# Is the 15 second Inspection Time fair?



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 17, 2021)

Pardon me if this has been raised before or if the questions are too dumb. I admit I cannot plan more than 3 steps reliably. 

1. Is the 15-second inspection mandatory in all 3x3 competitions?

2. I feel that inspection benefits the cross making and hence biased towards CFOP users more than Roux Users. Is there any truth at all there, and does it depend on whether one is at the Beginner level? I assume that inspection is mainly for planning the first few steps, and therefore, it looks simpler (to a beginner like me) for CFOP because it is easier to visualise steps for making a white cross than for planning the first steps of block building (which looks more complex). This may be due to my very limited Roux experience compared to CFOP (both at Beginner level). 

3. Even assuming the same CFOP method is used, doesn't the inspection look like a handicap the Beginners (who cannot plan many steps and cannot do so much with it) are giving to more advanced cubers? 

4. I realise inspection is necessary for blind solving. However, for other competitions, is it really a good way to let cubers show their best skills for top level competitions, when they spend 15 seconds in inspection for something that takes 5 seconds or so to complete? Besides, it seems to me that the inspection is reducing the challenge of solving a cube (based on quick reaction and assessment, besides just dexterity) when the first moves or even the whole cross building are already worked out. 

Thanks.


----------



## kubesolver (Jul 17, 2021)

2. You're free to choose any method.
3. It's fair that rules give advantage to better cubers. In the end the competition is to determine a better cuber so the rules that magnify skill advantage are good and there are more of them. 
E.g allowing f2l cheat sheet would reduce the advantage of those who know it all etc.
4. Has been discussed to death. Google old discussions. In short: cubers believe the sport is better with inspection. 3x3 with no inspecting used to be an event but got removed iirc


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 17, 2021)

You can use infinite inspection time when practicing and when you feel ready, use the 15s inspection

I don't think it's unfair to give the same time to everyone, but the contrary.

I think this way:

In a given sport, all athletes are allowed to warm up. The same with cubing, all have the 15s inspection to "warm up". If you solve it in your head the entire solve and a beginner solved only 2 pieces in his head it's because of ability, not the best circunstances (because all of them were giving the same time)


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 17, 2021)

Thanks for all the information. I understand now. However, when someone says the best cuber can solve a 3x3 in a few seconds, the fact is that they need a total of a few seconds plus around 10 additional seconds. I'm afraid the analogy with sport is not very convincing, since knowledge of the positions of a cube's pieces affect performance very significanatly. Warming up in sport is just to prevent injury and ensure proper performance, i.e. to avoid problems. I consider cubing more than just a sport (which is mostly physical).


----------



## kubesolver (Jul 17, 2021)

Max Park solved 434 cubes in an hour averaging 8.2s per cube. 
It's fair to say that top cubers can solve a cube in just few seconds. 

However keep in mind that the rules of WCA are by cubers for cubers and not to make impression on laymen.
Similarly with +2 penalties. We ignore potential complains from random strangers that it's not solved and only consider the impact it has on a competition


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 17, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> Max Park solved 434 cubes in an hour averaging 8.2s per cube.
> It's fair to say that top cubers can solve a cube in just few seconds.
> 
> However keep in mind that the rules of WCA are by cubers for cubers and not to make impression on laymen.
> Similarly with +2 penalties. We ignore potential complains from random strangers that it's not solved and only consider the impact it has on a competition



434 cubes. Wow !!!

I found the video and watched it. He can do about 15 by the time I complete one solve.


----------



## qwr (Jul 17, 2021)

Making use of inspection time is a big part of solving quickly. That's why Tymon is so impressive


----------



## Swagrid (Jul 17, 2021)

I see inspection as a quality of life thing. I find it annoying to be timed from the second I see the cube. Inspection is fair and balanced as everyone has the same amount of inspection on the same scrambles. Some might be able to inspect further into the solve, but inspecting is a skill that can be trained and improved. Sure, we may never be able to inspect like Tymon can, but we may also never be able to turn at the speed Ruihang Xu can. 

Inspection is balanced, and a lovely luxury.


----------



## qwr (Jul 17, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> 3x3 with no inspecting used to be an event but got removed iirc


I would be interested in seeing top non-bld solvers try this and see if they have any different strategies


----------



## stwert (Jul 17, 2021)

It's an interesting question for sure. I do think it's fair, but the outside impression is another factor. When I first started cubing, I "realized" that the world record is not a few seconds, but actually 15s + 3.5s. This makes it less impressive, obviously. There was a trivia book talking about how some people can solve 12 cubes in a minute, and I was like "no, they're not taking into account inspection time". Of course now that I have learned more about cubing, I realize that the best solvers would probably add only a second or two without inspection, right? From the outside, that's more impressive, but the public doesn't know that. So I think inspection time skews the public perception both ways. Also, I haven't seen a lot of competitions, but it seems like Cubers don't use the whole 15s typically, right? What would you say the average time is?
Finally, I'll just add that I don't think it makes sense to compare advantages for beginners vs pros. Cubing is a sport where you're competing purely against yourself, until you're at least sub-15 or 20 and it makes sense to compete against others. Maybe that's just me though. My 2 cents as a beginner.


----------



## LBr (Jul 17, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> Pardon me if this has been raised before or if the questions are too dumb. I admit I cannot plan more than 3 steps reliably.
> 
> 1. Is the 15-second inspection mandatory in all 3x3 competitions?
> 
> ...


I do not agree.

Even if dexterity involves not much thinking, inspection is a skill that all cubers should know, and beginners will be less good as they are less experienced. In fact, inspection allows for a more efficient solve, so not as much dexterity is required if yuor solve is more efficient. About Roux, Inspection needs to be optimised for Roux, and if you think inspection in roux is harder, then it could be considered a weakness of the method.

In a competition, you get a +2 if your inspection is between 15-17 secs, and a DNF if it's over 17 seconds


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jul 18, 2021)

1. Inspection is fair because it’s a consistent time for every solve, and everyone gets the same amount of time to inspect (with the ever so slight potential difference of time for a judge to lift the cover and start the timer) 

2. At the end of the day we are interested in how fast someone can solve the cube with their own solution. Not having time to determine how they want to start would just be an arbitrary handicap to how fast people could potentially get. It’s sorta like how chess games are played with a clock. You have time to plan out your next move but can’t spend forever thinking about it.


----------



## Tabe (Jul 18, 2021)

I have always thought inspection time should count. Inspection is a skill - inspecting fast is a more difficult skill. All of it should be counted. I realize that ship has long since sailed, of course. 

On the pro-inspection side, one thing inspection does is eliminate randomness in how you see the cube when you start solving. Without inspection, the orientation of the cube is random which could significantly impact what a cuber first sees when picking up the cube, potentially greatly changing the time of their solve. Inspection is a fair way to get rid of that randomness.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 18, 2021)

I realise inspection skill is very important and I do take time inspecting now. I agree that inspection skill helps the advanced cubers and rightly so. Then, I have another question.

I noticed that some competitors inspect their cubes only for a few seconds and put them down while others continued to use most of their 15 seconds. Are these competitors, who can inspect very fast, being handicapped then? After watching Max Park's 434 cube solves without inspection (very impressive and revealing), I can see that he would lead others even more if the inspection time was counted, i.e. he can start solving after only just 1 or 2 seconds, and thus lead other competitors by an even wider margin. That would have shown his true ability and show his superiority even more, although his times would be slightly longer (by about 1 or 2 additional seconds more, compared to the 8 or additional seconds for most cubers). The current method may show his typical time for a good solve against another as 5 seconds versus 7 seconds, when the actual total times used for the solves would most likely be 7 (maybe even 8) seconds vs 15 seconds, if we count the inspection time used and if competitors can start any time from the time the cubes are revealed. Wouldn't such "actual" figures, say 8 vs 15 seconds, show more clearly how awesome he is?

Maybe the fixed 15-second time is not completely fair to other highly skilled ones besides Max, those who have great inspection technique? There may be some who are now averaging 12 seconds with the WCA rules but who only take 6 seconds for inspection, then they would rank higher than someone who is averaging 11 or 10 seconds but takes 10 seconds for inspection, if inspection time could be counted and one can start as soon as ready, i.e. basing result on the true or actual time used for solving.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jul 18, 2021)

well if we change it, we will have to do a records reset to make it fair which is the last thing we all want (rip speedstacking)


----------



## the dnf master (Jul 18, 2021)

Given by your example of the 12 seconds solver using 6 seconds of inspection, they are being benefited by using less inspection because they have more time left to plan further, which could make them faster. This is more limited if you use more inspection time. 
That's why(in my opinion) 15 seconds of inspection fair.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 18, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> well if we change it, we will have to do a records reset to make it fair which is the last thing we all want (rip speedstacking)



I can see the pain, but with all due respect, sometimes rule changes can be good in the long run. Many rules in sports have changed when there are enough good reasons, e.g. to promote the sport, to make it more universal, easier to understand as a competition, or sustainable in terms of sponsorship/sales and to attract new players/spectators. Table Tennis in particular changed many times, e.g. changes tothe 21 point games to 11 point games, having to toss the ball up first when serving to avoid tricks, then the ball from 38mm to 40mm, then banned certain type of rubber and also speed glue, and mostly they are to make it more interesting as a world sport, fair to all countries or to give all countries a reasonable chance of winning, more interesting to watch as balls were flying way too fast with new technology and points finish in a flash without the changes. Ballroom dancing tempo and judging rules changed quite a few times, when more developed dancing skills (continually evolving only through the last decades) demand it, so as to differentiate the best dancers, when they were all so good. Rumba tempo, for example, was increased not so long ago from 25 BPM to 28 BPM for competitions.

I can see cubing times like 3+ seconds apparently reaching some sort of plateau and wonder whether there might be opportunities for improvement. I am just trying to understand better. It's of course up to the organisers and members of WCA to decide on anything relevant to comps. I can also see the cube changing rapidly and wonder whether, there is a need to control the type of changes. The centre piece of some well known cubes look perfectly circular now and the bevel looks stronger too, which is very different from the original design and obviously help corner cutting. If all the surfaces are also shaved, that may make corner cutting possible at just about any angle. Good for speed, and also for sales and sponsorship, but IMO some periodical review/discussions on rules and definitions is a healthy thing, to revisit important basics of competitions and at least to make beginners and the public understand better.



the dnf master said:


> Given by your example of the 12 seconds solver using 6 seconds of inspection, they are being benefited by using less inspection because they have more time left to plan further, which could make them faster. This is more limited if you use more inspection time.
> That's why(in my opinion) 15 seconds of inspection fair.



What I meant was this. The 12 second solver needs only 6 seconds to inspect. He cannot do any better by spending more time inspecting and planning further after 6 seconds. He can do as good an inspection as the other person, who is a 10 second solver but needs 10 or more seconds to inspect to solve in 10 seconds, and in a sense has an advantage. The amount of inspection time allowed makes all the difference. Should it be adjusted (another obviously old question)? There will never be a time that everybody would agree to. Let's look at it from another perspective. Who is actually the better cuber in the eyes and opinion of the common person? I suggest that the actual total time used by the cuber for solving would make sense to the public, i.e. if the competitors are allowed to start any time from the start of inspection, or as soon as they have enough information for their method whether it is 1 second, 2, 4 or 15 in the inspection. If done that way, then we are measuring the true fastest possible time a person can solve the cube in a real world scenario (though not WCA controlled competition).


----------



## CodingCuber (Jul 18, 2021)

I do believe that 15 second inspection time is fair but it takes practice to plan more in that limited time. If you need to, use more than 15 seconds at home and slowly try and reduce the time you use.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 18, 2021)

CodingCuber said:


> I do believe that 15 second inspection time is fair but it takes practice to plan more in that limited time. If you need to, use more than 15 seconds at home and slowly try and reduce the time you use.



Thanks for your advice.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 18, 2021)

I had a similar discussion last year on the WCA forums,






World Cube Association


The World Cube Association governs competitions for mechanical puzzles that are operated by twisting groups of pieces, commonly known as 'twisty puzzles'. The most famous of these puzzles is the Rubik's Cube, invented by professor Rubik from Hungary. A selection of these puzzles are chosen as...




forum.worldcubeassociation.org






Suppose this 30-second inspection rule is implemented, I do not think the WCA database will be needing a revamp. Post 2020 comps, can have this rule and normal formats like mean of 3 and average of 5 can continue. So, it will not be a logistic hurdle for the Software team.

The only disadvantage I find with this proposal is the extra time the organisers will have to take into account, participants stalling inspection time to gain extra information and clues or tougher for delegates to make decisions about some mistakes that happen during this inspection time (over-inspecting, turning the puzzle, gaining information)

Events that will gain massively from this change are bigcubes, where competitors will be able to inspect more into the first centre and make bigger pattern library, being able to inspect all 6 colours or different methods in 3x3 speedsolve.

Till now competitors have fine-tuned their solving style to 15 seconds, but if the new inspection limit is introduced, it will allow for more risky and creative solves, and for the spectators it will not be a monotonous step by step process that they have to see and appreciate the solve by its splits, but rather discuss about the solve, and how the competitor utilized the scramble to their benefit.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 18, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> I had a similar discussion last year on the WCA forums,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think anything is possible through planning, e.g. setting a timeframe like 3 years or 5 years, for a change to get the logistics and processes worked out, and, to reduce inconvenience to competitors who have fine-tuned their strategy based on a 15-second inspection. I agree an adjustment in inspection rule can provide more flexibility to cubers who can then become more creative or make better use of the time (or how much time to inspect or to start turning) based on their own strengths (planning and balancing their moves/finger speed/memory ability) and provide more interesting competition.


----------



## Thom S. (Jul 18, 2021)

So far your arguments seem to come down to "I can't use inspection yet so I don't like it" and "Non-Cubers may not like it". Competetive rulesets always (sometimes) are to find an even playingfield and make it challenging, but not annoying for competitors.
You have inspection, you orient your cube, half a second of 15 seconds. Take away inspection, suddenly that half second gets added to your solve which is out of your control. Your orientation could be good or bad and that could lead to unfair advantages with pre-orienting. (Maskow comes to mind). Would Megaminx solvers be at a disadvantage because the orientation is more rotations away? Would Pyra and Squan solvers be at an advantage because there are less orientations.

I see inspection as a given right. If you use more inspection and solce faster, you are the better solver, since the fact it's been given to you and you use it. Not using a given time just seems stubborn. 
Who cares what outsiders think. Most cubing happens at home and in competitions where spectators agreed to have inspection time anyway. 
Take that away leads to problems, rule changes and fighting over who gave whom which orientation.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 18, 2021)

Equal opportunity to take advantage of 15s inspection


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 18, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Equal opportunity to take advantage of 15s inspection



It's still equal opportunity whether the inspection time is 6 seconds, 15 seconds or 0 seconds.


----------



## StrategySam (Jul 19, 2021)

I think all methods benefit from longer inspection, just some methods benefit more. I feel like roux benefits more then CFOP with longer inspection because in roux effincency is a big factor on how good the solve is.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 19, 2021)

StrategySam said:


> I think all methods benefit from longer inspection, just some methods benefit more. I feel like roux benefits more then CFOP with longer inspection because in roux effincency is a big factor on how good the solve is.



I only started Beginner Roux very recently but I can't agree more. There is a big difference, to me, in the complexity of building a cross and building blocks. The cross is mostly straightforward moves and simple, and it takes less time even for me to inspect and work out the moves. It would seem beneficial, if cubing interest promotion is one of the goals of competition organisers, to avoid having one dominant method and have more variety. Roux and possibly other methods can be more popular with a longer or more flexible inspection time, or no inspection time. Relying on the preference of the majority of current members and considering amount of work need to effect changes are very important, but consideration should also be given to periodically reviewing and to more long-term objectives, or the future needs, future cubers, and advancement of cubing. It seems to this layman that the ease of learning as well as the current rules may be locking in the popularity of CFOP. Most beginners just learn it and naturally become CFOP cubers, which may hamper cubing development IMHO.

In Australia, there is an all-day "stock" or road car race in Bathhurst. It is in beautiful country with nice winding roads, as well as nice straights and lots of spectators and interest from around the world. There used to be, up until the 80s, many different brands and models, turbo charged, big V8, Porsche, BMW, Honda, Peugeot, Corvette, ... Toyota Supra and MR2, Subaru WRX, ... and car racing teams from all over the world came each year for a truly great event. Fantastic. Then Godzilla was born and took over the races everywhere. It was nice to see a specially developed for racing but street legal car like it (AKA Nissan GTR). I was hoping there would be more special designed road cars like it racing here, like the NSX, Misubishi 3000GT, ... The local Ozzie fans become parochial and they were unhappy even though the drivers of the GTR were Australians (Jim Richards and Skaife), and the fans pressured the organisers no end, until the GTRs were first heavily handicapped with very heavy loads, and then banned altogether. Rules changed to favour the big Australian V8s, and one after another, famous brands from overseas dropped out, and all those nicely designed cars with more and more impressive performance disappeared from the race. Now, we only have Ford and Holden V8 zooming around, and you can't tell them apart, unlike the days when cars with different suspension, engine compression, sizes, ... can all compete, and when there were more support, sponsorship and involvement from other countries in the race, in development and design of cars for racing. Well, the locals are happy ever since. And the event is hardly televised or followed by the general public, or by anyone overseas. People used to schedule the whole day from morning till sunset to watch a most interesting competition live on free TV, until about 1992.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 19, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> It's still equal opportunity whether the inspection time is 6 seconds, 15 seconds or 0 seconds.


Exactly, so why change. It would ruin all past solves, and there is no utility


----------



## mookiemu (Jul 19, 2021)

A 15 second inspection time benefits creativity, no inspection benefits luck. 15 seconds is fair and great for the spectator. It is part of the game. There is no need to change this because it ain't broke. It's a rule created by cubers, not non-cubers.
What I would like to see is the inspection time in BLD solves be separate like in non-BLD. Imagine if you had 15 seconds inspection for BLD and then the clock starts for the solve? We'd have 8 second BLD solves.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 19, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> A 15 second inspection time benefits creativity, no inspection benefits luck. 15 seconds is fair and great for the spectator. It is part of the game. There is no need to change this because it ain't broke. It's a rule created by cubers, not non-cubers.
> What I would like to see is the inspection time in BLD solves be separate like in non-BLD. Imagine if you had 15 seconds inspection for BLD and then the clock starts for the solve? We'd have 8 second BLD solves.



Max Park solved 434 3x3 cubes in an hour with no inspection, averaging a little over 8 seconds each time. I don't think that's luck. That's the actual average time he spent solving a 3x3 cube, and that's done with great skills and quick response. It does not seem to me that creativity has much to do with cubing in real competitions or in inspections, since everything done probably has been practised 1000 times. There is of course creativity when new algorithms and methods are worked out, but that's not part of the competition.


----------



## kubesolver (Jul 19, 2021)

Regarding creativity even in basic cfop there is plenty room for your personal style and creativity beyond basic technique.

There is beauty in








Tymon Kolasiński - 3.43sec Single (3x3)<br /> <b>Warning</b>: number_format() expects parameter 1 to be float, string given in <b>/home/cubepdev/v5.speedcubedb.com/recon.php</b> on line <b>177</b><br /> | Ao2 sec - Speed Cube Database


41 STM 11.95 TPS, Reconstruction by: Stewy




speedcubedb.com





Stay a bit longer and maybe you'll see it as well


----------



## CodingCuber (Jul 19, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> Max Park solved 434 3x3 cubes in an hour with no inspection, averaging a little over 8 seconds each time. I don't think that's luck. That's the actual average time he spent solving a 3x3 cube, and that's done with great skills and quick response. It does not seem to me that creativity has much to do with cubing in real competitions or in inspections, since everything done probably has been practised 1000 times. There is of course creativity when new algorithms and methods are worked out, but that's not part of the competition.


Using inspection effectively is one of the most important parts of a solve. Take a look at top level cubers’ solves and notice how much in advance they can plan. This helps to reduce pauses and plan out a more efficient solve. Also, without 15 second inspection, colour neutral solvers are disadvantaged.


----------



## the dnf master (Jul 19, 2021)

yeah if inspection was removed, a lot of aspects of speedcubing we be gone. No advance techniques to plan the cross, no cross to f2l transition, and this also applies to other methods like roux. I don't think that there is any reasonable argument why inspection time is unfair.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 20, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> A 15 second inspection time benefits creativity, no inspection benefits luck. 15 seconds is fair and great for the spectator. It is part of the game. There is no need to change this because it ain't broke. It's a rule created by cubers, not non-cubers.
> What I would like to see is the inspection time in BLD solves be separate like in non-BLD. Imagine if you had 15 seconds inspection for BLD and then the clock starts for the solve? We'd have 8 second BLD solves.


Can't fix what ain't broke


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jul 20, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> Max Park solved 434 3x3 cubes in an hour with no inspection, averaging a little over 8 seconds each time. I don't think that's luck. That's the actual average time he spent solving a 3x3 cube, and that's done with great skills and quick response. It does not seem to me that creativity has much to do with cubing in real competitions or in inspections, since everything done probably has been practised 1000 times. There is of course creativity when new algorithms and methods are worked out, but that's not part of the competition.



Sure, 8 second solves are quick and skillful. However, without inspection, an artificial handicap is applied and as such one’s potential isn’t reached. With inspection, people are getting sub3 second solves. Inspection is just part of what pushes solve times faster and faster.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Exactly, so why change. It would ruin all past solves, and there is no utility



I suggested quite a few already in previous posts.


the dnf master said:


> yeah if inspection was removed, a lot of aspects of speedcubing we be gone. No advance techniques to plan the cross, no cross to f2l transition, and this also applies to other methods like roux. I don't think that there is any reasonable argument why inspection time is unfair.



The REAL difference if the 15 second allowance was removed is that you do the inspection during the solving (clocked) time. The more skilled Cuber would be able to inspect faster and plan better in less time, in their looks. Anyone can choose to spend more seconds in planning or start turning, but everything is clocked. That is fair and that can show who the better Cuber is than artificially enhanced times like 3.47, 3.79, 4.1, ... I think it would be more accurate and also revealing to see times like 7.2, 10.4, 16.6, ... That is, a wider gap in the actual times recorded for the competitors， times which are more accurate to show the real times used, as a way of differentiating levels of skills, including inspecting skills. The 3.5 and 3.61 ... times seem like truncated figures. 

I think this also has to do with what balance WCA thinks should be in the test, or what percentage of it should be a memory test, a planning test and test of real-time turning/reaction. It is of course up to the organisers and members to decide, based on what's best for cubing.


----------



## the dnf master (Jul 20, 2021)

Of course planning faster is better, but if two people average the same speed but one person takes 8 seconds to plan cross+1 while the other person takes 12, I would say that they have the same skill in terms of just generic speedcubing. Like @Thom S. said, inspection is a right, but it doesn't determine your speed at all. Removing inspection, and using slower solves is not more accurate than having inspection.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Can't fix what ain't broke



No, it's not to fix but to improve. In the camera world, countless users of DSLRs resisted for years and denied the advantages of mirrorless camera. That is easy to understand as they have invested heavily in their equipment, expensive lenses, and also very important investment in skills for quick action with the outdated camera design, eg chimping and guessing exposure and colour outcomes (since they cannot see the real image they are capturing on their viewfinders). However advantages like shooting information (blinkies, exposure data,...) and also focus peaking, 5 stop stabilisation, high res, WYSIWYG viewfinders, silent operation, and many more, gradually changed opinions but it has taken more than 10 years for the change. I understand the inertia involved and the difficulty involved. After all, many are still using ounces, pints, inches, 5/8 and 3/4 inch ...


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jul 20, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I suggested quite a few already in previous posts.
> 
> The REAL difference if the 15 second allowance was removed is that you do the inspection during the solving (clocked) time. The more skilled Cuber would be able to inspect faster and plan better in less time, in their looks. Anyone can choose to spend more seconds in planning or start turning, but everything is clocked. That is fair and that can show who the better Cuber is than artificially enhanced times like 3.47, 3.79, 4.1, … I think it would be more accurate and also revealing to see times like 7.2, 10.4, 16.6, … That is, a wider gap in the actual times recorded for the competitors， times which are more accurate to show the real times used, as a way of differentiating levels of skills. The 3.5 and 3.61 … times seem like truncated figures.
> 
> I think this also has to do with what balance the should be in the test, or what percentage of it should be a memory test, a planning test and test of real-time turning/reaction. It is of course up to the organizers and members to decide, based on what's best for cubing.


In *Speedcubing* the point is to solve the cube with techniques you know. No inspection would make more advanced techniques completely useless because that takes time. Look ahead would be trash and it would be impossible (almost) to be color neutral. In the Red Bull speedcubing Bill Wang, a color neutral solver, used white cross only in "Fastest Hand" because there was no inspection, making it very hard to use his full skill _and _potential. Let's take Tymon Kolasinski, one of the best 3x3 solvers in the world. He relies on inspection to plan amazing solutions. His 3.43 Full-step Sub-WR single on ML had a xxxcross and a pause less 4th pair. In a following interview he said that he planned the *entire *F2L solution during inspection. Think about how crazy that is, most people struggle to plan an xcross but the entire F2L, the hardest step of CFOP! To say that solve would have been more impressive without inspection, maybe a 7-8 second solve is ridicules. If inspection was to be removed it would never have been added in the first place. Sure, there are some debatable rules in the WCA but inspection seems like a no-brainer. Speedcubing isn't about pleasing the spectators like in say, American Football. It's about doing the *best *you can do with the skill you have, if you want to please the spectators with a less impressive solve with lots of pauses for the average cuber by turning down inspection, go ahead! No one is stopping you. But to argue that it should be removed because you think it benefits not the joy of speedcubing is ridicules. If inspection was not a part of speedcubing I wouldn't partake in the sport because it takes the joy of striving to improve away. 

As mentioned in another post, solves would be completely based on luck, not skill. There would be countless variables that take away from efficiency and such, CFOP would be pretty much the only viable method besides LBL and we'd have to go for the first thing we see. Inspection on the other hand is something that you can never stop improving with, you learn and learn, get better and better, and maybe one day be like Tymon, even he is continuously improving. All the skill is to know what to do in each situation and how to take advantage of certain positions. With no inspection you simply don't have time. You can say you work it into the solve but it would be better just to get right into solving then to make a massive pause to look at each individual piece and determine what you can do best with what you know.

I think you should have an understanding of the cube, methods, techniques, planning, etc, before you make a conclusion that it would be possibly better without those 1-15 seconds and, no offense, but with what I can garner you do not have a mediocrely advanced understanding of how to take advantage of things and how to plan multiple moves ahead in a short time.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

kubesolver said:


> Regarding creativity even in basic cfop there is plenty room for your personal style and creativity beyond basic technique.
> 
> There is beauty in
> 
> ...



It's true that I am a very new beginner and that's why I have questions about the very basics.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> Of course planning faster is better, but if two people average the same speed but one person takes 8 seconds to plan cross+1 while the other person takes 12, I would say that they have the same skill in terms of just generic speedcubing. Like @Thom S. said, inspection is a right, but it doesn't determine your speed at all. Removing inspection, and using slower solves is not more accurate than having inspection.



I have to think about this, that inspection is a right. So, everyone is entitled to have some allowance and arrangement to make up for their limitation (like 8 vs 12 seconds in your example). I am not sure, but it sounds like a handicap system to me. Max Park IMO could be much faster than many of those who also solves in a few seconds, based on the current inspection rule, as he can inspect and plan so fast, as he has demonstrated. Shouldn't he or anyone who can inspect very fast be rewarded or recognised?

I also have another analogy. Suppose we chop off the time a race car needs to get up to speed by only clocking their speed and time after they cross the first 100m, to avoid limitations particular cars have in traction, in getting enough torque, and getting over the initial slow start due to an excessively large engine? Lighter cars with advanced turbocharger, 4WD suspension, ... that can accelerate faster would be penalised, I think. Records will be broken! In a 100m dash, we can also do something about the stagnant 9 second times, allowing the starting blocks to be spring loaded, so that they can be propelled forward at the start to make up for the time they have to get up and actually run at full speed, fair to all. Every runner can use the new blocks. That sound unreasonable because they are spectator sports and the common people's understanding and feeling, and their commercial value count. I suppose cubing is different, as mentioned and as I can gather from the replies so far, and it is for cube members.


----------



## CodingCuber (Jul 20, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> The REAL difference if the 15 second allowance was removed is that you do the inspection during the solving (clocked) time. The more skilled Cuber would be able to inspect faster and plan better in less time, in their looks. Anyone can choose to spend more seconds in planning or start turning, but everything is clocked. That is fair and that can show who the better Cuber is than artificially enhanced times like 3.47, 3.79, 4.1.


That just disregards one of the biggest parts of a solve, that is; efficiency. Speedcubing is not just about how many algorithms and how high your TPS is, it is also about how you plan and apply those. Without inspection, you are essentially just winging it. A lot more luck is required and the skill of intuitively planning out further steps is completely removed. 

Anyway, I do see your point and if you are interested with discussing this further, I suggest you post it also on the WCA Forum


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> In *Speedcubing* the point is to solve the cube with techniques you know. No inspection would make more advanced techniques completely useless because that takes time. Look ahead would be trash and it would be impossible (almost) to be color neutral. In the Red Bull speedcubing Bill Wang, a color neutral solver, used white cross only in "Fastest Hand" because there was no inspection, making it very hard to use his full skill _and _potential. Let's take Tymon Kolasinski, one of the best 3x3 solvers in the world. He relies on inspection to plan amazing solutions. His 3.43 Full-step Sub-WR single on ML had a xxxcross and a pause less 4th pair. In a following interview he said that he planned the *entire *F2L solution during inspection. Think about how crazy that is, most people struggle to plan an xcross but the entire F2L, the hardest step of CFOP! To say that solve would have been more impressive without inspection, maybe a 7-8 second solve is ridicules. If inspection was to be removed it would never have been added in the first place. Sure, there are some debatable rules in the WCA but inspection seems like a no-brainer. Speedcubing isn't about pleasing the spectators like in say, American Football. It's about doing the *best *you can do with the skill you have, if you want to please the spectators with a less impressive solve with lots of pauses for the average cuber by turning down inspection, go ahead! No one is stopping you. But to argue that it should be removed because you think it benefits not the joy of speedcubing is ridicules. If inspection was not a part of speedcubing I wouldn't partake in the sport because it takes the joy of striving to improve away.
> 
> As mentioned in another post, solves would be completely based on luck, not skill. There would be countless variables that take away from efficiency and such, CFOP would be pretty much the only viable method besides LBL and we'd have to go for the first thing we see. Inspection on the other hand is something that you can never stop improving with, you learn and learn, get better and better, and maybe one day be like Tymon, even he is continuously improving. All the skill is to know what to do in each situation and how to take advantage of certain positions. With no inspection you simply don't have time. You can say you work it into the solve but it would be better just to get right into solving then to make a massive pause to look at each individual piece and determine what you can do best with what you know.
> 
> ...



There's a lot to digest in your reply, and thank you for such a detailed one. My question, comments and opinions are not meant to offend anyone, but to try to understand what is not making complete sense to a new beginner with a difficulty understanding even the basics. I can see that some of you might just feel tired of this, or threatened. Please don't be. I believe in questions, even if dumb, and it is healthy for anything of interest to the public.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

CodingCuber said:


> That just disregards one of the biggest parts of a solve, that is; efficiency. Speedcubing is not just about how many algorithms and how high your TPS is, it is also about how you plan and apply those. Without inspection, you are essentially just winging it. A lot more luck is required and the skill of intuitively planning out further steps is completely removed.
> 
> Anyway, I do see your point and if you are interested with discussing this further, I suggest you post it also on the WCA Forum



Thanks for your reply. I don't think I would dare to raise it to WCA, after seeing the reaction here. I got a lot out of this thread and learnt a lot about what speedcubing is and the community feelings.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 20, 2021)

Sorry for not being able to reply to every one individually. I do appreciate all those who posted and again I would like to point out the intention here is to seek answers for my understanding (and my perception could be very different due to my limited experience here), and not to annoy anyone. I now understand a lot better about many things relating to speedcubing and the forum.


----------



## EngiNerdBrian (Jul 20, 2021)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I have to think about this, that inspection is a right. So, everyone is entitled to have some allowance and arrangement to make up for their limitation (like 8 vs 12 seconds in your example). I am not sure, but it sounds like a handicap system to me. Max Park IMO could be much faster than many of those who also solves in a few seconds, based on the current inspection rule, as he can inspect and plan so fast, as he has demonstrated. Shouldn't he or anyone who can inspect very fast be rewarded or recognised?
> 
> I also have another analogy. Suppose we chop off the time a race car needs to get up to speed by only clocking their speed and time after they cross the first 100m, to avoid limitations particular cars have in traction, in getting enough torque, and getting over the initial slow start due to an excessively large engine? Lighter cars with advanced turbocharger, 4WD suspension, ... that can accelerate faster would be penalised, I think. Records will be broken! In a 100m dash, we can also do something about the stagnant 9 second times, allowing the starting blocks to be spring loaded, so that they can be propelled forward at the start to make up for the time they have to get up and actually run at full speed, fair to all. Every runner can use the new blocks. That sound unreasonable because they are spectator sports and the common people's understanding and feeling, and their commercial value count. I suppose cubing is different, as mentioned and as I can gather from the replies so far, and it is for cube members.


The format of the competition in your racing analogy is something called a time trial. Drivers are given 20-25 minutes to complete laps and the fastest lap wins! In that form of competition all that matters is the driver who completed the fastest lap of the many they complete; Much of the car nuances are leveled because by the time cars cross the finish line the first time and start their second lap lap everyone is up to speed and now it's all about driver skill & usage of their knowledge and tools (car) to navigate the track. The lighter car/torque/acceleration analogy doesn't apply in this scenario because the point of this particular competition is just to measure a specific lap time not overall START TO FINISH time.

If I'm interpreting your replies properly it just seems that what you constitute as a solvers ultimate skill is not what the WCA measures and what the community considers to be "official times." It's a worthwhile topic to consider but *NOT* including inspection I do believe dis-incentives much of what this community has spent the last 20 years developing.

An example - If inspection counted in a timed solve you may be presented with a situation where in the first 2 seconds you notice a cross and easy F2L pair, because all this is on the clock you begin solving and slog through a not very elegant solution; ultimately it's not a very optimal solution. If inspection time was longer, say 15 seconds, you could spend more time turning that same solution into an XCross, EOCross or planning multiple F2L pairs and coming up with a sophisticated and elegant solution to the solve. Inspection allows for a better mix of knowledge and physical skill level to be put to the test.

I personally find the 2nd solve much more interesting to pursue, perform, and spectate/study through reconstructions. Inspection is a fundamental part of what 3x3 speed solving has become. Sure, a "side event" where inspection time counts could be fun and I DEFINITELY AGREE that is a more accurate test of the lower bound of how much time it takes for the human brain & body to turn an scrambled cube into a solved one but ultimately that's not the point of WCA competitions. We are not rats in an experiment but participants in a game when speed cubing.

Inspection is a benefit (someone said "right") or tool available to all participants that makes the competition more fun and meaningful. What if we took the starting blocks away from a 100m dash, removed the shoes from all marathon runners, didn't let wide receivers wear gloves, removed chalk from rock climbers, made race car drivers race without practice laps and qualification runs, etc. etc. Doing any of those things would be a better measurement of ABSOLUTE human skill but I think the competitions would be a lot less interesting to watch and less enjoyable to participate in. Inspection FTW!


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Jul 21, 2021)

Thank you, EngiNerdBrian for a very thoughtful and good analysis. It makes a lot of sense, and your argument about bare foot running is so good, as well as funny. Some African runners who are used to it will dominate all events! 

There are a lot of things I am not able to assess or even understand, esp F2L, etc. I can see however that the whole issue seems to be a matter of where and how you draw the line, with regard to inspection. Is 15 second the exact optional time? I heard this 15 second is what members want, and I assume it is based on defined objectives agreed with members and competitors. That's certainly the way to do it to have support from all involved. I also assume it has considered minority interests, if some non CFOP cubers or lower level cubers prefer a longer inspection time (or maybe less time for to level events?) I have never competed, with a PB of 1m 10s and still learning simple finger tricks. So this is not personal.


----------



## Waffles (Jul 21, 2021)

mookiemu said:


> A 15 second inspection time benefits creativity, no inspection benefits luck. 15 seconds is fair and great for the spectator. It is part of the game. There is no need to change this because it ain't broke. It's a rule created by cubers, not non-cubers.
> What I would like to see is the inspection time in BLD solves be separate like in non-BLD. Imagine if you had 15 seconds inspection for BLD and then the clock starts for the solve? We'd have 8 second BLD solves.



Jack Cai does normal 3x3 as bld, inspecting his entire solve then doing 8-10 second exec with a blindfold on. Of course it’s just to practise algs for bld but I still find it cool, and I’ve been past the 3bld is too hard stage of cubing.


----------

