# Is this scramble lucky or easy/ or both?



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

In an upcoming minor WCA competion, the 2x2x2 scramble ends up having a 4-move solution that nobody else spotted. A guy who normally averages around 9 seconds/solve pulls off a .77 for a new world record!!! I nicely mention that he was rather "lucky" to have that scramble show up in a comp, but he immediately begins attacking me, saying that in no way was that scramble "lucky", and that by convention, it could only be described as "easy". What do you think?


----------



## Sa967St (Feb 12, 2010)

LOL.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 12, 2010)

It was easy.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

I love you. Keep pumping out these enlightening threads.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 12, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> LOL.


You make some really cool threads, reThinker. I wish I could be just like you!


----------



## Forte (Feb 12, 2010)

srs?


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 12, 2010)

Forte said:


> srs?



interwebs is alwys srs bsns yo


----------



## cubemaster13 (Feb 12, 2010)

well it depends on the situation, if it was a case where he skipped a couple of steps then it's lucky. If he saw how it could be solved without using a method then it was easy. That's my run on it.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)




----------



## RyanO (Feb 12, 2010)

You really felt the need to make another thread so you could lose the same debate again?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

cubemaster13 said:


> well it depends on the situation, if it was a case where he skipped a couple of steps then it's lucky. If he saw how it could be solved without using a method then it was easy. That's my run on it.




Yeah, he told me that he skillfully used the first 4 moves so that he could skip all the rest of the other steps.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 12, 2010)

Where's the option on the poll that says "i'm an idiot for making this thread?"


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

RyanO said:


> You really felt the need to make another thread so you could lose the same debate again?



I actually won the 1st one, but you don't know that yet.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Where's the option on the poll that says "i'm an idiot for making this thread?"



I could put one in for you next time.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

Can you please make a new thread like 6 more times?


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > You really felt the need to make another thread so you could lose the same debate again?
> ...





reThinking the Cube said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > Where's the option on the poll that says "i'm an idiot for making this thread?"
> ...


You're such an ignorant little troll. Be careful, you may awaken the powerful banhammer.


----------



## moogra (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> cubemaster13 said:
> 
> 
> > well it depends on the situation, if it was a case where he skipped a couple of steps then it's lucky. If he saw how it could be solved without using a method then it was easy. That's my run on it.
> ...



Luck is not skill though. You can't be good at being lucky.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Can you please make a new thread like 6 more times?



Why? Are you a 6x slower learner than the rest?


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 12, 2010)

Your stupidity knows no bounds.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please make a new thread like 6 more times?
> ...



I just really think that you'd benefit the community by telling us 6 more times.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

Anthony said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > RyanO said:
> ...



Many have spoken abusively towards me, but I have not responded in kind. If I get banned simply for an opinion that is not shared by the majority, then so be it. If you ignorantly think that being right when others think that you are wrong makes me a troll, then that is your problem. Are you afraid to think outside of the herd?


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 12, 2010)

You think you're ignorantly right while thinking everybody else is wrong.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

Can you make a thread about thinking outside the herd? I'd really like to learn more.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> Your stupidity knows no bounds.



LOL. That's actually pretty funny about - stupidity knowing something.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Can you make a thread about thinking outside the herd? I'd really like to learn more.



I would, but you already did.


----------



## moogra (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



Actually you haven't listened to anyone. Like I said before you can't be good at being lucky. There is no skill in being lucky. If someone saw a 4 move solution, that is skill right there. In 2x2, almost all of them can be solved in 10 moves. If you can see the solution, then that is skill, not luck.

actually the guy you mentioned in the possibly fictional story sounds like me


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Can you make a thread about thinking outside the herd? I'd really like to learn more.
> ...



But I would really like to see your opinion on the matter.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> You think you're ignorantly right while thinking everybody else is wrong.



I am willing to accept the vote. Why can't you?


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



People have spoken abusively towards you simply because you deserve it. If you get banned it's simply by your incessant stupidity and habit of posting unnecessary and unwanted threads. If you ignorantly think that you're right in spamming this forum with the same thread multiple times is ok then you truly are an idiot. We're not afraid to think outside the herd. We're more aggravated (and amused) the fact that you think that people actually care about these threads. At this point I'm sure that most of us are just looking at this one for a laugh.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



LOL. I appreciated your 4x4x4 parity solve. You did not know at the time, that I can do that alg even faster than you. I am not here to fight. So why do you fight with me?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I am willing to accept the vote.



Can you please make a thread explaining this acceptance


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> LOL. I appreciated your 4x4x4 parity solve. You did not know at the time, that I can do that alg even faster than you. I am not here to fight. So why do you fight with me?



vid. or didn't happen


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...



Not the same thread, and not spam, and not unnecessary, and not unwanted. You can have your opinion, right or wrong, and I can have mine as well. We will see who is incessantly stupid in time.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> We will see who is incessantly stupid in time.



We will see who is deservingly banned first.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



Why don't you make individual threads and polls for each of those topics so that everyone can vote?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)

Anthony said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > We will see who is incessantly stupid in time.
> ...



We will see who like muffins in time.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

moogra; said:


> Actually you haven't listened to anyone. Like I said before you can't be good at being lucky. There is no skill in being lucky. If someone saw a 4 move solution, that is skill right there. In 2x2, almost all of them can be solved in 10 moves. If you can see the solution, then that is skill, not luck.
> 
> actually the guy you mentioned in the possibly fictional story sounds like me



I have actually listened, but I don't need to always agree. I do agree with your statement "you can't be good at being lucky", but I try to only use the term lucky in reference to those scrambles that produce lucky outcomes for the lucky competitors that just happened to get lucky with them, and also be able to have the on-board skill to exploit the lucky scramble that is available to them. The difference between a lucky 4-move scramble and a 10-move scramble is the WR or something similar. I think that it is fair to consider those to be lucky. They are also random and easy, if that makes anybody feel better.


----------



## Neo63 (Feb 12, 2010)

not this again.....at least try to not waste forum resources


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...



Why don't you?


----------



## MichaelP. (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG HE CAN DO PAR!TY1111111111 

Now I need you to read this warning sign I found on the front of the ban hammer.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Feb 12, 2010)




----------



## RyanO (Feb 12, 2010)

If you and I use the same scramble and you get a 1.xx and I get a 8.xx is the scramble lucky for you and not for me? This wouldn't make any sense becase the scrambles are the same. A random scramble can not be inherently lucky. It is a lucky occurence to get a scramble that is easy for you, but that does not mean the scramble is lucky or that the fast times are due to luck and not skill.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)

RyanO said:


> If you and I use the same scramble and you get a 1.xx and I get a 8.xx is the scramble lucky for you and not for me? This wouldn't make any sense becase the scrambles are the same. A random scramble can not be inherently lucky. It is a lucky occurence to get a scramble that is easy for you, but that does not mean the scramble is lucky or that the fast times are due to luck and not skill.


lololol. I don't see how he could argue against this, but wait a minute, I'm sure he'll try.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 12, 2010)

There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.

This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.

Chris


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.
> 
> This is not only very easy, but extremely lucky which is what I voted.
> 
> Chris



Thank you Chris. I knew that this forum had somebody that could see this rationally. BtW- 9992 for 5 moves away, and that is pretty lucky too.


----------



## moogra (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> moogra; said:
> 
> 
> > Actually you haven't listened to anyone. Like I said before you can't be good at being lucky. There is no skill in being lucky. If someone saw a 4 move solution, that is skill right there. In 2x2, almost all of them can be solved in 10 moves. If you can see the solution, then that is skill, not luck.
> ...



If you can get a 10 move scramble and solve it in 10 moves, that's like solving a rubik's cube in 24 moves. Assuming 5 tps (nothing great if you can see the whole solve), that's a sub-5 solve. However, seeing a cube solve in 24 moves is definitely skill. I wouldn't call that scramble lucky, because if someone like me were to go and solve it, it'll take me 200 moves.

What I meant with a 10 move solve is that the optimal solution, provided by the scramble can be done in 10 moves. Of course, there many scrambles that are easier. IIRC the worst case is 11 moves but I'm no 2x2 expert. If someone got the 10 moves, then that is skill, especially if no one else got it so the solution was not trivial, which is the scenario given.

Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 12, 2010)

But how can we tell if the scramble is easy/lucky if you don't post it for us


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > There are 1847 positions on a 2x2x2 that are 4 moves away from solved, and 3674160 total positions. So, assuming a perfect uniform distribution of scrambles (which I think might not be true) there is a 1847/3674160 ~ 0.05% probability that such a scramble would come up in competition.
> ...



Nobody claimed that a scramble with a 4 move solution was not lucky. The problem arose when you asserted that all scrambles faster than average had to be lucky. Rowe had a 1.83 what was 13 moves. Is it lucky? If you get a .75 magic solve and a 1.1 average, was the .75 solve lucky? No, you just had better than average execution of a normal solution. That is what you do not seem to understand. Sometimes outliers are created by the solver performing exceptionally, not the scramble.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)

moogra said:


> Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.


I don't think it's not really the TPS that kills a possible sub 2 if the solver didn't realize it would be solved. What kills it is the reaction time it takes to realize it's solved, AUF if necessary, and slam it down without +2ing.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 12, 2010)

Just so you know, some of the sub 2 "lucky" solves in your last thread were ~8 move solutions, which is only a few turns below the upper bound for a optimal 2x2 solution.


----------



## moogra (Feb 12, 2010)

Anthony said:


> moogra said:
> 
> 
> > Also, sub-2 solves are usually made by people that see the solution... you can't make too many turns in less than 2 seconds.
> ...



Yeah you're right. It is definitely the reaction time. I can usually do AUF, but seeing that is solve takes a good split-second to slam down, especially if you're standing up.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

moogra said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > moogra; said:
> ...



I agree. The problem is that many cannot, for some phobic reason - have both "easy" and "lucky" used in reference to the scramble. To me, a 4-move solution is obviously both. I am not finding fault with anything here, just stating my opinion. I realize that convention dictates that I should not use the term "lucky" when referring to a 4-move solution scramble, but I just can't come up with a more suitable term. If I got a 4-move solution scramble, then I would feel pretty lucky - wouldn't you?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't understand what the argument is here. How is a 2x2x2 scrambling algorithm that produces a cube state 4 moves away from solved *not* considered a lucky scramble?

Chris


----------



## RyanO (Feb 12, 2010)

Only if I found the 4 move solution, which I might not because I suck at 2x2. Which means...the luck comes from the solution not the scramble. How do you not get this?

*EDIT*

Chris you should read the lucky 2x2x2 scramble thread to understand that reThinkingTheCube's claims extend far past this extreem 4 move situation and that is what everyone is concerned about.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

moogra said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > moogra said:
> ...



Spotting a 1 turn + SUNE from a WCA scramble can also be an easy sub-2. That scramble would be random, easy, and lucky. Is there a problem with the luck part of that?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 12, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Only if I found the 4 move solution, which I might not because I suck at 2x2. Which means...the luck comes from the solution not the scramble. How do you not get this?



Your failing to find the 4 move solution in no way, whatsoever changes the fact that the scrambling algorithm was still a lucky scrambling algorithm. How do *you* not get *this*?

Chris


----------



## moogra (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I agree. The problem is that many cannot, for some phobic reason - have both "easy" and "lucky" used in reference to the scramble. To me, a 4-move solution is obviously both. I am not finding fault with anything here, just stating my opinion. I realize that convention dictates that I should not use the term "lucky" when referring to a 4-move solution scramble, but I just can't come up with a more suitable term. If I got a 4-move solution scramble, then I would feel pretty lucky - wouldn't you?



I would feel lucky, yes. I see where you are trying to go, but a better term has already been proposed, which is "easy". I would prefer to use "good", like in some games, this is a good game, if it's easier than normal. The scramble cannot be your definition of lucky because the solve is done differently for everyone else. I was practicing 2x2 a few days ago and solving it starting from white seemed to be horrible, but solving from blue face was really really fast and i got a barely 3 second solve (I average like 7 with ortega, just saying so i'm not good). I wouldn't get many of the lucky solves. For example, for the WR solve, I would see only to complete the first layer, which solves the cube, as I found out today. The reaction time for me to see that it was solved would maybe be .2 seconds. Over WR solve there for sure.


----------



## oskarasbrink (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > You really felt the need to make another thread so you could lose the same debate again?
> ...


you're JUST like a kid in school. you ALWAYS think you're right and even if you're not you just act like you do because you think losing is the end of your reputation

i don't get it how you still claim that "you won"


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 12, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > cmhardw said:
> ...



As far as the claims go, I disagree. Some of the scrambles were already posted with 4-move solutions, and yet the claims kept coming in that NO scramble should ever be considered lucky, and that I was basically a stupid moron for even suggesting that. I am being faulted for simply not going along with the herd, on this ludicrous idea that a scramble can ever be considered "lucky". 

Rowe's solve was not listed. Post the scramble for it, and I will look at it, and give you my opinion as to whether I think it was easy,or lucky, or both. You might be surprised.


----------



## ElderKingpin (Feb 12, 2010)

"in an upcoming minor WCA Competition.."
upcoming means its hasnt happened yet


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 12, 2010)

I want to change my vote to none of the above. Can you please explain what you don't understand? You keep making these threads, but you don't seem to get it. Any skipped step, that has less than 20% chance of skipping, and is skipped, is a lucky solve, unless the solver has purposely skipped it, using a different solution to what he would normally do. Or, if s/he managed to make the chance of a skip more likely, and above 20%. Is this 4 move solution a face with a ll skip? if so, it's lucky, as an ll skip is less than 20% chance of happening. However, if the solver use WV to get an OLL skip, and a pll skip is more than 20% likely (I'm not sure of a PLL skip on a 2x2's chances) it is considered non-lucky.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 12, 2010)

LUCK PAYS A MASSIVE PART IN SPEEDCUBING, ESPECIALLY 2X2. A 4 MOVE SCRAMBLE CAN BE CONSIDERED LUCKY, BUT A FAST SOLVE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED LUCKY. THE MISTAKE YOU MADE IN THE FIRST THREAD WAS TO ASSUME THAT EVERY SOLVE ON THE LIST WAS A LUCKY SOLVE, AND THEN YOU FOUGHT THAT COMPLETELY FALSE FACT FOR THE ENTIRE THREAD. AS DAVID HAS ALREADY SAID, ROWE DOESN'T AVERAGE <2 SECONDS BUT HE IS PERFECTLY CAPAPBLE OF DOING THAT IN A GOOD, NON LUCKY SOLVE.

*NOW QUITE WHINING*


----------



## qqwref (Feb 12, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> ROWE DOESN'T AVERAGE <2 SECONDS


about that... :3


----------



## shelley (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking, do we really need three whole threads on lucky 2x2 scrambles? Keep the discussion in one thread, please.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 12, 2010)

Is everyone up in arms about a WR being considered "lucky", because they think this is a bad thing, and that it somehow illegitimizes the solve as not really an official WR? I haven't read rethinking_the_cube's other thread(s) on this topic, but I would have to say that in my opinion a scramble with a 4 move solution is definitely a lucky scramble, making the solve definitely a lucky solve if the person saw the 4 move solution. However, this would *still*, assuming it was fast enough, be the completely legitimate WR *despite* the fact that it was lucky.

Is this what we're all arguing about? Or am I missing something here? To paraphrase Erik why does getting lucky on a solve have to be a bad thing? That's how it seems to me that people are reacting to this idea in this thread.

Chris


----------

