# 2008: Changes to weekly competition



## AvGalen (Dec 30, 2007)

The 2008 weekly competitions will start at 2008-01-01. (I might post the scrambles a bit earlier because I won't be home at midnight).

That same day I will post all remaining results from 2007 and honor the winners of 2007.

This is your chance to influence the competition for 2008. I have some ideas how to improve it and I hope everybody will give me feedback on these ideas and post their own ideas.

*1. Events: *All official events and all events we had in 2007 will now be in the weekly competition. That means:

2x2x2
3x3x3
4x4x4
5x5x5
2x2x2_blind
3x3x3_blind
4x4x4_blind
5x5x5_blind
3x3x3_multi_blind
3x3x3_one_handed
3x3x3_with_feet
3x3x3_fewest_moves
magic
master_magic
clock
megaminx
pyraminx
square-1
2x2x2_3x3x3_4x4x4_5x5x5_relay
*2. Format: *Most regular events will be 3/5, blind will be best of 3, multi-blind/fmc/relay are 1 attempt. We will again follow the WCA-rules for these events, but with exceptions were wanted (clock/megaminx being 3/5, megaminx scrambling "Pochmann-style")

*3. Points: *I have 2 options for rewarding points. The first will benefit "all rounders" and those that are good at "harder/longer events". The second will benefit specialists that are good at "popular" events.
*3a*. The current system that gives points for placing in the top-3 and for participating (based on difficulty of puzzle and amount of effort). This is my proposal for those points:

2x2x2 (5/4/3 + 2)
3x3x3 (6/5/4 + 3)
4x4x4 (7/6/5 + 4)
5x5x5 (8/7/6 + 5)
2x2x2_blind (7/5/3 + 3)
3x3x3_blind (9/7/5 + 5)
4x4x4_blind (11/9/7 + 7)
5x5x5_blind (13/11/9 + 9)
3x3x3_multi_blind (15/13/11 + 2 per cube)
3x3x3_one_handed (6/5/4 + 4)
3x3x3_with_feet (6/5/4 + 4)
3x3x3_fewest_moves (15/13/11 + 10)
magic (3/2/1 + 1)
master_magic (4/3/2 + 1)
clock (4/3/2 + 2)
megaminx (7/6/5 + 4)
pyraminx (5/4/3 + 2)
square-1 (7/6/5 + 4)
2x2x2_3x3x3_4x4x4_5x5x5_relay (9/8/7 + 6)
*3b*. A system that gives 1 point for last place, 2 points for second last place, 3 points for third last place, etc. That means that a popular event (like 3x3x3) with 20 competitors would give 20 points to the winner while a less popular event (5x5x5_blind) with 2 competitors would give 2 points to the winner. Maybe this would require a minimum amount of points to be rewarded?

*4. Results:* You will still be allowed to post results any way you want (several posts or all in one for example), but I would really appreciate if you would follow these guidelines:
*EventnameA*: minutes1:seconds1.hundreds1 (INFO), minutes2:seconds2.hundreds2 (INFO), etc (INFO) = *minutes:seconds.hundreds* 
EventcommentA: Lots of text
*EventnameB*: minutes1:seconds1.hundreds1 (INFO), minutes2:seconds2.hundreds2 (INFO), etc (INFO) = *minutes:seconds.hundreds* 
EventcommentB: Again, lots of text
An example (INFO can be POP if a piece pops, O/P/OP for parities):
*4x4x4*: 1:36.61 (OP) 1:31.06 (O) 1:37.71 (P) 1:55.06 1:58.55 (P) = *1:43.13*
Comment: Started good, lost focus after first 3
*5x5x5*: 2:40.86 2:39.91 2:24.52 2:23.55 2:37.09 = *2:33.84*
*2x2x2_bf*: DNF, DNF = *DNF*
Comment: Tried to go fast, failed
*3x3x3_bf*: 6:43.40, 6:56.11 = *6:43.40*
Comment: yeah, got both
*Relay*: *5:28.02* (OP)
Comment: I hate parities on 4x4x4
*Square-1*: 1:18.68 1:11.78 1:01.90 1:43.59 (P) 1:12.21 = *1:14.22*
Comment: I really hate parity on square-1
*MegaMinx*: 3:41.81 3:33.91 5:01.72 (POP) 3:18.59 3:21.94 = *3:32.55*
Comment: Chines megaminxes can pop and those pieces are hard to find

*5. Voting: *I will start a new voting list. Just to make sure all votes are still valid I will remove everything that has < 5 votes.

I hope everyone likes my proposal. Please tell me your ideas and tell me which system for points you would like.


----------



## jeff081692 (Dec 30, 2007)

I like the 3b idea for points.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 30, 2007)

I agree with most of these, and like the effort you put in. For the scoring, I think a combination of these two would work better. Weighting, for example, the less popular events with less points, taking the concepts of the second scoring and adapting them to the first. 5x5x5_blind (13/11/9 + 9) is a little much when in the other scoring, the winner would only get 2 points. I'm not sure what scoring system would be best, but this is the one thing I thought of initially.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 30, 2007)

This is something that *screams* for automation, doesn't it? (I haven't been involved in these competitions yet, so I don't know them much)


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 30, 2007)

I think this is why arnaud is trying to get people to use the "standard" result input. All he would have to do is write a program and copy and paste results for each person.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 30, 2007)

Would still be easier and less error-prone if people entered the data into a form on some website. Somewhat like Ryan does it:
http://www.ryanheise.com/competitions/


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 30, 2007)

I have already written a program that accepts "results" and gets the times from them, then calculates the average. It is not perfect, but it is pretty good. The only things it cannot handle are comments inside the results and results on multiple lines (like Worms does a lot). I hope you don't think that I have typed all these results every time. Copy/Paste every result is pretty much all there is to it.

I don't like the idea of automation because that forces people to post results in a very strict format. And at this moment it is not possible to have the automation-form in this forum which means that a lot of work would have to be done to make sure people can only post results for them, not others and editing results would be almost impossible.


----------



## tim (Dec 30, 2007)

masterofthebass said:


> ...copy and paste results for each person.



What a pain!
I'm currently planing a web site, where everyone can create competitions and take part in competitions. These competitions will of course be fully automated. So, everything you have to do is: being patient .


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

tim said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > ...copy and paste results for each person.
> ...


Sounds interesting. Please keep me informed.

How would you handle "account synchronisation"?


----------



## Pedro (Dec 31, 2007)

I like the first idea for points...

giving a "participation" point for everyone and more for 1st, 2nd and 3rd...


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

The good thing about option 3a is that it motivates people to learn the harder events (5x5x5 bld). So someone that has spent a month on learning 5x5x5_bf will get more points then someone that has spent 5 minutes on learning Magic.

The good thing about option 3b is that if you are good at an event that lots of people do (3x3x3) you earn a lot of points. (with the current system people that are really good at 3x3x3 will be high on the list for that event, but low on the "all-round" ranking)

I have tried to find an option 3c that combines the positive points from 3a and 3b, but I have failed. I really hope someone has an idea for a points system that:
a) Motivates people of all levels to participate
b) Rewards people that are faster than others
c) Rewards people with special skills


----------



## ExoCorsair (Dec 31, 2007)

I like scoring option 3a, but please elaborate on the multi-blind event.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> I don't like the idea of automation because that forces people to post results in a very strict format.


And you don't? Granted, you let people add comments, but so does Ryan's competition. What other freedom do you need (this is an honest question based on my above-mentioned unfamiliarity with this competition).



AvGalen said:


> a lot of work would have to be done to make sure people can only post results for them, not others and editing results would be almost impossible.


I don't think so.

Looking forward to Tim's system...


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I don't like the idea of automation because that forces people to post results in a very strict format.
> ...


No, I only made a suggestion for a recommended format. I have done so in the past and while some people have adjusted their postings, others haven't. I just accept their results anyway. Some examples of the freedom people have right now are:

Use different seperators (9,91 vs 9.91)
Use different time units (1:30.01 vs 90.01)
Post results in several posts (all regular solves on monday, blind on wednesday, fewest moves on sunday)
Use different alignment, formatting, etc (lets show some examples)
http://www.speedsolving.com/showpost.php?p=25247&postcount=3
3x3x3: 23.33
(24.86) 23.83 (22.32) 23.40 22.78

http://www.speedsolving.com/showpost.php?p=25259&postcount=4
3x3x3
1. 37.02
2. 39.30
3. (41.48)
4. (33.83)
5. 41.24

http://www.speedsolving.com/showpost.php?p=25294&postcount=6
3: (15.71), 14.46, 13.08, 11.75, (11.41)=>13.10 it got better and better





StefanPochmann said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > a lot of work would have to be done to make sure people can only post results for them, not others and editing results would be almost impossible.
> ...


We would need to build a system that synchronises the accounts between that entry-form and the forum members database.
We would need a specific begin/enddate for every competition to disallow editing before/after competition
We would need functionality to add events
We would need functionality to check input (dnf is allowed input, 1:21 1:22 1:23 is not because there should be 1 (fmc) 2 (blind) or 5 (other events) results)
We would need functionality to copy the inserted results to a post in a topic.
Basically all flexibility I have right now would have to be converted to software-rules and people that just enjoy the competition right now would become "data-entry-personel".


----------



## Stefan (Dec 31, 2007)

I don't see why any of those points should be a problem for an automated system, and some of them are even trivial.

Also, I believe the current system already requires stricter formatting than you allow/request. Only it's done by you for everybody, instead of everybody doing it for himself.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

None of these points have to be a problem, but they do require a lot of programming.

And the current system requires pretty strict input indeed, but there is still a human that can handle the weird cases.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> None of these points have to be a problem, but they do require a lot of programming.


Depends on how you do it. I read you have some parser already. Written in what language and how? Regular expressions can take you a long way and make things very easy.



AvGalen said:


> but there is still a human that can handle the weird cases.


And with the automated system, there will be *many* humans who can handle the weird cases. Really, that's what it comes down to. People doing their homework on their own rather than making you do it.


----------



## tim (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> We would need to build a system that synchronises the accounts between that entry-form and the forum members database.


I won't add this synchronization feature, because i don't write this application just for this forum.


AvGalen said:


> We would need a specific begin/enddate for every competition to disallow editing before/after competition


Anything else than a specific begin/end date is hard to program .


AvGalen said:


> We would need functionality to add events


Easy to implement.


AvGalen said:


> We would need functionality to check input (dnf is allowed input, 1:21 1:22 1:23 is not because there should be 1 (fmc) 2 (blind) or 5 (other events) results)


I'll plan to write the program as generic as possible, so the person who adds an event/puzzle has to specify the input format (or just choose a common one from a list).


AvGalen said:


> We would need functionality to copy the inserted results to a post in a topic.
> Basically all flexibility I have right now would have to be converted to software-rules and people that just enjoy the competition right now would become "data-entry-personel".


There'll be a comment feature for a competition, so people can discuss their entries, personal bests etc.


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2007)

Wow, I will definitely get involved in this next year. I must say a big thank you to Mr. van Galen, who obviously goes to great lengths to make this happen for everyone  . Of course, thanks to Mr. Pochmann for settling for nothing but the best  . And to you Mr. Tim, thank you for the effort that you are putting into this site, I hope it can be of great use to those involved. I don't expect myself to get a particularly good score (amount of points), but hopefully this will help show my progress over time for the coming year!

Edit: van Galen, right I see! (sorry, not used to having "van" as part of a surname). Fixed that up  .


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

Tim, Stefan: I could send you the source code (or the program itself) I use right now. It is a really small program that was written in VB.NET and should be easily convertable to any other language that can do some simple string/datetime manipulation.

I think the biggest problem will be the account-synchronisation. It would be very easy to change this program to a webbased input-form, but incorporating it into the forum is a big challenge.

(and Dene, it is either Arnaud, or Mr. van Galen)


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm not even sure there is any way to do automated forum synchronization. An idea for this though, is when a person inputs their scores, the web form spits out a formatted post of all of the scores they entered, so the person could then just copy and paste their results. For the form I have a few ideas (most of which are probably not even really ideas, but common sense):

-Maybe have an account used to keep track of a persons results, and also prevent others from posting results for a person.
-Have the ability that when you log in for a second input, you're previously entered results are filled in for you, allowing the editing of times and such.


This website would probably be done best with some sort of SQL database, but I personally have almost no experience with programming for the web. I'm sure someone on this forum could help, or maybe we can seek out extra help from someone in the community. I don't think this job would be too difficult to do, especially with all of the people who can contribute.


----------



## joey (Dec 31, 2007)

What tim is working on using an SQL database, I assume. Also tim knows that I am here to contribute whenever needed.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

I like that idea of a webform that produces "correctly formatted posts". I still don't have a (publicly accessible) webserver, so I have to look into this for a while.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2007)

Back to the points, why not use 3b as your method, but with 3a's participation points added? It seems to me like that would be a pretty good "3c". So if 5 people participate in 5x5x5 BLD, the top place gets 5 + 9 points, second gets 4 + 9, third gets 3 + 9, fourth gets 2 + 9, and fifth gets 1 + 9.

Also, are you figuring that participation points count when the entire event is a DNF? (I would think so, but I just thought it would be nice to clarify.)

How about placing points? So for 3b, if there are 3 people out of 6 with DNFs, do the bottom 3 each get 3 points (since they tied for third to last), or do they get 2 points (they split the points for the last 3 places among them), or do they get zero points (since they DNFed)?

By the way, I like the idea of including all official events in the competition. On several occasions, I thought about voting for all the remaining official events to be included in the competition, but I never did because I figured I was already having trouble keeping up with the events as they were. But I think this is a very good idea.


----------



## CraigBouchard (Dec 31, 2007)

Haven't read every post, but...

I like 3a, because if someone did a 5x5 BLD, and only got 2 points, how is that fair? They've put a lot of time and effort into learning and doing it, and they should get a decent amount of points, especially because there are less than 10 people in the world who do it (on a regular basis)


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

Why didn't I think of that Mike? Unless someone else comes up with an even better idea, this is how 3c will be:
3c. Fixed participation points + "popularity sensitive" winner points

2x2x2 (2)
3x3x3 (3)
4x4x4 (4)
5x5x5 (5)
2x2x2_blind (3)
3x3x3_blind (5)
4x4x4_blind (7)
5x5x5_blind (9)
3x3x3_multi_blind (3 + 2 per cube)
3x3x3_one_handed (4)
3x3x3_with_feet (4)
3x3x3_fewest_moves (10)
magic (1)
master_magic (1)
clock (2)
megaminx (4)
pyraminx (2)
square-1 (4)
2x2x2_3x3x3_4x4x4_5x5x5_relay (6)
*Participation points (see above): *You only get participation points if you complete the event. That means that 1 5x5x5_bf is not enough, you need to do 2. If you DNF both, you will get the participation points anyway. If you don't know how to solve a puzzle you shouldn't participate (you shouldn't participate in 4x4x4_bf if all you know how to do is edges) officially, but if you can do so unofficially (no points will be rewarded, but you can practise and tell others how far you have come).
*Winner points: *If 15 people participate in an event, the winner will get 15 points, 2nd place gets 14 points and final place gets 1 point. If two people would share 2nd place to would both get 14 points and the one behind them would get 12 points. If 3 people all finish last with DNF they will all get 1 point (not 3) anyway. For multi-blind it is also important to give your time (even for 0/xx). 4 cubes in 1:00:01.01 would be DNF, 3/4 in 59:59.99 wouldn't be.

Craig: That is the advantage of 3a, but if someone would win 3x3x3 when 50 people participate in at, it is more impressive than if 1 person solves a 5x5x5_bf in 59 minutes. In that case option 3b would have been more fair. Option 3c would be good for both situations


----------



## Pedro (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> *Participation points (see above): *You only get participation points if you complete the event. That means that 1 5x5x5_bf is not enough, you need to do 2. If you DNF both, you will get the participation points anyway.



didn't get this part...so, if I DNF one attempt I get no points, but if I DNF both I get participation points?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> 4 cubes in 1:00:01.01 would be DNF, 3/4 in 59:59.99 wouldn't be.



I think I missed something somewhere - is there a restriction that you have to finish in under an hour? Where is that restriction coming from? Does it apply to other events?

Other than that (which I'm okay with, but I just didn't know about), I like everything you're proposing, and I really like 3c as a choice.

Now I just need to come up with $100 so I can buy a Clock off of you.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

Pedro said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > *Participation points (see above): *You only get participation points if you complete the event. That means that 1 5x5x5_bf is not enough, you need to do 2. If you DNF both, you will get the participation points anyway.
> ...


That is correct. In the past we have had people that only did 2 megaminx solves, or only one 3x3x3_bf solve. I don't consider that participating. If the event is best of 2, you have to do 2 solves (even if you break the world-record on the first attempt) otherwise you will not get participation points.

Mike, we follow the WCA rules and those state:


> H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is the sum of: 15 minutes per cube for each cube up to 6 cubes, 10 minutes per cube for each cube more than 6 cubes.


 
And I have a first bid for a clock: 100 dollars


----------



## ExoCorsair (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> And I have a first bid for a clock: 100 dollars



I hope that's not USD. 

I like 3c.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> That is correct. In the past we have had people that only did 2 megaminx solves, or only one 3x3x3_bf solve. I don't consider that participating. If the event is best of 2, you have to do 2 solves (even if you break the world-record on the first attempt) otherwise you will not get participation points.



wait...do you mean...I have to *at least try* all my attempts, right?

if I do "1:20, DNF", I still get my participation points...


----------



## pjk (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm still in the process of creating a simpler way for people to format results via BB code. I plan to work on it this upcoming year a lot more. And I will look into ways to make these competitions easier to handle. I may be able to setup an automation system, but not positive.

Arnaud, thanks a lot for all the work you put into these competitions!


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

Pedro said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > That is correct. In the past we have had people that only did 2 megaminx solves, or only one 3x3x3_bf solve. I don't consider that participating. If the event is best of 2, you have to do 2 solves (even if you break the world-record on the first attempt) otherwise you will not get participation points.
> ...


Correct. You need to attempt all your attempts (seems logical to me)

Even DNF, DNF would get you your participation points.
But DNF, DNS or 37.99, DNS don't give you participation points.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Even DNF, DNF would get you your participation points.
> But DNF, DNS or 37.99, DNS don't give you participation points.



So any DNS (even DNS'ing one out of five) invalidates us from participation points? Can we still get winning points with a DNS?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Mike, we follow the WCA rules and those state:
> 
> 
> > H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is the sum of: 15 minutes per cube for each cube up to 6 cubes, 10 minutes per cube for each cube more than 6 cubes.


Thanks - I had missed that back a while ago when I read the rules before I started trying them at home. It seems very logical to me - I just didn't know the rule.



AvGalen said:


> And I have a first bid for a clock: 100 dollars


I'm going to have to retract my bid - I want points, but not that bad! I hope you won't think less of me for it. 

Oh, and I see that you're going with best of 3 for all blindfold attempts? So to get participation points at 5x5x5 BLD, you have to do all 3 attempts? That sounds good for me!


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 31, 2007)

You can get winning points if you do 1 solve and DNS the rest. If you DNS one solve you cannot get participation points anymore


----------



## andrewvo1324 (Dec 31, 2007)

Im confused caused im new...

IS this the sunday weekyl contest?

or like a real contest in different cities..


EDIT: This is the one that you host lol MY BAD!!!


----------



## CraigBouchard (Dec 31, 2007)

I have a clock for sale. With original box. It is fairly stiff...but if someone pays me for it, plus shipping, I'll send it anywhere in the world...

As for the system, I still find a 5x5 BLD more impressive than someone who is faster than 50 others at 3x3. Maybe that is just me...

Craig


----------



## CraigBouchard (Dec 31, 2007)

Also, what about applying this to real competitions, so that they can give out an award, "Best Cuber" or something...that way it awards people who do ALL events...As opposed to someone who does JUST 3x3, and is really good at it *cough* Harris *cough*.

At Canadian Competitions, Harris may come first, and win say...50 points, plus the participation, and then I may go and compete in EVERY event, and come say...3rd in each one (hypothetically) So that would be all the participation points...Maybe 30 in total based on what you said...And then the award points, but not all events have a lot of people...so I may only end up with 49 points for coming in 3rd in every event except the 3x3...And so I wouldn't be the best all around cuber, Harris would be, even though I do a lot more than him, and am fairly successful at it. It just *seems* faulty in a way.

Craig


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 31, 2007)

Alright, next time I'm going to attempt a 4x4x4 BLD. Then I'll try the other scramble(s), stare all the faces for a minute, put on the BLD, and say I forgot most of my memo. That makes enough for participation... :confused:


----------



## CraigBouchard (Dec 31, 2007)

Or you could just do one, and then SAY the other one is a DNF even you you never tried it...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2007)

CraigBouchard said:


> Or you could just do one, and then SAY the other one is a DNF even you you never tried it...



No, technically that would be cheating, but what Lucas is proposing technically would NOT be cheating. Of course, you could still do what you're saying, but you'd have to live with the fact that you cheated. And I really don't think we have many cheaters on the online competition - that would be even more idiotic than memorizing prepared speedsolves and making a video claiming that they're ordinary solves. 

I think I could see someone doing what Lucas is suggesting, but I still think we ought to at least somewhat discourage it. Arnaud has already done something similar with fewest moves - when he first set it up he made it clear that people shouldn't submit a 3-minute ordinary solution without at least trying to do something to minimize their solution.

I will continue to post my memorization and DNF times for my big cubes BLD, so people can see I'm not doing Lucas's thing.


----------



## CraigBouchard (Dec 31, 2007)

Yeah, I know it would technically be cheating, but I mean, with the discussion going on about the new blindfolds, I guess anything is possible, and people are apparently willing to do anything to win something as silly as an online competition, with no prize. (Not offending this competition at all, I love it, but I am just saying that people have hit a new low, according to Stefan)


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 1, 2008)

With Mike's 3c option, I think that it is the best. Another way for keeping track of times could be using excel. I know that I just copy and paste the scrambles into excel and keep track of my times that way. I also know that there are programming languages (Python being one of them) that can access .xls files. This could provide a relatively easy way to do the scores. Just another option...


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jan 1, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> I also know that there are programming languages (Python being one of them) that can access .xls files.



Any programming language with file I/O can access Excel files.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 1, 2008)

Well I meant without having to parse through all the extra Office crap. I know that there are libraries that are made specifically used for excel in Python, allowing you to reference cells, worksheets, etc. There should be something similar for other languages, probably in .NET ones.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

CraigBouchard said:


> Also, what about applying this to real competitions, so that they can give out an award, "Best Cuber" or something...that way it awards people who do ALL events...As opposed to someone who does JUST 3x3, and is really good at it *cough* Harris *cough*.
> 
> At Canadian Competitions, Harris may come first, and win say...50 points, plus the participation, and then I may go and compete in EVERY event, and come say...3rd in each one (hypothetically) So that would be all the participation points...Maybe 30 in total based on what you said...And then the award points, but not all events have a lot of people...so I may only end up with 49 points for coming in 3rd in every event except the 3x3...And so I wouldn't be the best all around cuber, Harris would be, even though I do a lot more than him, and am fairly successful at it. It just *seems* faulty in a way.
> 
> Craig


Craig: If 50 people participate in 3x3x3 and you end up as nr. 10 and Harris as nr. 1 you will only be 9 points behind him. Just by competing in 5x5x5_bf you will beat him. If you look at the results from last year you will see that people that participate in lots of events are high in the overall rankings, not people that just do 1 event.

And I am not worried about cheating. Everyone could post whatever results they want for every event, take over an hour for fewest moves and use a computer or alg-sheet, not really attempt blindfolded at all, do one-handed with 2 hands or whatever. 

I have one important question: Can anyone explain the clock-scrambler to me?

(and for people that want to access data in Excel without all the Office-crap, just save the sheet as a Comma-Seperated-Values file.)


----------



## Erik (Jan 1, 2008)

Personally I don't care about clock at all and I wonder who does. For me the only reason I do it is because it's an official event...
The scrambler basically shows the position of the pins and which clock to turn how far.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

Well, 10 people voted for clock and it is an official event, so including clock was a no-brainer.

I understand that 
UU u=2
dd d=5

means UUdd means that the UL and UR pins are up and DL and DR pins are down. But which of the four corners is u and which is d?


----------



## Henrik (Jan 1, 2008)

As far as i remember and understood when i looked into this the u and d means a wheel.
u=2 means that you turn a wheel where a pin i up, 2 hours clockwise
d=5 means that you turn a wheel where a pin i down 5 hours clockwise

So you have two choices of what wheels to turn in this case. Later you have three (3) for an up pin and one for a down pin and the other way around.

If I got it wrong please correct me. (Stefan?)


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

That is what I tried, before, but even after checking 3 times I never got the correct result. I must have made mistakes, because I got it correct now the first time.


----------



## CraigBouchard (Jan 4, 2008)

So what did we decide on? The participation points as laid out in the original post, with the bonus of having last place get 1 point, and every place above that get 1 more, and is there a minimum?


----------



## hdskull (Jan 4, 2008)

*Sikan Li*

*2x2x2*: 6.75, (7.08), 7.03, 6.28, (6.06) => 6.69

*3x3x3*: 

*4x4x4*: 1:58.08 OP, 1:55.88 OP, (2:01.41 OP), (1:45.83), 1:51.61 OP => 1:55.19
Bad luck with the Parities, hahaha.

*2x2x2 BLD*: 38.92, 65.89, 76.34 => 38.92

*3x3x3 BLD*: 

*3x3x3 Multi BLD*:

*3x3x3 OH*: 27.86, 27.22, (24.52), (29.74), 28.88 => 27.97

*3x3x3 FMC*:


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 4, 2008)

Sikan, wrong thread... I'll move it for you.


----------



## hdskull (Jan 4, 2008)

Oh lol, thanks.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 4, 2008)

CraigBouchard said:


> So what did we decide on? The participation points as laid out in the original post, with the bonus of having last place get 1 point, and every place above that get 1 more, and is there a minimum?


We haven't decided on anything yet, but it looks like 3c is going to be the winner.

I am thinking about giving "partial participation points" though:
For 4x4x4_bf and 5x5x5_bf I might give participation points even if you just do 1 cube (if 3 cubes give you 10 points 1 cube would give you 3 points)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 4, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I am thinking about giving "partial participation points" though:
> For 4x4x4_bf and 5x5x5_bf I might give participation points even if you just do 1 cube (if 3 cubes give you 10 points 1 cube would give you 3 points)



That will decrease my advantage significantly (since I'll always do them all, and probably no one else will), so I should vote against it for selfish reasons, but honestly I'll admit that makes sense.


----------



## tim (Jan 5, 2008)

I don't like participation points at all. If i dnf 3 4x4x4 in a row, i want to get exactly *0* points, because i don't deserve more.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 5, 2008)

Participation points can also be named encouragement points. They are meant to encourage people to take part in the competition and also in many events. The fact that I would get points for "with feet" _almost_ made me try it. I think 3 attempts for 5x5x5_bf (or else no encouragement points) would not encourage people to try it as much


----------



## MistArts (Feb 3, 2008)

3b idea for points..............but then what are they for?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 11, 2008)

So now that the new rules are in effect, will we start applying the new rules with next week's competition? (2008-16) I assume it's too late to do it for this week's (2008-15), since some people have already done them prior to the rules finalization, and besides, the big cube scrambles are not correct. 

And by the way, Arnaud, are you going to change to the new scramble notation next week?

There are some big changes that we'll all need to get used to, like the 15 seconds total time for inspection, and the blindfold removing-the-cover thing (and I assume we'll have to find some stand or other barrier to solve behind, if we want to be truly legitimate?). And Arnaud, what about the fewest moves scramble - will we switch to just a single Cube Explorer-generated scramble, instead of the long/short scrambles we're currently using? It would prevent the problem I think I ran into with 2008-14 (where it looked to me like the shortened and original scrambles were different - I'm still hoping I wasn't mistaken about that).


----------



## shafiqdms1 (May 28, 2008)

So like what is the purpose of these points given?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 12, 2008)

There isn't really a purpose other then to compare yourself to others and get some statistics/ranking.


----------



## mazei (Nov 27, 2008)

You know like badminton rankings(well badminton is quite big in my country, so yeah), they are measured by points given to the players.

My thought was why not have that in the whole WCA(well this competition already has it). Well my idea is a little tough but not impossible. Maybe we can separate the points given in each event. So like 3x3 has its own points tally, 3x3 OH has its own, 5x5 BLD has its own,etc. but there is also another point tally which is the total so that those who are all-rounded are also looked at. Maybe if you do it that way then I don't think there would be all this talk about comparing which is more amazing, getting first out of 50 people in 3x3 or doing 5x5 BLD.

With that I go with 3c.

I just realized that maybe this should be on the WCA forum instead of here. But we can use it here as well(the separation of events)


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 2, 2008)

mazei said:


> You know like badminton rankings(well badminton is quite big in my country, so yeah), they are measured by points given to the players.
> 
> My thought was why not have that in the whole WCA(well this competition already has it). Well my idea is a little tough but not impossible. Maybe we can separate the points given in each event. So like 3x3 has its own points tally, 3x3 OH has its own, 5x5 BLD has its own,etc. but there is also another point tally which is the total so that those who are all-rounded are also looked at. Maybe if you do it that way then I don't think there would be all this talk about comparing which is more amazing, getting first out of 50 people in 3x3 or doing 5x5 BLD.
> 
> ...



that seems unfair towards people who cannot go to a lot of competitions, or who have not been competing as long. Also, some sort of contrived points system would definitely not stop the arguing as to who is better.


----------



## mazei (Dec 2, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> mazei said:
> 
> 
> > You know like badminton rankings(well badminton is quite big in my country, so yeah), they are measured by points given to the players.
> ...



True. Perhaps should just try a medal tally type of system?


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 2, 2008)

mazei said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > mazei said:
> ...



they're way ahead of you: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php

its a neat page, with a lot of cool stats


----------



## mazei (Dec 3, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> mazei said:
> 
> 
> > Vault312 said:
> ...



I know about that but do they actually use it?


----------

