# Multi Blindfolded at Paris World Championship



## applezfall (Jul 15, 2017)

so his best was 40/46 
Shivam Bansal got 37/40
I am sad .
What do you think about this?


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 15, 2017)

He would've won if he attempted fewer cubes.

Also can you not make the title so silly


----------



## applezfall (Jul 15, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> He would've won if he attempted fewer cubes.
> 
> Also can you not make the title so silly


1.yea that makes sense
2.NOOOOOOGIOOOIOOOOOI¿??????¿??¿??


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 15, 2017)

Well thats just how things happen. Congrats to Shivam!


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> so his best was 40/46
> Shivam Bansal got 37/40
> I am sad .
> What do you think about this?



I'm happy for Shivam. 37/40 is a very impressive result and he's very deserving of being world champion. For something as skill-based as MBLD (as opposed to more luck-based events like 2x2 and Pyraminx), whoever wins automatically deserves it, in my opinion.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 15, 2017)

I was kinda hoping for Marcin to break the WR and win worlds, but I'm also super happy for Shivam for winning _Worlds_.
I think the best part is that Shivam only beat him by 15 seconds...


----------



## applezfall (Jul 15, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> I'm happy for Shivam. 37/40 is a very impressive result and he's very deserving of being world champion. For something as skill-based as MBLD (as opposed to more luck-based events like 2x2 and Pyraminx), whoever wins automatically deserves it, in my opinion.


ya I didn't say Shivam is bad at multiblind I just think Maskow deserves it more 
Plus the mbld system is not very good if Maskow solves 40 cubes from 46 cubes and Shivam solves 37 cubes from 40.Who do you think is better someone who solves 40 cubes or the person who solves 37 cubes.


----------



## alisterprofitt (Jul 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> ya I didn't say Shivam is bad at multiblind I just think Maskow deserves it more
> Plus the mbld system is not very good if Maskow solves 40 cubes from 46 cubes and Shivam solves 37 cubes from 40.Who do you think is better someone who solves 40 cubes or the person who solves 37 cubes.


You can choose the amount of cubes you solve, so there's no need to blame the rules and regulation.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 15, 2017)

alisterprofitt said:


> You can choose the amount of cubes you solve, so there's no need to blame the rules and regulation.


I know but in mbld people want to see who can solve the most cubes blindfolded so why should the person who solves 37 cubes win just cause he does less cube,but the person who does 40 cubes is consider worse because he tries more cubes.WHY?


----------



## Pyjam (Jul 15, 2017)

Because if you want to try X cubes, it's easier to try 100 cubes and select X easy scrambles among 100 than to have to solve the X scrambles you are given to.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> I know but in mbld people want to see who can solve the most cubes blindfolded so why should the person who solves 37 cubes win just cause he does less cube,but the person who does 40 cubes is consider worse because he tries more cubes.WHY?



I believe the reason would be to reward accuracy, and to prevent some people from doing more than what they could reasonably do.

I think you are a little more upset over this than you should be, I'm pretty sure Marcin himself is very happy for Shivam.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 15, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I believe the reason would be to reward accuracy, and to prevent some people from doing more than what they could reasonably do
> 
> I think you are a little more upset over this than you should be, I'm pretty sure Marcin himself is very happy for Shivam.


your argument is good and I think Shivam is very good but I was saying it doesn't reward people who can solve more cubes blindfolded but I dont really care


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 15, 2017)

Maskow clearly made the decision to go for WR rather than the win.

Congrats to Shivam for winning Worlds, and congrats to Maskow for setting a WR 4 years ago that's so good it still stands.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 15, 2017)

dude chill out lmao

Both are great MBLDers so I really don't have a problem with Shivam winning


----------



## Ollie (Jul 15, 2017)

That's a paddlin'


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 15, 2017)

I think something happened to Ollie, maybe he got cursed and he can only say "that's a paddlin'".


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 15, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> I'm happy for Shivam. 37/40 is a very impressive result and he's very deserving of being world champion. For something as skill-based as MBLD (as opposed to more luck-based events like 2x2 and Pyraminx), whoever wins automatically deserves it, in my opinion.



Why wouldn't a winner in a "luck-based" event automatically deserve it? If *you* win pyraminx at a competition, do you fee like a "*fraud*"?


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 16, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> Why wouldn't a winner in a "luck-based" event automatically deserve it? If *you* win pyraminx at a competition, do you fee like a "*fraud*"?



If I don't deserve it, kind of.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 16, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> If I don't deserve it, kind of.



Why won't you deserve it? You got the time. "Luck" is a legitimate way to win. I think it was Michael Lane that said, "Getting lucky isn't a crime."


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 16, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> Why won't you deserve it? You got the time. "Luck" is a legitimate way to win. I think it was Michael Lane that said, "Getting lucky isn't a crime."



*Mitchell Lane, and that quote is way before Mitch got a 6.25 (I believe by Erik after his 7.08?).

Well, if I didn't put the work into getting the time, and it just so happens that everyone that worked way harder than me just failed, I would feel like it was a fluked win. To use a non-cubing example, take Steven Bradbury's gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was in no way a contender to win, but by a little accident that caused everyone who was faster than him and probably more deserved of the gold medal, he ended winning. He didn't deserve to win, but he did. It is what it is.

Just because a result is in your favor doesn't mean you deserved it. Life doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't in cubing. But it is what it is.


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 16, 2017)

@the few messages before me
i've gotten results that i didn't really deserve before (1.63 pyra single and 4.07 skewb average come to mind) and it definitely didn't feel like i had accomplished anything, mainly since the scrambles were stupidly easy. i've podiumed in MBLD with 1 point and i didn't feel like i deserved it, and i know someone who's won with 0. people got really angry that christian kaserer got the 2x2 WR single a while back, because nobody had heard of him until then.

tl;dr: no not everyone technically "deserves" their results, if they get lucky scrambles or everyone else does badly, if they haven't put a lot of effort into it.


----------



## Douf (Jul 16, 2017)

applezfall said:


> your argument is good and I think Shivam is very good but I was saying it doesn't reward people who can solve more cubes blindfolded but I dont really care


He solved more but he also got more wrong, too.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 16, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I think something happened to Ollie, maybe he got cursed and he can only say "that's a paddlin'".


Yea lol idk what a paddlin even is


----------



## Tabe (Jul 16, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> To use a non-cubing example, take Steven Bradbury's gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was in no way a contender to win, but by a little accident that caused everyone who was faster than him and probably more deserved of the gold medal, he ended winning. He didn't deserve to win, but he did. It is what it is.


Not crashing is a skill, too. Bradbury intentionally hung back with the expectation his opponents would crash. He was right. He 100% deserved that win.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 16, 2017)

Tabe said:


> Not crashing is a skill, too. Bradbury intentionally hung back with the expectation his opponents would crash. He was right. He 100% deserved that win.


That's actually a good point, but there's definitely that feeling that there were people who probably deserved it more if it were not for the crash. But yeah, I do agree with you there.


----------



## Tabe (Jul 16, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> That's actually a good point, but there's definitely that feeling that there were people who probably deserved it more if it were not for the crash. But yeah, I do agree with you there.


Nobody questions whether the winner of the Indy 500 or Daytona "deserves" to win after other guys crash. Same thing here.


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 16, 2017)

Tabe said:


> Nobody questions whether the winner of the Indy 500 or Daytona "deserves" to win after other guys crash. Same thing here.


I do agree with you on that, what I'm saying is that there's always that lingering feeling of "what could've been" if there was no crash, if you understand what I'm saying.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 16, 2017)

applezfall said:


> I know but in mbld people want to see who can solve the most cubes blindfolded so why should the person who solves 37 cubes win just cause he does less cube,but the person who does 40 cubes is consider worse because he tries more cubes.WHY?


If I just go for 10 sextillion cubes, and do a handscramble to each one without even memorizing them, statistically speaking I should have 231 cubes solved.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 16, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If I just go for 10 sextillion cubes, and do a handscramble to each one without even memorizing them, statistically speaking I should have 231 cubes solved.


1.you dont have 10 sextillion cubes
2.231 cubes will take more than 1 hour and you probably couldn't get even 1/8 of them


----------



## turtwig (Jul 16, 2017)

applezfall said:


> 1.you dont have 10 sextillion cubes
> 2.231 cubes will take more than 1 hour and you probably couldn't get even 1/8 of them



The point still stands. If it were just how many cubes were solved, everyone would just attempt with all the cubes they owned to get a tiny advantage. Not only would that be a nightmare for the scramblers, it's not really what we want. I guess people a few years ago decided that they wanted to see accuracy and people attempting numbers that they can actually realistically do. I guess you could argue for only number of cubes solved, but at this point no one really cares to change the format and I doubt we ever will, so you're out of luck.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 16, 2017)

turtwig said:


> The point still stands. If it were just how many cubes were solved, everyone would just attempt with all the cubes they owned to get a tiny advantage. Not only would that be a nightmare for the scramblers, it's not really what we want. I guess people a few years ago decided that they wanted to see accuracy and people attempting numbers that they can actually realistically do. I guess you could argue for only number of cubes solved, but at this point no one really cares to change the format and I doubt we ever will, so you're out of luck.


yeah you are right but you can argue both ways


----------



## Christopher Cabrera (Jul 16, 2017)

applezfall said:


> yeah you are right but you can argue both ways


most memory sports outside of cubing reward accuracy over volume. In some disciplines one mistake is enough to invalidate an entire attempt. I like the way the current multi system is setup because it values humility and discipline over flashiness.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jul 16, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If I just go for 10 sextillion cubes, and do a handscramble to each one without even memorizing them, statistically speaking I should have 231 cubes solved.


Out of 10 sextillion cubes 231 would already be solved


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 16, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> That's actually a good point, but there's definitely that feeling that there were people who probably deserved it more if it were not for the crash. But yeah, I do agree with you there.



Strategy matters a lot. You don't always have to be the best to win (or "deserve" it).

For Mbld, attempting fewer cubes but knowing you can get close to all solved is a strategic move. 

Only a weak-minded person would mistake being lucky for being fraudulent.


----------



## turtwig (Jul 16, 2017)

Rcuber123 said:


> Out of 10 sextillion cubes 231 would already be solved



If the cubes were in a random state, then yes, but the scrambles generated for competitions need a minimum of 2 moves away from being solved (although I heard that whatever they use to generate the scrambles actually makes the minimum 13), so it would be impossible to actually receive a solved cube (though a lot of them probably could be 1-looked).


----------



## Christopher Cabrera (Jul 16, 2017)

turtwig said:


> (though a lot of them probably could be 1-looked).


all BLD solves are one looks


----------



## Alex B71 (Jul 16, 2017)

Useless? Don't trash on Maskow because he didn't break the WR. He set that years ago at a time when 30+ was considered a godly achievement. He's the best to ever do it. (Yeah for some reason i did take the title a little personally)


----------



## turtwig (Jul 16, 2017)

Alex B71 said:


> Useless? Don't trash on Maskow because he didn't break the WR. He set that years ago at a time when 30+ was considered a godly achievement. He's the best to ever do it. (Yeah for some reason i did take the title a little personally)



Haha, the title 'useless' is referring to the uselessness of this thread, not Maskow. The original title for this thread was something silly like 'NOO Maskow lost MBLD WHYYY!', and a lot of people were criticizing the creator of the thread as the thread was pretty useless, so I guess someone changed the title.


----------



## Alex B71 (Jul 16, 2017)

turtwig said:


> Haha, the title 'useless' is referring to the uselessness of this thread, not Maskow. The original title for this thread was something silly like 'NOO Maskow lost MBLD WHYYY!', and a lot of people were criticizing the creator of the thread as the thread was pretty useless, so I guess someone changed the title.


Ahh, i see. Well my point still stands........... the point i am weirdly in love with Maskow.


----------



## Douf (Jul 17, 2017)

Tabe said:


> Nobody questions whether the winner of the Indy 500 or Daytona "deserves" to win after other guys crash. Same thing here.


But I don't think they were hanging back with the racing strategy of 'expecting everyone ahead of them to crash'. I'm pretty sure not a single professional or even amateur athlete in the world competes with that strategy in mind. Yes the speedskater earned the win, but he certainly did not deserve it.


----------



## tx789 (Jul 17, 2017)

What sounds more impressive a 38/40 Multi or a 37/50 accurately should be rewarded. Someone could attmept 100 cubes and memo only 25 DNFing the rest, if most cubes attempted was who won regradless of the amount solved is silly. Maskow sai he is out of practise and it seems some of his fanboys are more upset than him. 

I have heard people complaining about MultiBLD socring but what is an alternative. It woud have to be complicated. The simipliest is most cube solved regradless of number of attempted. Issues with that accurately is not rewarded as much. 15/15 is better than 16/23 by this system but that person missed 7 cubes while the person they beat missed none.


----------



## qaz (Jul 17, 2017)

Maybe it should be a requirement that every cube be solved at the end of the attempt, otherwise it's a DNF. That would solve all the problems for sure.


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 17, 2017)

qaz said:


> Maybe it should be a requirement that every cube be solved at the end of the attempt, otherwise it's a DNF. That would solve all the problems for sure.


i sincerely hope you're joking


----------



## qaz (Jul 17, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> i sincerely hope you're joking


yes


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 17, 2017)

qaz said:


> yes


That's how it used to be: MBLD Old style
If I remember correctly, 2/2s were beating 15/16 with no time limit


----------



## uyneb2000 (Jul 17, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> That's how it used to be: MBLD Old style
> If I remember correctly, 2/2s were beating 15/16 with no time limit


I remember seeing recently that Rowe did a 5 hour MBLD attempt in 2008 and didn't even win...

Stuff like that is both hilarious and sad


----------



## applezfall (Jul 17, 2017)

Rcuber123 said:


> Out of 10 sextillion cubes 231 would already be solved


No every wca scramble is atleast 2 moves



Alex B71 said:


> Ahh, i see. Well my point still stands........... the point i am weirdly in love with Maskow.


Ya I changed the title so the thread would stop getting attention


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 17, 2017)

applezfall said:


> Ya I changed the title so the thread would stop getting attention


Has it worked? I came here thinking it was a new thread I hadn't seen. I've it had all had the original title, I would probably have ignored it.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 17, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> Has it worked? I came here thinking it was a new thread I hadn't seen. I've it had all had the original title, I would probably have ignored it.


No I meant that people won't open a thread called useless lol


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 17, 2017)

applezfall said:


> No I meant that people won't open a thread called useless lol


Haha... The new title is much better.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 17, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> Haha... The new title is much better.


It seems like the administrator changed it


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 17, 2017)

Douf said:


> But I don't think they were hanging back with the racing strategy of 'expecting everyone ahead of them to crash'. I'm pretty sure not a single professional or even amateur athlete in the world competes with that strategy in mind. Yes the speedskater earned the win, but he certainly did not deserve it.



Of course he deserved it.


----------



## Douf (Jul 18, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> Of course he deserved it.


you're right, sorry, it was that winning strategy. How he knew everyone was going to wipeout and competed accordingly is astounding!


----------



## Tabe (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> you're right, sorry, it was that winning strategy. How he knew everyone was going to wipeout and competed accordingly is astounding!


He planned for something that DID happen. That's good strategy.


----------



## arquillian (Jul 18, 2017)

Jeez. Okay. Some perspective.
First of, the person who solved more cubes blindfolded deserves it more is wrong for the simple reason that MBLD rewards accuracy as well. Shivam made a strategic decision to try to improve his accuracy by attempting 40 (he did 42 in his first attempt) and it paid off. Choosing the number of cubes you're going to do isn't as simple as it looks, because most top MBLDers have a max limit of cubes they can sub hour which they usually stay under. How far under that limit they choose to stay is the decision they have to make. I can sub hour 30 cubes, best case. But I'll lose out on some reviews and am likely to compromise my accuracy. So should I do 30? 27? 25? 23? You have to draw the line between getting high accuracy and a large number of points (14/17 beats 10/10, but 13/17 doesn't). What's the point of attempting 50 cubes if you can't solve more than 35 successfully?
My current official best is 17/17. My memo was done in 20 minutes, I spent the next 25 minutes revising specifically so I could get a 17/17. I could've done 25, but then I wouldn't have had as much revision time. That's a strategic choice you have to make.
Also, it's not like you aren't rewarded for doing more cubes. Had Shivam been 15 seconds slower, Maskow would've gotten away with getting double the DNFs that Shivam did.


----------



## Mikel (Jul 18, 2017)

qaz said:


> Maybe it should be a requirement that every cube be solved at the end of the attempt, otherwise it's a DNF. That would solve all the problems for sure.


The regulations used to reflect this back in the olden days of the WCA.


----------



## Douf (Jul 18, 2017)

Tabe said:


> He planned for something that DID happen. That's good strategy.



He didn't plan for something that did happen, he HOPED for something that did happen. He got very, very lucky. That's NOT a good strategy.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> He didn't plan for something that did happen, he HOPED for something that did happen. He got very, very lucky. That's NOT a good strategy.


Getting lucky is not a crime.


----------



## Rahul Tirkey (Jul 18, 2017)

I think Shivam will break that wr record


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 18, 2017)

Rahul Tirkey said:


> I think Shivam will break that wr record


world record record


----------



## Rahul Tirkey (Jul 18, 2017)

No-one can be lucky in MBLD, how can someone be lucky in MBLD?? you need to have good memory skills & Shivam deserve it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> He didn't plan for something that did happen, he HOPED for something that did happen. He got very, very lucky. That's NOT a good strategy.


I've won quite a few US national championships in the various BLD events this way. From personal experience I can vouch for the fact that it can be an excellent strategy.

And I personally believe that knowing your limits is a very important part of multiBLD. I would never want to see the rules changed to simply count the number of solved cubes - it would degrade the event.

Maskow is awesome. His result this year was still quite amazing. But congrats to Shivam who truly earned and deserved the title.


----------



## Douf (Jul 18, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Getting lucky is not a crime.


I didn't say it was. I said it's not a good winning strategy if you rely ONLY on luck for your success. Or better, relying on other people NOT to have luck. I just find it a ridiculous concept that people would credit him with winning because his plan worked perfectly. He hoped for a crash and it happened. Good for him, yes he got lucky no argument. But others are saying he had a excellent strategy, (which was hoping all his opponents wipe out). I don't think that is a good strategy, that's all. Imagine if he finished last him saying "I got really unlucky today - the crash wiping out all my competitors didn't happen. My plan was for them to all wipe out." Doesn't that sound silly?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> I didn't say it was. I said it's not a good winning strategy if you rely ONLY on getting lucky to do it.


Sure but clearly Shivam didn't so the analogy or comparison does not hold up particularly well.


----------



## Douf (Jul 18, 2017)

Y


shadowslice e said:


> Sure but clearly Shivam didn't so the analogy or comparison does not hold up particularly well.


You're right I'm kind of trailing off-topic big time. I'm not thinking of Shivam at all, I'm just talking about the Australian speedskater. I think all these MLB guys are amazing and I'm nobody to comment on any strategies or methods they apply.


----------



## Christopher Cabrera (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> He didn't plan for something that did happen, he HOPED for something that did happen. He got very, very lucky. That's NOT a good strategy.


I don't think he planned to get 37/40 and win. He probably planned to get 40/40 and ladder up at least one spot. He probably did not expect Maskow to mess up (although given the prior attempts this could be considered a valid prediction). He tried to do the most he could do with out compromising the accuracy of his attempt. Long story short he tried his best and he happened to win. Congrats to Shivam!


----------



## kamilprzyb (Jul 18, 2017)

Okay, looks like I have to say something about it

Shivam deffinietly won this fight fairly and he deserved it, however we didn't fight with each other, we didn't even fight with ourselves, we fought with organisation and conditions in Paris.
I'm not saying that organisers didn't care about us, beacuse they did but seems like nobody understands what we need to achieve good results. You can't put 23 people into a small room and place them next to each other, then walk around them, film them and make photos during memo, give them distracting judges and then expect a world record.
Again, we all had the same conditions and Shivam did the best in this environment, but it really shouldn't be done this way. After hard training that consumed enormous amount of time, I went to Paris and had to solve in worst conditions I've ever seen.
To be honest, I don't know if I want to do this anymore


----------



## Douf (Jul 18, 2017)

Christopher Cabrera said:


> I don't think he planned to get 37/40 and win. He probably planned to get 40/40 and ladder up at least one spot. He probably did not expect Maskow to mess up (although given the prior attempts this could be considered a valid prediction). He tried to do the most he could do with out compromising the accuracy of his attempt. Long story short he tried his best and he happened to win. Congrats to Shivam!


Again sorry I was rambling off-topic and I wasn't referring to Shivam at all. I was specifically talking about an Australian speedskater for some reason. Sorry to stray! Yes congrats to Shivam, he absolutely deserved the title!


----------



## Sajwo (Jul 18, 2017)

kamilprzyb said:


> I'm not saying that organisers didn't care about us, beacuse they did but seems like nobody understands what we need to achieve good results. You can't put 23 people into a small room and place them next to each other, then walk around them, film them and make photos during memo, give them distracting judges and then expect a world record.
> Again, we all had the same conditions and Shivam did the best in this environment, but it really shouldn't be done this way. After hard training that consumed enormous amount of time, I went to Paris and had to solve in worst conditions I've ever seen.
> To be honest, I don't know if I want to do this anymore



You are not familiar yet with competitions, as it was your 5th time attending one. Don't blame organisers for not getting WR, blame yourself. And adapt.

Walking, taking photos or filming is a norm, especially for competition like this. MBLDers doesn't have special rights, so I don't really understand your allegations.. Maybe train in distracting conditions, like Ishaan. It's clearly working for him


----------



## Christopher Cabrera (Jul 18, 2017)

Sajwo said:


> You are not familiar yet with competitions, as it was your 5th time attending one. Don't blame organisers for not getting WR, blame yourself. And adapt.
> 
> Walking, taking photos or filming is a norm, especially for competition like this. MBLDers doesn't have special rights, so I don't really understand your allegations.. Maybe train in distracting conditions, like Ishaan. It's clearly working for him


You are not familiar with competing in multi, as you have never competed in multi. While MBLDers don't have special rights to a different environment then normal competitors, it is usually common courtesy for the organizers to try and provide. This is why multi, big bld, and FMC are usually held in separate rooms. Wondering people and photography (especially with flash) can be incredibly distracting in these rooms since spectators are usually allowed to stand much closer than in the normal stage. I think these complaints are valid even if there is no specific regulation regarding them.


----------



## newtonbase (Jul 18, 2017)

Can we scrap this speedskater analogy. That guy wasn't at the back of the field through a tactical decision. He was there because he was the slowest person in the race by far and had only qualified for the final because the same thing had happened in his previous race. 
Shivam didn't win by default or through luck. He won because he is really good at MBLD.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Jul 18, 2017)

Douf said:


> you're right, sorry, it was that winning strategy. How he knew everyone was going to wipeout and competed accordingly is astounding!



Yes, it was a good strategy.



Tabe said:


> He planned for something that DID happen. That's good strategy.



Agreed.



arquillian said:


> Jeez. Okay. Some perspective.
> First of, the person who solved more cubes blindfolded deserves it more is wrong for the simple reason that MBLD rewards accuracy as well. Shivam made a strategic decision to try to improve his accuracy by attempting 40 (he did 42 in his first attempt) and it paid off. Choosing the number of cubes you're going to do isn't as simple as it looks, because most top MBLDers have a max limit of cubes they can sub hour which they usually stay under. How far under that limit they choose to stay is the decision they have to make. I can sub hour 30 cubes, best case. But I'll lose out on some reviews and am likely to compromise my accuracy. So should I do 30? 27? 25? 23? You have to draw the line between getting high accuracy and a large number of points (14/17 beats 10/10, but 13/17 doesn't). What's the point of attempting 50 cubes if you can't solve more than 35 successfully?
> My current official best is 17/17. My memo was done in 20 minutes, I spent the next 25 minutes revising specifically so I could get a 17/17. I could've done 25, but then I wouldn't have had as much revision time. That's a strategic choice you have to make.
> Also, it's not like you aren't rewarded for doing more cubes. Had Shivam been 15 seconds slower, Maskow would've gotten away with getting double the DNFs that Shivam did.



Strategic.



Mikel said:


> The regulations used to reflect this back in the olden days of the WCA.



Yup.



Douf said:


> He didn't plan for something that did happen, he HOPED for something that did happen. He got very, very lucky. That's NOT a good strategy.



But that doesn't mean he doesn't "deserve" the result.



shadowslice e said:


> Getting lucky is not a crime.



-Mitchell Lane

Agreed.



Rahul Tirkey said:


> No-one can be lucky in MBLD, how can someone be lucky in MBLD?? you need to have good memory skills & Shivam deserve it



MBLD is definitely not lucky, but that isn't saying "lucky" events are less impressive or competitors in "lucky" events are less deserving or skillful.



Mike Hughey said:


> I've won quite a few US national championships in the various BLD events this way. From personal experience I can vouch for the fact that it can be an excellent strategy.
> 
> And I personally believe that knowing your limits is a very important part of multiBLD. I would never want to see the rules changed to simply count the number of solved cubes - it would degrade the event.
> 
> Maskow is awesome. His result this year was still quite amazing. But congrats to Shivam who truly earned and deserved the title.



Strategy.



Douf said:


> I didn't say it was. I said it's not a good winning strategy if you rely ONLY on luck for your success. Or better, relying on other people NOT to have luck. I just find it a ridiculous concept that people would credit him with winning because his plan worked perfectly. He hoped for a crash and it happened. Good for him, yes he got lucky no argument. But others are saying he had a excellent strategy, (which was hoping all his opponents wipe out). I don't think that is a good strategy, that's all. Imagine if he finished last him saying "I got really unlucky today - the crash wiping out all my competitors didn't happen. My plan was for them to all wipe out." Doesn't that sound silly?



Okay, so I think we are a little off-topic. My argument was that even though he was lucky, he still deserved that win because he was able to strategize. 



shadowslice e said:


> Sure but clearly Shivam didn't so the analogy or comparison does not hold up particularly well.





Douf said:


> Y
> 
> You're right I'm kind of trailing off-topic big time. I'm not thinking of Shivam at all, I'm just talking about the Australian speedskater. I think all these MLB guys are amazing and I'm nobody to comment on any strategies or methods they apply.



Maybe.



Christopher Cabrera said:


> I don't think he planned to get 37/40 and win. He probably planned to get 40/40 and ladder up at least one spot. He probably did not expect Maskow to mess up (although given the prior attempts this could be considered a valid prediction). He tried to do the most he could do with out compromising the accuracy of his attempt. Long story short he tried his best and he happened to win. Congrats to Shivam!



Yes indeed.



newtonbase said:


> Can we scrap this speedskater analogy. That guy wasn't at the back of the field through a tactical decision. He was there because he was the slowest person in the race by far and had only qualified for the final because the same thing had happened in his previous race.
> Shivam didn't win by default or through luck. He won because he is really good at MBLD.



Fine.


----------



## porkynator (Jul 19, 2017)

Shivam did better and deserved the World Champion title, period.
Is he better than Maskow? A single competition isn't enough to tell.
Was luck involved in his win? I don't think so. In multiblind luck may be involved if accidents like pops or cubes slipping from your hands happen.
Probably Maskow has tried too many cubes. He can get good results at home with 46 cubes, but he hasn't competed much lately, so he couldn't test his skills in competition. Imo he was a bit overconfident. On the other hand, Shivam has tried 42 cubes in competition many times, often achieving good results (37-39 solved iirc). He definitely deserved to win. This doesn't mean Maskow or Kamil or Yuchuang wouldn't have deserved it, had they done a little better.


kamilprzyb said:


> Okay, looks like I have to say something about it
> 
> Shivam deffinietly won this fight fairly and he deserved it, however we didn't fight with each other, we didn't even fight with ourselves, we fought with organisation and conditions in Paris.
> I'm not saying that organisers didn't care about us, beacuse they did but seems like nobody understands what we need to achieve good results. You can't put 23 people into a small room and place them next to each other, then walk around them, film them and make photos during memo, give them distracting judges and then expect a world record.
> ...


Do you think the multiblind conditions were worse than the FMC or 4/5BLD conditions? I am asking because I haven't competed in multi.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 19, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> -Mitchell Lane


No. Erik Akkersdijk, 2008.


----------



## Goosly (Jul 19, 2017)

Christopher Cabrera said:


> since spectators are usually allowed to stand much closer than in the normal stage.



No. Spectators must always stay at least 1.5 meters away when someone is competing (7b).



kamilprzyb said:


> After hard training that consumed enormous amount of time, I went to Paris and had to solve in worst conditions I've ever seen.



I disagree. I've competed in mbld a lot at several competitions and the environment at Worlds was excellent.


----------



## Ollie (Jul 19, 2017)

porkynator said:


> Shivam did better and deserved the World Champion title, period.
> Is he better than Maskow? A single competition isn't enough to tell.
> Was luck involved in his win? I don't think so. In multiblind luck may be involved if accidents like pops or cubes slipping from your hands happen.
> Probably Maskow has tried too many cubes. He can get good results at home with 46 cubes, but he hasn't competed much lately, so he couldn't test his skills in competition. Imo he was a bit overconfident. On the other hand, Shivam has tried 42 cubes in competition many times, often achieving good results (37-39 solved iirc). He definitely deserved to win. This doesn't mean Maskow or Kamil or Yuchuang wouldn't have deserved it, had they done a little better.
> ...



My thoughts exactly. 

As for multi, I thought the conditions (and also for all the side bld events) were absolutely fine. Good lighting, no distractions, plenty of room on my table (can't say the same for everyone!) In my concentration I didn't even notice the judges or film crews. 

The only complaint I had was the wait to start the first attempt, but I heard that the staff improved on that for the next attempts.


----------

