew the scramble and solution in advance.



No the option of him knowing the scramble beforehand is not an option because it is cheating. And that is end of, his single is not legit, we can close this thread.


----------



## YddEd (May 28, 2013)

KongShou said:


> No the option of him knowing the scramble beforehand is not an option because it is cheating.


It COULD be a option, because other people have said that he has posted fake solves before, and this may just be another one. (Except that it's in a competition which is stupid)


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

KongShou said:


> We r not talking about him cheating to get the single, but if he is able to get the single legit. I don't know about you but when I was at 18s average a sub 10 single seem impossible to me, no matter how lucky. Cross was taking me 4sec at the time. Sub10single is still really rare for me, and I never had a sub 9. Even if its really lucky, u need to be sub10 to pull off a sub 5 single. He simply cannot do it.



I KNOW THIS.
Ok let's break it down a bit.



KongShou said:


> We r not talking about him cheating to get the single, but if he is able to get the single legit.


Agreed.



KongShou said:


> I don't know about you but when I was at 18s average


Ok yeah sure, but did you average 18s for over a year? I think he probably averages less than that at home, just because of the time that has passed if nothing else.



KongShou said:


> a sub 10 single seem impossible to me, no matter how lucky.


I got my first sub-10 single when I was averaging about 16, and that was on a standard scramble. I had found ridiculous scrambles before that people had posted and got sub-10s on those before this though. With a sufficiently easy scramble it is possible.



KongShou said:


> Even if its really lucky, u need to be sub10 to pull off a sub 5 single. He simply cannot do it.


No. no no no no no.
If it is SUFFICENTLY lucky, then anyone could get a sub-5 on it (e.g. Aperm)
If it is slightly harder, then less and less people will be able to do it, but its not IMPOSSIBLE, and definitely not SIMPLE.

How I see this now, is that there are 2 sides.

One side is claiming that he is "too bad" of a cuber to get the solve so it shouldn't be allowed. Or that it could never be possible to begin with.
The other side is trying to amass proof that the scramble didn't have this easy solution, or that other cheating/evasion of regulations has taken place.

At the end of the day, the first side can't get a resolution until the proof has been compiled anyway, so perhaps people could focus on trying to find this apparent solution and then try and practice it down to a similar time, this will actually tell us how fast you have to be to be capable of doing this with practice, and also let us see some other options on how the exploitation could have taken place. 

Finally, Constantly saying things like "I will lose faith in the WCA if this is accepted" or "It simply isn't possible" is not helping this discussion and is starting to instigate a rather nasty sub-thread in these posts.


----------



## KongShou (May 28, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> No. no no no no no.
> If it is SUFFICENTLY lucky, then anyone could get a sub-5 on it (e.g. Aperm)
> If it is slightly harder, then less and less people will be able to do it, but its not IMPOSSIBLE, and definitely not SIMPLE.



But I through qqwerf has already proved that it isn't sufficiently lucky for him to be able to sub5? I'm sub 15 but with all the info about this solve I still can't get anywhere near 5 sec on it. I am just trying to say that there is no way this solve is legit. And I agree with your 2 side view, but I think we have proved it to be impossible in both sides.


----------



## stoic (May 28, 2013)

I'd be interested to know if any of our esteemed FMCers can find a good triple X-cross on this scramble.
Surely for 17 moves there'd be blocks or pairs jumping out everywhere?


----------



## jazzthief81 (May 28, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> It is not outright proof, but certainly interesting to note when you consider the other information presented.



Yes, it's definitely relevant information. It at least shows that it wasn't an unusually easy scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

However unlikely, it's entirely possible that this did indeed happen.

Discussing feasibility doesn't really add much other than wild speculation at this point.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 28, 2013)

OK so it seems like what I'm trying to say about this keeps getting misunderstood or redirected, so I'm going to post my opinion and then not post on this thread anymore.

There is enough reasonable doubt to say that he did actually do a solve in this amount of time. Whether that solve was set up, cheated or somehow fiddled with is another matter entirely. Some people just seem to be writing off the fact that "He isn't good enough to do this" Even though it has happened.

I personally will wait for the WCA decision, but also hope that everyone else will as well, and also to accept what they decide for whatever reason they base their decision on. I think a lot of people will be very annoyed/upset if it is allowed to continue, but without any proof to the contrary, it will. And by proof, I mean real tangible proof, not just "He's too slow".


----------



## kko14 (May 28, 2013)

*Questions*

I have some questions about the WR...
We in the German Speedcubers-Forum are not sure what to think about that...
It would be pretty cool if someone could tell me:

-Who Judged the WR-solve?
-Did anyone else saw the solve?
-Who Scrambled the Cube?
-Who printed the Scrambles?


----------



## jonathan90 (May 28, 2013)

Answering the kko14 questions...
1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating
2)Yes, theres 2 or 3 cubers claiming that they saw the solution and swearing what Martin Telésforo has said.
3)I don't know that, but Ernesto checked the scramble 
4)Our delegate, Uriel Gayosso Ruiz

As a mexican cuber, I really don't think that this is legit... but, nobody has found any solid evidence against him. I personally think that if the scramble was so lucky, a lot of better cubers than him would had seen the solution...


----------



## kko14 (May 28, 2013)

Thanks.
So if he cheated he probibly knew the Scramble before...

Another idea?
Are you sure that the timer worked fine?

Some broken v1 Timers sometimes start the time some seconds after they should....
Maybe the v2 timers too?


----------



## jonathan90 (May 28, 2013)

kko14 said:


> Thanks.
> So if he cheated he probibly knew the Scramble before...
> 
> Another idea?
> ...



No idea, but I think that if that was the case the judge or the delegate would had seen that the timer didn't work well, so I don't think so.


----------



## Stefan (May 28, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> I know I have judged a person that showed up late (pre-announced) and I just initialled the first one and drew the line down



That is really bad. At the very least, you should obviously sign the *last* one, not the first. If you just sign the first, someone else could have drawn the line, pretending to be you! Such a score sheet should never be accepted!


----------



## amostay2004 (May 28, 2013)

jonathan90 said:


> Answering the kko14 questions...
> 1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating



Err..but signing on the time sheet before the solves?


----------



## Stefan (May 28, 2013)

pjk said:


> I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.



On the other hand, the board might have better things to do than to read a loooong thread filled with junk.


----------



## pjk (May 28, 2013)

Stefan said:


> On the other hand, the board might have better things to do than to read a loooong thread filled with junk.


Isn't it called research? Clearly if someone was interested in the topic, they would read what the community thinks. There is a bit of good stuff here worth reading.


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

I wonder what's going to happen if we end up having no proof either way.

If someone has to make a judgement in this case, is it likely that the cuber will be given the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## Stefan (May 28, 2013)

pjk said:


> There is a bit of good stuff here worth reading.



That bit being maybe 5-7 posts. Plus I'd assume their authors have told or will tell the board directly.


----------



## Goosly (May 28, 2013)

If there are indications that a misscramble _might_ have happened, or that anything _might _not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.
We will have to wait until the board has discussed this with the delegate and made a decision.


----------



## Kirjava (May 28, 2013)

Goosly said:


> If there are indications that a misscramble _might_ have happened, or that anything _might _not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.



That's not how the idiom works. 

I was wondering if they will give the cuber the benefit of doubting the accusations are true if no hard evidence is presented.


----------



## Arsonist (May 28, 2013)

Goosly said:


> If there are indications that a misscramble _might_ have happened, or that anything _might _not have gone according to the regulations, the cuber will probably get the doubt.


Grezgorz Prusak didn't.


----------



## Florian (May 28, 2013)

fastcubesolver said:


> It doesn't matter who the competitior is. the judge can't put his/her initials in all the spots first off, because then any time could get written in and be made official.


nah, just because the judge was a bit lazy that shouldn't have an impact. WCA shouldn't be that strict. When you know you're judging all 5 solves it's not that bad to just sign all 5, though I personally would sign all 5 in a row after the whole thing, but well 



ben1996123 said:


> people seem to not realise that the competitior should have sgnd the score card too after he finished the solve


really? I always though you'd only need to sign the score card if it is +2 or DNF. But well I haevn't been to a comp in nearly a year, so maybe it changed.



Sin-H said:


> even more: try to do 5tps while improvising an optimal solution (which is usually not fingertrick-friendly) including an execution mistake (which usually leaves you staring at the cube for at least half a second) and saying "OHAI, I'MA SOLVE A DIFFERENT SIDE NOW" (it also takes time to decide if it's worth it, if he did that decision) - speedsolving ain't free jazz, to quote corny.


Exactly!!!

If as stated by one of the Mexican cubers that the judge seems totally legit it might've been a prepared solve. He saw his cube and score-card lying somewhere so he just took his cube scrambled it a certain way and then did his execution!


----------



## Stefan (May 28, 2013)

Arsonist said:


> Grezgorz Prusak didn't.



I assume you mean this?
"Immediately after his solve he informed the WCA delegate about the irregularity."
I don't see how that has anything to do with getting "the doubt" (or "the benefit of the doubt", unless you're from Belgium, apparently).


----------



## Arsonist (May 28, 2013)

Stefan said:


> I assume you mean this?
> "Immediately after his solve he informed the WCA delegate about the irregularity."
> I don't see how that has anything to do with getting "the doubt" (or "the benefit of the doubt", unless you're from Belgium, apparently).



Hmm right. I didn't remember he went directly to the delegate. 
They both reacted well and quickly, and left no place to doubt. 

In Telesforo's case, neither him nor the delegate reacted to this WTF time, which could very, very probably result from a misscramble (A fortiori when nobody, including Telesforo, is able to find his solution.), and now that's a very doubtful situation that leaves the board in deep sh**. My applauses to the competitor and the delegate :|


----------



## Tyson (May 28, 2013)

pjk said:


> I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.



Reading. Oh, so much reading.


----------



## Sebastien (May 28, 2013)

pjk said:


> I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.



I followed this topic since it popped up and my conclusion of useful content is exactly this:



Stefan said:


> That bit being maybe 5-7 posts.


----------



## IamWEB (May 28, 2013)

A summary of all of the more useful posts in this thread could be compiled, assuming it the entire thing hasn't been read by at least a handful of WCA heads. Since I suggested it, maybe I should do it...

About posting potential solutions: Maybe the actual solution should be kept private, on the off chance that he might claim one of the solutions someone else found match his alleged solution in his solve.


----------



## pipkiksass (May 28, 2013)

~10 tps? Bearing in mind Faz's 5.66 full-step was 52 moves = 9.1873 TPS and Mats 5.55 OLL skip was 49 moves (8.81). This would mean he was turning faster than either the current or previous WR pace for F2L, followed by a sub-1 J perm. 

I don't think this can be the solution he used, if (and it's a big IF) this is legit.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 29, 2013)

Okay how about if we challenged him to redo his solve... even with a month of prep and dosens of attempts i suspect he won't get a sub 4.5


----------



## IamWEB (May 29, 2013)

*Compilation*

"4.41"
Perry Open

Post-solve video:





The solve following the alleged 4.41:






"He says that he had a triple X Cross, easy 4th F2L pair, OLL skip and an easy J perm."

From the Facebook page:
Joan Galindo:
Look this was the scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2

Translated posts. Original content removed for space:


wontolla said:


> From the mexican forum:
> 
> The delegate:
> I have already sent the results, I have no comments on Martín's solve, this is already on the WCA board's hands
> ...



"I'm running J-perm (in 4 positions on each of U and D), plus the scramble, on Cube Explorer. A short solution would mean that, once the scramble is applied, there is a short way to solve the cube into a J perm. There are no solutions on any of the 8 scrambles shorter than 17 moves, though. So this guy would have to be "improvising" at least 17 moves, plus a J-perm, in that time. I'm not sure he's capable of that, no matter the luck, if he didn't know the scramble beforehand.

EDIT: For example, one of the solutions was D' R U B2 R L F' U2 L D' F2 D B' L' D2 U' F2 (17f*), so we can solve the scramble F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 with x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm].

Doing the 8 positions with the other J isn't giving me any solves under 17 moves either. " -qqwref



mitch1234 said:


> The average shouldn't even count anyway because of the score card.
> 
> View attachment 2873
> 
> The judge signed all of the times before they even happened. At most of the competitions I've been to its okay if the competitor does this but if the judge does it there can be some really bad things.



While it was brought up earlier that the image doesn't prove the judge signed the card before the 4.41, it does show that the competitor went on to complete his second solve with the required signature for the first solve.

"This judge was not following the proper procedure which calls the validity of the times into question." - Kirjava

"-Who Judged the WR-solve?
-Did anyone else saw the solve?
-Who Scrambled the Cube?
-Who printed the Scrambles?" -kko14

"Answering the kko14 questions...
1) Ernesto Mendoza Dimas, a cuber with experience in Mexico who takes competitions very seriously; he would die before cheating
2)Yes, theres 2 or 3 cubers claiming that they saw the solution and swearing what Martin Telésforo has said.
3)I don't know that, but Ernesto checked the scramble
4)Our delegate, Uriel Gayosso Ruiz" -jonathan90



qqwref said:


> There was no video of the solve, since obviously nobody expected him to beat the record. But it's obviously very suspicious for someone who got a 17 second average his last competition to suddenly get a 4 second time in competition. I think the two most likely possibilities are:
> 1) He somehow got an extremely easy misscramble, and got a ludicrously low movecount. In this case I would expect the same result as Grzegorz Prusak's Square-1 WR single - the result should be disqualified, hopefully with the cooperation of the cuber.
> 2) He received a setup scramble that he had already memorized a fast solution to, perhaps because he has a friend at the scrambling table. In this case I would expect some kind of punishment after the matter is investigated.



"It seems everything was done right, the scramble was well-made, *but the competitor has some antecedents of lies and fake solves on the mexican forum, unofficial solves* but still..." -Derads

"I've tried to talk to some of the people at the competition but they just either don't tell anything or they just say that the solve happened and claim it to be a WR while not seeing the solve themselves.
More regulation of procedures for solving might be needed so that things like this don't happen again." -mitch1234


----------



## uyneb2000 (May 29, 2013)

I would like to point out that if you do the "reconstruction" Martin provides, D' L' R' U' D U2 B2 U' L' U L U' D' L' U' B L, the closest you will get is when you do this with yellow on top and blue on front, and even there, there are 3 of the cross pieces solved, but no F2L pairs solved. I think he's just b*******ing us with reconstructions that won't work. Or when he claims he will reconstruct it and gives us this crappy, inaccurate reconstruction, I doubt he will actually give us one. If he does, I expect the provided portion to be in it, or I am sure he faked it.


----------



## Ninja Storm (May 29, 2013)

TDM said:


> Good idea, and it could work to see if they have actually solved it or not. However, you wouldn't be able to see if the cube was correctly scrambled before the solve began.
> 
> I've also remembered this, which could be useful to the people attempting reconstructions. His cube, which does not have a white side, must have been scrambled with Yellow on U and Green on F.



While these are the regulations, they're not always followed. At competitions I've been to I've seen scramblers simply pick up the cube in any orientation and start scrambling.


----------



## TimMc (May 29, 2013)

tx789 said:


> it could of been 14.41 and they decided to get 4.41 on the timer or something



A judge was once writing down a 9 second solve for a competitor that averages just under 30 seconds. I was ghosting the new judge and had to correct the scorecard with a time of 29.xx seconds. The judge read the time off the malfunctioning tournament display instead of the timer.


I don't think that the tournament display malfunctioned for the 4.41 second solve though. It seems unlikely that both the front and rear LED's would have issues for one solve and then start working again for the rest of the competition...

*TL;DR: Don't record a time based on the tournament display!*

Tim.



Ninja Storm said:


> While these are the regulations, they're not always followed. At competitions I've been to I've seen scramblers simply pick up the cube in any orientation and start scrambling.



Tell the delegate immediately so that they can get on top of the issue and resolve it straight away.

It's difficult for one delegate to monitor everything that's going on.

Tim.


----------



## ErikJ (May 29, 2013)

Something like this could have happened


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 29, 2013)

I can see how a judge can mistake a ~6 second solve for a 5 second solve, but mistaking a solve that was more than likely 8+ seconds for a 4.41... That probably should have been obvious.


----------



## jayefbe (May 29, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Not necesarry, but an option. I personally think the current timers success rate is fine, but I have already seen a few posts stating otherwise. And I meant mostly for when you get things like a malfunction of the timer.
> 
> And just a side note, but I don't know if you noticed this video on the last page, but I, for one, completely looked over the cheating in this video, as did the judge, so maybe missing a cheating competitor isn't always obvious.



How often are there timer malfunctions? On a timer that is in good working condition? 1 in 5000? 1 in 10,000? I just went to a comp with a full day of solving, as far as I could tell there were no timer malfunctions. I have a timer that hasn't had any malfunctions after a few thousand solves. Not that my experience with a single timer really means anything, but I haven't noticed any issues. Any timer method is going to have some sort of failure rate, the question is whether it is acceptable or not. I believe it is, and would hazard a guess that most timer issues are isolated to defective timers, rather than an issue inherent to speedstacks. Perhaps most problematic, changing timing methods immediately starts a debate on whether new WRs are legitimate, and if records should be kept for the "old" and "new" timing methods. 

As for when a timer malfunction occurs, there already is a method in place. A backup scramble is used and the solve is re-done. Any other timer method being used for an official time is problematic because it removes the consistency that is absolutely essential to ensure that solves are compared on a level field. Everyone knows that an official solve was performed using a legal cube, with 15 seconds inspection time, and using a speedstacks timer. Change any of those variables and you lose that consistency, and the ability to accurately compare solves between competitors/competitions.

As for cheating, I believe an observant judge that is paying close attention should have caught that. It was done in a clever way, and was carefully concealed, but that is exactly why a judge is there. Stopping the timer early, whether intentionally or accidentally, is something a judge is specifically supposed to watch out for. Not to mention that any timer method is going to have it's issues when it comes to cheating.

I have no problem with the judge keeping the timer running in order to make sure there are no timer malfunctions. In fact, it's probably a good idea. The judge's timer should absolutely not be used to provide an official time.


----------



## 5BLD (May 29, 2013)

I think its something more fishy than just a timer malfunction. The whole video in itself looks suspicious, especially the way the crowd is cheering and stuff. Maybe it's different over there, who knows. Certainly his comments in spanish which I read earlier seemed so vague yet so long winded. On top of the fact we seem to be hearing little from the actual people involved in said comp...


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 29, 2013)

redbeat0222 said:


> He didn't really get the World Record. He was practicing with the time. It would show up on the WCA profile. It hasn't yet so it is unoffical, if he would have got the wr it would be updated on the wca page shortly after.



None of the results from the competition have been uploaded yet. If it was a WR you have to wait for the competition results to go up, this can sometimes take over a week. Just because it isn't there yet doesn't mean anything.


----------



## TimMc (May 30, 2013)

Here's one way of getting a fast solve:

You put your scrambled (prepared) cube on your scorecard and put both the cube and scorecard in a cube cover. 
A judge picks up the cube cover and confirms that the cube looks scrambled. 
The judge takes the cube to the competitor station and calls out your name. 
You sit down and inspect the puzzle to make sure that the judge didn't accidentally cause a face to turn. 
Your orient the cube and start the memorised solve. 

Are stricter regulations required to ensure that scrambling procedures can't be interfered with? I.e. Get the judge to verify the scramble against the scramble sheet when picking up a cube? Keep the cube covers stacked until all cubes are on scorecards? Get judges to pick up scrambled cubes from one side of the table and put them down on another (out of the cover) so that it's obvious to the scramblers whether a cube has been scrambled by them? 

It's slightly easier to get away with this now that cube covers are required. And especially if everyone is rushing.

If the scrambler can't be named then they may have been rushed... 

What scrambling procedures were used? 

Tim.


----------



## Fili (May 30, 2013)

I don't know if I want this to be confirmed by WCA or not... Maaaaaan what a day to be a mexican


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2013)

TimMc said:


> Here's one way of getting a fast solve: [snip]


I believe Shane Rowland did some kind of variation of this. He got a 13.61 which was DNF'd after the results were already up.



TimMc said:


> Are stricter regulations required to ensure that scrambling procedures can't be interfered with? I.e. Get the judge to verify the scramble against the scramble sheet when picking up a cube? Keep the cube covers stacked until all cubes are on scorecards? Get judges to pick up scrambled cubes from one side of the table and put them down on another (out of the cover) so that it's obvious to the scramblers whether a cube has been scrambled by them?


These are all good ideas but they should be questions of organization rather than regulation - the WCA should not mandate something specific, but rather the organizers should decide how they want to set up the scrambling table, and should have it set up to prevent this kind of thing. Personally, as a scrambler, I would always check that any cubes put on the table (by either a competitor or a returning judge) were solved, and if any cubes weren't solved I'd either ask the person to solve them or start doing it myself.



Fili said:


> I don't know if I want this to be confirmed by WCA or not... Maaaaaan what a day to be a mexican


Trust me, you don't want it.


----------



## Michael45764 (May 30, 2013)

I talked with some of the judges at the competition. What they told me was that they talked with some WCA officials ad they are approving the time as a WR within a few days but that they also have some important announcement to make.


----------



## sneaklyfox (May 30, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> The malfunction rate of Generation II Speedstacks timer is extremely low. As an owner of both Gen II Speedstacks and QJ timers, I can personally say that comparing the two is like comparing a Ferrari with an RC car.



Regarding timer malfunctions, I think I had roughly 5 DNFs in my comp due to timer issues. I don't necessarily mean malfunctions. At least 4 of them were apparently because I accidentally stopped the timer within the first <0.2 seconds of the start of the solves. I am not sure how this happened... is it the way I move my hands off the timer? I only have a QJ timer at home and I know it is not as sensitive as the timers at the comp (I believe they were Gen IIs.) So my QJ never did anything like that at home maybe because grazing it did nothing. I was also used to slamming my QJ timer a little harder because otherwise it might not stop at all. The other DNF at the comp might have been due to the slamming? Because it was definitely running and when I put my hands down it went to -- -- -- or something like that (I forget exactly what it looked like). The annoying part is that they couldn't recreate the malfunction so I could not get a rescramble on it. Of course, it always works fine for the delegate/judge... it just doesn't like me... Sorry for getting a little off topic.

Has anyone considered having the timer on the other side of the cube (on the further side of the table?) Because you can't cheat the way Kuti does it with wrists/arms.


----------



## XTowncuber (May 30, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> I talked with some of the judges at the competition. What they told me was that they talked with some WCA officials ad they are approving the time as a WR within a few days but that they also have some important announcement to make.


If this is true I will burn all my cubes, go insane, and live as a hermit for the rest of my life. I will NOT see a solve as fake as this at the top of the single records.


----------



## sneaklyfox (May 30, 2013)

Ok, so *worst case* it gets accepted as WR single. Not like anybody is actually going to think of him as the fastest in the world or even close. This will just be remembered as a controversial record. Or officially it is but unofficially it isn't in many people's minds.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 30, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Ok, so *worst case* it gets accepted as WR single. Not like anybody is actually going to think of him as the fastest in the world or even close. This will just be remembered as a controversial record. Or officially it is but unofficially it isn't in many people's minds.


Any inexperienced non-cuber may stumble upon WCA and find this guy and think "he must be the fastest, no doubt", ya know? I never researched stuff like that, I just believed what I was told.



XTowncuber said:


> If this is true I will burn all my cubes, go insane, and live as a hermit for the rest of my life. I will NOT see a solve as fake as this at the top of the single records.



I will post this yet again



JF1zl3 said:


> The 3x3 average IS all that matters.
> 
> Whether this guy's solve is legit or not shouldn't affect your opinion on the validity of cubing. You should come across the fact that easy scrambles, and EXTREMELY easy scrambles happen, that's why people put L single and NL single when they are posting their PBs. There have been hundreds of competitions with thousands of competitors, it is irrational to think that something like this couldn't actually happen through pure chance of truly random scrambles. Although I personally agree that it is fake, my point is that this will almost certainly happen again and be legitimate by a sub-10 solver that most people aren't as familiar with as they would be faz or 5BLD or valk. And there will be speculation, and there will be suspicion, and there will be haters and disbelievers, but it will ultimately be proven legit. Or not be proven, but either way it will happen and be approved by the WCA board. However, that is his LUCKY single, he still has 4 more solves to do, and unless he gets 4 more EXTREMELY lucky solves, his average will reflect his skill much more accurately. And since the best and worst times are omitted and the remaining 3 become mo3, his L single isn't even factored into the average.


----------



## Noahaha (May 30, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> I will post this yet again



Telling people what to care and not care about hardly consists of a valid argument when the integrity of the WCA is at stake.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 30, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Telling people what to care and not care about hardly consists of a valid argument when the integrity of the WCA is at stake.


It isn't intended to be a valid argument, it is supposed to be something to console people, in this case XTowncuber, from being so upset, about the unlikely worst case scenario that the WCA approves this record, from quitting cubing. I am just trying to find a light side is all. It being that lucky singles are bound to happen, so we should value the average more than the single by default.


----------



## Fili (May 30, 2013)

If it gets accepted there won't be much difference... I mean, he won't be able to repeat that (or something even close) in front of the media so hopefully it will get the lucky/official-unofficial status it deserves and the credit will go to the guys who are really fast


----------



## Carrot (May 30, 2013)

Some additional solutions I found:
*Start: D' L F' D' F' U2 F R U R'*
17 move triple x-cross with "R U R'" last insertion:
L D2 F D' L2 F L 

21 move F2L: (or 27 move till PLL, a-perm though)
L D2 F2 D2 F2 D2 F D2 F D' L' ( or slight variation to skip OLL ) L D2 F2 D2 F2 D2 F D2 F D' B L' F L B' L' F'

22 move F2L:
L F2 D2 F2 D2 F' D L2 D' F' D L



XTowncuber said:


> If this is true I will burn all my cubes, go insane, and live as a hermit for the rest of my life. I will NOT see a solve as fake as this at the top of the single records.



My pyra rankings might be safe if this gets aknowledged as WR then, YAY!!


----------



## Natanrig (May 30, 2013)

First post here. 
I have noticed people talking about the cube with black stickers. I believe that if you look at this "new" video, it is clear that the cube with black stickers is not the WR cube. I think there are three cubes involved: The WR cube, which can be seen being picked up and taken away by the judge (in purple T-shirt), the Guhong Y (see later) which Martín uses to explain something to Uriel, and the black-stickered cube that he also produces from his bag (?). Also, it may be worth noting that when asked about the cube he uses, Martín said he submitted his Guhong X, although his main cube is the Guhong Y. I am not about to go digging for the post in the Mexican facebook group, too busy. 
Also, I believe I saw a post or comment by the judge which establishes that the solve was fast indeed. I doubt it could have been a timer malfunction or early stoppage.


----------



## Faz (May 30, 2013)

Apansy said:


> we all need to wait for solid evidence, or the benefit of the doubt to be given to the cuber.



So is it up to Martin to prove that his solve was legitimate? (By a reconstruction)
Or is it up to the WCA to prove that it wasn't legitimate? 

I've heard that the WCA can 'void a result without any evidence if they believe there is reasonable doubt'. Can anyone clarify or confirm this?


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> I've heard that the WCA can 'void a result without any evidence if they believe there is reasonable doubt'. Can anyone clarify or confirm this?



I was under the impression that the WCA board can pretty much do as they please.



Michael45764 said:


> I talked with some of the judges at the competition. What they told me was that they talked with some WCA officials ad they are approving the time as a WR within a few days but that they also have some important announcement to make.



I find this hard to believe.


----------



## TMOY (May 30, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> I've heard that the WCA can 'void a result without any evidence if they believe there is reasonable doubt'. Can anyone clarify or confirm this?


IIRC that's what happened witn Sebastian Pino. There was no absolute proof that he cheated, but the scrambles of his fake WRs really seemed too lucky to be honest.


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> Guys in THE video after 4.41 called new cube world record 4.41 he Has a cube At 1 min 28 sec that is THE cube that he used .
> This cant be WR becuase :
> 1 it is scrambled so probably dnf
> 2 i Cannon scramble THE cube after a solve if you do it might be dnf or plus 2 so mats nothing to worry about



There's nothing in the regs that say you can't rescramble and solve your cube between attempts after the judge has inspected it. 



Username said:


> Absolutely correct! It wasn't his last solve, so he shouldn't rescramble it.



Can do if he likes. You are allowed to change cubes between attempts even.



Username said:


> Also, he said that he switched to white cross mid solve, his cube doesn't even have a white side, but black.



Many people would refer to the cross made on the black side as "white cross".


----------



## Robert-Y (May 30, 2013)

wontolla said:


> ...Translation: ... The prereconstruction (POSSIBLE) of the first moves is this D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL although it is just an aproximation,...



This doesn't add much but I tried to apply these moves to the scramble 8 times, each with a different rotation before application of the said moves (no rotation, y ,y2, y', then again with these rotations + z2). In each case, it did not appear as though the solve was progressing at all. I was not close to a triple x-cross in any of the cases. The best I could get was 3 cross pieces solved, but no easy pairs.

Maelstrom: I'm not sure if that's a safe assumption...


----------



## Swoncen (May 30, 2013)

I did not read the full thread but I want to share my thoughts:

1.) The guys cheer after the 4,41 solve and cheer just the same after the 18 seconds solve. Thats just wrong..
2.) A real lucky scramble is possible, but a person with a 20 seconds avg. has a lucky 15 sec. solve, a person with a 10 seconds avg. has a lucky 7 seconds solve. When I was active, Erik was the leader with 7.08 sec. and he averaged at 10 seconds I think. Imagine the possibility of such a lucky solve. How many solves are done by Erik in this time range? 10000-100000? I don't know, but one of those solves can be lucky and then you have such a time like Erik had. In addition, the solve is not on video, the cube is not solved after the world record, the person is known for cheating, etc. etc. If you take all this together, you can be sure that it is not legit. Unless there is a video of the solve, I will never believe that it was a world record. And if it is accepted as one, the record will last very long. In a few years, his name is there, but no one will even remember how he looks like, because it takes more than 1 fake solve!


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> Oh okih... scuse me while I (18 ave cuber) go get a new PB of *time it takes me to recognise and solve a y-perm in next solve* whilst turning at ~5-10tps.
> 
> LOL



Unfeasible does not mean impossible.

We should *not* be labelling this as known cheating yet. It's possible that this *could* be real, and you should remain objective before we have a decision. 



cmhardw said:


> Do we know that the 4th pair was 3 moves, and do we know that it was specifically R U R' ? Perhaps I just missed that information, can someone provide a link?





> borre la publicación debido a que se podía dar a malos entendidos, en mi resolución me equivoque a la hora de ejecutar y después decidí improvisar algunos giros, me percate que dos pares del f2l estaban resueltos, así que decidí empezar a armar la cara blanca y en eso vi otro f2l resuelto, entonces busque el par restante que se resolvió con R U R' quedándome un oll skip y una J que resuelvo en menos de un segundo. la prerreconstrucciÓn (POSIBLE) de los primeros movimientos es esta D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL aunque no es pero es una aproximación, aun me encuentro trabajando en la verdadera reconstrucción pero es lo que hasta ahora he podido hacer. Mi juez y el delegado me preguntaron inmediatamente después de hacer el solve de como estaba el cubo (el patrón de la cruz amarilla que había decidido armar y el f2l) ( esto fue a mi parecer para revisar que el sramble fuese correcto) y se confirmo que mi resolución estuvo bien ejecutada con el scramble correcto.


----------



## cmhardw (May 30, 2013)

Thanks for the quote, Kirjava.

I feel that those who are checking the FMC solution, to be thorough, should probably check all:

[AUF or no] R U R' [AUF or no] [right handeded J Perm]
[AUF or no] R U R' [AUF or no] [left handeded J Perm]
[AUF or no] L' U' L [AUF or no] [right handeded J Perm]
[AUF or no] L' U' L [AUF or no] [left handeded J Perm]

If this is not already being done. So I count 64 scenarios (AUF can be U, U', U2, or nothing) at a minimum that should be run if people are going to try to reconstruct Martin's solve from the scramble.

In my opinion, if people are going to try to reconstruct his solution from the scramble, then do it properly and do it thoroughly. Don't check 16 of these cases and, if his described solution is not found, call him a cheater. His solve should not be marked as illegitimate based on a faulty verification method.

Having checked all possibilities, and not finding his solution, could mean that there is a strong possiblity that the scramble Martin solved was not the same as the official scramble for that attempt in the average. But that claim should not be made until every possible case for the reconstruction has been examined fully.


----------



## Sin-H (May 30, 2013)

seriously, about the improving argument:

It took me roughly a year to get from "not cubing" to #12 in the World Rankings. Nowadays, the situation is different, but people are improving faster and faster. And don't forget his official average was DNF, 15, 15, 15, 19 (?), so he might have been around 15 anyway at his last comp.

The only hint we have towards his actual speed is the video of the second solve, which, in my well-educated eyes *cough* when it comes to speedcubing, doesn't look like he's improved at all  But as whauk pointed out, who knows how one reacts to a never-in-your-dreams-expected fabulous world record solve.

A bad aspect of this being accepted for Martin is that legit or not, he's probably never gonna be able to be happy about any of his speedsolving results again


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> I feel that those who are checking the FMC solution, to be thorough, should probably check all:
> 
> [AUF or no] R U R' [AUF or no] [right handeded J Perm]
> [AUF or no] R U R' [AUF or no] [left handeded J Perm]
> ...


Don't forget to check for last layer on both U and D, and also, we really ought to check for the same insert from all four F2L pairs. So that's 4*4*8*2=256 scenarios ignoring the first AUF :|

Also, the worry I have with these extremely specific FMC-checking attempts is that Martín could easily just say "yeah, maybe my memory was faulty, and it wasn't actually exactly what I said".



Sin-H said:


> It took me roughly a year to get from "not cubing" to #12 in the World Rankings. Nowadays, the situation is different, but people are improving faster and faster.


Agreed, improving a lot in a year can be expected. But 4.41 is a very fast solve and I feel like someone would have to be very fast already (like 10 average) to improvise an xxxcross on a non-easy scramble they've never seen before, then recognize an OLL skip and do a fast J perm, all in 4.41 seconds on a stackmat. I would certainly be interested to see what his other times at the competition were (apart from the 4 and the 18) because that would help us decide whether 4.41 on that scramble is a theoretically possible fluke or an impossible occurrence.


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Having checked all possibilities, and not finding his solution, could mean that there is a strong possiblity that the scramble Martin solved was not the same as the official scramble for that attempt in the average. But that claim should not be made until every possible case for the reconstruction has been examined fully.



Of course a solution exists of this form. The bit we need to know is what is the minimum number of moves required for it.


----------



## Username (May 30, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Don't forget to check for last layer on both U and D, and also, we really ought to check for the same insert from all four F2L pairs. So that's 4*4*8*2=256 scenarios ignoring the first AUF :|



I think we should check every single orientation on the cube, because the judge might have scrambled it in a random orientation (not knowing there's one that you should follow). There's always a chance for that to happen.


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

Username said:


> I think we should check every single orientation on the cube, because the judge might have scrambled it in a random orientation (not knowing there's one that you should follow). There's always a chance for that to happen.



I don't think we should, as that would be a misscramble.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

only thing i ignored was ll on D because he had white LL

i accounted for the pairs though, and everything else though. not on pc atm cant remember case count

Here is a list of what cube explorer is solving, 128 cases:

would be reassuring if someone checked, but i included each of the 4 different last slots AUF before and after the Jperm and also the type of J perm (a or b)



Spoiler



y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2


----------



## Ton (May 30, 2013)

It is hard to believe but not impossible, if he can do 7-8 TPS and got an extremely lucky case
My best PB is 11.21 (46 turns) in competition and I turn slow 4.1 TPS , if I ever got a very lucky case let say a solution of around 32 moves, it will get me a theoretical single solve of 7.8 sec where my best average is 16.67

The top 100 world speedcubers turn twice as fast as me, so yes 4.41 is possible with a very lucky case. That is probably also the hard part for the WCA to reconstruct what happened as it is remains hard to believe


----------



## That70sShowDude (May 30, 2013)

applemobile said:


> You have no firm evidence to base your case on other than, he averaged 18 seconds in a comp last year so it must be cheating. This is not evidence, this is an assumption. There are very little facts about what happened, so just wait and see, I'm pretty sure the FBI are on the case, so lets all stop pretending that the WCA will really take any notice of what a bunch of 12yr olds are arguing about.



-Known for faking solves in the past.
-Got an 18 on his second solve while pretty much only doing the cross in 4.41 seconds. And his pick up, recognition + y perm, and put down would've nearly been 4.41 too. However, he picked up the cube to start his solve, improvised, switched crosses, recognized everything going on AND did that j perm all in 4.41 seconds for someone at this 'speed'? lol
-Chances of this occurring to someone at his 'speed' are so minute that it's safe to say it's impossible imo.
-qq figured out that the non-J perm moves had to be at least 17. Which means the solution needed to be at least 35 moves and ~8+ tps, on a stackmat. His recognition would've had to be beyond flawless. 

In my opinion, people are wasting their time trying to reconstruct something that never happened.


----------



## TMOY (May 30, 2013)

Ton said:


> The top 100 world speedcubers turn twice as fast as me, so yes 4.41 is possible with a very lucky case.


Yes, it's possible assuming Martin is in the top 100 now, but I really don't believe it's the case. I've watched his 18.90 solve again; I know it's hard to tell from one single solve, but that solve looks to me much more like an average solve by an average cuber than like a bad solve by a world-class cuber.


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2013)

Ton said:


> The top 100 world speedcubers turn twice as fast as me


Yes, but watching this guy solve, does he look like a top 100 speedcuber who turns twice as fast as you?


----------



## mark49152 (May 30, 2013)

I'll be interested to see what the WCA actually say, if anything, regarding the details of the solve, the judging and their investigation. If they simply confirm that they accept it as a genuine WR without giving more info as to why, I doubt that will be enough to dispel the skepticism in the community. Tough job for the WCA...


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2


D L' B R2 U L2 B' D' B U D2 L' D2 R U F2 y R U R' U2 Jperm


Optimal given his ending


edit 1: There are other 16 move starts too the results for these give the same number of moves for the solution, vast majority are 17 moves or more though.

Implications are that he must have done at least 30 moves in 4.41 seconds which gives 6.8 tps. This is assuming he found the optimal solution and uses optimal Jperms also.

edit 2: Of course this will not be the only such solution, one of them could be finger tricky.

edit 3: Ok I am now doing it for the other cases, I.e with U and D switched. Since it will take 15 mins only

edit 4:


cc9tough said:


> This is a very odd way to solve a cross in a speed solve. He also said he made a mistake in his original solve, so I doubt that he messed up! saw this crazy complex solution, and then executed it in 4 seconds.



This solution isn't unique

edit 5: OK I have checked all 256 cases. The solution I posted already is optimal.

The second set was actually significantly worse, all of them were 17 moves or more


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 30, 2013)

And keep in mind, just because a solution exists, doesn't mean Martin used it.


----------



## uberCuber (May 30, 2013)

applemobile said:


> You have no firm evidence to base your case on other than, he averaged 18 seconds in a comp last year



Not even this much is a known fact. Why do people keep assuming this number? His averages at that comp were 20, 17, 26. His times are so spread out, you can't draw a certain conclusion. He got as many sup-20's as sub-20's, and half of those sup-20's were terribad (and this is ignoring the DNF; if that were counted, he had _more_ sup-20's than sub-20's). He could have averaged 15 at the time and happened to have terrible nerves or do very badly in the first/third rounds for any reason. Or he could have averaged 20+ and happened to get a very good average for him in the second round.


And I want to make something clear. Do I actually believe that this 4.41 is legitimate? No, not by a long shot. I just don't agree with random speculations being taken as proof.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 30, 2013)

Has this video been seen? I have been following this thread quite a bit and never saw it posted:

Maybe its just my computer but the embedding isnt working so here is a direct link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UPDPZRZtYo


edit:


----------



## Sa967St (May 30, 2013)

A few years ago there was someone from (Indonesia?) who had a suspicious video of a 6.xx or 7.xx official single, and it changed into a DNF after the results were submitted because the scramble in the video wasn't the same as the scramble he was supposed to be given. 

I'm having trouble finding the thread for it... does anyone know which one I'm talking about? I believe Maria Oey organized the competition.


edit: Found it!
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...tus-Ariando-(Ando)-7-53s-3x3-Single-Solve-AsR

Since no one can find the supposed solution Martin gives on the scramble that he should have received, isn't that enough to DNF it?


----------



## Andreaillest (May 30, 2013)

Just to throw my little two cents into the fire...

Competition time =/= actual solving capabilities. It's not rare for people to get nervous during a competition. There are plenty of great cubers who suck during competition. My competition times are horrid compared to the actual times I get when I cube at home. Which is why the 18 sec. average he got a year ago argument is kind of mute to me.

With that being said, I have serious doubts that this was legitimate solve.
The FMCers in this thread are doing a fantastic job, btw.


----------



## cc9tough (May 30, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> Ok I am now doing it for the other cases, I.e with U and D switched. Since it will take 15 mins only
> 
> 
> 
> This solution isn't unique


As you said, this is the optimal solution. This means that any other solution that gives a triple x-cross would be more complex and harder to figure out in such a short amount of time.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

cc9tough said:


> As you said, this is the optimal solution. This means that any other solution that gives a triple x-cross would be more complex and harder to figure out in such a short amount of time.



There can be many optimal solutions. Some of those may be extremely fingertrick friendly and more intuitive. 

Not that I think this 4.41 is legit or anything


----------



## irontwig (May 30, 2013)

cc9tough said:


> This means that any other solution that gives a triple x-cross would be more complex and harder to figure out in such a short amount of time.



lolwat, suboptimal xxx-crosses are far easier to figure out.


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2013)

I like how this guy can plan out a 16+ move xxxcross, but he still solves cross on top normally. I guess planning the cross on bottom is too hard.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

complete list of checked states (sorry for the scattered posts  ):



Spoiler



y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
y y y R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' y z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' U2 z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z 
R U R' R' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U L' z z F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 z z


----------



## Kirjava (May 30, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> complete list of checked states (sorry for the scattered posts  )



Should submit all your findings to the WCA / IAC / whoever needs them


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Should submit all your findings to the WCA / IAC / whoever needs them



what is the relevant email address? I will do it tonight


----------



## jayefbe (May 30, 2013)

Andreaillest said:


> Just to throw my little two cents into the fire...
> 
> Competition time =/= actual solving capabilities. It's not rare for people to get nervous during a competition. There are plenty of great cubers who suck during competition. My competition times are horrid compared to the actual times I get when I cube at home. Which is why the 18 sec. average he got a year ago argument is kind of mute to me.



Moot, not mute. 

While I agree that competition times do not necessarily reflect someone's true abilities, it's a pretty darn good approximation of them. Nerves do not change a world class (or even good) cuber into an ok/intermediate cuber. 

With every day that passes without any news from the WCA, without any information from the delegate or judges at the competition, I'm becoming more and more depressed about the whole situation. I understand the need to see all relevant information before making an official decision, but at least some transparency would be nice. The system set up, in which an impartial and knowledgeable observer should be present for every single solve, should be capable of determining the veracity of any solve with a single phone call. So why does it appear to be failing right now?


----------



## kinch2002 (May 30, 2013)

cuberoots: [email protected]


----------



## AvGalen (May 30, 2013)

KongShou said:


> this is so fake its untrue, why dont he record the actual solve? but just above it?


Can anyone confirm that this was shot at the competition-location and during the competition?


----------



## cc9tough (May 30, 2013)

irontwig said:


> lolwat, suboptimal xxx-crosses are far easier to figure out.



but they take more time to execute. You also need to consider that he messed up mid solve, so he had to plan AND execute in this time meaning his solution had to be very close to optimal. I think it's very unlikely that he would get lucky and just guess this solution.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

cc9tough said:


> but they take more time to execute. You also need to consider that he messed up mid solve, so he had to plan AND execute in this time meaning his solution had to be very close to optimal. I think it's very unlikely that he would get lucky and just guess this solution.



even if he did... 6.8+ tps? i don't think so


----------



## cc9tough (May 30, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> even if he did... 6.8+ tps? i don't think so


You can also figure that there was a pause when he messed up, so his tps were (technically) much faster than that


----------



## Hays (May 30, 2013)

I've been lurking on this thread this whole time and I would just like to point out something no one has really mentioned



> The competitortranslated)
> I erased the previous post because it could have been taken the wrong way, in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second. The prereconstruction (POSSIBLE) of the first moves is this D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL although it is just an aproximation, I'm still working on the real reconstruction but this is what I've got so far. My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct.





> I erased the previous post because it could have been taken the wrong way, in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns,





> *and then I decided to improvise some turns*



What. 

So let me get this straight. After messing up doing the yellow cross, he decided to *guess at 7 TPS, which gave him a white triple x cross.*

First of all, the chances of happening onto a triple x cross doing some "improvised" turns is so astronomically low it would "never" happen.

Second of all, when you mess up your yellow cross, you don't start guessing, you fix the yellow cross. 

Saying that you "decided to improvise some turns" in a 4.41 official solve averaging at least 7 TPS sounds like a pathetic way to cover up the fact that these improvised turns were either pre-planned, or didn't happen because of a set up an easy scramble.

Of course I have no actual evidence that this didn't happen. But you don't "improvise" in a 4.41 solve.


----------



## AvGalen (May 30, 2013)

3 video's:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XvQKgd-8KRA
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5XGfYydlovg
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0UPDPZRZtYo

7 questions:
a) Can anyone explain why everyone was around him?
b) Can anyone explain why there were so many people videotaping him, but there is no material from the actual solve?
c) Can anyone identify the man in the orange shirt that seems to have the perfect angle for recording the actual solve?
d) Can anyone actually confirm that video 1 and 3 are shot during the competition and are recordings of the timeframe of the alleged 4.41 solve?
e) Who/where was the judge?
f) Who/where was the delegate?
g) Who/where was the organisor?


----------



## Noahaha (May 30, 2013)

I thought that all the videos were from immediately after the solve. Do any of them claim to be from during the solve?


----------



## TMOY (May 30, 2013)

Let's examine his claim a bit more closely. He says he was trying to solve cross on white, that is the four white edges, not caring about the rest of the cube. And then he messes up, changes his mind, does a few moves, and all of a sudden, he' gets a triple x-cross on yellow, which means that he has been able to solve in a very short time and without inspection 10 of the 16 pieces he didn't care about the second before.

Yes, I know it's mathematically possible. But I don't believe in such miracles, sorry.


----------



## Ton (May 30, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Yes, but watching this guy solve, does he look like a top 100 speedcuber who turns twice as fast as you?



No....but from the little information of only one video I can not make any conclusions, sure it remains hard to believe. I can only speculate what happened and I do not like to speculate about people without consulting and hear from Martin himself.
I trust the judgement of the WCA in such events, they have a good trace record in their decisions in these kinds of matters. 
They will for sure check with Martin first, which I find the most important first step.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 30, 2013)

important question. 

was the last layer of the solve the same colour as the U layer when it was scrambled, was it the opposite colour, or do we not know?

If you answer, how do you know this?


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Everyone that has made reconstructions: thank you for helping out.
Everyone that has *****ed about the WCA not announcing/doing anything: Tim has already posted several times that they are working on it. So why don't you help them a bit by answering some of the questions that are still out there. I summarized a few that I have myself and there isn't much response to that

Also, it is clear that many rules were not followed during this competition. I have lots of experience and know that sometimes it is just impossible to follow all the rules and you have to just do the best you can. But can anyone tell me if this is how other South-American tournaments were as well? I have been everywhere else in the world but not there, so I would honestly like to know


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 31, 2013)

Wouldn't alot of solves be DNF'd if that were the proper punishment for this frequent regulation violation?


----------



## jayefbe (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Everyone that has made reconstructions: thank you for helping out.
> Everyone that has *****ed about the WCA not announcing/doing anything: Tim has already posted several times that they are working on it. So why don't you help them a bit by answering some of the questions that are still out there. I summarized a few that I have myself and there isn't much response to that



I just briefly went through this whole thread, and I only found one post from Tim and no other official statements from the WCA. If they are posting elsewhere, I would like to know. 

I do not envy the position they are in right now. Not at all. I respect the WCA, and what they do for the cubing community. It's pretty amazing how they've built a worldwide organization that has become the face of cubing, all within the last ten years. I know they are working hard to uncover the truth of this situation. 

However, I do believe that a little more transparency would be beneficial. Without official word from the WCA, the door has been opened for rampant speculation. We're left analyzing random footage, miscellaneous photographs, and second and third-hand quotes. While I do believe that analyzing the scramble/solve is important work towards determining the legitimacy of the solve, it's quite easy to argue against it. All one needs to say is there was a mis-scramble, or the cuber "misremembered" the solve. While these analyses could help support the results if a solve that matched the description was found, the inability to find a solve that matches the description does little to prove it was faked. 

Unfortunately, the only real evidence to support either side is going to come from eyewitness accounts. Which is exactly what we don't have. Presumably, the WCA should have this information. I understand wanting to gain every ounce of information before making a ruling on this solve, but a little more information about what is being done, and what information the WCA is gathering could help to at least reduce the speculation. 

As for helping to answer some of the questions that are still out there, I would love to help out. However, without first hand accounts, any answers would be pure speculation.


----------



## wontolla (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> But can anyone tell me if this is how other South-American tournaments were as well? I have been everywhere else in the world but not there, so I would honestly like to know



I am from the country in question, and I've been to one of its competitions and also one in the UK. The difference on how they are held is abismal.
In this country (sorry, my fingers refuse to write the name), it is the norm to do things like signing the 5 solves before the actual solves. Or keeping off 2 meters from the competitor's table.
Unfortunatelly, here, "follow the rules" is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## TimMc (May 31, 2013)

wontolla said:


> it is the norm to do things like signing the 5 solves before the actual solves. Or keeping off 2 meters from the competitor's table.
> Unfortunatelly, here, "follow the rules" is the exception, not the rule.



I'm sure that the organisers and delegate(s) are doing their best there. If they need any help or if their community feels that something needs to change then they need to reach out and speak up. This could be done openly through a forum or in confidence by e-mail etc.

Tim.


----------



## Michael45764 (May 31, 2013)

Hays said:


> I've been lurking on this thread this whole time and I would just like to point out something no one has really mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I read the spanish version of what he said and it isn't 100% clear so don't trust the translation to translate what he meant to say.

In spanish he said: _"en mi resolución me equivoque a la hora de ejecutar y después decidí improvisar algunos giros, me percate que dos pares del f2l estaban resueltos"_

Which seems to me that he means that when it was time to solve he decided to go with the white cross rather than his original plan because he saw 2 f2l's already solved. 

The initial moves with the white cross were then not "pre-planned" (therefore "improvised"). By chance he saw that a third f2l was solved and the third was done with R U' R'.


----------



## XTowncuber (May 31, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> I read the spanish version of what he said and it isn't 100% clear so don't trust the translation to translate what he meant to say.
> 
> In spanish he said: _"en mi resolución me equivoque a la hora de ejecutar y después decidí improvisar algunos giros, me percate que dos pares del f2l estaban resueltos"_
> 
> ...


So, if I understand you correctly, he decided to switch crosses just before he started the solve? That does make it ever so slightly more plausible. Still impossible, but less so.


----------



## DaveyCow (May 31, 2013)

So I read most of this thread but it got too time-consuming so sorry if this has already been addressed but: Has anyone talked to the judge? Did he watch and witness an official solve? Did he know all the rules? It seems those would be the first questions to ask.


----------



## Owen (May 31, 2013)

It's interesting actually, no one seems to know who the judge was, or even who was present at the time.


----------



## moralsh (May 31, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, he decided to switch crosses just before he started the solve? That does make it ever so slightly more plausible. Still impossible, but less so.



No, he says in the first sentence that he was wrong while executing, not while inspecting, so IMHO the solve had already started. Then he says "después" which means "later" so it was after starting and messing up when he switched to improvisation mode and found the triple Xcross.

I agree with Michael45764 that it isn't written crystal clear, but it doesn't leave much room to a sensible explanation of the solve either.


----------



## Faz (May 31, 2013)

Even if he started on white, the solutions found in this thread, ending in R U R' and J perm, cannot be executed in 4.41 seconds. If anyone can solve that scramble with that ending in 4.5 seconds or less, I'll buy them dinner at worlds  

I'm not sure whether people truly appreciate how fast 4 seconds is. The difficulty gap between a 4 second solve and a 6 second solve is equal to the gap between a 6 and a 10, in my opinion.


----------



## IamWEB (May 31, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> Even if he started on white, the solutions found in this thread, ending in R U R' and J perm, cannot be executed in 4.41 seconds. If anyone can solve that scramble with that ending in 4.5 seconds or less, I'll buy them dinner at worlds
> 
> I'm not sure whether people truly appreciate how fast 4 seconds is. The difficulty gap between a 4 second solve and a 6 second solve is equal to the gap between a 6 and a 10, in my opinion.



4 is literally two-thirds of 6, and 6 is nearly two-thirds of 10, so you're actually right from a technical standpoint.
Can _you_ execute one of those solution in under 4.5 seconds?


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Thanks for cleaning up the thread and recapping.

It seems to be clear that the WCA is treating this like a police investigation "we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation" after they made the necessary "we are working hard on this" statement and that seems like a very wise way to approach this without any prejudice. They would have to determine IF this is valid and only if they can sufficiently prove that they would of course like to know how that time got into the results officially (how did he do it) and if he did that alone. So far this forum has been very helpful in helping determine if it could be valid, but not anything beyond that. I tried to steer the discussion in that direction yesterday, but so far there hasn't been much response to that:

_3 video's:_
_1) _http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XvQKgd-8KRA
_2) _http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5XGfYydlovg
_3) _http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=0UPDPZRZtYo

_7 questions:_
_a) Can anyone explain why everyone was around him?_
_b) Can anyone explain why there were so many people videotaping him, but there is no material from the actual solve?_
_c) Can anyone identify the man in the orange shirt that seems to have the perfect angle for recording the actual solve?_
_d) Can anyone actually confirm that video 1 and 3 are shot during the competition and are recordings of the timeframe of the alleged 4.41 solve?_
_e) Who/where was the judge?_
_f) Who/where was the delegate?_
_g) Who/where was the organisor?_

I hope that this is helpful to the WCA and that we will hear some official news.

On a lighter mood, I just saw a slogan somewhere that basically proves that this just can't be the record: "...live on cubecomps.com - where records see the light."
Also on a lighter mood: Good luck everyone next weekend. Just try to break this time (or the 5.55)


----------



## Crowned xerxes (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Thanks for cleaning up the thread and recapping.
> 
> It seems to be clear that the WCA is treating this like a police investigation "we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation" after they made the necessary "we are working hard on this" statement and that seems like a very wise way to approach this without any prejudice. They would have to determine IF this is valid and only if they can sufficiently prove that they would of course like to know how that time got into the results officially (how did he do it) and if he did that alone. So far this forum has been very helpful in helping determine if it could be valid, but not anything beyond that. I tried to steer the discussion in that direction yesterday, but so far there hasn't been much response to that:
> 
> ...



Do you possibly know why a guy at 50 seconds sticks a unsolved cube into the camera view?


----------



## Faz (May 31, 2013)

IamWEB said:


> 4 is literally two-thirds of 6, and 6 is nearly two-thirds of 10, so you're actually right from a technical standpoint.
> Can _you_ execute one of those solution in under 4.5 seconds?



I don't think anyone can, hence the challenge


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Crowned xerxes said:


> Do you possibly know why a guy at 50 seconds sticks a unsolved cube into the camera view?


No, be I also don't speak any Spanish which doesn't help in this situation.
The cube thing has been discussed a bit in this thread though. It has been mentioned that there might have been as many as 3 cubes involved. A Guhong X for the solve, this white cube that was shown and apparently was picked out of a bag, and a Guhong Y for the next solve. I don't know if any of that is accurate but that is how it was described


----------



## moralsh (May 31, 2013)

another question to add to AvGalen's list, Would anyone trust a WR video shared from a Youtube account with a name related to viral videos? ("Virales" is plural of viral in spanish), it just looks as a set up idea from the owner of that account.


----------



## Ton (May 31, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> Even if he started on white, the solutions found in this thread, ending in R U R' and J perm, cannot be executed in 4.41 seconds. If anyone can solve that scramble with that ending in 4.5 seconds or less, I'll buy them dinner at worlds
> 
> I'm not sure whether people truly appreciate how fast 4 seconds is. The difficulty gap between a 4 second solve and a 6 second solve is equal to the gap between a 6 and a 10, in my opinion.



-That's why I guess, if it was a true solve (so the timer did not stop early or had a malfunction), solve must have been less than 32 moves, we could estimate the number if we would know his current TPS. 

-if it was true it is like the fastest FMC attempt ever, so a very lucky scramble for his method 

So for me his TPS will count as evidence


----------



## nickvu2 (May 31, 2013)

I haven't read every post in this thread so maybe this was brought up before; if so apologies.

Just to fuel all the speculation, here's another angle by which this matter could be examined. The study of body language and micro expressions is a fascinating topic. Programs like this show experts analyzing footage of public figures and pointing out telltale signs of lying and truth telling. I have no doubt that a body language expert could look at the video of Telesforo and determine in a second whether the WR claim is legit. 

In short, they would be asking themselves if Telesforo's posture, hand movements, facial expressions, words, tone, behavior, etc. are ALL consistent with someone who just broke the 3x3 WR. For example, in the Watergate trial, Nixon was speaking sternly and defensively (anger and frustration at the accusations, consistent with his claim of innocence) but wringing his hands behind his back (inconsistent, showing nervousness and doubt).

Now if any of you are actually proficient at this skill, I'd love to hear your opinion. If you're not an expert and this sounds interesting and you want to try analyzing the video yourself, some things to keep in mind: try not to go in having already formed a conclusion; please be honest about your noob status and realize you and I are making little more than guesses. 

Whatever, it's a fun exercise =) Maybe something worth paying attention to in your everyday life. [That documentary linked to above is worth checking out!]


----------



## applemobile (May 31, 2013)

Obviously I am no expert, but it's pretty apparent in the videos that he is uneasy and not exactly looking overjoyed. Doesn't take an expert to see that he is clearly battling with some inner guilt.


----------



## Renslay (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> _7 questions:_
> _a) Can anyone explain why everyone was around him?_
> _b) Can anyone explain why there were so many people videotaping him, but there is no material from the actual solve?_
> _c) Can anyone identify the man in the orange shirt that seems to have the perfect angle for recording the actual solve?_
> ...



I think this has the answers to f) and g):
http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?winners=Winners&competitionId=PerryOpen2013

As about a), it seems that they didn't follow the exact rules, according to wontolla's post.


----------



## Genesis (May 31, 2013)

nickvu2 said:


> I haven't read every post in this thread so maybe this was brought up before; if so apologies.
> 
> Just to fuel all the speculation, here's another angle by which this matter could be examined. The study of body language and micro expressions is a fascinating topic. Programs like this show experts analyzing footage of public figures and pointing out telltale signs of lying and truth telling. I have no doubt that a body language expert could look at the video of Telesforo and determine in a second whether the WR claim is legit.
> 
> ...


I'm quite sure nobody had pointed it out yet, this may be a new approach considering that we do not have much progress as of now


----------



## Dene (May 31, 2013)

nickvu2 said:


> Just to fuel all the speculation, here's another angle by which this matter could be examined. The study of body language and micro expressions is a fascinating topic. Programs like this show experts analyzing footage of public figures and pointing out telltale signs of lying and truth telling. I have no doubt that a body language expert could look at the video of Telesforo and determine in a second whether the WR claim is legit.



Having a degree in psychology, I have a lot of doubt about employing such a method. While there are generally ways to tell if someone is lying, a lot of views held are actually myths (such as people avoiding eye-contact being an indication of lying; this is not true). And if someone knows the facts about these things, it is very easy to manipulate one's body language to appear however one wants to portray it.


----------



## Pedro (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Also, it is clear that many rules were not followed during this competition. I have lots of experience and know that sometimes it is just impossible to follow all the rules and you have to just do the best you can. But can anyone tell me if this is how other South-American tournaments were as well? I have been everywhere else in the world but not there, so I would honestly like to know



(Not to be picky, but Mexico is actually Central/North America).
Here in Brazil we're not in a state I would consider a role model for competitions, but we've improved greatly over the past few years. Except for a very small competition, we don't let people stand around tables (specially behind them) when people are solving. We usually have a stage of some nature, and only competitors and judges are allowed to go up there.

Of course this is not always possible to enforce, and has happened here also in the past. But this whole situation looks like more a joke/prank to me than real competition solving. Everybody is around him, cheering for a 18.xx solve as much (or even more) than they did for the WR(?).


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Renslay said:


> I think this has the answers to f) and g):
> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?winners=Winners&competitionId=PerryOpen2013
> 
> As about a), it seems that they didn't follow the exact rules, according to wontolla's post.


Thanks for trying, but 
a) I wanted to know WHY they were standing around him. Did they know something special was going to happen in advance?
e, f and g) I wanted to know if the judge/deletegate/organisor was somewhere in the videos



Stefan said:


> You watched too much _Lie to me_.


I am looking at Stefan's avatar and am trying to decide if he is serious 



Pedro said:


> (Not to be picky, but Mexico is actually Central/North America).
> Here in Brazil we're not in a state I would consider a role model for competitions, but we've improved greatly over the past few years. Except for a very small competition, we don't let people stand around tables (specially behind them) when people are solving. We usually have a stage of some nature, and only competitors and judges are allowed to go up there.
> 
> Of course this is not always possible to enforce, and has happened here also in the past. But this whole situation looks like more a joke/prank to me than real competition solving. Everybody is around him, cheering for a 18.xx solve as much (or even more) than they did for the WR(?).


Thanks for correcting me. As I said before, I don't know enough about that part of the world and need to learn more. I was brought up with the idea that "North = USA+Canada", aka cold and western. "South = warm, temperamentful, soccer".
Good to hear that comps are improving where you are. This comp seems like it should not even be allowed to be WCA. Something I wouldn't want to have to decide because I am sure the organisers+sponsors+competitors would all be very disappointed.


----------



## Litz (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> a) I wanted to know WHY they were standing around him. Did they know something special was going to happen in advance?


The video is from after the "solve".


----------



## Ton (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> I don't think there is any doubt that he cannot have done what he claims he has done. It doesn't even matter if he used 17 moves for triple X-Cross or 17+3 moves for F2L. With his turning speed, level, description of all the pickup, dropdown, turns, rotations, decisions, undoing, etc that he had to make there is no way he could do 17 or 20 moves in 3.41 seconds.
> 
> Let's stop obsessing about this part (what he claims has happened) and move on to the next part (what DID in fact happen).



I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .

If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early. 

Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 31, 2013)

Ton said:


> I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .
> 
> If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early.
> 
> Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.



misscramble perhaps. Frankly I don't think that he is honest.


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Litz said:


> The video is from after the "solve".


Please don't refer to THE video when I actually listed 3 video's and asked if anyone could confirm that these video's were all video's of the official "solve"



BillyRain said:


> If you ask me, one of those vids looks like the guy standing in front of the table is organising the fake reaction... and then he is the first to start clapping and cheering (all of a sudden without even looking at the table/timer), and then everyone else follows.
> 
> Looks to me like a "Ok guys, lets all start cheering and stuff now just for the camera", cept someone uploaded a video without the initiation cut out
> 
> JMO


It looks EXACTLY like that to me. It also doesn't look like it is at the same time/place as the first 



Schmidt said:


> Then i must have read this wrong
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42174-4-41&p=857323&viewfull=1#post857323


He has been extremely inconsistent about describing his solve. The only consistent part seems to be "OLL skip" + J-Perm. Even in that quote he doesn't directly say "17 moves", he just says something like D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL (but it is just an approximation) + R U R'. That is why I keep referring to "17/20" moves.


Ton said:


> I can do 20 moves in 4.5 seconds and I am slow (compared to the top 100) , so the estimated or reconstructed solve in combination with his actual TPS is some kind of evidence .
> 
> If we assume he is honest than we have two possible outcomes, it was an actual solve or the timer stopped early.
> 
> Let's hope Martin can reproduce what he did.


Doing 20 moves in 3.41 seconds (not 4.41) is possible, but not when it involves him, so many random turns, rotations, pickuptime, thinking, etc. That is why several people gave the challenge of "do D'L'R'U'DU2B2U'L'ULU'D'L'U'BL + R U R' in 3.41 seconds". This example actually seems rather fingertricky to me with almost no halfturns and many LRU turns.


----------



## Litz (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Please don't refer to THE video when I actually listed 3 video's and asked if anyone could confirm that these video's were all video's of the official "solve"


They're all from after the solve. The first video is from right after the solve (as in, when everyone found out about the 4.41). The second one is from the solve after that one. The last one is from the "official announcement" of the WR. In chronological order: 1 -> 3 -> 2. And yes, they're all ridiculous.


----------



## AvGalen (May 31, 2013)

Litz said:


> They're all from after the solve. The first video is from right after the solve (as in, when everyone found out about the 4.41). The second one is from the solve after that one. The last one is from the "official announcement" of the WR. In chronological order: 1 -> 3 -> 2. And yes, they're all ridiculous.


Do you assume this, or do you know this?


----------



## chris410 (May 31, 2013)

The issue I have with this is whether a 17 second average cuber has the ability to look ahead, inspect, and execute a solve in 4.41 seconds. Even given the solution, how many 17 second average cubers can even solve a cube that quickly? Also, as others said, how did the other faster cubers all miss this solution? If he had other sub-10 averages, I would believe this to be possible however, I think this was either a joke or something else which was taken seriously when it was not meant to be. Either way, it is highly suspect given the large discrepancy between his average and a 4.41 second time. I think a lucky solve would be a 9 second or maybe an 8 second however, 4.41 would demand a very fast TPS which, I would question at a 17 second average. Things do not add up...I hope the WCA has something in the rules or procedures to address situations like this.

I would like to see the person execute the solve itself in 4.41 seconds or even have some sub 10 second solves to back up the possibility of having such a fast solve.


----------



## Litz (May 31, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Do you assume this, or do you know this?


This is just from what they say in the video and what the guy recording them says. According to this, he broke the WR (but no one recorded it) so people gathered around him to congratulate him, take pictures, etc (the first video). After that, they decided to announce it to everyone and tape a fake reaction (the third video). The other one is just from the next solve (no idea why they were cheering but probably just joking or whatever).

Sure the guy could be lying about this too, but that wouldn't even make sense as he's not claiming these are from the solve at all.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (May 31, 2013)

Dene said:


> Having a degree in psychology, I have a lot of doubt about employing such a method. While there are generally ways to tell if someone is lying, a lot of views held are actually myths (such as people avoiding eye-contact being an indication of lying; this is not true). And if someone knows the facts about these things, it is very easy to manipulate one's body language to appear however one wants to portray it.



Ah, but if (hollywood) TV has taught me anything, it's that microexpressions cannot be faked! I was an avid fan of "Lie To Me" and they certainly fake said microexpressions! I actually saw this concept years before this show was aired, and I've always wanted to meet somebody well versed in said topic because I'd love to test them 

Stefan: I most CERTAINLY have watched too much Lie To Me! I watched the whole series  I cannot speak on Nick's behalf, though.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 31, 2013)

I overlooked 1 case which can be solved in 29 moves. It is a 16 move xxxcross and no AUF on the Jperm, but it gives the 'bad' Jperm. It is F R2 B L F D2 L2 D B' D' F2 R' D2 F' R2 F2.

However, looking more closely at the sources I believe we can conclude that his last layer was in fact yellow. The result from those cases gives the lower bound as 30 still.


----------



## Hays (May 31, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> Even if he started on white, the solutions found in this thread, ending in R U R' and J perm, cannot be executed in 4.41 seconds. If anyone can solve that scramble with that ending in 4.5 seconds or less, I'll buy them dinner at worlds





CubeRoots said:


> scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2
> 
> 
> D L' B R2 U L2 B' D' B U D2 L' D2 R U F2 y R U R' U2 Jperm








The Riviera Steak and Seafood place looks good. 

But realistically there is no way he did this in 4.41 in the competition. This took me over 100 attempts, and I had perfect lookahead and execution.


----------



## mark49152 (May 31, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> lololol. Dang it. I was gonna try doing that this morning


Did Faz say only the first to do it would get dinner?


----------



## ySoSrs (May 31, 2013)

Haha, that's awesome. Would be funny if multiple people are able to do it. Although he didn't specify what the dinner would be, it could also be a cheap hamburger of course.


----------



## cmhardw (May 31, 2013)

ySoSrs said:


> Haha, that's awesome. Would be funny if multiple people are able to do it. Although he didn't specify what the dinner would be, it could also be a cheap hamburger of course.



It was common practice a year or so ago amongst us BLD cubers to offer to buy someone a cookie at the next competition whenever they achieved some impressive feat


----------



## Bh13 (May 31, 2013)

In my opinion, even if he did get this lucky of a solve, he shouldn't count it as official. For example, I got a solve one time that was 8.xx seconds, but I don't count it as my personal best because it was way too lucky. A PLL or OLL or even a full LL skip would be fine with me, but if the f2l was almost entirely done already and then he got an OLL skip and a J-Perm, I would say it would be way too lucky. And also, what cuber who averages above 15 seconds would have enough look ahead to be able to solve a triple x-cross after messing up the cross on the opposite face, and then be able to finish in under five seconds? It doesn't seem at all logical to me.


----------



## Ronxu (May 31, 2013)

Bh13 said:


> In my opinion, even if he did get this lucky of a solve, he shouldn't count it as official. For example, I got a solve one time that was 8.xx seconds, but I don't count it as my personal best because it was way too lucky. A PLL or OLL or even a full LL skip would be fine with me, but if the f2l was almost entirely done already and then he got an OLL skip and a J-Perm, I would say it would be way too lucky. And also, what cuber who averages above 15 seconds would have enough look ahead to be able to solve a triple x-cross after messing up the cross on the opposite face, and then be able to finish in under five seconds? It doesn't seem at all logical to me.



Getting lucky is not a crime.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 31, 2013)

Ronxu said:


> Getting lucky is not a crime.


Agreed, However, try to see it from the perspective that perhaps a non-cuber may take.
Some non-cuber may ask "What is the fastest solve EVER?!" and in reply, if this is accepted by WCA, I would say "4.41 by this Martin guy", And then the non-cuber would be like "HOW?!" and in response to that I would say "Well half of the puzzle solved itself easily while he was doing other things to it and he got an extremely lucky finish as well."
Now I cant say 100% for sure that this is how a non-cuber would react, but I am thinking he or she would be confused and say "If it were so lucky, how is it considered the fastest? That doesn't seem right..."
I actually get from almost everyone I explain competitions to this dilemma:
Non cuber: "Does everyone get the same scramble?"
Me: "No, they are each randomly generated."
Non Cuber: 'Why? Then some scrambles will be LUCKIER than others."
Me: "Because if everyone had the same scramble word could get around and there could be cheating and etc. etc. etc. ..."
So you can see, Non-cubers do understand the concept of lucky solves, and they will not be impressed by the fact that some guy happened to be the person who got a solve in which Luck > Skill for the solve time.
However, I do not know what to do in the event of a lucky solve. (So lucky it is past the point where it should be considered acceptable, such as that Square-1 Solve earlier.) Is there some way to measure Luckiness? Maybe by the amount of pieces already solved? I personally draw the line at LL skip (LL Skip BEING too lucky), however that is only applicable to CFOPers, and it doesn't include the steps before it (getting simple F2L cases, Cross nearly solves, stuff like that.)


----------



## XTowncuber (May 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> I actually get from almost everyone I explain competitions to this dilemma:
> Non cuber: "Does everyone get the same scramble?"
> Me: "No, they are each randomly generated."
> Non Cuber: 'Why? Then some scrambles will be LUCKIER than others."
> ...


Umm..everyone gets the same scramble at comps. Each of the 5 solves is different but everyone gets the same 5.


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 31, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> Umm..everyone gets the same scramble at comps. Each of the 5 solves is different but everyone gets the same 5.


Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.

Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#4b

Unless I am missing something here.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.
> 
> Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.
> 
> ...



Interesting. It appears somehow that in our current regulations, regulation 4e got dropped. From the 2010 regulations:
4e)	Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.

How did we manage to drop this? I would think it needs to go back in.

Note that in the new regulations, there's a 4d and a 4f, but no 4e.


----------



## Meep (May 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Really? Huh, well I'm an ***** then. Never been to a comp, I just assumed that based on my expereince with TNoodle. I guess it makes more sense that way though.
> 
> Edit: I just looked at the regulations, and They aren't very clear on that, it just says that they are scrambled based on randomly generated scrambles, not the same 5 or a different 5, just that they are.
> 
> ...



If you actually try out the official scrambling program, you'll see it just makes a set of scrambles for each round of an event.

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/


----------



## Bh13 (May 31, 2013)

I'm not saying he should be disqualified because he got lucky, I'm just saying that if I were him, I would just not count the time as official, just to save every body the trouble of having to decide wether or not it was legal or not. If he did that, it would be a lot easier to accept his time as a real solve that was simply unofficial instead of having to decide wether or not it was a real official solve that was a WR. This would also be (in my opinion) more honorable than having the WR. But who doesn't want a world record? Probably it won't happen. It was just a thought


----------



## JF1zl3 (May 31, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> Interesting. It appears somehow that in our current regulations, regulation 4e got dropped. From the 2010 regulations:
> 4e) Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.
> 
> How did we manage to drop this? I would think it needs to go back in.
> ...



Huh, you're right, it skips e. That would be a helpful thing to have in there though haha.



Meep said:


> If you actually try out the official scrambling program, you'll see it just makes a set of scrambles for each round of an event.
> 
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/


I have tried it, I use it for the competitions I run on this forum. For some reason I got it in my head that everyone gets there own set of scrambles printed off that are each unique, I always thought that must be a big hassle, but apparently not since it is not that case.

In any case, this is all very off topic.


----------



## Ton (May 31, 2013)

BillyRain said:


> Has it not already been proven that he will not be able to reproduce a viable solve from the supposed scramble through the research done by our cube explorers?
> 
> He would either have to claim a misscramble, im which case he could invent his own scramble with a solution close to what he claimed by using CE, and then say "Hey look i managed to reverse what I did and this was the scramble..."
> 
> ...



Agree, this is the part that bugs me also, I was able to reproduce my 11.21 PB the next day , took me 15 min or so as there where a few options when I solve that specific state 
All I need to reproduce my own solves is 
1) the correct scramble
2) how I solved the cross together with the first F2L pair
I use the end PLL as confirmation, from this I am pretty sure I can reconstruct my own solve even if it is the next day. 

What does a cuber need as information in general to reproduce his own solve ?


----------



## Meep (May 31, 2013)

Bh13 said:


> I'm not saying he should be disqualified because he got lucky, I'm just saying that if I were him, I would just not count the time as official, just to save every body the trouble of having to decide wether or not it was legal or not. If he did that, it would be a lot easier to accept his time as a real solve that was simply unofficial instead of having to decide wether or not it was a real official solve that was a WR. This would also be (in my opinion) more honorable than having the WR. But who doesn't want a world record? Probably it won't happen. It was just a thought



It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.


----------



## cubecraze1 (May 31, 2013)

Meep said:


> It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.



Could you choose to DNF it?


----------



## Noahaha (May 31, 2013)

Meep said:


> It's not up to the competitor to choose what solves are and aren't official; Some people might purposely not count solves they aren't happy with if the option was available.



I think that if you cheated/regulations weren't followed, you could certainly DNF yourself.

For example, one time I did a 2H solve instead of OH by accident. My judge didn't notice, but I told her what happened and it was a DNF.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 31, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> Interesting. It appears somehow that in our current regulations, regulation 4e got dropped. From the 2010 regulations:
> 4e)	Competitors must solve the same scramble sequences or scrambled positions per group of competitors.
> 
> How did we manage to drop this? I would think it needs to go back in.
> ...



I got a response back from the WRC on this. If you look at the guidelines, there are these:
1h+) RECOMMENDATION Competitors in the same group should use the same scramble sequences. Different groups should use different scramble sequences.
1h+) RECOMMENDATION All final rounds of all events, as well as all Fewest Moves Solving rounds, should have the same scrambles for all competitors (i.e. only 1 group).

So while it's not absolutely required, it is recommended (it SHOULD be done). I guess that means that it wouldn't technically be illegal to give every competitor in a competition an entirely different set of scrambles (although it would be a bad idea, as it's against recommendations). Fortunately, that would be very inconvenient, so I doubt anyone would bother to try.


----------



## uberCuber (May 31, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> I got a response back from the WRC on this. If you look at the guidelines, there are these:
> 1h+) RECOMMENDATION Competitors in the same group should use the same scramble sequences. Different groups should use different scramble sequences.
> 1h+) RECOMMENDATION All final rounds of all events, as well as all Fewest Moves Solving rounds, should have the same scrambles for all competitors (i.e. only 1 group).
> 
> So while it's not absolutely required, it is recommended (it SHOULD be done). I guess that means that it wouldn't technically be illegal to give every competitor in a competition an entirely different set of scrambles (although it would be a bad idea, as it's against recommendations). Fortunately, that would be very inconvenient, so I doubt anyone would bother to try.



That's odd. Why would they change this to make it not *required*?


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 31, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> That's odd. Why would they change this to make it not *required*?



"Logistics at a small competition" were mentioned. Also, I can see where this keeps us from having to invalidate whole rounds just because of some minor problem with keeping scramble sequences properly separated.

I think I'm okay with it - we really should follow the guidelines as much as possible, but this prevents disasters from occurring if we don't for some reason. In any event, if anyone thinks this is a big enough deal that it should be corrected, we should probably move it to another thread and stop spamming this one. Sorry for sidetracking it even this far.


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Jun 1, 2013)

I don't beleive it, and if the wca recognizes it I still won't. He will never be a record holder in my eyes.


----------



## Faz (Jun 1, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Did Faz say only the first to do it would get dinner?



In my head, yes


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2013)

Unless people are willing to ask around on the Mexican cube forums and/or facebook groups (and I don't even know where these are), there aren't really any more facts we can discover. We've already seen the videos - from after the solve - and discussed the scramble and what the competitor said about his solve.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 1, 2013)

So let's speculate about either 1 of 2 things:

1) Please find a scenario that allows him to have done a legitimate solve and get the WR
2) Please find a scenario that explains what could have happened

Or let's not speculate at all and wait for the official WCA investigation to make some announcement. I am pretty sure there will be a lot of speculation at the comps this weekend!


----------



## TMOY (Jun 1, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> I am pretty sure there will be a lot of speculation at the comps this weekend!



Seems pretty obvious. I only hope that the board members who are competing this WE won't get harassed to much by cubers who want to know.



JF1zl3 said:


> Or this, is there any idea when we will get an official announcement?



We'll get an official announcement when the board feels ready to make an official announcement. Impossible to tell when it will happen, depends on too many things.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> 1) Please find a scenario that allows him to have done a legitimate solve and get the WR


I'll be honest, at this point, I can't think of one. There are just too many moves he had to do, without any obvious solution with nice fingertricks, and he doesn't have anywhere near the tps or recognition to pull it off.


Here's what I think is going to happen, actually... the WCA will decide that Martín could not could have completed that scramble in that time, and that, if the time is accurate, there must have been some mistake which gave him the wrong scramble. Without proof that Martín cheated, they will give him the benefit of the doubt, and DNF the time (for being done with the wrong scramble, and/or mistimed) but not penalize him in any other way.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 1, 2013)

What if they have no proof of a misscramble or mistime? Can they still DNF it?


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Jun 1, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> What if they have no proof of a misscramble or mistime? Can they still DNF it?



I think the wca can do whatever they want, its not like court where you have to be proven guilty.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 1, 2013)

Rubiksfreak said:


> I think the wca can do whatever they want, its not like court where you have to be proven guilty.


I guess that's true. Well in this case it's a good thing then.


----------



## Dene (Jun 1, 2013)

While the WCA is not a democracy, the people that lead the WCA are still obligated to the community upon which they rely. They cannot just do what they want.

To be honest, I can't believe people are so worked up about this; the solve is clearly illegitimate. If it isn't just a prank (and I feel things have been taken way too far for this to be a prank) then the solution is simple: put the burden of the proof on the competitor. The reason for this is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against this solve being legitimate.

The situation would then parallel very well with the case of Matyas Kuti when there was overwhelming evidence that his solves were illegitimate. If this competitor cannot provide good evidence that his solve was legitimate, just as Matyas Kuti couldn't defend his "bld" methods, then this solve should be DNFed and a penalty should be applied to the competitor. Of course the history behind the two cases is different, and as such any consequences would be different, but that is up to the WCA board to decide.


----------



## Radu (Jun 1, 2013)

I don't know what the outcome for this case will be...probably DNF and we just wait for the motivation.
But the problem I see after this case is that it might give ideas to other competitors to do similar things in the future (e.g. "WRs"). So, Delegates...be careful and pay more attention to some competitors.


----------



## ottozing (Jun 1, 2013)

Ok, you're right. Him getting an absurdly easy mis-scramble is indeed a possibility that I shouldn't have over looked. I guess I'm just kinda biased because I truly believe that he was cheating even if I can't truly prove it. I probably should change my view on this, but I can't help the way I feel.

Sorry for being rash :/


----------



## TimMc (Jun 1, 2013)

kalyk said:


> If Martín Telesforo's solve was effectively considered as cheated, he should be bannished for life, that's all.



Let's assume that he's innocent. A sub-20 solver happens to get a sub-5 solve and break a WR. Nobody captures it on video because nobody expected the WR.

A scrambler scrambles the puzzle, a competitor solves the puzzle, a judge judges the solve and records the result, the delegate submits the result.

If you can't trust the judges to do their (usually unpaid) job then should all solves be recorded with a video camera?

What other solutions are there for verifying rare and lucky single solves? Get a delegate to watch everything and trust them (i.e. not compete)?

Tim.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Right, cause your scrambler not scrambling properly (which is a possibility here) makes you just as guilty as those cases.


Is it really a possibility though? Do you think this guy could get a 4.41, given what he said (planned a cross, switched to cross on the opposite side, xxxcross somehow, easy fourth pair, OLL skip, J perm), on _a scramble he did not already know_, even if it was way way easier than the real scramble?


----------



## applemobile (Jun 1, 2013)

I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible. 
Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true


----------



## TDM (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.


Yes, but can you do a cross, then see that three F2L pairs are already done, and then find the other two pieces and then insert them in just three seconds? Even with an easy insertion, probably not at his speed. It'd be nice to see what his other results were like though, as we don't really know what he averages now - but I don't think he could've improved to a good enough speed to do this between now and his last competition. In addition, if he was fast, people would have recorded his other solves. Also, I don't think he could've done a J perm in just over 1 second, including recognition. Not only would he have paused when he saw the OLL skip, but it took him 2-3 seconds to do PLL on his next solve (which is unfortunately the only evidence we have of his speed).
Edit: Oh, and I don't not want it to be true. I just don't believe it could have happened.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.
> Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true


starts white cross and makes mistake in execution: 1.5 seconds
realizes yellow is easier and gets accidental triple X-cross: 3 seconds
solves last pair: 0.5 seconds
see OLL skip + recognize and solve J perm: 2.5 seconds
=8.5 second solve. At best. It's fake, admit it.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 1, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> starts white *cross and makes mistake in execution*: 1.5 seconds
> it.



Justify this statement.


----------



## Username (Jun 1, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> starts white cross and makes mistake in execution: 1.5 seconds
> realizes yellow is easier and gets accidental triple X-cross: 3 seconds
> solves last pair: 0.5 seconds
> *see OLL skip + recognize and solve J perm: 2.5 seconds*
> =8.5 second solve. At best. It's fake, admit it.



I'de mention it again. It took him like 1.5-2 seconds to recognize a Y-perm in the solve after that. I don't believe he could be able to sub 10


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 1, 2013)

wontolla said:


> translation:
> in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns



From the competitors own mouth.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 1, 2013)

TDM said:


> Yes, but can you do a cross, then see that three F2L pairs are already done, and then find the other two pieces and then insert them in just three seconds? Even with an easy insertion, probably not at his speed. It'd be nice to see what his other results were like though, as we don't really know what he averages now - but I don't think he could've improved to a good enough speed to do this between now and his last competition. In addition, if he was fast, people would have recorded his other solves. Also, I don't think he could've done a J perm in just over 1 second, including recognition. Not only would he have paused when he saw the OLL skip, but it took him 2-3 seconds to do PLL on his next solve (which is unfortunately the only evidence we have of his speed).
> Edit: Oh, and I don't not want it to be true. I just don't believe it could have happened.




We have to treat this that every perfect situation could have happened. I could plan out a cross/x-cross, and already know where my first f2l pair would be. Given a lucky tripple x cross, this would pretty much mean i had planned out the whole F2L. As soon as i saw the OLL was completed, i wouldn't necessarily look around to see if the other f2l slots were correctly filled. A J perm for me is one of the easiest to recognise, and if it was suddenly staring e in the face i would just do it. 
Sure, this is in a perfect scenario, with everything working in favor of the cuber, but it is not impossible as people keep stating as fact.



XTowncuber said:


> From the competitors own mouth.



>*translation* 

This is the problem with your statement.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 1, 2013)

Can someone who speaks Spanish verify that statement? Honestly though, I think you are grasping at straws.


----------



## Litz (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> >*translation*
> 
> This is the problem with your statement.


You do understand what a translation is right? I already posted this before, but the translation is fine. That's exactly what he said.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 1, 2013)

XTowncuber said:


> Honestly though, I think you are grasping at straws.



No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done''
We could tear apart any world record if we wanted too using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 1, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Is it really a possibility though? Do you think this guy could get a 4.41, given what he said (planned a cross, switched to cross on the opposite side, xxxcross somehow, easy fourth pair, OLL skip, J perm), on _a scramble he did not already know_, even if it was way way easier than the real scramble?



Probably not, though I don't put too much weight on that statement ("borre la publicación debido a que se podía dar a malos entendidos [...]" from here), partly because it was posted here without link to the source and google only finds it here and in the Vietnam/Brazil/China forums, but not in the Mexican one.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done''
> We could tear apart any world record if we wanted too using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread.



Well how do you know any facts? You assume that the translation is incorrect, which is one of the few pieces of evidence we are sure is correct (Spanish translates to English quite well), yet you accept the fact that he did a xxx-cross, even though the only evidence of that resides within the translated text. You can't just pick certain things as true and others as false without reason, it's contradictory.

And I'm not sure how we could tear apart other records, seeing as how the most recent ones have been recorded, but perhaps you're right since one could claim mis-scramble.


----------



## TDM (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> We have to treat this that every perfect situation could have happened. *Yes, I know.* I could plan out a cross/x-cross, and already know where my first f2l pair would be. *But with no inspection time?* Given a lucky tripple x cross, this would pretty much mean i had planned out the whole F2L. *Yes, but he messed up what he was doing and started again on a different side mid-solve with no time to plan anything.* As soon as i saw the OLL was completed, i wouldn't necessarily look around to see if the other f2l slots were correctly filled. *I know, but he'd have probably taken time at some point to see that the others were filled.* A J perm for me is one of the easiest to recognise, and if it was suddenly staring me in the face i would just do it. *I know it's easy to recognise, but so is a Y perm and he couldn't recognise and do that very quickly.* Sure, this is in a perfect scenario, with everything working in favor of the cuber, but it is not impossible as people keep stating as fact. *I'm not stating it's impossible, it's just *very* unlikely. Some people have practised 100 times to complete a solve at his speed, and they're faster than him most of the time (based on current evidence of his speed). The people who are doing this don't need to look ahead or recognise permutations either.*





applemobile said:


> No, i am just sticking with the facts that i know. This entire thread is just full of people saying ''He cheated, i don't know how and i don't have any evidence but he must have done'' *We have evidence. It may not be evidence that he has cheated, but if the cube was scrambled correctly then there is no way he could have done the solve in 4.41 without knowing the scramble beforehand. He could have got 4.41, but only if there was a mistake in scrambling the cube, which would mean the time should be a DNF.* We could tear apart any world record if we wanted to using exactly the same intellect that has been on display in this thread. *How?*


I'm not saying he has cheated, I'm saying he can't have done this unless there was a mistake or he could have cheated.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 1, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Well how do you know any facts? You assume that the translation is incorrect, which is one of the few pieces of evidence we are sure is correct (Spanish translates to English quite well), yet you accept the fact that he did a xxx-cross, even though the only evidence of that resides within the translated text. You can't just pick certain things as true and others as false without reason, it's contradictory.
> 
> And I'm not sure how we could tear apart other records, seeing as how the most recent ones have been recorded, but perhaps you're right since one could claim mis-scramble.





and where did that translated 'fact' come from?


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> and where did that translated 'fact' come from?



That's irrelevant from what I was saying, but this furthers my point. If you yourself have suspicion of the "translated fact" then why were you making arguments involving it in Martin's favor?


----------



## Litz (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> and where did that translated 'fact' come from?


He posted it on the mexican forum facebook group. Here:







Since everyone seems to be questioning everything, I took a couple of screens from things he posted on the forum himself. Here:






If you also doubt this, feel free to check the forum yourself or talk to him directly. 

Here's some screens of what his judge said (another forum) about the solve and the competition for whoever is interested:






There's more but I'm busy and there's tons of posts so feel free to check for yourself. If you need anything translated let me know, but most things were already translated here and like I said, they're fine.

Links to the forums for whoever is interested:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/ -> Where all of this was posted.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cuboderubikenmexico/ -> Some comments from the judge.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 1, 2013)

Litz said:


> He posted it on the mexican forum facebook group. Here:
> 
> img
> 
> ...



Can someone please translate all of this, just so we have it for reference.


----------



## Litz (Jun 1, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Can someone please translate all of this, just so we have it for reference.


Here:

First image: Translation already posted.

Second image:
1. The 3x3 WR (4.41) is right, I'm the one who broke it. Very short [solution]. To be honest I made a mistake, but it is right (i.e. truth). I'm working on the reconstruction right now.

2. In the solve, three blocks were solved, the last f2l was lucky, oll skip and a sub1 J perm.
-> Comment1: My error was during the blocks.

3. (same thing as before, but different forum).

4. Time to study: <link to paper>
-> Comments: All irrelevant but mentions he wants to do the reconstruction

Third image (judge):
1. [...] I was Martín's judge and the solve was very lucky. For me it, what happened was very lucky, although he mentioned he made a mistake during the cross. 4.41 is too low of a time to react [correct] a mistake. If he can reconstruct the solve, it will be official. Otherwise, I doubt it (i.e. "doubt", not official). As a judge, I evaluate that there was no mistake during the solve, but pre-solve [problems] must be verified, which will be discussed with the right people. [...]

2. I don't see it as a deal (i.e. bribe the scrambler), because Nitram (the scrambler) is a 12 years old boy who doesn't even think of this stuff, I know him. [...] (additional stuff about the general organization, such as mentioning two of the organizers never had been to a competition and such).

3. More stuff about the organization.

[...] = random stuff and ramblings about the organization.


----------



## Hays (Jun 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> I think you are reading too far into what people have said he said. For all we know, he usually solves white but spotted an easier cross on yellow, plans out cross, possbly x cross, but got lucky and got a tripple xcross. Most gd cubers can achieve pick up and easy cross in...2 seconds, easy? Insert last pair less than 1 second, OLL skip, and J-perm including recognition just over 1 second. Doesn't sound un-plausible.
> Everyone else would have had the same scramble, so how do we know that they didn't all find the easy tripple x-cross as well, but have a much slower last layer? You cannt just completely write it of just because you don't want it to be true



I know you probably believe this solve to have actually happened since you've been defending it in this entire thread, but seriously please be aware of a lot of the facts presented.



> in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns, I notieced that two f2l pairs were already solved, so I decided to start with the white face and then I saw another f2l pair solved, then I looked for the last pair which was solved with R U R', getting an OLL skip and a J perm that I solved in less than one second.



First of all he said he solved, white, not yellow.

Second of all, he said he made a mistake in execution. Mistakes take time, and that's going to add to his total solve.

Third, it's already been proven there is no "easy" triple x cross from the scramble provided. The shortest one possible is 16 moves.

Fourth, watch this video. I used one of the 17 move + R U R' + J perm solutions, and after practicing over 100 times I was barely able to complete the solve in under 4.41 seconds. And I'm much more capable than he is.
And of course there are other ways to solve the cube into the same triple x cross + R U U' + J perm solutions that could have been more finger friendly, and true it could have been possible, but stop talking about this solve like there is a good chance he was able to actually achieve the 4.41 time on that scramble in the way he said he did. He would have had to have luckily found the most finger friendly, almost optimal triple x cross solution, and then have had perfect execution for the rest of the solve to even have the chance of finishing in 4.41 seconds. And this is with a break for the fact that he "made a mistake at the execution." I really don't think you understand how fast 4.41 seconds really is. This is all possible of course, but extremely extremely extremely unlikely.





Fifth, please make an attempt to write with some descent grammar and spelling.


----------



## Sin-H (Jun 1, 2013)

The wiki knows it:

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Matyas_Kuti
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Sebastián_Pino_Castillo
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Haiyan_Zhuang

The "External Links" section has links to the official announcements. Okay, not for Matyi, but you might find it on the WCA forum.


----------



## cubizh (Jun 1, 2013)

Found a more complete video (~35mins) of Perry Open 2013:



Spoiler


----------



## rubikmaster (Jun 1, 2013)

cubizh said:


> Found a more complete video (~35mins) of Perry Open 2013:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



And surprisingly there's no video of any of Martin's solves there. I mean you'd expect somebody to film the rest of the solves of the "new WR holder". Obviously the rest of his solves we're all like 17s and 18s or maybe they didn't even exist. Anyway, i think the one 18 second solve we do have on video is enough proof that he isn't capable of something like this. You'd have to be at least sub-9 to get a sub-5 single even if it's insanely crazy super duper mega ultra lucky. If he really was that good he would be able to get a much better time than 18 seconds even with all the excitement he was filled with, his poor lookahead and slow tps are very obvious. I bet he couldn't even do a prepared solve like that in under 8 seconds. Now, of course these are just my speculations, I'm not stating any of this as a fact, there is a chance (although an INSANELY small chance) that he really is capable of doing this and that he just messed up his second solve really badly because there was nothing in the world he cared about anymore after getting the WR, but anyway I think his 18 second solve and Kevin Hay's 4.34 PREPARED solve is enough proof for my statement,


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 1, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> When he says he made a mistake at the execution I think he means when he was about to execute, like when the inspection time was running out and it was time to execute (solve) he switched his original plan. But it isn't 100% clear to me if that is what he meant or he actually started to execute and then changed his plan (sdoubt it).



Didn't you "talk" to the judges at the comp, and didn't you say the WCA was about to verify the solve? Again, who are you? And where is your information coming from?


And can we all just agree that this is all just speculation, and without verifiable first hand accounts we are getting nowhere? The competition setting should ensure that something exactly like this should never happen. The fact that it has, and a week later this solve has neither been verified or exposed, indicates a major failing in the system. I don't think it's WCA's fault, but it is certainly true that the judges and delegates at the competition are partly responsible. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to other judges and delegates to be a little more diligent in their jobs. This is exactly why we have judges, and appointed scramblers, to keep situations like this from happening. 

It's been a week without any official statement. Each day that passes, it appears more and more like we'll never know the truth. I'm sure all of us "know" that this solve is fake. It's just so far beyond the realm of possibility. And yet we have no evidence of his cheating, so what can we fall back upon? We're running around in circles, analyzing and re-analyzing the same brief statements and videos that represent only a fraction of the whole truth. Unless more information comes forward there's nothing more that can be done, and the only people with official capacity to try and gain more information are with the WCA. The horse is dead, it's been effectively beaten to nothing, and it's left to the WCA to eventually choose between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 1, 2013)

Litz said:


> a *sub1* J perm



pssh, his y perm was over 2 seconds so I doubt that
he should make a video


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2013)

Yeah, that's actually a good idea, if it's possible... Ask the guy to make a video, and when he's warmed up and ready, give him some scrambles over a chat and have him do them immediately. Then we can see how he can really do under optimal conditions. It still kinda annoys me that we don't know the rest of his times from the Perry Open :|


----------



## Dene (Jun 1, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> The competition setting should ensure that something exactly like this should never happen. The fact that it has, and a week later this solve has neither been verified or exposed, indicates a major failing in the system. I don't think it's WCA's fault, but it is certainly true that the judges and delegates at the competition are partly responsible. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to other judges and delegates to be a little more diligent in their jobs. This is exactly why we have judges, and appointed scramblers, to keep situations like this from happening.



Cheating even happens in top international FIFA matches. How are WCA delegates supposed to prevent cheating when the biggest sporting organisation in the world can't? You need to think more about what you say.



Hays said:


> Fifth, please make an attempt to write with some *descent* grammar and spelling.



I hate to do this, because I agree with what you're saying completely, but I just had to because it's hilarious


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 1, 2013)

Dene said:


> Cheating even happens in top international FIFA matches. How are WCA delegates supposed to prevent cheating when the biggest sporting organisation in the world can't? You need to think more about what you say.



The fact that cheating exists in FIFA is neither here nor there. Does it take FIFA a week to make any official rulings? Does FIFA have a judge for every single competitor? I know cheating is inevitable, that's not what I have a problem with. My issue is that it shouldn't be this easy. A week after the fact, we should know more about this competition than second and third hand partial statements. For example, something definitive from the delegate or the judge? We're left looking at scrambles, or considering timer malfunctions, when if the system had worked, a statement from the judge should clear everything up. My issue isn't that cheating occurred. If cheating never happened we wouldn't need judges. My issue is that a week later, we still don't know anything.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 1, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Right, cause your scrambler not scrambling properly (which is a possibility here) makes you just as guilty as those cases.
> 
> Would you people please stop being dumb?


I think it has been established that the correct scramble was used. (My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct. source: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42174-4-41&p=857323&viewfull=1#post857323)

I am very curious how this was verified because if that is really true the only possibility would be a switched cube, or a timer-stop during the solve that the judge missed. Or the scrambler/judge/organiser/delegate was in on it. The other possibility (the 17 move failed F2L, RUR', OLL Skip, J-Perm) has been debunked more than enough I would say.


----------



## Dene (Jun 1, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> The fact that cheating exists in FIFA is neither here nor there. Does it take FIFA a week to make any official rulings? Does FIFA have a judge for every single competitor? I know cheating is inevitable, that's not what I have a problem with. My issue is that it shouldn't be this easy. A week after the fact, we should know more about this competition than second and third hand partial statements. For example, something definitive from the delegate or the judge? We're left looking at scrambles, or considering timer malfunctions, when if the system had worked, a statement from the judge should clear everything up. My issue isn't that cheating occurred. If cheating never happened we wouldn't need judges. My issue is that a week later, we still don't know anything.



Sometimes it takes years for FIFA to make decisions... And they needn't have a judge for every competitor, because they have cameras everywhere. 

A delegate doesn't have eyes on the back of their head. They simply can't see everything. I can think of numerous ways of cheating in competitions. If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me. As for the judge, what if they're in on it? I'm not stating my opinion about this case, I'm just giving just one of many examples of why this is not something simple.

And you have to give the WCA Board time; they are normal people with normal lives. They are not paid to work on this 24/7 until they have answers. I'm sure they are doing all they can to come to a conclusion. Some patience would do you some good.


----------



## MWilson (Jun 1, 2013)

I don't know what's been verified, but if it was an incorrect scramble then anything is possible. Even something like:

Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U (green front, white top)

The cube looks fairly scrambled at a glance, especially if you're only inspecting for CFOP starting on the white cross. There are several great openings visible to an experienced inspector, but that doesn't mean luck cannot play a major role and allow a less experienced inspector to have an incredibly fast solve.

So looking at the scramble, the white cross is pretty easy. Say this solver he does the cross on top, so maybe he would figure out a solution that starts with U' F' L' to place the green/white edge and red/white edges. Then they notice that with a D2 between the F' and L', the blue/white would be in place for an R2 after the L'. This is not a correct solution, but they don't notice. So the inspected solution may be U' F' D2 L' R2 U'. A simple edge orientation oversight under pressure of competition.

Let's assume that this hypothetical solver notices their mistake as the blue/white edge is moving past them on the bottom front of the cube during the D2, and instinctively start reversing their moves, also undoing the F' such that U' is essentially all that has been applied since starting.

Maybe in their confusion they take a look at the bottom left of the cube to get a look at the blue/white culprit, and happen to notice the glaringly obvious block that can be made on the bottom left of the cube with L'. After that, they in turn notice the back of the cube has an enticing bar along it and they decide to D'. None of this is unreasonable to see quickly, especially if the solver is sub-20, which is an indication that the solver has significant experience rather than an indication that they are "bad" as some seem this think in this thread. Sub-20 is more than enough experience to "improvise some moves" when the moves are trivial enough. Whether they can do it fast enough for 4.41.. :/

So now of course they would be looking for the last cross piece, the green in this case, and see that it is at UR, and clearly connected to a corner. It would again not be unreasonable for a solver at this point to see F' U F2.

That leaves an obvious "first" pair right in front of the solver, even with poor look ahead any remotely decent CFOP solver would immediately see and react with R U R'. Now there's a blatant J perm just sitting there which would again trigger an instant reaction in any decent CFOP solver.

In all:

Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
Finish F2L: R U R'
PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.

Just for the record, I'm very doubtful of this being legitimate. However, I don't believe that my, or anyone's, mere intuition and biased logic should result in a condemning verdict. The point made with this post is _extremely_ hypothetical, and even the proposed lucky solution to this designed-to-be-lucky scramble would still require very fast recognition and execution for 4.41s, but it's not _impossible_, which is the issue. @&$! happens.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2013)

Dominate said:


> [snip]Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U
> 
> XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
> Finish F2L: R U R'
> PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.


This is a really cool pseudo-reconstruction-y thing. Nice job finding a position that could theoretically be solved in the same way as Martín said his solve went.

The problem, of course, is that the existing scramble has no such easy blocks, and requires a minimum of 16 moves to get to a position where you can solve the cube with a RUR' trigger and a J perm (plus AUFs as necessary). Your scramble takes 6 moves. I can see someone intuitively thinking through 6 moves in 3 seconds (giving Martín a pretty small 1.41 seconds to deal with the F2L pair, recognition, and J perm)... but not 16. And there's no obvious way to come up with that 16-move solution (or a slightly suboptimal one), either.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 1, 2013)

Dene said:


> A delegate doesn't have eyes on the back of their head. They simply can't see everything. I can think of numerous ways of cheating in competitions. If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me. As for the judge, what if they're in on it? I'm not stating my opinion about this case, I'm just giving just one of many examples of why this is not something simple.
> 
> And you have to give the WCA Board time; they are normal people with normal lives. They are not paid to work on this 24/7 until they have answers. I'm sure they are doing all they can to come to a conclusion. Some patience would do you some good.



Again, FIFA has nothing to do with WCA, so I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.

I understand all of this, and I've tried to make all of my comments while making it abundantly clear that I have all the respect in the world for the WCA. All said and done, I think they have done an amazing job. My main point, is that in this instance, no comment from the WCA has led to rampant speculation. Some transparency on what they are doing, and a timetable for when we can expect a ruling would likely end some of this speculation. Additionally, no comment from the judges or delegates at the competition is a bit disconcerting. I understand it takes time. I understand that everyone has their own lives to attend to. But since this competition we've had scrambles analyzed, we've had someone practice a near optimal solve just to show how difficult it is to have a sufficient TPS to get this time, we've had every comment analyzed and re-analyzed, we've had video clips broken down again and again, and still no clear statement from the judge or delegate. I'm a patient person. I'm not pulling my hair out over this. I'm simply stating, a week without a statement about something that has turned into one of the biggest controversies in cubing? That's a long time to let people hypothesize and spread rumors, which is not helping things. 

My second point, is that cheating shouldn't be so easy, which you actually appear to be making for me, so I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. If the judge was in on it, then there needs to be more careful discrimination when it comes to choosing judges.


----------



## Sin-H (Jun 2, 2013)

Dene said:


> If I wasn't a delegate myself it would be easy for me.


Being a delegate, wouldn't it be even easier to cheat in a comp? I mean, of course you are given some sort of responsibility, but in fact the delegates could pretty much do anything they like in terms of results. For instance, just take a look at the 3x3 scrambles beforehand. That's too easy. However, we need some trusted entity to rely our recognition of results on.


----------



## scotzbhoy (Jun 2, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Again, FIFA has nothing to do with WCA, so I don't know why you keep clinging to that argument.


I think the point is that you're putting too much onto the WCA. Cheating occurs in the world of football, in spite of the fact that the governing body is a huge multi-national organisation with vast amounts of money behind it and delegates all over the world working full time for the organisation. By comparison, the WCA is nothing. As you've said, everyone has their own lives, they don't revolve around cubing and certainly not around this forum. If FIFA are unable to stop cheating or come to major decisions within a week then it's unreasonable to expect the WCA to do so. Bear in mind also that the WCA have probably considered everything that's been said in this thread, and probably more having spoken to the people involved. A fair bit of information has been provided here, and still no-one knows for sure what happened. Given all this, how can you expect the WCA, with the extra information they most likely have available to them, to have already made a decision bearing in mind how big a decision it is for them to make and how important it is that the correct decision is made?


----------



## cubernya (Jun 2, 2013)

Dominate said:


> Scramble: U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U
> 
> XXX-Cross: U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2
> Finish F2L: R U R'
> PLL: One of the fastest PLLs with no AUFs.



I think this is possible. On my first try I got a 4.48 with this solution, and I average 17 or so. Obviously this is knowing the solution, but I seriously think you could figure out that XXX-cross in inspection. At the least, I would have gotten the 2x2x3 and seen the XXX-cross during the solve.

Now, I'm not saying that it's legit, I'm just saying that this solution may be possible.

My only problem with the solution though, is that the first 5 moves (besides cancellations) are inverted from the scramble.


----------



## scotzbhoy (Jun 2, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> I think this is possible. On my first try I got a 4.48 with this solution, and I average 17 or so. Obviously this is knowing the solution, but I seriously think you could figure out that XXX-cross in inspection. At the least, I would have gotten the 2x2x3 and seen the XXX-cross during the solve.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that it's legit, I'm just saying that this solution may be possible.
> 
> My only problem with the solution though, is that the first 5 moves (besides cancellations) are inverted from the scramble.


He didn't see them in inspection though, he started the cross, realised he'd made a mistake and improvised a XXX cross on the opposite side. This in itself I think is implausible in under 4.41, never mind the location/insertion of the final pair, OLL skip recognition and J-perm recognition and execution.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 2, 2013)

scotzbhoy said:


> He didn't see them in inspection though, he started the cross, realised he'd made a mistake and improvised a XXX cross on the opposite side. This in itself I think is implausible in under 4.41, never mind the location/insertion of the final pair, OLL skip recognition and J-perm recognition and execution.



That's what he said. I think others should consider the possibility that his description of him messing up the solve could be a lie to make the solve look even more impressive.

I also just completed an ao12 on that solution, and got a best of 3.52 (or 7.10 TPS) which is well under the 4.41 that is given. The ao12 was 3.85, with a best ao5 of 3.62


----------



## scotzbhoy (Jun 2, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> That's what he said. I think others should consider the possibility that his description of him messing up the solve could be a lie to make the solve look even more impressive.
> 
> I also just completed an ao12 on that solution, and got a best of 3.52 (or 7.10 TPS) which is well under the 4.41 that is given. The ao12 was 3.85, with a best ao5 of 3.62


Why would he lie about that? It just makes the solve seem even less plausible. Besides, if he had just broken the WR, wouldn't that be good enough? Don't know about you, but if I'd just broken the WR by over a second, I'd be happy enough with that without feeling the need to lie to make it seem more impressive.


----------



## Dene (Jun 2, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> no comment from the WCA has led to rampant speculation



A comment has been made by the WCA.



jayefbe said:


> Additionally, no comment from the judges or delegates at the competition is a bit disconcerting



The delegate has posted. I'm not sure about the judge, but if he's mexican he might not even speak english...



jayefbe said:


> I'm simply stating, a week without a statement about something that has turned into one of the biggest controversies in cubing? That's a long time to let people hypothesize and spread rumors, which is not helping things.



It's not the WCAs fault that people on this forum like to go on about things. Even if the WCA had frequent updates people would still go on and on about it.



jayefbe said:


> My second point, is that cheating shouldn't be so easy, which you actually appear to be making for me, so I don't understand why you're disagreeing with me. If the judge was in on it, then there needs to be more careful discrimination when it comes to choosing judges.



Provide the solution to prevent any cheating in the world, and you would become one of the most important people in history. Good luck.


----------



## Natanrig (Jun 2, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> I think it has been established that the correct scramble was used. (My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct. source: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42174-4-41&p=857323&viewfull=1#post857323)
> 
> I am very curious how this was verified because if that is really true the only possibility would be a switched cube, or a timer-stop during the solve that the judge missed. Or the scrambler/judge/organiser/delegate was in on it. The other possibility (the 17 move failed F2L, RUR', OLL Skip, J-Perm) has been debunked more than enough I would say.



Apparently, (and you can see and hear this in the video where the cheering happens) the delegate and the judge ask the competitor about the cross as a way of confirming that he had received the correct scramble. He seems to give a satisfactory response because the delegate then says, WR then! and the cheering ensues. This however is no proof of anything, because if he did switch the cube at the scrambling table, he had the scrambled cube and could later tell people what it looked like or at least one possible cross solution.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 2, 2013)

Sin-H said:


> Being a delegate, wouldn't it be even easier to cheat in a comp? I mean, of course you are given some sort of responsibility, but in fact the delegates could pretty much do anything they like in terms of results. For instance, just take a look at the 3x3 scrambles beforehand. That's too easy. However, we need some trusted entity to rely our recognition of results on.



Isn't that what Pino Castillo did? Didn't really work out for him 

I'm in a lot of anticipation for the rest of this guys solves, too. I know in most cases great times aren't followed by more great times, so some more context would be really useful...


----------



## MostEd (Jun 2, 2013)

Pino can compete since yesterday.


----------



## coldsun0630 (Jun 2, 2013)

_edit: Post hijack. This is an example of a solution on a different scramble._

- Scramble
U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

- Solution
U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2 // XXX-Cross
R U R' // Finish F2L
R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U // PLL J Perm

Solution from speedsolving.com
View at alg.garron.us

/

- Scramble
U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U

- Solution
U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2 R U R' R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U

- Scramble + Solution
U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 U' F D L U U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2 R U R' [J Perm]

- Removal
U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 (U' F D L U U' (F' D D' F) L' D' F' U) F2 R U R' [J Perm]

- Result
U2 F2 U R2 D' F2 D F2 U' R2 B2 L D' L' B2 F2 R U R' [J Perm]

- Insertion
[U2 F2 U R2 F2] [F2 D' F2 D F2 U' [R2 B2 L D' L' B2 F2 R U R' U' F2] F2 U] [J Perm]

- Used Algorithms
Setup Move: U2 F2 U R2 F2
Pair 3-Cycle (1): B2 L D' L' B2 F2 R U R' U' F2
Pair 3-Cycle (2): F2 D' F2 D F2 U' F2 U
Pair 2-Cycle (3): J Perm


----------



## Mirco (Jun 2, 2013)

coldsun0630 said:


> - Solution
> U' F' D D' F L' D' F' U F2 // XXX-Cross



Why F' D D' F?


----------



## Sin-H (Jun 2, 2013)

wasn't F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 the scramble?

The thing up there seems like a theoretical example. The solution is shorter than the scramble lol


----------



## Pro94 (Jun 2, 2013)

YddEd said:


> I tried it and it worked. And yes, it is the scramble and solution.



Simply because it works, it doesn't mean that it was the real solution. Martìn himself said he had started with something like _D' L' R' U' D U2 B2 U' L' U L U' D' L' U' B L_.


----------



## coldsun0630 (Jun 2, 2013)

Mirco said:


> Why F' D D' F?


I don't know. Just his solution...


----------



## moralsh (Jun 2, 2013)

This is not Martín Telésforo solution, is just a proposal by Dominate done some posts ago in this same thread, the F' D D' F is just to try to adapt to what Martín said (he began with White cross and then switched to Yellow), it obviously isn't the right scramble as I Guess dominate jusst wanted to show us how could it be if the scramble was prepared or just missscrambled


----------



## Niki_Petrov (Jun 2, 2013)

If the timer batteries are weak, sometimes the timer does not start immediately and when the competitor finished show such results. The judge has to say whether it started normally timer ...... If ever seen.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jun 3, 2013)

Are there any official WCA updates?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 3, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> Are there any official WCA updates?



No. If there were I'm sure we would all know about it.

And I agree with CubeRoots. We've talked quite enough about it. We've analyzed and re-analyzed the probabilities, solutions, blah blah blah. Unless new information comes forward or announcement from WCA we just need to be patient now. At least I can't think of anything more to talk about.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jun 3, 2013)

Finally, a poll. I'm really interested to see the resuslts although I'm pretty sure most people will vote for the 4th choice.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 3, 2013)

It's rather stupid if you don't vote for the 3rd or 4th choice.


----------



## uniacto (Jun 3, 2013)

The new title of the thread made me think that the solve was actually official.


----------



## DaveyCow (Jun 3, 2013)

who posted the poll?


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 3, 2013)

DaveyCow said:


> who posted the poll?


Brest! Great idea.


----------



## pjk (Jun 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> While the WCA is not a democracy, the people that lead the WCA are still obligated to the community upon which they rely. They cannot just do what they want.
> 
> To be honest, I can't believe people are so worked up about this; the solve is clearly illegitimate. If it isn't just a prank (and I feel things have been taken way too far for this to be a prank) then the solution is simple: put the burden of the proof on the competitor. The reason for this is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against this solve being legitimate.
> 
> The situation would then parallel very well with the case of Matyas Kuti when there was overwhelming evidence that his solves were illegitimate. If this competitor cannot provide good evidence that his solve was legitimate, just as Matyas Kuti couldn't defend his "bld" methods, then this solve should be DNFed and a penalty should be applied to the competitor. Of course the history behind the two cases is different, and as such any consequences would be different, but that is up to the WCA board to decide.


Dene nailed it on this one. Keep in mind the WCA is made up of community members, just like everyone here. Everyone that is "leading" the WCA is someone who is in the community, built a reputation, and now helps make decisions like this one. That is how it works. Everyone in the community who can actually help resolve this situation is just as important, and the WCA as a whole relies on this. 

It is sad how much wasted time is going into this. It is an illegitimate solve - everything within any reason tells us this. Like Dene said, "put the burden of the proof on the competitor", simple as that.


----------



## Dene (Jun 3, 2013)

AustinReed said:


> It's rather stupid if you don't vote for the 3rd or 4th choice.



Why is that? If this is, for example, blatant cheating, then it isn't up to the WCA (in any meaningful sense). If it's clearly cheating then it clearly should not count, i.e. option 2.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 3, 2013)

There are three possibilities:
1) he did 4.41 honestly on the correct scramble: the time should count;
2) he did 4.41 honestly on the wrong scramble: the time shouldn't count;
3) he cheated: the time shouldn't count.

For me 1) is excluded because of all that's been said before, and even if I can't decide between 2) and 3), in both cases the time shouldn't count. Hence I voted option 2, and I don't see why it's stupid either.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Jun 3, 2013)

TMOY said:


> There are three possibilities:



Exactly what François said, however I voted "don't care" (although I seem to be checking this thread quite regularly so I think it does really matter to my sense of justice in the sport I love!)


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 3, 2013)

TMOY said:


> There are three possibilities:
> 1) he did 4.41 honestly on the correct scramble: the time should count;
> 2) he did 4.41 honestly on the wrong scramble: the time shouldn't count;
> 3) he cheated: the time shouldn't count.
> ...



I disagree with 2). If it was the wrong scramble, as long as it wasn't a set-up scramble, then it's the scrambler's fault, not Martin's. Martin shouldn't get penalized (DNF) for something that he didn't do. (i.e., if the scrambler and Martin agreed on a scramble beforehand to fake a WR - DNF. If the scrambler did something like B instead of B' in the scramble [read it/executed it incorrectly], then it should still count).


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 3, 2013)

Ickathu said:


> If the scrambler did something like B instead of B' in the scramble [read it/executed it incorrectly], then it should still count.



4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).


----------



## Goosly (Jun 3, 2013)

Ickathu said:


> Martin shouldn't get penalized (DNF) for something that he didn't do. (...) If the scrambler did something like B instead of B' in the scramble [read it/executed it incorrectly], then it should still count).



Ok, maybe next time I scramble Mats' cube I will 'misread' the scramble and just do 2 random moves. It should count, cos its my fault (according to your logic), right?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2013)

Ickathu said:


> I disagree with 2). If it was the wrong scramble, as long as it wasn't a set-up scramble, then it's the scrambler's fault, not Martin's. Martin shouldn't get penalized (DNF) for something that he didn't do. (i.e., if the scrambler and Martin agreed on a scramble beforehand to fake a WR - DNF. If the scrambler did something like B instead of B' in the scramble [read it/executed it incorrectly], then it should still count).



If anything he should just get an extra attempt in this instance.

There's no reason for the time to be kept if it wasn't scrambled correctly. We need to ensure the cube was in the provided state for the solve, otherwise the incorrect state will create an unfair disparity. This is one of the reasons why we have scrambles.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> Why is that? If this is, for example, blatant cheating, then it isn't up to the WCA (in any meaningful sense). If it's clearly cheating then it clearly should not count, i.e. option 2.



Like you said previously, the WCA isn't a democracy, but it serves the community. I, for one, am not entirely sure if there is enough proof to just say that this is completely fake (although the odds for the solve aren't looking very good). No matter what the WCA decides to do, I'll still respect their decision. They would've had something that told them it was fake/legit. 

I think things would be a bit more chaotic if the WCA didn't do anything, so I still believe that it's kinda stupid that it should have just been declared fake on the spot without further questioning. Imagine if, by chance, this is somehow legit and the guy receives unwarranted consequences. The WCA board knows more than we do, so we'll have to trust that they make the right decision.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 3, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> 4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).





Kirjava said:


> If anything he should just get an extra attempt in this instance.
> 
> There's no reason for the time to be kept if it wasn't scrambled correctly. We need to ensure the cube was in the provided state for the solve, otherwise the incorrect state will create an unfair disparity. This is one of the reasons why we have scrambles.



I guess that's a good point. I forgot about rule 4g. I thought that 4g1 (well, the equivalent of it) was for all cube sizes - it just had to be approved by the delegate if misscrambled.
4g1) Exception: For the 6x6x6 Cube and the 7x7x7 Cube, it is not necessary to correct the scramble, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 3, 2013)

Did hundreds of posts from this thread get deleted? What the hell? Why was that not done before I wasted my time reading them???


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Did hundreds of posts from this thread get deleted? What the hell? Why was that not done before I wasted my time reading them???


Over 300 posts have been deleted over the last few days. About 100 were deleted just last night. Thread clean-ups take a while, especially since there have been about 5 instances of them here. 

IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.


----------



## Carrot (Jun 3, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, *since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.*



I might have missed a post where WCA declared that they would take this discussion into account. (but I agree that it might have an impact)


----------



## Kit Clement (Jun 3, 2013)

While I do think that the opinion of the people should have an impact on the upcoming WCA decision, I do think that a broader range of people should be considered since we all compose a world organization, not just the English speaking Speedsolving.com community. Is there a good/active Mexican speedcubing forum? I'm interested to hear the opinions of those from the home country, especially those who attended the competition. While the opinions should be taken with a grain of salt considering national pride, they should still be considered. And if it was a cheat/prank, I'm sure it wasn't a collaborative effort by everyone there.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 3, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through



Just in case it wasn't clear: I agree 

I also just noticed you put some of the interesting bits into the first post. Thanks. Someone did a summary post somewhere in the middle, all that stuff (and a little more since then) would be good in the first post as well.


----------



## Litz (Jun 3, 2013)

kippy33 said:


> While I do think that the opinion of the people should have an impact on the upcoming WCA decision, I do think that a broader range of people should be considered since we all compose a world organization, not just the English speaking Speedsolving.com community. Is there a good/active Mexican speedcubing forum? I'm interested to hear the opinions of those from the home country, especially those who attended the competition. While the opinions should be taken with a grain of salt considering national pride, they should still be considered. And if it was a cheat/prank, I'm sure it wasn't a collaborative effort by everyone there.


They mainly use two facebook groups which I already posted a few pages back. They're quite active, at least in one of them. As for the opinions, most people (specially known solvers) do think it's fake. However, there's also some people who think the WCA has something against them just because they're Mexicans.


----------



## raulsocal (Jun 3, 2013)

Litz said:


> They mainly use two facebook groups which I already posted a few pages back. They're quite active, at least in one of them. As for the opinions, most people (specially known solvers) do think it's fake. However, there's also some people who think the WCA has something against them just because they're Mexicans.



A lot of people believe that the world goes against them... however i think the WCA and the "rubik" world is the most non-discriminating "sport"/diversion/(for each one of us is a diferent thing) competition that i have ever known... it doesnt matter if you are from one place or from another, tall, short, ugly, beautiful, white, black, smart, dummy... any kind of things that may be a focus of discriminization its not present in any spanish rubik competition and i believe its not either in any world wide rubik competition. Also taking in consideration between countries i hope... i dont know why beeing Mexican would be a problem for the WCA.

Going straight my opinion with the topic: I dont think that Martin will read this, however if he reads this. Congratulations if this solve was legit and following all the rules, with all my heart.

By the way, and i hope that its not true... just because he will be in a nice big hole of sh**, if the solve was cheating... you merit a nice sanction and i believe all the people will remember you a way that you will not quite like.

The WCA rules, and even if a lot of people dont like that... maybe he really did the 4.41... however in case of a bad scramble, it has happened as we all know, the competitor should resign to the WR. Its what i think... its not gods words.


----------



## Litz (Jun 3, 2013)

raulsocal said:


> A lot of people believe that the world goes against them...


I agree and it's just that really. The same thing would happen were it any other country.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Just in case it wasn't clear: I agree
> 
> I also just noticed you put some of the interesting bits into the first post. Thanks. Someone did a summary post somewhere in the middle, all that stuff (and a little more since then) would be good in the first post as well.



Just finished thread clean-up #6. Hopefully this'll be the last one. 

I also added a lot more info in the first post.


----------



## Mikel (Jun 4, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> Over 300 posts have been deleted over the last few days. About 100 were deleted just last night. Thread clean-ups take a while, especially since there have been about 5 instances of them here.
> 
> IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.



Maybe you should move this thread to the private forum?


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 4, 2013)

Mikel said:


> Maybe you should move this thread to the private forum?


I thought about doing that a few days ago, but there might be people who would can provide good information about this situation (e.g. people who were at the competition), that aren't experienced enough to be in the Private Forum.


----------



## Michael45764 (Jun 4, 2013)

moralsh said:


> This is not Martín Telésforo solution, is just a proposal by Dominate done some posts ago in this same thread, the F' D D' F is just to try to adapt to what Martín said (he began with White cross and then switched to Yellow), it obviously isn't the right scramble as I Guess dominate jusst wanted to show us how could it be if the scramble was prepared or just missscrambled



Just to try and clarify, he didn't exactly say he did moves before switching cross. To my interpretation he says 'at the end' he made a mistake 'when it came time to execute'. I think don't he means that he started to execute the solve and then switched, just that he switched once it came time to execute (because he saw 2 f2l's solved or something).


----------



## Mirco (Jun 4, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> I thought about doing that a few days ago, but there might be people who would can provide good information about this situation (e.g. people who were at the competition), that aren't experienced enough to be in the Private Forum.



And of course people *want* to talk about the issue. If the posts are productive or not does not really matter, especially with everything being said².


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 4, 2013)

Mirco said:


> And of course people *want* to talk about the issue. If the posts are productive or not does not really matter, especially with everything being said².


Exactly. That is what a forum is for. Spending time "cleaning" threads to remove 100s of posts of discussion is a strange way to run a forum, IMO. If the WCA are likely to be interested in content here, wouldn't it be better to compile the useful findings into a report and forward it to them? This thread is never going to be a useful way to present the information, however much you "clean" it. Besides, it appears to be nothing more than an assumption that the WCA would be interested in the content here.


----------



## kp (Jun 4, 2013)

I think this actually could be a source of information for the WCA, as a lot of cubers from around the world have given their inputs. There *is* a compilation post (although I'm not sure whether anyone has forwarded it), here, and also edited in the very first post of the thread. IMO this could be very useful as, if not main, supportive information to the whole issue.

As for cleaning up threads, I think it was just to stop this thread from turning into "4.41 is impossibru!" and stuff; to keep the useful posts from disappearing in the crowd. It may not be 100% efficient, but why not do it anyway?


----------



## coldsun0630 (Jun 4, 2013)

Avg 15 => Under 4 TPS
4.41 SEC * 4 TPS = Under 18 Moves

I Don't Believe That '4.41' Is Real.


----------



## aashritspidey (Jun 4, 2013)

Well accordin to me- -we shud wait for the WCA to make a decision. What if it was actually correct. Frankly. When i was averaging like 1 min during my first competition, I got a 30 second solve. Wehere my pb was around 36 seconds. I had a lucky x-cross. So u can never say. And this is just my opinion #peace


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Jun 4, 2013)

It's very very unprobable, but: 
Where is confirmation that he got the right scramble? He could have gotten easy misscramble randomly solved to J perm... 

But this guy is stupid, if I averaged around 18 seconds and got a 4.41 (if it's true) I'd rather say: DNF it, whole community would hate me for this.. It would be fair play


----------



## qqwref (Jun 4, 2013)

aashritspidey said:


> When i was averaging like 1 min during my first competition, I got a 30 second solve. [...] So u can never say.


It's worlds apart. You got a lucky solve that was half of your average; I've done that too. This guy's solve is just over a quarter of his average (assuming he averages 17ish). It would be like you getting a 15 second solve at the time, on a scramble with no obvious easy solution.


----------



## toruu (Jun 4, 2013)

qqwref said:


> It's worlds apart. You got a lucky solve that was half of your average; I've done that too. This guy's solve is just over a quarter of his average (assuming he averages 17ish). It would be like you getting a 15 second solve at the time, on a scramble with no obvious easy solution.



Not to mention that there is a BIG difference between 1 min-30 secs and 18-4. Like Faz or Kevin said. Getting a four is far more difficult than getting a six.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 4, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.



Does anyone else find it strange that speculation from people with minimal direct evidence of the solve, with no ability to correctly discern rumor from accurate reports, and no ability to try to gain more information are going to have an impact on the final decision? 

Other than searching the scramble for outrageously simple solves that match the description, there's very little productive discussion in this thread that should inform any official decision. Even that has issues, because any solve can be remembered incorrectly, which I'm sure would be Martin's first line of defense. 

Plus, is forcing people to reconstruct their solves now going to be necessary for all solves? It seems like a dangerous double standard is being considered because we all consider this the product of cheating.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 4, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Exactly. That is what a forum is for. Spending time "cleaning" threads to remove 100s of posts of discussion is a strange way to run a forum, IMO. If the WCA are likely to be interested in content here, wouldn't it be better to compile the useful findings into a report and forward it to them? This thread is never going to be a useful way to present the information, however much you "clean" it.


The problem is that there are some informative posts that might not get read because they would get buried. This is an important issue and we don't want important information to get missed. The first post helps, but there's more that should be read. It's not normal at all to clean up threads this much. This is just an exception. I was planning to restore the deleted posts after the WCA has made a decision, anyway.



mark49152 said:


> Besides, it appears to be nothing more than an assumption that the WCA would be interested in the content here.





Tyson said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > I'd sure hope that the board pays attention to some of the stuff posted here without each person needing to manually submit to them. After all, the WCA is the community.
> ...


----------



## Konsta (Jun 4, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Plus, is forcing people to reconstruct their solves now going to be necessary for all solves? It seems like a dangerous double standard is being considered because we all consider this the product of cheating.



I don't see why it should be so that all solves have to be reconstructed. It is a bit different case to ask that in WR solve, especially if there is anything weird going on.
And past WR solves have been reconstructed anyway, just because people like to see how they are done, not because they don't believe it happened.
If Martin can't provide any sensible reconstruction about the solve with that scramble, there is no way it can be considered as a WR in my eyes.
And because the solution should be very short, it should also be much easier to remember/reconstruct. The longer it takes, the more suspicious it looks.


----------



## chris410 (Jun 4, 2013)

toruu said:


> Not to mention that there is a BIG difference between 1 min-30 secs and 18-4. Like Faz or Kevin said. Getting a four is far more difficult than getting a six.



100% agree and exactly why I do not think the solve is valid, most people could execute a 30 second solve where a 4.41 second solve would require far more skill especially that of a 17 second average cuber. Furthermore, the signed slip eliminates all of his solves period since the judge signed all the slots, that allows anyone to write down any time they want without the judge present. There should be no argument with the slip alone that the attempt is not going to be counted as an official world record. With all the obvious evidence, I suspect the card itself speaks to the video/reactions/etc...as all of this being a prank.


----------



## Ron (Jun 5, 2013)

His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2013)

Ron said:


> His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.



what, officially?


----------



## moralsh (Jun 5, 2013)

Ron said:


> His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.



That's a 16.63 average, so he improved his official average but not by much.


----------



## A Leman (Jun 5, 2013)

Ron said:


> His results for this competition were: (4.41) (18.90) 14.71 18.68 16.53.



Is this just information to the public about his later solves on the scorecard or is this your statement of the 4.41's authenticity?


----------



## Ollie (Jun 5, 2013)

No announcement on WCA.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2013)

Much thanks for relaying this information, Ron. So our arguments based on him having a ~17 second average were correct after all.


----------



## Zoé (Jun 5, 2013)

I think Ron was just informing us of what Martín's other times were for the competition (since everyone keeps arguing he could have improved over a year, but we couldn't know for sure with only 2 times to go with), not stating that anything has been officialized


----------



## Pro94 (Jun 5, 2013)

I think Ron posted his times just to show that he's still averaging around 16-17; because many people took his 17.00 avg. as a proof against him without any real evidence. 

Also his results "were" not "are" so anything is official yet.


----------



## Ron (Jun 5, 2013)

Wait for an announcement please. I just posted the results that were on his score card.


----------



## mati rubik (Jun 6, 2013)

When I did my official 9.50 my avg was like 17, and in the final my avg was 14-ish, when your avg is 13+ weird things happens.

I have my opinion, but I'm waiting for WCA board decision.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 6, 2013)

moralsh said:


> That's a 16.63 average, so he improved his official average but not by much.



That average is what I would have expected. You can't always tell if someone will improve very much in a year if they've only gone to one competition, but since he had attended at least least two competitions, you could estimate that he wouldn't improve THAT quickly because the difference is not that great between 2011 and 2012.

Sorry if this doesn't contribute to the thread.


----------



## windhero (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd love to see this guy do an average of 25 or even 12 of sub1 J-perms. J-perms are easy, sure, but I don't even believe he can manage to constantly sub1 a J-perm. Then add the fact that he had an OLL skip which atleast disorients me. If he could pull of an average of 25 sub1 j-perms, I might REMOTELY consider that this is in any way possible. If not, not a chance.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Jun 6, 2013)

windhero said:


> I'd love to see this guy do an average of 25 or even 12 of sub1 J-perms. J-perms are easy, sure, but I don't even believe he can manage to constantly sub1 a J-perm. Then add the fact that he had an OLL skip which atleast disorients me. If he could pull of an average of 25 sub1 j-perms, I might REMOTELY consider that this is in any way possible. If not, not a chance.



Why would an average of 25 convince you? Even one sub 1 j-perm would show you that he is capable of doing so, even if it isn't on every solve.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 6, 2013)

cubecraze1 said:


> Why would an average of 25 convince you? Even one sub 1 j-perm would show you that he is capable of doing so, even if it isn't on every solve.



but if it takes him 25 attempts to get 1, then he defiantly didnt get one in an official solve 3 seconds after he started the solve (shaking hands and stuf)


----------



## EMI (Jun 6, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> but if it takes him 25 attempts to get 1, then he defiantly didnt get one in an official solve 3 seconds after he started the solve (shaking hands and stuf)



Well obviously he cannot be sure if it was really sub1 (as there is no video). What he propably meant was that it felt very fast.


----------



## windhero (Jun 6, 2013)

cubecraze1 said:


> Why would an average of 25 convince you? Even one sub 1 j-perm would show you that he is capable of doing so, even if it isn't on every solve.



Simple probability. What are the odds of a guy that does a sub 1 j perm out of 25 solves to do one in a competition compared to a guy that constantly does sub 1 j perms? No luck involved, just pure skill. I'm fairly sure he doesn't have it. 

If you read between the lines my point is how lucky can a guy get during one single solve? XXX-cross, OLL skip AND an exceptionally fast J-perm? Hell no.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jun 6, 2013)

windhero said:


> Simple probability. What are the odds of a guy that does a sub 1 j perm out of 25 solves to do one in a competition compared to a guy that constantly does sub 1 j perms? No luck involved, just pure skill. I'm fairly sure he doesn't have it.
> 
> If you read between the lines my point is how lucky can a guy get during one single solve? XXX-cross, OLL skip AND an exceptionally fast J-perm? Hell no.



There have been thousands of solves in the WCA. Perhaps even millions.

While it _is_ very unlikely that this happened, people must consider the fact that once in a while people do get these crazy solves. Your biases don't necessarily validate your personal beliefs. Posts like this should not happen until the WCA makes an official statement. If in fact he is cheating, then it would be fine to say that he can't achieve what he said he did.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 6, 2013)

There have been millions of solves done at home by cubers. Perhaps even billions. 
How many of them have ever gotten, honestly and with correct scrambling, a solve 4 times faster than their average involving a triple X-cross + R U R' + J-perm or anything equivalently lucky ? Never heard of any one for the moment...


----------



## windhero (Jun 6, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> There have been thousands of solves in the WCA. Perhaps even millions.
> 
> While it _is_ very unlikely that this happened, people must consider the fact that once in a while people do get these crazy solves. Your biases don't necessarily validate your personal beliefs. Posts like this should not happen until the WCA makes an official statement. If in fact he is cheating, then it would be fine to say that he can't achieve what he said he did.



Nope. Just nope. There are infinite scenarios and infinite ways to examine a cube and then execute a solve. I just dont trust that a guy who has 17-18 averages to even have a lookahead or reaction times fast enough to get a sub 5 sec solve. It's a human being we are talking about, not some machine that solves cubes. There is just no way he would just be cool after getting a scramble for XXX-cross, an easy last F2L pair, an OLL skip and THEN execute a J-perm in sub 1. I'm sure he could replicate this and solve the cube that fast, but I also feel it hard to believe that anyone would have the nerves to just disregard all that happened in a competition and keep on solving. Ofcourse its possible. Im not saying its not. I'm just saying its just as likely that a unicorn would've flown inside and shat a golden brick on the table after the solve.

Hell, even noticing an easy cross during inspection disorients some people.


----------



## Logiqx (Jun 6, 2013)

Slight mis-scrambling can be very significant. I've had a cross skip and LL skip in the same solve (entire solve was ~16 moves for the F2L) and it was due to a slight mis-scramble. This could eventually happen in competition even with a correctly scrambled cube and would result in a record that is nigh on unbeatable. Perhaps "single" shouldn't be about the easy / lucky / invalid solves and should instead be the fastest solve which isn't discarded from Ao5?

This significantly dampens the effect that luck plays in a small cube "single". Data from the WCA shows that Felix is the only guy with sub-7 singles counting towards an official Ao5 (6.88 in 2011 and 6.91 in 2013). He holds the top 6 results on this basis and they the others are 7.0x results. Several lucky guys would drop down the rankings and several talented guys would move up (e.g. Alex / 5BLD). Perhaps this is a better indicator of the worlds best and the average guy on the street?

This idea also has a significant effect on 2x2 singles where the best counting times are circa 1.7 seconds and not due to 4 move solutions.

Anyway feel free to shoot it down with "luck is not a crime", etc. 

p.s. What Martin says doesn't stack up. I'm not implying that he could have struck it lucky based on the description of his solve or his skill level.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> There have been thousands of solves in the WCA. Perhaps even millions.



About half a million in regular 3x3 speed (495969 solves in 509139 attempts).


----------



## Michael45764 (Jun 7, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> Over 300 posts have been deleted over the last few days. About 100 were deleted just last night. Thread clean-ups take a while, especially since there have been about 5 instances of them here.
> 
> IMO it's very important that this thread is readable and easy to search through, since it has an impact on the WCA's decision.



You want the thread to be easily searchable and easy to read because it has an impact on the WCA's decision.

So you delete posts to achieve your goal which is essentially deleting and silencing posts that argue contrary to your opinion of what really must have happened to influence the WCA in your direction. 

Got it.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 7, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> You want the thread to be easily searchable and easy to read because it has an impact on the WCA's decision.
> 
> So you delete posts to achieve your goal which is essentially deleting and silencing posts that argue contrary to your opinion of what really must have happened to influence the WCA in your direction.
> 
> Got it.



I don't think that's what's going on. I think the goal is to keep the productive posts and eliminate the side conversations and useless conjectures.


----------



## kcl (Jun 7, 2013)

> Perhaps "single" shouldn't be about the easy / lucky / invalid solves and should instead be the fastest solve which isn't discarded from Ao5?
> 
> This significantly dampens the effect that luck plays in a small cube "single".


This is actually really smart. Or possibly if they had a separate category for each...


----------



## qqwref (Jun 7, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> You want the thread to be easily searchable and easy to read because it has an impact on the WCA's decision.
> 
> So you delete posts to achieve your goal which is essentially deleting and silencing posts that argue contrary to your opinion of what really must have happened to influence the WCA in your direction.
> 
> Got it.


Conspiracy much? They're just deleting the posts that don't add anything new to the discussion. Not that I've seen anyone provide a convincing piece of evidence FOR the WR anyway...


----------



## Mikel (Jun 7, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Not that I've seen anyone provide a convincing piece of evidence FOR the WR anyway...



The solve was done in an official competition, witnessed by a judge and approved by a delegate.


----------



## IamWEB (Jun 7, 2013)

Mikel said:


> The solve was done in an official competition, witnessed by a judge and approved by a delegate.



Evidence?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 7, 2013)

Mikel said:


> The solve was done in an official competition, witnessed by a judge and approved by a delegate.


Actually, I'm not sure that counts as evidence at all (for or against), since it doesn't give us anything to distinguish between real official solves and cheated official solves.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 7, 2013)

Mikel said:


> The solve was done in an official competition, witnessed by a judge and approved by a delegate.



So what ? Kuti's cheated blindsolves were also done at an officiel comp, witnessed by a judge and approved by a delegate. That doesn't mean they were legit.


----------



## Michael45764 (Jun 7, 2013)

All everyone also has is speculation yet that stays here too.


----------



## Meep (Jun 7, 2013)

A post was made in the WCA forum here.


----------



## JasonK (Jun 7, 2013)

Thank christ. Now this thread can finally go away.


----------



## moralsh (Jun 7, 2013)

Meep said:


> A post was made in the WCA forum here.



Good, that means that Feliks has no pressure to do a 4.40 this saturday 

Before reading the WCA statement I thought that a unintentional misscramble with an easy solution was a possibility and that they should just DNF the solve and take no further action. After reading it all I must say I agree with the ban.


----------



## IamWEB (Jun 7, 2013)

Michael45764 said:


> All everyone also has is speculation yet that stays here too.



Many of the posts in this thread dealt with figuring out solutions to the scramble that matched the competitor's given solution, as well showing how improbable the 4.41 would actually be under such circumstances. There were also posts that gathered statements from the involved parties.

But anyway, it's all over now. The solve is a DNF, and the punishment has been dealt. 
_
Good day, Sir._


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

the WCA did the correct thing imo. Thank you.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 7, 2013)

OK, there is a decision now and I think it's one most of us can accept. He has been found guilty of cheating and got a severe, but considering the nature of the cheating a fair penalty. But I still have a few questions:

What actually happened during the solve? From the WCA forum post, we can conclude that he didn't solve the cube using the series of improvised moves + J-perm that he claims. So, was the cube actually solved and where does the 4.41 come from? And were there other people involved? I find it hard to believe it's a one man action. He managed to get the judge to write down a highly improbable, if not impossible time for someone of his ability, got it entered onto the excel sheet, checked by de Delegate and sent off to the WCA as an official result. There's got to be more people involved in this. Will they be investigated and punished when their involvement is established?


----------



## MorrisKid101 (Jun 7, 2013)

Finally! Deserved the punishment he got. Can anyone try and recreate the solve in the fastest time possible, say someone really fast like 5BLD so we can see what the fastest time he could have got if he was a sub-10 averaged?


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

MorrisKid101 said:


> Finally! Deserved the punishment he got. Can anyone try and recreate the solve in the fastest time possible, say someone really fast like 5BLD so we can see what the fastest time he could have got if he was a sub-10 averaged?



Kevin Hays did it already


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 7, 2013)

hcfong said:


> OK, there is a decision now and I think it's one most of us can accept. He has been found guilty of cheating and got a severe, but considering the nature of the cheating a fair penalty. But I still have a few questions:
> 
> What actually happened during the solve? From the WCA forum post, we can conclude that he didn't solve the cube using the series of improvised moves + J-perm that he claims. So, was the cube actually solved and where does the 4.41 come from? And were there other people involved? I find it hard to believe it's a one man action. He managed to get the judge to write down a highly improbable, if not impossible time for someone of his ability, got it entered onto the excel sheet, checked by de Delegate and sent off to the WCA as an official result. There's got to be more people involved in this. Will they be investigated and punished when their involvement is established?


I believe the investigation is finished. It is quite possible he could have done this alone, and I fail to see any evidence against others. The only way to find out whether others were involved would be if they admitted it or if Martin said so.
If I was the judge of this solve and noticed nothing odd apart from the fast time, I would write it down and sign it and then ensure the delegate was aware of the time.
If I was the delegate and noticed nothing odd apart from the fast time, I would submit it as a result to the WCA (with a warning that perhaps it should be investigated).


----------



## kp (Jun 7, 2013)

One day we'll all look back at this and either:
a) have a good laugh
b) think of it as a serious incident that had its consequences.



Username said:


> Kevin Hays did it already



Haha, from the video, "Feliks challenged someone to do this in under 4.5 seconds. And now he owes me dinner at worlds."


----------



## stoic (Jun 7, 2013)

Good post on the WCA forum, logically put and it leaves nobody in any doubt that the competitor cheated. We now know that he was asked to provide his solution and lied again. (Did he really think that changing B2 to B' U' U B' at the end of the optimal solution would fool the WCA?) This was an important investigation and outcome for the credibility of speedcubing, and I commend the Board for their work on this.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 7, 2013)

Hooray a decision

/thread


----------



## cubizh (Jun 7, 2013)

I am debating if it should be necessary to add an adaptation of E2e1) in awkwardly extreme cases like this.


----------



## kp (Jun 7, 2013)

That may not be possible directly, since the competitor may not remember what he did. But yeah, I get what you mean.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 7, 2013)

hcfong said:


> OK, there is a decision now and I think it's one most of us can accept. He has been found guilty of cheating and got a severe, but considering the nature of the cheating a fair penalty. But I still have a few questions:
> 
> What actually happened during the solve? From the WCA forum post, we can conclude that he didn't solve the cube using the series of improvised moves + J-perm that he claims. So, was the cube actually solved and where does the 4.41 come from? And were there other people involved? I find it hard to believe it's a one man action. He managed to get the judge to write down a highly improbable, if not impossible time for someone of his ability, got it entered onto the excel sheet, checked by de Delegate and sent off to the WCA as an official result. There's got to be more people involved in this. Will they be investigated and punished when their involvement is established?



Yes, so what actually happened during the solve. The reason why it isn't in the statement is because we can't prove it, but we have a very good guess as to what actually happened. What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...

What I think happened is that the competitor at Perry Open 2013, who had a history of posting videos of rehearsed solves and presenting them as normal solves, used a rehearsed scramble. If you put your cube down on your scramble sheet, and you put it down scrambled, a judge can easily mistake it for a scrambled cube and take it to the timer.

It's for this reason why at WC 2013, you should expect to put your SOLVED cube on a separate table away from the scramble table. And then one of the staff members will transport your solved cube to the scramble table. If cubes are allowed to be placed on the scramble table directly, which is sometimes done at smaller competitions, a scrambler might not see this. The scrambler's head is staring at the scramble sheet. Meanwhile, if a judge or runner comes by for a cube, that judge isn't checking the state of the cube, nor would he know the initial positions of all 5 scrambles and recognize something was amiss. He sees the scrambled cube and assumes it's scrambled correctly.

Oh... and another note. It is for this reason that in both cases, when there was one solve much much faster than the other solves of the competitor, it occurred on the first solve. After the first solve, you're no longer responsible for transporting your cube to the timer or to the scrambling table.

It's most logical to do what I described above with the first solve.

(And don't cheat this way. Please.)

(Though... there seems to be this pattern where for contentious posts, the conversation seems to die if I post anything... not that it's a bad thing in this case.)


----------



## Mart Teles (Jun 7, 2013)

He escrito ésto antes de que se publicaran los resultados del torneo Perry Open.
No lo publique debido a que no quería se hablara más sobre el tema hasta que la WCA publicara su conclusión. 
Antes que nada quiero agradecer a las personas que creyeron en mi y que me apoyaron (ayudandome en la reconstrucción, defendiendo mi persona y a los espectadores que brindaron evidencia).

A toda la comunidad del Cubo de Rubik:

Ya le he brindado toda la información, en lo que me concierne, de mi resolución a la WCA. Pero he de decirles que no hice trampa en mi solve, el cubo estuvo bien mezclado, no detuve el cronometro, no cambie el cubo, no se detuvo el cronometro, no engañe a mi juez y no me puse de acuerdo con él (ni si quiera sabía su nombre hasta el 25 de mayo) ni con ninguna persona.

No me considero el mejor cubero del mundo, ni siquiera de mi país. Creo que para eso existe el WR de promedio. Simplemente tuve mucha suerte, tal como a Mats Valk que si no hubiera tenido el Oll Skip su 5.55 sería mayor al 5.66 de Feliks Zemdegs o como Giovanni Contardi que siendo sub 19 logró un sub 10 (en la categoría de una mano), aunque creo que fui más afortunado, ya que siendo sub 15 logré un sub 5. 

Al foro de México:

Creo que era inevitable que el rumor de un nuevo WR corriera por todo el mundo. Pero la forma en la que se publicarón muchas cosas no fue la correcta, entiendo que el humor mexicano sea negro (¡hasta nos reimos de cuando nos temblo y murieron personas en el año 1985!), pero considero que hubo personas que se portaron muy pendencieramente y también gente que habló ignorando los hechos, tales como que nadie vio mi resolución, que el timer se detuvo... etcetera. Nuestros administradores (del foro) debieron (tal vez) borrar algunas publicaciones que en lugar de ayudar causaban más polémica a la situación. 

A la WCA:

No fue mi culpa el no haberme grabado durante mi 4.41. Entiendo que fue muy extraño lograr ese tiempo, como ya he repetido tuve suerte, más suerte aun que mi juez fuera Ernesto, uno de los cuberos de antaño (hasta donde entendí), y no un cubero nuevo. Creo que el que mi juez haya confirmado que mi solve fue valido debería ser de gran importacia y por eso lo siguiente:
1.- Ningún competidor de menor de 16 años de edad debería poder ser juez. Ésto porque sería mas propenso a que se le engañase.
2.- Que para ser juez o scrambler debe el competidor haber estado en dos competencias y haber pasado un año desde la primera.
3.- Que en cada competencia se lleve una lista de las personas que juecearon y mezclaron durante la competencia.
4.- Ya siendo un poco mas estricto (pero considero que sería bueno), que en la papeleta de registro de tiempos se firme quien está mezclando y quien está jueceando (deben ser personas distintas). 

Se debería mejorar el reglamento ya que no engloba algunas cosas y se debería aprovechar que la World Rubik's Cube Championship 2013 se acerca. 

Esto lo he escrito dado el veredicto de la WCA para la misma:
Quisiera y pido una conclusión real en la cual se sustenta y fundamenta el veredicto de DNF. 
Una demostración Matemática donde se demuestre que es imposible llegar a la J (permutación) dando giros al azar. (probabilidad)
Una demostración biológica en la que se sustente que me hubiese sido imposible llegar a los 4.41 segundos.
Ahora bien la WCA dijo que por por mi falta de honradez..... yo no he hecho trampa, no tienen ninguna prueba de eso, por el principio de presunción de inocencia declaro que su decisión de amonestarme con la prohibición de participar en los eventos de la WCA hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2015 es inaceptable.
En ninguna parte de su reglamento se encuentran las sanciones a las que se haría acreedor el competidor que se le sorprenda....
Además quisiera se me enviaran las pruebas de mi falta de honradez y malicia durante el torneo.
Cito:
1.- " la solución no coincide con descripciones anteriores de la solución hecha por el competidor después de la competición." Como he dicho fueron al azar y no recuerdo que fue exactamente lo que hice, pero la solución que vi en el foro de México se me hizo muy similar a lo poco que recuerdo, no sabía de la existencia de cubeexplorer. Si use los terminos de F2l y triple xcross fue para dar a entender que fue lo que pasó durante la resolución, nunca dije haber hecho un triple xcross a la hora de hacer la cruz ni nada con respecto a hacer la cruz blanca, mi única descripción fue que los bloques (tres) del f2l quedaron hechos de dela cruz blanca para terminar (el f2l) con un R U R' (esto ya lo había publicado en este foro).
2.- " no se parece a ningún método de solución conocida". En ninguna parte de su reglamento estipula como debe armarse el cubo o si el método debe ser conocido o si no deben darse giros al azar.
3.- " la solución propuesta no parece susceptible de ejecutar en menos de 4,41 segundos, tal como se reivindica por el competidor, debido a las múltiples vueltas en cada cara del cubo.". Mi reconstrucción (como ya dije) no la recuerdo, solo me pareció muy similar.

Por último, seamos francos. El torneo no cumplió con todos los requerimientos del la WCA tales como:
7c ) Iluminación del área de competición debe prestar especial atención. La iluminación debe ser neutral, de manera que los competidores pueden distinguir fácilmente entre los colores de los puzzles.

7d + ) ADEMÁS La temperatura del área de competición debe ser de 21 a 25 grados Celsius.
por mencionar algunos.

PD: A pesar de que es un solve preparado .... es posible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPDKzn5C7-8


----------



## windhero (Jun 7, 2013)

Tyson said:


> Yes, so what actually happened during the solve. The reason why it isn't in the statement is because we can't prove it, but we have a very good guess as to what actually happened. What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...
> 
> What I think happened is that the competitor at Perry Open 2013, who had a history of posting videos of rehearsed solves and presenting them as normal solves, used a rehearsed scramble. If you put your cube down on your scramble sheet, and you put it down scrambled, a judge can easily mistake it for a scrambled cube and take it to the timer.
> 
> ...



Have other improvements to the scrambling table been thought out? Like a software that shows what the cube looks like after the said scramble? Then it would be easy for the scrambler to compare the said scrambled cube with what the software shows as the real scramble should be like. Just need 1 computer screen or smart phone and maybe someone to either make the software or find the software since something like it has already been made.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 7, 2013)

windhero said:


> Have other improvements to the scrambling table been thought out? Like a software that shows what the cube looks like after the said scramble? Then it would be easy for the scrambler to compare the said scrambled cube with what the software shows as the real scramble should be like. Just need 1 computer screen or smart phone and maybe someone to either make the software or find the software since something like it has already been made.



An image of the scrambled cube is shown next to the scramble for all puzzle types. It's been this way for quite a while with cubic puzzles, puzzles such as mega, clock and sq1 were added to this in the 2013 scrambling program.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 7, 2013)

windhero said:


> Have other improvements to the scrambling table been thought out? Like a software that shows what the cube looks like after the said scramble? Then it would be easy for the scrambler to compare the said scrambled cube with what the software shows as the real scramble should be like. Just need 1 computer screen or smart phone and maybe someone to either make the software or find the software since something like it has already been made.



This doesn't solve the issue at hand. We already have software that prints out what the scramble should look like. The problem here is that the person who's viewing this is the scrambler, whereas the person who transports the cube does not know what the scramble should be. It's not really feasible for a runner or a judge to know how a scrambled cube is supposed to look.

The main defense we have against this right now is the separation of the table where the cubes are initially delivered, and the scrambling table.


----------



## Tyson (Jun 7, 2013)

Mart Teles said:


> PD: A pesar de que es un solve preparado .... es posible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPDKzn5C7-8



I'm not going to get into a battle like I did in the past with someone's mother. But I will say it is interesting that you post this video. Did you read the description in the video?

"_The scramble: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2

I solved it using one of the optimal solutions given the constraints: D L' B R2 U L2 B' D' B U D2 L' D2 R U F2 y R U R' U2 Jperm

Of course this may not have been the exact solution, but I'm just showing how absurd it would be for someone to get a 4.41 on this scramble in an actual competition.

I could barely get under 4.41 despite trying over 100 times, already knowing the solution, and having absolutely 0 pauses for lookahead.

In my opinion there is absolutely no way someone could do this in a real competition without having cheated beforehand._"


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 7, 2013)

Tyson said:


> If cubes are allowed to be placed on the scramble table directly, which is sometimes done at smaller competitions, a scrambler might not see this. The scrambler's head is staring at the scramble sheet. Meanwhile, if a judge or runner comes by for a cube, that judge isn't checking the state of the cube, nor would he know the initial positions of all 5 scrambles and recognize something was amiss. He sees the scrambled cube and assumes it's scrambled correctly.


Before starting scrambling, scramblers or judges or delegate or whoever should ensure all cubes placed on a table are solved.

A2a) When called for a round, the competitor submits his puzzle, *in its solved state*, to the scrambler and waits in the Competitors Area until he is called to compete.


----------



## Mart Teles (Jun 7, 2013)

el comentario de arriba le escribí en el foro de Facebook. 
Decidí ponerlo yo mismo en este foro para que no se corrieran tantos chismes sobre mi publicación. De la misma suerte lo he puesto tal cual lo escribí. por lo que cuando hablo del foro no me refiero a éste, sino a este https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

Mart Teles said:


> el comentario de arriba le escribí en el foro de Facebook.
> Decidí ponerlo yo mismo en este foro para que no se corrieran tantos chismes sobre mi publicación. De la misma suerte lo he puesto tal cual lo escribí. por lo que cuando hablo del foro no me refiero a éste, sino a este https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/



Googla translate gives this:

the above comment I wrote in the Facebook forum.
I decided to put myself on this forum for many corrieran not gossip about my publication. Just luck I've put as they wrote it. so that when I speak of the forum do not mean it, but this https://www.facebook.com/groups/rubikmexico/


----------



## BillyRain (Jun 7, 2013)

Well well well wut a suprise.. *rolls eyes* let's all go home now.


----------



## Litz (Jun 7, 2013)

Tyson said:


> What I think happened is that the competitor at Perry Open 2013, who had a history of posting videos of rehearsed solves and presenting them as normal solves, used a rehearsed scramble. If you put your cube down on your scramble sheet, and you put it down scrambled, a judge can easily mistake it for a scrambled cube and take it to the timer.
> 
> It's for this reason why at WC 2013, you should expect to put your SOLVED cube on a separate table away from the scramble table. And then one of the staff members will transport your solved cube to the scramble table. If cubes are allowed to be placed on the scramble table directly, which is sometimes done at smaller competitions, a scrambler might not see this. The scrambler's head is staring at the scramble sheet. Meanwhile, if a judge or runner comes by for a cube, that judge isn't checking the state of the cube, nor would he know the initial positions of all 5 scrambles and recognize something was amiss. He sees the scrambled cube and assumes it's scrambled correctly.
> 
> Oh... and another note. It is for this reason that in both cases, when there was one solve much much faster than the other solves of the competitor, it occurred on the first solve. After the first solve, you're no longer responsible for transporting your cube to the timer or to the scrambling table.


That's very interesting (never knew that's how it worked). Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Mart Teles (Jun 7, 2013)

Por cierto, mi supuesta fama de fake surgió a raíz de un vídeo de un amigo que realizó para subirlo al foro, en ese tiempo yo ni si quiera sabia de la existencia de cubos de otra marca mas que hasbro y mucho menos de toda esta comunidad. así que esa fama fue creada por otra persona, yo ni sabía el destino de los vídeos.


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

Mart Teles said:


> Por cierto, mi supuesta fama de fake surgió a raíz de un vídeo de un amigo que realizó para subirlo al foro, en ese tiempo yo ni si quiera sabia de la existencia de cubos de otra marca mas que hasbro y mucho menos de toda esta comunidad. así que esa fama fue creada por otra persona, yo ni sabía el destino de los vídeos.



Google translate:

By the way, my alleged fake fame arose from a video of a friend who performed for uploading to the forum, at that time I did not even know of the existence of another brand cubes more than hasbro let alone this whole community . so that fame was created by someone else, I do not know the fate of the videos.


----------



## realcube (Jun 7, 2013)

I am very happy to hear that. I'm also glad, that Mats and Feliks amazing achievements will not get foiled by an apparent cheater.
Many thanks to the WCA for the well-founded, in-depth investigation.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 7, 2013)

I am also glad there is a ruling now. Mats and Feliks can continue their 'feud'


----------



## ySoSrs (Jun 7, 2013)

Would someone who speaks Spanish care to translate this post: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ry-Open-Mexico&p=862403&viewfull=1#post862403


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 7, 2013)

I threw it in google translate. It helps a bit


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

ySoSrs said:


> Would someone who speaks Spanish care to translate this post: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ry-Open-Mexico&p=862403&viewfull=1#post862403





Spoiler: Google translation



I wrote this before the results were published Perry Open tournament.
Do not post it because it did not want to talk more about it until the WCA published his conclusion.
First I want to thank the people who believed in me and supported me (helping me to rebuild, defending me and the viewers who gave evidence).

A whole community of Rubik's Cube:

I have already provided all the information, as I'm concerned, my resolution to the WCA. But I must tell you that I did not cheat on my solve, the cube was well mixed, not stopped the timer, do not change the cube, did not stop the clock, not deceive my judge and I did not agree with him (or if want to know his name until May 25) or with any person.

I think the best cubero the world, not even in my country. I think that's what the average WR. I just had a lot of luck, as to Mats Valk that if I had not had the Oll Skip the 5.55 would be greater than 5.66 or as Feliks Zemdegs Giovanni Contardi that being sub 19 achieved a sub 10 (in the category of a hand), but I think I was most fortunate, as I managed one being sub 15 sub 5.

The Mexico Forum:

I think it was inevitable that the rumor of a new WR run worldwide. But the way in which it was published many things right, I understand that the Mexican humor is black (until we laugh when we trembled and died in 1985 people!), But I think that there were people who behaved very pendencieramente and people who spoke to ignore the facts, such as that no one saw my resolution, the timer stopped ... and so on. Our administrators (the forum) should (maybe) clear some publications that instead of causing more controversy help the situation.

The WCA:

It was my fault for not having recorded my 4.41. I understand it was very strange achieve that time, as I've said I was lucky, even luckier that my judge was Ernesto, one of the old cuberos (as far as I understood), not a new cubero. I think that my judge has confirmed that my solve was valid should be more very important and therefore the following:
1. - No competitor under 16 years old should be able to be a judge. This because it would be more prone to deceive you.
Two. - That to be judge or competitor scrambler should have been in two competitions and have been a year since the first.
Three. - That in each competition takes a list of people who juecearon and mixed for competition.
April. - I being a little more strict (but I think that would be good), that the time recording ballot is signed who are mixing and who is jueceando (shall be different).

Regulation should be improved and that does not include some things and you should take advantage of the World Rubik's Cube Championship 2013 is coming.

I wrote this because the verdict of the WCA for the same:
I wish and pray real conclusion that sustains and justifies the verdict of DNF.
A demonstration Mathematics where it is shown that it is impossible to reach the J (trade) randomly turning around. (Probability)
A biological demonstration that relies on me would have been impossible to reach the 4.41 seconds.
Now the WCA said that my lack of honesty ..... I have not cheated, have no proof of that, by the principle of presumption of innocence stated that his decision to ban amonestarme participate in WCA events until December 31, 2015 is unacceptable.
Nowhere in its rules are the sanctions that would earn the competitor to be surprised ....
I would also like you to send me my tests dishonesty and malice during the tournament.
Quote:
1. - "The solution is not consistent with previous descriptions of the solution made by the competitor after the competition." As I said were random and I do not remember exactly what I did, but the solution I saw Mexico forum made me very similar to what little I remember, I did not know of the existence of cubeexplorer. If the terms of use and triple Xcross F2l was to imply that what happened during resolution, I never have done a triple Xcross when making the cross or anything about making the white cross, my only description was that the blocks (three) of F2L dela cruz were made of white to finish (the F2L) with a RUR '(I've already posted on this forum).
Two. - "Not unlike any known solution method". Nowhere in the rules stipulate as to summon the cube or if the method must be known or if there should be random spins.
3. - "The proposed solution does not appear capable of executing in less than 4.41 seconds, as claimed by the competitor, because of the multiple turns on each face of the cube.". My reconstruction (as I said) I do not remember, I just felt very similar.

Finally, let's be frank. The tournament did not meet all the requirements of the WCA such as:
7c) Lighting of the competition area must pay special attention. Lighting should be neutral, so that competitors can easily distinguish between the colors of the puzzles.

7d +) PLUS The competition area temperature should be 21 to 25 degrees Celsius.
among others.

PS: Although a prepared solve .... possible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPDKzn5C7-8


----------



## hcfong (Jun 7, 2013)

Thanks for the explanation, Tyson.


----------



## moralsh (Jun 7, 2013)

I haven't time to translate right now, but if someone is interested in clarifying a paragraph's translation I can help.


----------



## LarsN (Jun 7, 2013)

Tyson said:


> This doesn't solve the issue at hand.



Simply don't start scrambling until all the cubes have been handed in. That solves the first scramble issue.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 7, 2013)

moralsh said:


> I haven't time to translate right now, but if someone is interested in clarifying a paragraph's translation I can help.



Thanks, but I think it's already obvious that he's just making a lame attempt at victimizing himself and whining at how unfair the WCA is with him. Unfortunately for him that won't work. He cheated, he got caught, he's getting punished, period.


----------



## Mirco (Jun 7, 2013)

I am impressed how well the google translator works these days, but I don't get that part:


> A biological demonstration that relies on me would have been impossible to reach the 4.41 seconds.



Is he saying it is not possible for him to prove he is fast enough to do let's say two J-perms in under five seconds? Or that the WCA does not want him to? Google translate made this sentence weird (or it was in the beginning).


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 7, 2013)

I never thought about that before... the thing about putting a prepared scrambled cube on the scramble table and it only working on the first solve. I'm glad the matter is finally resolved.


----------



## Ton (Jun 7, 2013)

LarsN said:


> Simply don't start scrambling until all the cubes have been handed in. That solves the first scramble issue.



Yep , that is our general practice so far in competition I did

in addition if cubes are brought back by a judge to the scramble table , still scrambled , the scramblers should check the scramble!
During Euro 2010 I was scrambling for the 5x5 BLD when a voluntary judge was collecting the competitor he walked away just out of my site , to look for the competitor , he came back and placed the cube on the desk
The cube did not match any scrambles..., so I solved it and re scramble it. I could not prove it was either a mistake of one the scramblers (maybe my own) or ....
Any way , I always have an eagle eye when cubes are brought back scrambled on the table since this event...




Tyson said:


> It's for this reason why at WC 2013, you should expect to put your SOLVED cube on a separate table away from the scramble table. And then one of the staff members will transport your solved cube to the scramble table. If cubes are allowed to be placed on the scramble table directly, which is sometimes done at smaller competitions, a scrambler might not see this.



Maybe it is a good idea to have one scrambler/judge made responsible to handout and take in the cubes to and from the scramble table for small competitions


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 7, 2013)

Mirco said:


> I am impressed how well the google translator works these days, but I don't get that part:
> 
> 
> Is he saying it is not possible for him to prove he is fast enough to do let's say two J-perms in under five seconds? Or that the WCA does not want him to? Google translate made this sentence weird (or it was in the beginning).



He's asking the WCA to provide more concrete proof that it is impossible for him to have gotten this solve, this particular sentence requesting proof that it is biologically impossible for him to achieve this speed (the other one, above it, mentioning mathematical proof that it is impossible to arrive at a J perm doing turns at random)


----------



## Funicular (Jun 7, 2013)

Dear community: I'm very sorry about this being my first post. Honestly, I can't properly express myself in english ATM since i'm completely thrown off balance by the situation. I'll use my native tongue, and feel free to google translate my response, or else ask me in private for any specific string of text





Martin said:


> Esto lo he escrito dado el veredicto de la WCA para la misma:
> Quisiera y pido una conclusión real en la cual se sustenta y fundamenta el veredicto de DNF.
> Una demostración Matemática donde se demuestre que es imposible llegar a la J (permutación) dando giros al azar. (probabilidad)



Nadie dice que sea imposible. Pero haciendo movidas al azar, llegar a una posición específica implica no deshacer lo hecho anteriormente. En QTM es 6 elevado a la X, siendo X la cantidad de movidas al azar que necesites para llegar a una posición. Digamos que sea 26 o 27 en QTM, sería 6 elevado a la 27. 
O sea 1 posibilidad en 1023490369077469249536
o 0,0000000000000000000001 %, si te gusta más.

Es más probable ganar 3 loterías el mismo día. 



Martin said:


> Una demostración biológica en la que se sustente que me hubiese sido imposible llegar a los 4.41 segundos.



No existe y nunca va a existir. Pero antes que una demostración biológica, hay algo que se llama sentido común. Aplicarlo es mucho más cómodo y suele fallar menos que la biología.
De todas maneras, la actitud típica de alguien que comete un ilícito y busca salir exento de todo es esa, pedir las pruebas instantáneamente. Generalmente los delincuentes se saben muy bien todos sus derechos. No es que tú seas delincuente, claro, simplemente hablo de la actitud. La actitud correcta de un inocente con la consciencia tranquila es probar su inocencia, y no estar todo el tiempo diciendo "las pruebas? las pruebas?". Tu no estás probando tu inocencia, sólo te limitas a negar tu culpabilidad. Eso ya es demasiado sospechoso.




Martin said:


> Ahora bien la WCA dijo que por por mi falta de honradez..... yo no he hecho trampa, no tienen ninguna prueba de eso, por el principio de presunción de inocencia declaro que su decisión de amonestarme con la prohibición de participar en los eventos de la WCA hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2015 es inaceptable.



El hecho es que tú tampoco puedes probar tu inocencia :/

Si bien la no-existencia de pruebas te exime de la culpabilidad, ese argumento se basa en un asunto de semántica legal. Y acá no hay ningún delito, sino aparente oportunismo.




Martin said:


> En ninguna parte de su reglamento se encuentran las sanciones a las que se haría acreedor el competidor que se le sorprenda....



Seguramente lo verificaste varias veces antes de hacer lo que hiciste como para poner en evidencia que la WCA actuó de manera injusta. No puedo probarlo, pero tú tampoco puedes probar que NO lo hiciste.




Martin said:


> Además quisiera se me enviaran las pruebas de mi falta de honradez y malicia durante el torneo.



Intentar hacer pasar por verdadero algo falso entra en la definición de malicia, alevosía, o dolo, como más te guste. No se trata de lo que pasó en el torneo, eso sólo Dios lo sabe, sino en que insistes en tu postura de querer afirmar que si algo no es imposible, debería darse por válido. Es mucho más probable que estés explotando un vacío legal a que realmente hayas hecho lo que dices que hiciste. La costumbre es una fuente del derecho también, y suele venir antes que la jurisprudencia.



Martin said:


> Cito:
> 1.- " la solución no coincide con descripciones anteriores de la solución hecha por el competidor después de la competición." Como he dicho fueron al azar y no recuerdo que fue exactamente lo que hice, pero la solución que vi en el foro de México se me hizo muy similar a lo poco que recuerdo, no sabía de la existencia de cubeexplorer.



Nadie tira movimientos al azar con el cubo cuando hay un timer corriendo. Pero supongamos que tú lo hayas hecho, ya te mencioné arriba la probabilidad matemática de que hacer eso te lleve a buen puerto.

Lo que no mencioné es la posibilidad de que hayas hecho eso a la velocidad en la que supuestamente lo hiciste, la cual, para una persona con los TPS que tienes tú registrados en torneo, es completamente ridículo. Si un cubero mucho mejor que tú necesitó 100 intentos con mucha práctica, acaso esperas que todos crean que tú hiciste eso así de rápido, sin práctica, y completamente al azar?? 

Realmente parece que estuvieras queriendo faltarle el respeto a la comunidad cubera mundial.




Martin said:


> Si use los terminos de F2l y triple xcross fue para dar a entender que fue lo que pasó durante la resolución, nunca dije haber hecho un triple xcross a la hora de hacer la cruz ni nada con respecto a hacer la cruz blanca, mi única descripción fue que los bloques (tres) del f2l quedaron hechos de dela cruz blanca para terminar (el f2l) con un R U R' (esto ya lo había publicado en este foro).



Si al hacer R U R' sobre un cubo mezclado te quedaron 3 bloques hechos, quiere decir que hiciste 3x cross. 
Una reconstrucción tiene que ser precisa. U U' es ambiguo, redundante, y no tiene lógica. Y que sea exactamente igual a la que arroja cube explorer es demasiado sospechoso. Si realmente pudieras ver una solución óptima, lo habrías hecho en todas tus solves. Y si realmente no puedes ver, volvemos al azar.




Martin said:


> 2.- " no se parece a ningún método de solución conocida". En ninguna parte de su reglamento estipula como debe armarse el cubo o si el método debe ser conocido o si no deben darse giros al azar.



De nuevo, recurriendo a la falta de reglamento. Qué raro... 

Honestamente, tanta referencia al vacío legal es una excelente manera de discutir ante un juez, y si esto fuera un juicio legal, seguramente habría que exonerarte por falta de mérito. Pero tanta insistencia con la falta de reglas que te penalicen hace pensar que todo esto lo premeditaste como para demostrar que las reglas "están mal" o algo así. Hay maneras más honestas de hacer eso. Más adelante hago hincapié en este punto.




Martin said:


> 3.- " la solución propuesta no parece susceptible de ejecutar en menos de 4,41 segundos, tal como se reivindica por el competidor, debido a las múltiples vueltas en cada cara del cubo.". Mi reconstrucción (como ya dije) no la recuerdo, solo me pareció muy similar.



No recuerdas lo que no te conviene recordar, y no conoces lo que deberías conocer (como cube explorer) pero te estudiaste a la perfección el reglamento. Eso es muy sospechoso. No digo que te haga culpable, pero como mínimo, deberías comprender que es demasiado raro, sospechoso, y las probabilidades matemáticas no te ayudan.




Martin said:


> Por último, seamos francos. El torneo no cumplió con todos los requerimientos del la WCA tales como:
> 7c ) Iluminación del área de competición debe prestar especial atención. La iluminación debe ser neutral, de manera que los competidores pueden distinguir fácilmente entre los colores de los puzzles.
> 
> 7d + ) ADEMÁS La temperatura del área de competición debe ser de 21 a 25 grados Celsius.
> por mencionar algunos.



Sinceramente da pena la ridiculez de este argumento. Sobre eso después de exponer tu supuesta "defensa". 
En mi país eso se llama "manotazo de ahogado", como no puedes salvarte, buscas la nulidad de todo (o arrastrar a otros contigo hacia abajo).

Cuando la WCA te fue a preguntar que pasó, deberías haber contestado que el torneo no estuvo a la altura de las circunstancias. Decir eso sobre la leche derramada es de poco hombre. Es como que un equipo del deporte que más te guste pierda 100 a 0 y se quejen de que la cancha estaba en mal estado.

Para el caso, querido Martín, la temperatura y la iluminación fueron la misma para todos. Si tú sentiste que no eran propicias, tendrías que habérselo hecho saber al delegado en su momento, y no esperar a todo este escándalo para salir a criticar así. No esquives la culpa y no cambies de tema. 





Martin said:


> PD: A pesar de que es un solve preparado .... es posible



Posible, sí. Probable, prácticamente no. Y para un cubero de tu nivel (que es el nivel promedio de la mayoría de los cuberos mundiales, incluido yo mismo), mucho menos aún.

Todo esto, te lo digo de corazón, suena a broma de mal gusto muy grande con tal de probar algo. Qué es ese algo? que las reglas están mal? Haiyan Zhuang quiso hacer algo así, y terminó fundando la CCC.

Mi consejo es que si las cosas no te agradan tal cual son, que lo hables y lo digas, y no que armes una fantochada de semejante nivel con tal de demostrarlo.


Hablando estrictamente desde lo matemático, hay 99.999999999999999999999% de chances de que seas culpable y solo 0,0000000000000000000001% de que seas inocente. Incluso menos, porque de nuevo, además tendrías que tener unos TPS increíbles, y un look ahead perfecto para poder detectar, ejecutar la J y soltar el cubo para completar la solve en 4.41.

Dime, ante la falta de evidencia (en contra pero también a tu favor), tus argumentos endebles y contradictorios, actitud defensiva, y el hecho de que te victimices por algo que hiciste, dime, con la mano en el corazón, qué te parece más razonable que creamos?

Y honestamente, asumiendo que en la base apareciera tu 4.41 cargado, tú crees que alguien se lo creería?


----------



## Mirco (Jun 7, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> He's asking the WCA to provide more concrete proof that it is impossible for him to have gotten this solve, this particular sentence requesting proof that it is biologically impossible for him to achieve this speed (the other one, above it, mentioning mathematical proof that it is impossible to arrive at a J perm doing turns at random)



Oh ok thanks, then I was just thinking he could not mean what google translate wrote seriously. Then it should be easy for him to show his turning speed, but that has been said over and over again... It's official and that's that.


----------



## speedcuber50 (Jun 7, 2013)

Having read the announcement I am pleased to see that it is a DNF. In that case, it is probably not going to be a WR either.

@Username: I think you have misunderstood me. What I am asking is if it has been decided that this is not a WR.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 7, 2013)

speedcuber50 said:


> Having read the announcement I am pleased to see that it is a DNF. In that case, it is probably not going to be a WR either.
> 
> @Username: I think you have misunderstood me. What I am asking is if it has been decided that this is not a WR.



It can't be a WR because its a DNF. Once the result is changed, it remains changed, so this result will always be a DNF, and not a 4, and so not a WR.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 7, 2013)

Harsh punishment there, but I do agree with the decisions made by the WCA.


----------



## Konsta (Jun 7, 2013)

One thing that I (and probably many others) worried earlier was that there might have been more people involved in this, but after reading the announcement it seems more likely that Martin was working alone in this.
But this raises a question, how many this type of cheats have been done in the past and not been detected, just because they haven't been so visible..


----------



## Mirco (Jun 7, 2013)

moralsh said:


> There's a poll in this thread in which you can find 305 against a WR and 18 for it, I'd say justice prevailed



That would be a horrible reason.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 7, 2013)

Konsta said:


> But this raises a question, how many this type of cheats have been done in the past and not been detected, just because they haven't been so visible..



That's a terrific question... The only reason we noticed this is because of how blatantly obvious it was, but perhaps a 20-second average cuber getting a fake 11 second solve might just seek odd and be left at that. (When In reality it was a pre-scramble or something of the nature of martin's solve.


----------



## moralsh (Jun 7, 2013)

Mirco said:


> That would be a horrible reason.



I'm not saying this is what proves that Martín Cheated nor that that was the criteria that the WCA used, but in a community without a bullet proof legislation in which to fit all the possible scenarios I'd say that the general opinion of the members of the community is a good indicator of the fairness of the decision, You could argue if this forum is representative of the community or not, buy if you dig enough for WCA members opinion, you'll find that in many places is more or less the same as here, even in the Mexican forums.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 7, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> That's a terrific question... The only reason we noticed this is because of how blatantly obvious it was, but perhaps a 20-second average cuber getting a fake 11 second solve might just seek odd and be left at that. (When In reality it was a pre-scramble or something of the nature of martin's solve.



It's pretty certain Shane Rowland was one of these (13.61 first solve in 43.98 average), probably done exactly this way. That one has also been changed to a DNF by the WCA, though.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 7, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> It's pretty certain Shane Rowland was one of these (13.61 first solve in 43.98 average), probably done exactly this way. That one has also been changed to a DNF by the WCA, though.



Did he admit to cheating or say it was an extremely easy mis-scramble? Or was it all suspicious like this?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 7, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Did he admit to cheating or say it was an extremely easy mis-scramble? Or was it all suspicious like this?



I'm afraid I don't remember the details. I had to search for old posts to find the numbers.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 7, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm afraid I don't remember the details. I had to search for old posts to find the numbers.



Huh, I'll look into it tonight. Thanks for the info


----------



## Tyson (Jun 7, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Huh, I'll look into it tonight. Thanks for the info



No, he didn't admit to cheating.


----------



## Radu (Jun 7, 2013)

windhero said:


> Sure, people probably cheat a lot in comps, but you simply dont fake a WR...


I don't really like this statement. If there's a lot of cheating in competitions, it means WCA is useless and regulations are not followed. I prefer to believe cheating, if any, is as few as possible...


----------



## chrissyD (Jun 7, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Did he admit to cheating or say it was an extremely easy mis-scramble? Or was it all suspicious like this?



No. He still believes he never cheated



Mart Teles said:


> Pero he de decirles que no hice trampa en mi solve, el cubo estuvo bien mezclado


Google translate: "But I must tell you that I did not cheat on my solve, the cube was well mixed"

I also find this funny near the end of his post...


Spoiler



"finally, let's be frank. The tournament did not meet all the requirements of the WCA such as:
7c) Lighting of the competition area must pay special attention. Lighting should be neutral, so that competitors can easily distinguish between the colors of the puzzles.

7d +) PLUS The competition area temperature should be 21 to 25 degrees Celsius.
among others."


So according to this guy bad lighting and temperatures below 21 and above 25 justify cheating...

Credit to the actual useful posts buried somewhere in this thread and one good thing from all this is Kevin Hays gets a free dinner.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 7, 2013)

chrissyD said:


> No. He still believes he never cheated
> 
> 
> Google translate: "But I must tell you that I did not cheat on my solve, the cube was well mixed"



JF1zl3 was referring to Shane Rowland, not Martín


----------



## windhero (Jun 7, 2013)

Radu said:


> I don't really like this statement. If there's a lot of cheating in competitions, it means WCA is useless and regulations are not followed. I prefer to believe cheating, if any, is as few as possible...



Sure, it's a grim way to think about the competitions, but a blatantly obvious fake solve like this left me wondering, that there might be more. Even a small percentage of recorded fake solves is a huge amount since there have been so many solves - fake or legit - in total.

Wishing it doesn't exist doesnt help either. Think of these competitions as with any other sport. ski'ing and bike competitions are full of competitors that use doping. If there was no countermeasure everyone would use it. I dont think it's that hard to make it impossible to cheat on these competitions compared to those sports. Accepting the fact that some jerks cheat is the best way to get rid of the cheating phenomena in my opinion.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 7, 2013)

windhero said:


> Sure, it's a grim way to think about the competitions, but a blatantly obvious fake solve like this left me wondering, that there might be more. Even a small percentage of recorded fake solves is a huge amount since there have been so many solves - fake or legit - in total.
> 
> Wishing it doesn't exist doesnt help either. Think of these competitions as with any other sport. ski'ing and bike competitions are full of competitors that use doping. If there was no countermeasure everyone would use it. I dont think it's that hard to make it impossible to cheat on these competitions compared to those sports. Accepting the fact that some jerks cheat is the best way to get rid of the cheating phenomena in my opinion.



Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 7, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.



Since everyone should be able to judge, and should indeed help out, they shouldn't be exhausted. Is this a US thing? We never have it in the UK, and things like only solved cubes can be put on scoresheets at the starts of rounds, and the round won't start until all the cubes are in. Also the boundary is usually pretty well defined, with at least a sizeable gap and any chairs near the table facing away from the scrambling. It sounds to me, from posts like this and also discussions on IRC, that perhaps organisers and delegates in the US aren't paying as much attention, or putting as much effort into running the competition as they should be.
I'm not saying that all of them are unable to do it correctly, but there does seem to be a bit of a quality gap between US comps and those in other countries.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 7, 2013)

Tyson said:


> What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...



I believe Tyson is misremembering the incident at Baltimore Spring 2010.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 7, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Anyone that's been to a comp knows that it would be a little too easy to cheat. It's not a failing on the part of the WCA, rather, guidelines set by the WCA aren't enforced as strictly as they probably should be. I understand why. Judges are exhausted after a full day of judging solves. Things become very hectic, it's a struggle to keep things on time, while also keeping track of dozens of cubers, scrambles, and judging. It's tough to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. I'm hoping that this experience will lead to behaviors that will discourage cheating to a greater degree. Things like replacement judges/scramblers, clearly defined runners that are the ONLY ones to touch the cube, better oversight on scrambles, and maintaining a boundary around the judges tables and scramblers tables are things that I think could help discourage cheating a lot.



do you actually have dedicated judges and scramblers that only judge/scramble? that seems like a stupid idea.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 8, 2013)

I think it's quite possible that this competition, being in Mexico and apparently outdoors, was less well organized than many of the US and Europe competitions run by very experienced organizers. Perhaps that made it easier for someone to put a solved cube down and get it as their first "scramble". It would be good if all organizers were explicitly told about this kind of cheating (as well as other types) and how to prevent it. This kind of mistake cannot be prevented without people knowing why they have to be vigilant.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Since everyone should be able to judge, and should indeed help out, they shouldn't be exhausted. Is this a US thing? We never have it in the UK, and things like only solved cubes can be put on scoresheets at the starts of rounds, and the round won't start until all the cubes are in. Also the boundary is usually pretty well defined, with at least a sizeable gap and any chairs near the table facing away from the scrambling. It sounds to me, from posts like this and also discussions on IRC, that perhaps organisers and delegates in the US aren't paying as much attention, or putting as much effort into running the competition as they should be.
> I'm not saying that all of them are unable to do it correctly, but there does seem to be a bit of a quality gap between US comps and those in other countries.



I've only been to one comp (my second is tomorrow), so all of this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, I have talked to a few people that have been to other comps, and found that my observations weren't unique. Definitely a small sample size, so I don't want to generalize across all competitions. But my limited first and second hand experience suggests that careful consideration of how cheating may occur, and limiting the opportunities for cheating would be helpful.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> I've only been to one comp (my second is tomorrow), so all of this should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, I have talked to a few people that have been to other comps, and found that my observations weren't unique. Definitely a small sample size, so I don't want to generalize across all competitions. But my limited first and second hand experience suggests that careful consideration of how cheating may occur, and limiting the opportunities for cheating would be helpful.



Yeah of course, I totally agree, but I'm just saying that it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens, which then implies the fault lies more with the organisers that with the system.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Yeah of course, I totally agree, but I'm just saying that it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens, which then implies the fault lies more with the organisers that with the system.



I agree with that. I think the WCA guidelines are sufficient if executed properly.


----------



## Mirco (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> it isn't a global issue, it seems to be only some competitions in which it happens



But it (whatever "it" is as I don't know how he cheated. Maybe the WCA could give him half a year less punishment if the 4.41 guy confessed and told the way he did) could happen in every competition.
The easiest way is to work together with a judge since everyone may and should be able to judge. Sometimes we have not enough voluntary judges so the delegate has to force some people to, but to keep up with the time schedule this sometimes is the only way.

This thread is drifting into a "how can we prevent cheating" discussion. Shouldn't there be a new (and I bet there already is some thread of this kind) one for this topic? Not that the WCA isn't discussing this right now...


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 8, 2013)

Ton said:


> Maybe it is a good idea to have one scrambler/judge made responsible to handout and take in the cubes to and from the scramble table for small competitions



Yes, this should be part of the rules. There should be 1 person between the scramblers and judges that checks all the scrambles. That person should also keep an eye on the flow of the competition (sometimes someone is already doing his 3rd solve while another person hasn't done his 1st solve) and should prevent friends from cherrypicking each others cube for judging.



Tyson said:


> Yes, so what actually happened during the solve. The reason why it isn't in the statement is because we can't prove it, but we have a very good guess as to what actually happened. What happened here is actually similar to something that happened at a Drexel University competition, I think it was February of 2008. Interestingly, the person involved there was known for posting videos of rehearsed solves and claiming them as actual solves...
> 
> What I think happened is that the competitor at Perry Open 2013, who had a history of posting videos of rehearsed solves and presenting them as normal solves, used a rehearsed scramble. If you put your cube down on your scramble sheet, and you put it down scrambled, a judge can easily mistake it for a scrambled cube and take it to the timer.



I have one big problem with this explanation: After the solve the judge/scrambler/delegate checked with the competitor about the state of the scramble. It was then decided that the competitor had solved the correct scramble. I already asked Anders about this but never got a satisfactory answer.

Sorry that I couldn't reveal anything about the official statement that Martin had made to Anders. Basically Martin had seen/heard about one of the cube-explorer solutions that leads to the J-Perm posted by Michael (not the one that Kevin solved over 100 times).

"Hi, a fellow cuber informs me that someone found this solution.
x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 [J perm]
up to this point
x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D'
this is what I did and then
B' U'
and instead of finishing I noticed the F2L that was also solved and I inserted it with
U B'
ending up with a Jperm that I execute in under one second."

After that statement all doubt about the legitimacy of this solve was gone. I tried to steer everyone away from discussing the other scramble and instead hoped to get an insight into what had really happened, but not much useful information followed.I am personally very happy with the result of DNF + ban on the basis of lying for Martin, but I am also very curious about what really happened that day.
Just like half of the episodes of Lost/X-Files I will just have to accept that I will never really understand


----------



## Genesis (Jun 8, 2013)

Come to think of it, is it possible to have a camera filming the scramble process or the cubes leaving the scramble area(Before covering and bringing it over)? If something suspicious happens, we can check back and this may possibly allow us to settle most incidents


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 8, 2013)

You could have a designated scramble checker for each event.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 8, 2013)

Even easier.. one table to bring the cubes to and put them on their respective sheets and when all cubes are in they get taken (moved over) to the scramble table by the delegate.

Everyone stays away from the table (participants are separate in any case) until called or until a cube goes in the scrambled cup so a judge can take it.


----------



## Mirco (Jun 8, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> You could have a designated scramble checker for each event.



Isn't that what the scramblers are for?


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 8, 2013)

Mirco said:


> Isn't that what the scramblers are for?



Sure, but it wouldn't hurt to have an extra layer of carefulness.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Sure, but it wouldn't hurt to have an extra layer of carefulness.



But then even more people are required to help with the scrambling process, causing to run slower. I think we should be able to expect the scramblers to check the scramble, since its in the WCA regs. The system works fine, the problem lies with the implementation if at all.


----------



## Ollie (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> But then even more people are required to help with the scrambling process, causing to run slower. I think we should be able to expect the scramblers to check the scramble, since its in the WCA regs. The system works fine, the problem lies with the implementation if at all.



We should try and sneak a prepared scramble into the scrambling table at Cambridge to see how easy the mistake is to make


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

Ollie said:


> We should try and sneak a prepared scramble into the scrambling table at Cambridge to see how easy the mistake is to make



Umm no we shouldn't.
Anyway, it would only work for the first solve since it goes back to the table solved afterwards. I can't actually think of a way to do it.


----------



## CubeRoots (Jun 8, 2013)

Don't scramble a single cube until all cubes from that round are solved on scorecards. Simple.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Anyway, it would only work for the first solve since it goes back to the table solved afterwards. *I can't actually think of a way to do it.*



Take a fake-scrambled cube with you on stage, act angry after your solve and tell your judge something like "that cube sucks, take this one instead" (putting your fake one in front of him) and leave with your solved cube right away. If you're lucky, the judge is inexperienced/shy enough to do it and you'll get your own scramble next.

Note: obviously I don't mean this as an instruction for how to cheat but rather as something judges have to watch out for.


----------



## Goosly (Jun 8, 2013)

At the competitions where I have been scrambler, we always placed cubes that had not been scrambled on the scoresheet, and scrambled cubes in the coverbox, scoresheet on top or in the box too. I would surely have noticed a not-solved cube being brought to the scrambling table.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Umm no we shouldn't.
> Anyway, it would only work for the first solve since it goes back to the table solved afterwards. I can't actually think of a way to do it.



I think it's actually possible to pull this off on any solve. I noticed in UK competitions that many judges bring the solved cube back to the scrambling table and leave it in the cover along with the scoresheet, instead of taking it out for scrambling. This means that such a cube can easily seen by a judge as a scrambled cube. Now, it wouldn't be too hard to, let's say, first find out which people leave the cube in the cover after bringing it back. Once you have someone who does that as judge, after you finished your solve, you do something like a T-perm + Sune + R U R' and then give it to the judge. The cube is then brought back to the scrambling table and left in the cover. The next judge comes and calls you. After a very short inspection, so the judge won't notice anything wrong, you just do the reverse and you have solved the cube. Of course, this will only work with an inexperienced judge, because an experienced one will make you solve the cube first before bringing it back to be scrambled. 

OK, just to be clear, this is just an example of how someone could abuse the circumstances. I am NOT recommending this. Do NOT try this at a competition. I actually think it's time to formalise the way cubes should be put on the scrambling table after being solved, so there can be no doubt whether a cube is scrambled or solved.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 8, 2013)

Best way would be a deterent. Permaban.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

hcfong said:


> I think it's actually possible to pull this off on any solve. I noticed in UK competitions that many judges bring the solved cube back to the scrambling table and leave it in the cover along with the scoresheet, instead of taking it out for scrambling...



Yeah, I agree this is where it potentially falls down. Usually when a cube is brought back in a tub, the tub gets emptied by one of the scramblers pretty much straight away, It would be a very small window of time in which it would be possible for this to happen, and judges are told to not bring it back in a tub if they're noticed doing it.



Stefan said:


> Take a fake-scrambled cube with you on stage, act angry after your solve and tell your judge something like "that cube sucks, take this one instead" (putting your fake one in front of him) and leave with your solved cube right away. If you're lucky, the judge is inexperienced/shy enough to do it and you'll get your own scramble next.
> 
> Note: obviously I don't mean this as an instruction for how to cheat but rather as something judges have to watch out for.



I think this would have to happen in conjunction with the cube being left in the tub scenario as hcfong said about above, since when the cube is brought back if its placed on the table scrambled it will be solved before being re-scrambled. Everything not in a tub would be treated the same way.

I think with both of these scenarios, the window of time would be very small in which you could make it happen, and I think it would have to be planned to take place rather than happen by chance.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think with both of these scenarios, the window of time would be very small in which you could make it happen, and I think it would have to be planned to take place rather than happen by chance.



I don't think the window of time is that small. Especially during 3x3, where cubes can pretty much come back continuously and the scrambles are scrambling continuously, it's easy to miss out on a cube returning. When I'm scrambling, I'm not paying attention to what's coming back. I just assume (I admit a bit optimistically) that whatever is in the tub is scrambled and ready to be taken by a judge and whatever is not in the tub needs scrambling.

I've had to send my cube back several times because it wasn't scrambled and I had to bring a cube back several times for the same reason. So it does happen.


----------



## Zoé (Jun 8, 2013)

hcfong said:


> I don't think the window of time is that small. Especially during 3x3, where cubes can pretty much come back continuously and the scrambles are scrambling continuously, it's easy to miss out on a cube returning. When I'm scrambling, I'm not paying attention to what's coming back. I just assume (I admit a bit optimistically) that whatever is in the tub is scrambled and ready to be taken by a judge and whatever is not in the tub needs scrambling.
> 
> I've had to send my cube back several times because it wasn't scrambled and I had to bring a cube back several times for the same reason. So it does happen.



Same here... it happened to me so many times as a judge to pick up an un-scrambled cube because they were in the tub covered with the scorecard as if they were ready. And as a scrambler I really get annoyed by people giving the cube back in the tub because it makes it so much harder to keep track of what needs scrambling or not!

Another very easy way to cheat would be to get a friend to memorize a scramble by heart then apply it on your cube during the competition. This could be easily done if there are lot of cubes waiting to be scrambled and scramblers can't keep up with them. When that happens, it isn't unusual for judges to step behind the scrambling table and give a hand to the scramblers. Your friend could then perfectly start helping with the scrambling, pick up your cube and apply the memorized scramble sequence while looking at the paper as if he was applying the right scramble. 
Since the scrambler is responsible for checking if the scramble has been applied correctly, I'm pretty sure he could just put the cube in the tub, someone would pick it up to
judge it and no one would ever suspect anything. 

Adding an intermediate " checking the scrambles" between scrambling and judging, done by someone that is not the judge nor the scramblers would definitely reduce the risk of an incident like this happening. It has actually been done in the past already during some finals. Maybe it could be done on a more regular basis?


----------



## windhero (Jun 8, 2013)

applemobile said:


> Best way would be a deterent. Permaban.


Seriously, I would like this a lot. Iron fist and all that. 

It would just mean that there has to be a way to 100% prove that the person is infact guilty. Can't leave a permanent ban to chance.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

windhero said:


> Seriously, I would like this a lot. Iron fist and all that.
> 
> It would just mean that there has to be a way to 100% prove that the person is infact guilty. Can't leave a permanent ban to chance.



Also, 3 years is still a very long time for a hobby, and especially for the rate at which speedcubing progresses. After 3 years of not being able to compete, I think that most of your drive to cube will have gone away. It's basically a lifetime ban.


----------



## Ton (Jun 8, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> Don't scramble a single cube until all cubes from that round are solved on scorecards. Simple.



This means you will need a lot of time per event extra especially for big cubes


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 8, 2013)

Ton said:


> This means you will need a lot of time per event extra especially for big cubes



Well when a cube comes on scorecards at the start of a group we enforce that they have to be solved at UK comps, people know their round is coming up and it never really causes problems.


----------



## windhero (Jun 8, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Also, 3 years is still a very long time for a hobby, and especially for the rate at which speedcubing progresses. After 3 years of not being able to compete, I think that most of your drive to cube will have gone away. It's basically a lifetime ban.



I wouldnt agree with that; I've been cubing for 5 years more or less actively and I've never been to a comp. 10 years might do the trick maybe, as imo most people wouldnt stick to a single hobby for that long and people that would cube for more than 10 years wouldnt dare to destroy their chances to compete by cheating.

Cheating is an attribute of short-sighted persons in my opinion. Especially trying to fake a WR


----------



## uniacto (Jun 8, 2013)

While he's banned, he could practice with a burning passion for revenge and be sub 8 in 2016. Haha


----------



## YddEd (Jun 9, 2013)

uniacto said:


> While he's banned, he could practice with a burning passion for revenge and be sub 8 in 2016. Haha


Maybe even cheat again


----------



## Dene (Jun 9, 2013)

But imagine how unwelcome he will be back at Mexico competitions. He probably won't want to come back.


----------



## wontolla (Jun 9, 2013)

Is there any record of someone who was banned and came back to a competition after the sentence?


----------



## TMOY (Jun 9, 2013)

wontolla said:


> Is there any record of someone who was banned and came back to a competition after the sentence?



http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=808

It was Yuxuan Wang. After his ban, he came back and broke the Magic/Master Magic WRs several times. But he got banned for only 4 months, not several years.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 9, 2013)

TMOY said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=808
> 
> It was Yuxuan Wang. After his ban, he came back and broke the Magic/Master Magic WRs several times. But he got banned for only 4 months, not several years.



But he admitted it pretty soon after it happened himself, without anyone suspecting him. I think when you admit it yourself, people are much more inclined to forgive and be lenient. Completely off-topic, but now I read this, why was this guy, who admitted pretty much straight away after the competition banned and got all his results removed, while Rowe, who admitted to cheating 4 years later and cheated on a WR, got away with only a DNF for that solve and no ban at all? 

Back on topic. I don't think anyone with a long term ban has returned. Pino's ban ended last week, so he could be the first. But like the other 2 who got long term bans, he never admitted to cheating so I don't think he will be welcomed back with open arms.

edit: Just to clarify, i wasn't comparing Rowe with Martin but with Yuxuan Wang.


----------



## uniacto (Jun 9, 2013)

hcfong said:


> But he admitted it pretty soon after it happened himself, without anyone suspecting him. I think when you admit it yourself, people are much more inclined to forgive and be lenient. Completely off-topic, but now I read this, why was this guy, who admitted pretty much straight away after the competition banned and got all his results removed, *while Rowe, who admitted to cheating 4 years later and cheated on a WR, got away with only a DNF for that solve and no ban at all? *
> 
> Back on topic. I don't think anyone with a long term ban has returned. Pino's ban ended last week, so he could be the first. But like the other 2 who got long term bans, he never admitted to cheating so I don't think he will be welcomed back with open arms.



I think it's because he's a long term member of the speedcubing community and that they went a bit lenient on him. Sorta like Kirjava and how he probably won't get permabanned from the forum (imho).


----------



## Florian (Jun 9, 2013)

I think WCA should reduce the ban down to 9 months if he tells WCA how he did it, since there definetly needs to be some sort of refinement for competitions in order to prevent such things. I mean if it would've been let's say a 8.13 solve no-body would've found out about the cheating.


----------



## CubezUBR (Jun 11, 2013)

i dont think anyone has ever attempted to cheat on this scale. i hope this dosent attract more cheaters who will eventually destroy cubing


----------



## Ollie (Jun 11, 2013)

Matyas Kuti got several BLD world records through cheating.

Call it a day on this thread, please.


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 11, 2013)

Thread closed. If you have something important to say about this issue, please ask us to reopen it by reporting the first post.

In case people missed it, here's the statement made by the WCA: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1053


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Jun 16, 2013)

Hi all,

One more announcement from the WCA about this: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=6014#p6014

-Tim


----------



## KongShou (Jun 16, 2013)

Wow, bit harsh


----------



## ducttapecuber (Jun 16, 2013)

Oh wow. But to be honest, who didn't expect this? It is makes sense based on the WCA regulations. If one person could cheat, exactly how many did is another issue. I mean of course only a handful of people used this advantage, and that most did follow the regulations, there is no way to know for sure who exactly did not follow the regulations. Yes what the WCA was forced to do was harsh, but it was the right decision.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 16, 2013)

KongShou said:


> Wow, bit harsh



I don't think so. Others could have cheated also. Thus not right to accept them.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 16, 2013)

Wow.. ouch.. but justified.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 16, 2013)

Now I have never been to a competition, so I can't know for sure the frequency of regulation violations, but there exists a regulation which states (and I know it's been posted here earlier) that spectators cannot stand any closer than a 1.5 meter radius from the competing table or something like that, and from what I've seen on YouTube, people tend to spectate closer than that. And if there was some reason that a solve was fishy, rather than pulling out a real reason to disqualify it, one could claim "spectators were to close therefore the possibility of cheating is slightly higher" or something similar to that just to get rid of the times of whichever competitor it is who had done something suspicious. Which I could understand in the case of martins 4.41 single, but to disqualify everyone's times for that reason? I don't know...

I'm not claiming the above method of disqualification is what went on in the WCA today, but rather I am just trying to put it out there so people know it could be a possibility.
And obviously instead of the 1.5 Meter radius rule, it would be the rule of uncovered scrambles, and competitors scrambling cubes that they will receive in a future attempt, which is a MUCH more understandable reason for disqualifying, and I think is a serious issue.


----------



## avgdi (Jun 16, 2013)

Does anyone know where the cube looking covers are from? Like in this video:


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 17, 2013)

i dont think its harsh really, they should just learn to be more organised


----------



## qqwref (Jun 17, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> there exists a regulation which states (and I know it's been posted here earlier) that spectators cannot stand any closer than a 1.5 meter radius from the competing table or something like that, and from what I've seen on YouTube, people tend to spectate closer than that. And if there was some reason that a solve was fishy, rather than pulling out a real reason to disqualify it, one could claim "spectators were to close therefore the possibility of cheating is slightly higher" or something similar to that just to get rid of the times of whichever competitor it is who had done something suspicious.


That is a rule to make experiences better for competitors, not to prevent cheating. Unless there is evidence that the competitor is directly receiving instructions from the spectators, there is nothing wrong in this situation that is the competitor's fault. In the case of the Perry Open, the rules that were violated were rules that prevent cheating, not rules that make things go smoother, so that is why it makes sense to disqualify results for possible cheating.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 17, 2013)

It seems harsh because it feels bad for competitors who did not cheat and had no intention to do so, but it's appropriate.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Jun 17, 2013)

qqwref said:


> That is a rule to make experiences better for competitors, not to prevent cheating. Unless there is evidence that the competitor is directly receiving instructions from the spectators, there is nothing wrong in this situation that is the competitor's fault. In the case of the Perry Open, the rules that were violated were rules that prevent cheating, not rules that make things go smoother, so that is why it makes sense to disqualify results for possible cheating.


I agree.


----------



## immortalchaos29 (Jun 17, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> It seems harsh because it feels bad for competitors who did not cheat and had no intention to do so, but it's appropriate.



I guess this is partly the reasons why competitors are all expected to know the regulations well. There would have been lots of cubers with good intentions but out of everyone who saw what was going on, nobody questioned it or even admitted it until now.

Also this one blunder alone still doesn't fully explain how Martin cheated. It only explains how he got the scramble. At that point memorizing the optimal solution with a J perm isn't even enough to help a 17+ second cuber get a sub 5, which I feel was effectively demonstrated by Kevin Hays' experiment. He still must have stopped the timer early or collaborated with the judge or something silly. I'm curious because of course no one wants to see anything like this happen again.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 17, 2013)

immortalchaos29 said:


> I guess this is partly the reasons why competitors are all expected to know the regulations well. There would have been lots of cubers with good intentions but out of everyone who saw what was going on, nobody questioned it or even admitted it until now.
> 
> Also this one blunder alone still doesn't fully explain how Martin cheated. It only explains how he got the scramble. At that point memorizing the optimal solution with a J perm isn't even enough to help a 17+ second cuber get a sub 5, which I feel was effectively demonstrated by Kevin Hays' experiment. He still must have stopped the timer early or collaborated with the judge or something silly. I'm curious because of course no one wants to see anything like this happen again.



You mean it only explains how he *may have* gotten the scramble. Was he a scrambler for any of it? The talk about triple-X-cross and J-perm might have just sounded good but in reality probably it wasn't this at all. If he was scrambling possibly he could have remembered the scramble, figured out the inverse and practiced it until it was his turn to do the solve... but this is all just speculation again. I'm sure many people are still wondering what did in fact happen.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 17, 2013)

I think it is very likely that he simply mixed his cube into a "scrambled" position he was familiar with, and then put it down on the score card. Then, someone must have assumed it was scrambled and brought it over to him. (As the first WCA post points out, this isn't the first time that has been done.) The official scramble isn't one which can be easily solved in 4.41 seconds by a 17-average solver, but it's not too hard to think of a position he could solve in that time, especially if we assume he already knows the solution. The stuff about xxxcross, OLL skip, J perm, and so on was just an attempt by Martín to make the time seem more plausible.


----------



## hcfong (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm not surprised that none of the results of this competition are accepted as official. It seems that too much has gone wrong to accept the results. My concern is how do we know that the other competitions in Mexico and perhaps even the whole of Middle- and Latin-America have been following correct procedures? I know it sounds prejudiced, but I think it's safe to assume that Latin-Americans have a different and more relaxed attitude towards procedures than North-Americans and North-Europeans. It is therefore not unthinkable that what happened at Perry Open, is commonplace in competitions in those regions. The only reason that this has come to light now, is because of Martin. If he hadn't cheated, nobody would have known about this. Is this something that is being looked into?


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 17, 2013)

hcfong said:


> I'm not surprised that none of the results of this competition are accepted as official. It seems that too much has gone wrong to accept the results. My concern is how do we know that the other competitions in Mexico and perhaps even the whole of Middle- and Latin-America have been following correct procedures? I know it sounds prejudiced, but I think it's safe to assume that Latin-Americans have a different and more relaxed attitude towards procedures than North-Americans and North-Europeans. It is therefore not unthinkable that what happened at Perry Open, is commonplace in competitions in those regions. The only reason that this has come to light now, is because of Martin. If he hadn't cheated, nobody would have known about this. Is this something that is being looked into?



Really?! The actions of a single person are enough to convince you that a whole region of the world should now be suspect? How is it safe to assume ANYTHING about Latin Americans given the actions of a single person? As mentioned before, the way Martin cheated is likely exactly the same way someone in America had a few years ago. Are my solves now suspect? I mean, I live in the same country as a cheater and Americans are fat and lazy to it's safe to assume that cheating is rampant here.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 17, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Really?! The actions of a single person are enough to convince you that a whole region of the world should now be suspect? How is it safe to assume ANYTHING about Latin Americans given the actions of a single person? As mentioned before, the way Martin cheated is likely exactly the same way someone in America had a few years ago. Are my solves now suspect? I mean, I live in the same country as a cheater and Americans are fat and lazy to it's safe to assume that cheating is rampant here.



Because it seems like multiple regulations weren't followed at this competition and no one who was there mentioned anything about it


----------



## hcfong (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about not correctly following procedures, as stated in Tim's post on the WCA forum, which could make cheating easier. This has only come to light because of the attention generated by the cheating of Martin. This may mean that this has been going on for much longer, but has never been noticed.


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 17, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> Really?! The actions of a single person are enough to convince you that a whole region of the world should now be suspect? How is it safe to assume ANYTHING about Latin Americans given the actions of a single person? As mentioned before, the way Martin cheated is likely exactly the same way someone in America had a few years ago. Are my solves now suspect? I mean, I live in the same country as a cheater and Americans are fat and lazy to it's safe to assume that cheating is rampant here.



To clarify this once and for all: The decision of not accepting the results from Perry Open has absolutely nothing to do with the "4.41" cheating incident. Although, the incident is for sure the reason why these irregularities were revealed.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 17, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I think it is very likely that he simply mixed his cube into a "scrambled" position he was familiar with, and then put it down on the score card. Then, someone must have assumed it was scrambled and brought it over to him. (As the first WCA post points out, this isn't the first time that has been done.) The official scramble isn't one which can be easily solved in 4.41 seconds by a 17-average solver, but it's not too hard to think of a position he could solve in that time, especially if we assume he already knows the solution. The stuff about xxxcross, OLL skip, J perm, and so on was just an attempt by Martín to make the time seem more plausible.



I am very happy to hear that it isn't just Martin that got called out for cheating. I was still wondering about a quote that is also in the first/summary post where Martin claims that "_My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct."

_Because of that statement I couldn't stop wondering who else was involved except for him. It has always been obvious that the way he claimed he solved the cube in 4.41 seconds wasn't what really happened and that is what got him caught in the end



Sebastien said:


> To clarify this once and for all: The decision of not accepting the results from Perry Open has absolutely nothing to do with the "4.41" cheating incident.


Has any other competition ever been declared "not WCA valid" with all results removed?
I completely agree with the conclusion from hcfong: "This has only come to light because of the attention generated by the cheating of Martin. This may mean that this has been going on for much longer, but has never been noticed."


----------



## Pro94 (Jun 17, 2013)

It's not the first time that this happens (see for example Magic Open 2011).

And also i think article 8f is clear:


> _8f) If WCA Regulations are not correctly observed during a competition, the WCA Board may disqualify affected attempts_


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 17, 2013)

Pro94 said:


> It's not the first time that this happens (see for example Magic Open 2011).
> 
> And also i think article 8f is clear:


Article 8f is perfectly clear, no argument about this at all.
But Sebastien said that the 4.41 and the entire competition being determined "not WCA valid" had nothing to do with each and I find that very hard to believe.

Also, comparing that 2011 incident and this will not hold. That incident was noticed and filed by the delegate himself in the normal reporting procedure. And only the magic events were declared invalid: http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=MagicOpen2011


----------



## TMOY (Jun 17, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> Also, comparing that 2011 incident and this will not hold. That incident was noticed and filed by the delegate himself in the normal reporting procedure.



Well, not exactly. First the Magic and Master Magic times were validated normally, the incident got reported only a couple of days later by one of the organizers on the French forum because the delegate hadn't noticed it during the comp.

(I can't tell you much more about that incident, sorry. I attended that comp, but I didn't pay attention at all to what happenied in Magic/MM because I didn't compete in these events and I had 4BLD/multi to do at the same time.)


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 17, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Well, not exactly. First the Magic and Master Magic times were validated normally, the incident got reported only a couple of days later by one of the organizers on the French forum because the delegate hadn't noticed it during the comp.
> 
> (I can't tell you much more about that incident, sorry. I attended that comp, but I didn't pay attention at all to what happenied in Magic/MM because I didn't compete in these events and I had 4BLD/multi to do at the same time.)


I assumed that "Irregularity during the judging of the Magic and Master Magic event was discovered during the Magic Open 2011 competition held on December 17-18, 2011 in France. Jean-Louis Mathieu, WCA delegate, submitted a report identifying that [competitor, under 18 years of age] practiced Magic solves at the timer" meant that the report was a normal report, not a special report that was filed a bit later. Are you sure it happened the way you describe it?


----------



## TMOY (Jun 17, 2013)

Yes I'm sure. I just checked the dates again:

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/abdelhak-kaddour-wins-magic-open-2011 : the comp got validated on Dec. 19th;

http://forum.francocube.com/topic8877.html: the thread on the French forum started on Dec. 21th, when the Magic/MM results were already entered in the database;

http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=970 : the announcement about Magic/MM results getting removed was made on Feb. 27th, 2 monthe later.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 17, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Yes I'm sure. I just checked the dates again:
> 
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/abdelhak-kaddour-wins-magic-open-2011 : the comp got validated on Dec. 19th;
> 
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. As I said earlier I assumed that the report from the delegate was filed immediately, but apparently it was not. This makes it a bit more comparable. I see that Sebastien has also changed his statement: "To clarify this once and for all: The decision of not accepting the results from Perry Open has absolutely nothing to do with the "4.41" cheating incident. Although, the incident is for sure the reason why these irregularities were revealed."

That seems entirely correct to me.

I am still wondering about the statement that I keep mentioning but that nobody addresses: "_My judge and the delegate asked me immediately after the solve what was the state of the cube (the yellow cross pattern that I decided to solve and the f2l) (I guess this was to check if the scramble was the right one) and it was confirmed that the solve was executed correctly and the scramble was correct."

_And I am still wondering how many other competitions there have been where rules weren't followed to such a level that the competition shouldn't have been allowed to be an official WCA-competition


----------



## Swoncen (Jul 2, 2013)

Hello,

there is really alot to read in this thread - would it be possible, if anyone could summarize the outcome? I would appreciate that.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 2, 2013)

Swoncen said:


> Hello,
> 
> there is really alot to read in this thread - would it be possible, if anyone could summarize the outcome? I would appreciate that.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Some guy pretended to get a 4.41 solve. The wca found it to be fake so they disqualified all of his results for the comp and he is banned for 3 (I think) years.


----------



## Wassili (Jul 2, 2013)

As for Martin his solve was DNF'd and he is not allowed to enter any competition for 3 years, and as for the competition read this: http://worldcubeassociation.org/foru...9&p=6014#p6014.


----------

