# Linus Fresz DNF (24.00) FMC mean



## YouCubing (Mar 5, 2016)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1340&cat=15&rnd=1
WATTTTT
wow ok yeah. Not only that, but Sebastien got a 25.00 mean :O This breaks the 4-way tie for FMC mean


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 5, 2016)

Da heck. Really nice Linus!  Too bad about Basti's 31 in the first attempt, but he had multiple WR's


----------



## DuffyEdge (Mar 5, 2016)

Awesome stuff, I'm looking forward to seeing the solutions 

Also why are people in Germany so good at FMC?


----------



## Iggy (Mar 5, 2016)

Omg gj Linus!!


----------



## Bubtore (Mar 5, 2016)

Cale S said:


> If he had Sébastien's solutions on the last two it would have been a 21.67 mean lol wat




Or if Sébastien had his on the first one


----------



## Matt11111 (Mar 5, 2016)

I see you Noah. How long have you been perusing Cubecomps today?

It's about time we had an average record broken for FMC.


----------



## mycube (Mar 5, 2016)

Thanks everyone! 

Here are my solutions:

1. Scramble:


Spoiler



Scramble: L2 D L2 U B2 U F2 U' F L F2 L' U2 R2 D2 B D L2 F'
Inverse: F L2 D' B' D2 R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2 U' B2 U' L2 D' L2

Start on Inverse:
L2 D L2 U B2 - 1x2x3 - this was a quite obvious beginning for me, the rest of the solution is just trial and error.
switch:
F L2 D' B' D2 R2 - 2x2x3
R U2 R' - F2L-1
switch:
U F' L F2 L' F' U' F - Finish + Skip

Solution:
F L2 D' B' D2 R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F U' B2 U' L2 D' L2 - 21 Moves



Spoiler



This is actually a controversal solution due to some similarity to the inverse scramble. It is the same start + ending like the inverse scramble, but there is a different part (to be exact: the switch-part on the inverse Scramble). 
I first realised this when I wrote down the solution and thought it was the full inverse solution. (Later Sébastien told me that it's not the exact inverse scramble). Luckily I did not find the skip on the normal scramble, it would have been a 19 and the full inverse scramble.

After I stopped this attempt and gave my solution to Geert I discussed with Sébastien, I think we should consider some other scrambles for FMC in the future. The best idea I have is to just have scrambles with a lenght of 25 moves, so the inverse scramble is maybe a considerable solution, but not a potential sub20 solution (and right now: also Single WR).

EDIT: Also there occured some case in the US some time ago, that there was a solution with 18 moves which happen to be the inverse scramble. Luckily nobody found this solution, but there happened to be a discussion here in some thread.






2. Scramble:


Spoiler



Scramble: D2 L2 F' U2 F L2 F L2 R' U R' U2 L' F R' B U' F2 R' D'
Inverse: D R F2 U B' R F' L U2 R U' R L2 F' L2 F' U2 F L2 D2

Start on Normal:
B U2 L U - Pseudo2x2x2
switch:
U R' U - 2x2x2 + 1x2x2
switch:
F D R D' R - PseudoF2L-1
switch:
F2 - F2L-1
switch:
D F D' F' D2 F D2 F' - Finish

L3C:
B U2 L U F D R D' R D . F D' F' D2 F D2 F U' R U'
. = R' F L F' R F L' F'

Solution:
B U2 L U F D R D' R D R' F L F' R F L' D' F' D2 F D2 F U' R U' - 26 Moves



3. Scramble:


Spoiler



Scramble: D2 R2 U2 R2 F2 U2 F U2 F2 R' B2 R' D2 B F2 D' L D2 F U'
Inverse: U F' D2 L' D F2 B' D2 R B2 R F2 U2 F' U2 F2 R2 U2 R2 D2

U2 B2 - Some Premoves
switch:
D' L D' - 1x2x2
R' F2 R F R F' - 2x2x2
B - 2x2x3
sw:
L' U2 L U2 - PseudoF2L-1
L' U' L F' L F U L U - Finish + Skip

Solution:
U2 B2 L' U2 L U2 L' U' L F' L F U L U B' F R' F' R' F2 R D L' D - 25 Moves



I have to admit - I was kind of lucky to have two solutions with a skip. Also it was kind of unexpected, but right now I am happy about my results. 

I am looking forward to see this mean being broken in the future. There are a lot of people who have the potential to break this WR, I am curious what will happen in the future


----------



## TDM (Mar 5, 2016)

Amazing solutions. Congrats on the record!

Is it just CR you need to be a platinum member now?


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 5, 2016)

Dang, that's crazy... finally broke the tie...


----------



## YouCubing (Mar 5, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> I see you Noah. How long have you been perusing Cubecomps today?
> 
> It's about time we had an average record broken for FMC.



I swear I only checked on it 3 times today  That's less than normal on a Saturday for me, I'm weird


----------



## Berd (Mar 6, 2016)

Nice job!


----------



## h2f (Mar 6, 2016)

Congrats! Very interesting situation in the first solve.


----------



## Sebastien (Mar 6, 2016)

Congratz as well from my side, it simply had to happen at some time.

Too bad though that I don't even hold any FMC NR now. 



Cale S said:


> interested in seeing Sébastien's solutions



I just posted them on the FMC-Thread.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 8, 2016)

TDM said:


> Amazing solutions. Congrats on the record!
> 
> Is it just CR you need to be a platinum member now?



But he has a WR... Am I missing something?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Mar 8, 2016)

biscuit said:


> But he has a WR... Am I missing something?



Currently, WRs are not counted as CRs, though there is some debate about that.


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 8, 2016)

biscuit said:


> But he has a WR... Am I missing something?



Yep. You are missing the fact that the rules are stupid...

Because for whatever reason WRs dont count as CRs :O

Even tough quite obviously WR is also a CR which is also obviously a NR


----------



## mycube (Mar 8, 2016)

Thanks again everybody! 

I agree to some of the arguments that this are kind of weird rules to get platinum member. But on the other side I can understand that you just can have it when your history of world/continental records is finished. Maybe there could be two different versions of platinum member 

At least besides me there is only one person affected by this (Simon Westlund). All other gold members are missing more than just CR (e.g have WR but no Worlds podium/missing WR, CR, ...)


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 8, 2016)

But IMO your history of continental records is completed already. You currently hold a European record for FMC as well...

Also what if tomorrow some asian guy does 23 moves mo3 and breaks your WR? Will you be platinum member then?

anyway gj with the WR


----------



## Isaac Lai (Mar 8, 2016)

mycube said:


> Thanks again everybody!
> 
> I agree to some of the arguments that this are kind of weird rules to get platinum member. But on the other side I can understand that you just can have it when your history of world/continental records is finished. Maybe there could be two different versions of platinum member
> 
> At least besides me there is only one person affected by this (Simon Westlund). All other gold members are missing more than just CR (e.g have WR but no Worlds podium/missing WR, CR, ...)



Though I do agree that the two of you should be platinum members, some have argued that this is merely a 'completion of profile' achievement and hence a profile is 'incomplete' without a CR.


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 8, 2016)

tseitsei said:


> But IMO your history of continental records is completed already. You currently hold a European record for FMC as well...
> 
> Also what if tomorrow some asian guy does 23 moves mo3 and breaks your WR? Will you be platinum member then?
> 
> anyway gj with the WR


One of the rare situations where losing a WR completes your profile.


----------



## EMI (Mar 8, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> One of the rare situations where losing a WR completes your profile.



Not really, you won't get the field "History of Continental Records" when you lose a WR.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 8, 2016)

Why does WR not also count as CR? That's stupid.


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2016)

biscuit said:


> Why does WR not also count as CR? That's stupid.



The whole point of it is (if I understand correctly) to have a *complete* WCA profile. That means you need separate sections for WRs and CRs. World records _do_ count as continental records, but they don't add a section to your profile, so don't contribute towards platinum memberships.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 8, 2016)

TDM said:


> The whole point of it is (if I understand correctly) to have a *complete* WCA profile. That means you need separate sections for WRs and CRs. World records _do_ count as continental records, but they don't add a section to your profile, so don't contribute towards platinum memberships.



I get that, I'm saying that WR's don't count as CR's on the WCA site is dumb.


----------



## Cale S (Mar 8, 2016)

biscuit said:


> I get that, I'm saying that WR's don't count as CR's on the WCA site is dumb.



That would mean WRs all appear twice on your page


----------



## G2013 (Mar 8, 2016)

wow, astonishing


----------



## biscuit (Mar 8, 2016)

Cale S said:


> That would mean WRs all appear twice on your page



I don't see an issue with that.


----------



## mycube (Apr 7, 2016)

I guess some of you could be interested in this:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2020

I am happy that they finally decided about my WR. It was not really a good feeling to have this pending without knowing about what will happen.

Like they say I totally can understand their decision and won't be mad at anybody


----------



## Cale S (Apr 7, 2016)

mycube said:


> I guess some of you could be interested in this:
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2020
> 
> ...



While that is somewhat unfortunate, I'm guessing it feels better than having a possibly illegitimate record.

And the change to FMC scrambles is a good thing, does anyone have more specific information about this?


----------



## Laura O (Apr 7, 2016)

Cale S said:


> And the change to FMC scrambles is a good thing, does anyone have more specific information about this?



You can find the announcement for the recent TNoodle update here: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/tnoodle-0-11-1

Every Fewest Moves scramble starts and ends with the moves "R' U' F" now. These moves are not related to the solved state of the cube, so in contrast to the "normal" scrambles used for other events (3x3x3, OH, etc.) it's unlikely that reversing the last moves of the scramble gives you a good start for a FMC solution.
As a side effect, the scrambles are also a bit longer (about 26 moves).


----------



## mycube (Apr 7, 2016)

Cale S said:


> While that is somewhat unfortunate, I'm guessing it feels better than having a possibly illegitimate record.



Well I would not say it would be illegitimate if the decision would have been that it will stay as it is. When the board decides 'Yes the 21 is ok', what would be illegitimate about the WR?


----------



## Cale S (Apr 7, 2016)

mycube said:


> Well I would not say it would be illegitimate if the decision would have been that it will stay as it is. When the board decides 'Yes the 21 is ok', what would be illegitimate about the WR?


Yes, I just meant it was better than not having confirmation from the board.


----------



## mycube (Apr 7, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Yes, I just meant it was better than not having confirmation from the board.



Ah yeah sure


----------



## sqAree (Apr 8, 2016)

That's really good news, that they changed the scrambles now.

I hope you get another wr in fmc soon, stripping you of that record feels quite undeserved even though it might conform to the regulations.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 8, 2016)

So, if it's possible to DNF solves when every move can be explained if it is 'too similar' to the scramble, shouldn't there be a more precise definition of 'too similar'? How many moves need to be the same for this to apply? It seems unreasonable to DNF for the first move of the solution and scramble being the same, 11 moves in common is DNFed even if it was by accident, but where exactly is the line drawn in between these?


----------



## Matt11111 (Apr 8, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> So, if it's possible to DNF solves when every move can be explained if it is 'too similar' to the scramble, shouldn't there be a more precise definition of 'too similar'? How many moves need to be the same for this to apply? It seems unreasonable to DNF for the first move of the solution and scramble being the same, 11 moves in common is DNFed even if it was by accident, but where exactly is the line drawn in between these?



That's a really good question, actually. I feel like FMC is a little broken when you realize that you accidentally started and ended the same way as the reverse scramble, then you get DNFed because similarity.


----------



## Attila (Apr 8, 2016)

I just tried an interesting idea, which proves how it's possible to manipulate the previously used short scrambles. 
For example, I use Linus's contested solution.


Inverse: F L2 D' B' D2 // R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2 // U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
First, I find a different solution for first 5 moves (F L2 D' B' D2)
1st solution: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2 (10 moves)
Next 8 moves of the inverse scramble: R2 U2 L F2 L' F' U F2
2nd solution: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F (10 moves) (of Linus's solution)
Last 6 moves of inverse scramble: U' B2 U' L2 D' L2
3rd solution: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D ( 8 moves)
So, I have a 28 move solution, 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd:
1st: B D2 R2 U2 F B' R2 D B' D2
2nd: R' U2 R' F' U F L F2 L' F
3rd: D' R2 D' R2 U' B2 U' D
According with the WCA rules, is not same moves of scramble, Linus's explanation can also be used for this, so it's perfectly legit?

My conclusion:
1. I agree, should be use longer scrambles (30 moves?)
2.Should be use random scrambles ( not 2-phase)
3.Should be publicly available every sub-35 solution.
Probably not everyone agrees with me, but we must talk about it.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 11, 2016)

Attila said:


> I just tried an interesting idea, which proves how it's possible to manipulate the previously used short scrambles.
> For example, I use Linus's contested solution.
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that by chunking the scramble into three parts, you are deriving your solution from the scrambling algorithm. I feel this is different than using NISS, for example, because in any case of using NISS, you are using the entire scrambling sequence as a transformation, rather than using smaller transformation pieces that you only know because a scrambling algorithm is provided.


----------

