# future competitions and lucky scrambles



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

*Future competitions and lucky scrambles or "Should luck be legit?"*

This thread is NOT about 2x2x2 in specific or about the recent set 2x2x2 records in specific, but about lucky scrambles in general (mainly for puzzles like 2x2, Pyraminx, Clock,...). Mentioning the 2x2x2 records is only meant for leading you into the topic!

(Preface: ) At the Trentin Open 2011 last weekend a new world record for 2x2 was set (4 move solve, 0.69s). But not only that, also two more competitors, all averaging from 4.xx-5.xx seconds solved the 2x2x2 in less than a second and even faster than the former WR (0.96s) held by three people at once for a long time. So now those three participants from the Trentin Open 2011 are ranked places 1-3 in the WCA rankings for single 2x2 solves which led to new discussions regurding lucky scrambles.

(Main Topic: ) As the topic of "lucky scrambles" recently and every now and then before already arose here at speedsolving, at other forums as well as in cube related groups and chats elsewere (e.g. on Facebook) I thought about it for a while if I really should make this new thread and get the trolling or if the people actually care and are open minded for a productive discussion regarding lucky scrambles. As you see, I chose to start it... 
This should not be about discrediting those people who got records by being lucky with scrambles, I just want to ask you to talk about the pros and cons, share your thinking and ideas reagarding what you think about lucky scrambles - simple "BS" and similar crappy comments don't help anyone. At least not the developing of cubing:

*Should lucky scrambles (few move solutions) not be used in future competitions?*
(or in other words: should luck be excluded from cubing competitions as much as possible for more compareable results?)

Here is something I want to start with - not necessarily my opinion, surely not planned right down to the last detail... just some thoughts hypothetical which I had:
In sports as well as in other disciplines there usually is no luck included. It's all on the competitors ability or on how good the competitors interact with/against each other. In sports it is all on how good competitors are trained and what their body is capable of or how good they play together as a team, in "mental" competitions like chess, it is on how good you attack and defend your king. In short: It is all about doing something better than someone else can.
In cubing it is quite different: There are different scrambles for every competition and every round, it's just part of it that scrambles have to be different every time to avoid cheating by previous training of a specific scramble. But thus luck gets involved. The quesiton of fairness and comparability rises as is the case in sports, where all that counts is proficiency, and lucky solves are like doping for cubers one could say.
Ok, people may get lucky and be able to solve their twisty puzzly with only few moves, while others don't recognize the easy solve and need longer to solve it. So of course getting good times with lucky scrambles also involves some abilities, but for the most part it's probably the easy scramble.

So, what could be done regarding "lucky" scrambles?
1) A limit could be set for the fewest move solution "legit" for each puzzle
2) All scrambles used in competition could be checked for the fewest move solution using software like e.g. cube explorer so even one who is not good enough to "see" the easy solution can check. (Or - to make it easier and not as time consuming - use a scrambler which excludes scrambles not nard enough.)

What about the records/rankings set so far?
Well, if there was a major change in how things as legit scramblings are done, there is only one solution:
1) Rules have to be changed to make all this possible
2) All previous set records are listed as "outdated", "pre 'lucky scramble rule'", or something similar and everything starts over from the beginning again. (Those people actually good enough get there records back anyway...)

Who does take care and eventually decides if a scramble is legit?
1) Well, as said before, software could be used but also
2) WCA delegates should not compete in a competition where they act as delegates at the same time - they only should be the controllers of everything happening at the competition and also have an eye on the judges
3) Also judges and organizers should not compete in a competition where they are involved
2) and 3) mainly should avoid cheating and things as happened at other competitions before

Why all this?
Well, we call it cubing "competitions". Doesn't that imply the real competition should be to be as fast as possible with what we do instead of "just" getting an easy scramble which allowes to have great times even if we are not as good in general at the single event? Achievements should be more compareable and not the outcome of luck.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Luck is a part of cubing.

People were almost complaining about the new BLD world record being too easy. I don't understand how you don't expect world records to be on easier solves than others and even get annoyed when it happens.

This only effects single times, so the actual competition element isn't voided at all.


----------



## superti (Nov 15, 2011)

at WC 2009, i scrambled first round, with one 4 moves scramble. (thirth scramble i think)
and i did not see the world record.

with this point

1) A limit could be set for the fewest move solution "legit" for each puzzle

there are one problem.
this rule, limit de next 3x3 fewest WR . if you limit the solution 

lucky scrambles is a part of competition
and... for this reasson exist, the AVG

Pda. sorry my english


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> 2) All previous set records are listed as "outdated", "pre 'lucky scramble rule'", or something similar and everything starts over from the beginning again. (Those people actually good enough get there records back anyway...)


 
You can't be serious. 
And as I've already stated in the other thread: Setting a scramble length doesn't help much in terms of "lucky scrambles".


----------



## Nostra (Nov 15, 2011)

First, I want to apologize for my english.

During WC 2009, I was in the group with the 4 move solution. I get a 1.75 which is still my PB. When I did this time, I averaged about 7-8 seconds. I was ranked like 1000th in the world for Avg and 15th for single.
This is just to emphasize how stupid official lol scramble are.

I think it's very important to have a real distinction between being lucky (let's say a 4 move solution (about 1/5000 scrambles, so 4 move solution will appear again)) and to be at the right place at the right time and have a 1 or 2 move solution. I don't know how rare this kind of scramble are likely to be, but my guess is something like 1/100000 (EDIT : I actually find this : A 3 move solution is about 1/25000; 2move solution is about 1/100000 and 1 move solution is about 1/500000). So this kind of scramble will appear in competition really rarely, so almost nobody will be able to solve it. Do you find it fair that having a World Record can be resume to : being at the right place at the right time?

Eric79, you made some comparison with other sports. Of course, speedcubing is so different that is quite impossible to write our rule thanks to other sport rules. But if I can try one, in athletism for a race like 100m or lenght jump, some times there is wind. And if there is too much wind, a world/continental/etc record cannot be set. And never a competitor will say "this was just luck, when I jumped there was wind and not when the other jumped". A record cannot be set in lucky conditions, this is call *fairness*.
Even if this is quite far from speedsolving, this is my opinion about 2x2x2 single and similar things. A record should be set only if anyone could have similar conditions/scrambles. Having a World Record with a 1 or 2 moves solutions is totally unfair because one can never have this in is entire competition life.

Kirjava, you were asking in the other thread for a good reason for rejecting some scrambles, I really think that equality is a good one. As several 4-move solution as already existed, and will appear again, this is for me the right limit for the 2x2x2.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Nostra said:


> Do you find it fair that having a World Record can be resume to : being at the right place at the right time?



Once the FMC WR goes sub20 it will actually be impossible to beat a lot of the times that people compete in it.

So yeah, I'm fine with the 2x2x2 single WR being difficult to beat.



Nostra said:


> Having a World Record with a 1 or 2 moves solutions is totally unfair because one can never have this in is entire competition life.



You can say the same of 4 move solutions.



Nostra said:


> Kirjava, you were asking in the other thread for a good reason for rejecting some scrambles, I really think that equality is a good one. As several 4-move solution as already existed, and will appear again, this is for me the right limit for the 2x2x2.


 
Everyone is able to get 2 move scrambles. How is this not equal?


----------



## adragast (Nov 15, 2011)

I personally like Stephan idea to set the minimum length to 4 for the 2x2 so that we avoid ridiculous scrambles and we don't need to touch current records (also it will be fair for those who were supposed to get a 2-move scramble and did not get it because it was judged too easy).

For other puzzles, the WCA probably needs to set some limits. 7 for 3x3 ? 50% of the average moves needed ?

I don't care about long but lucky solves (5x5 with centers already solved, 2 moves 1x2x3 roux block, sq-1 already in square shape, ...) but I really would like to avoid too short solves which would discredit our sport in the eyes of many, especially in the eyes of the public/sponsors and media.

People here tend to say we don't care about what non-cubers think but if we want out sport to expand, get some attention, ... we need to be a bit more open-minded. Someone mentioned in the other thread that non-cubers think inspecting the cube is cheating but well, we can explain to the public that this is the way it works. It will not make them despise our sport and they will probably find it fair (everyone has the same amount of time to inspect ...). But if they know a world-record on a 3x3 was set in one move (R2, M', ...), they will have a harder time to take this sport seriously.

Edit: I now think only 2-move away from solved state and maybe 3-move away from solved state should be removed not matter the puzzle. The aim is to remove trivial scrambles.


----------



## peterbone (Nov 15, 2011)

I think there should not be rejection of easy scrambles. I think that everyone knows by now that the 2x2x2 single record means nothing. We can tell from the guy's reaction, who got the 0.69 record, that he did not consider it a major achievement. Maybe the WCA should just stop listing the 2x2x2 single results. Lucky scrambled should not significantly effect the 2x2x2 average.


----------



## Nostra (Nov 15, 2011)

First, I actually agree with you for the FMC, I first wrote a paragraph about it but I deleted it because I wanted to speak about the 2x2x2 first. 
But let's say that the new WR for FMC is 19 or 18, even if it won't be possible to make a WR with every scramble, it will still be possible on a high percentage of them. That's what I'm comparing for the 2x2x2. If breaking a record on 2x2x2 means having the shortest scramble... I'm sorry but I can't find it fair.

And you said : "the 2x2x2 single WR being difficult to beat" we're not talking about difficulty, but about luck. The 3x3x3 or 4x4x4 singles are difficult to beat, not the 2x2x2, as shown this week end, you don't have to be good at 2x2x2 to be the record holder, do you still find it fair?



> You can say the same of 4 move solutions.



Yes, but 4 move solutions already appears, not less. I was proposing this number to prevent from deleting all previous 2x2x2 record... Speaking about having a 4 move in our competition life, it's more likely to have one than a 2 move. But having a higher limit at 5 should be more fair, the probability to have one is about 1/1000, it means to do 200 rounds of 2x2x2, that is clearly not impossible. To have a 4 move solve it means doing 1000 rounds of 2x2x2, I guess that some people will do it in a few years, so this is not really the same that having a 2 move solves (1/100000 => 20 000 rounds of 2x2x2!)

And I really don't understand your last statement. You're playing on word.
Everyone is able to have a 10 move scrambles => Everyone actually did it
Everyone is able to have a 4 move scrambles => Several (I guess) 100 people have one
Everyone is able to have a 2 move scrambles => Quite nobody will have one...

What I mean is 2 move scramble will be so rare that it'll me very unlikely you'll be in the right competition, in the right group to have it. Let's say that we are 15000 and that there are 60 persons in a comp, and 3 groups of 2x2x2. Only 20 persons out of 15000 will have a 2 move scramble, so only 0.1% of the community will be able to try to beat the WR. I'm sorry, but this is still not fair for me cause this kind of scramble will appear once in like 5 years, so not everyone _will_ have a 2 moves scramble, that's why I find it unfair.

And you didn't answer about the wind stuff, do you find it unfair that someone who beat the WR in lenght Jump thanks to wind can't be the official world record holder?


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 15, 2011)

if easy scrambles are deleted, then .96 will be WR pretty much until someone learns how to one look 2x2. you cant just make up a new rule about 2x2 scrambling after 8 years of cubing just cuz the WR is too fast. Sure its dumb that the record is .69 with 4 moves by someone who averages 4, but who cares? vincent averaged 7. 

Also, if everyone is always saying how 2x2 single WR means nothing (which it does), then why make such a fuss about it? just relax and let christian kaserer have his WR until some other dude comes along and gets a 3 move scramble. then he can have the dumb WR for a while. 

However, i believe scrambles should never be deleted. It isnt fair how some delegates delete scrambles and others dont. that gives an unfair advantage to cubers depending on where they live/compete. 

2x2 is dumb, i cant believe there are like 3 threads about this bullcrap.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Nostra said:


> you don't have to be good at 2x2x2 to be the record holder, do you still find it fair?



Luck is an aspect of cubing.



Nostra said:


> Yes, but 4 move solutions already appears, not less. I was proposing this number to prevent from deleting all previous 2x2x2 record... Speaking about having a 4 move in our competition life, it's more likely to have one than a 2 move. But having a higher limit at 5 should be more fair, the probability to have one is about 1/1000, it means to do 200 rounds of 2x2x2, that is clearly not impossible. To have a 4 move solve it means doing 1000 rounds of 2x2x2, I guess that some people will do it in a few years, so this is not really the same that having a 2 move solves (1/100000 => 20 000 rounds of 2x2x2!)
> 
> And I really don't understand your last statement. You're playing on word.
> Everyone is able to have a 10 move scrambles => Everyone actually did it
> ...



I just realised. Maybe 2x2x2 single is unfair. If so, that's just how it is.



Nostra said:


> And you didn't answer about the wind stuff, do you find it unfair that someone who beat the WR in lenght Jump thanks to wind can't be the official world record holder?


 
There are no scrambles for long jump.


----------



## Nostra (Nov 15, 2011)

Just to say it, I totally don't care about the 2x2x2 WR. This is just about fairness and equality, and just because it's totally stupid to have a record holder which is not one of the best in the world...



> There are no scrambles for long jump.



But luck is forbidden


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Luck is a part of cubing.
> 
> People were almost complaining about the new BLD world record being too easy. I don't understand how you don't expect world records to be on easier solves than others and even get annoyed when it happens.
> 
> This only effects single times, so the actual competition element isn't voided at all.


Sure I expect world records on easier solves and don't like them too much (it's not annoying to me) but I am not sure if it is a good thing to just leave it like that and have luck as such an important factor in cubing for competitive reasons (as explained above). Maybe you could reword the question to: *Should luck be excluded from cubing competitions?* I don't even like my own PBs too much if they were lucky solves as in my personal opinion a real solve involves all steps of the used method without skipping a complete step to be representative, but that's another story.
Ok, so what if some get REALLY lucky and get 5 easy scrambles in a row and thus even a new WR average? Maby several seconds better than their usual times? Ok, it's unlikely to happen, but not totally impossible... shouldn't be taken care of those contingencies BEFORE they happen? Rules could be set for any type of puzzle... for blind it could be at least 6 corners and 10 edges have to be in the wrong place (or something like that, just as an example).

So Thom, would you go one step further and say "don't even list and keep track of the single world records as almost all of them will be a product of luck in the long run?


superti said:


> at WC 2009, i scrambled first round, with one 4 moves scramble. (thirth scramble i think)
> and i did not see the world record. [...] there are one problem.
> this rule, limit de next 3x3 fewest WR . if you limit the solution[...]


You didn't see it and of course not everyone can see an easy scramble - which is why I said scrambles should be checked with software or limited by the scramble software itself.
Well, there's nothing wrong in setting a rule which defines at which point a cube is considered scrambled or not and thus "too easy" to solve. And sure, seperate "rules" had to be set for every single event. But in general this rule would not really "limit" the WRs in general, it just rises the bar and makes it harder to achieve very good times when it is about speedsolving and expludes the ridiculous easy scrambles.

Think of an U2 D2 R2 L2 solution for 3x3 (just an hypothetical example to explain the principle) the WR set with that solution probably would be sub 1s... I wouldn't really be proud of it. Or tell anybody if about that WR - everyone would make fun of it or (when talking to non-cubers) cubing in general. It is nothing too sepcial with such a scramble. There's almost nothing to know, no real ability, no real training needed just 4 fast turns to get that world record. It couln't be taken serious and respected as an real achievement by anyone but still it was an official WR.


tim said:


> You can't be serious.
> And as I've already stated in the other thread: Setting a scramble length doesn't help much in terms of "lucky scrambles".


Tim, as said, this is some thoughts and not neccessarily my opinion. But if you would want to change something that big to make a competition less depending on luck to the benefit of competition itself, of course such drastic steps hat to be done.
That's why it was about setting a minimal move count for the _solve_ instead of setting a minimal length of scrambles.


Nostra said:


> Do you find it fair that having a World Record can be resume to : being at the right place at the right time?[...] Eric79, you made some comparison with other sports. [...] in athletism for a race like 100m or lenght jump, some times there is wind. And if there is too much wind, a world/continental/etc record cannot be set. [...] A record cannot be set in lucky conditions, this is call *fairness*.


Exactly, if there is too much wind in the stadium (which has walls and sometimes even a roof to explude the factor weather) they set pauses for times when there is just to much of outer influences. Sports is just a very good example for showing what all is excluded to reduce _it only to the competitors abilities_.


Kirjava said:


> You can say the same of 4 move solutions.





adragast said:


> [...] it will be fair for those who were supposed to get a 2-move scramble and did not get it because it was judged too easy[...].
> For other puzzles, the WCA probably needs to set some limits. 7 for 3x3 ? 50% of the average moves needed ?


I think at this point it should not be about the details, as this is something the WCA has to decide... some people should sit together if something like my hypothetical thoughts were agreed on and make those decissions in detail.


adragast said:


> I don't care about long but lucky solves (5x5 with centers already solved, 2 moves 1x2x3 roux block, sq-1 already in square shape, ...) but I really would like to avoid too short solves which would discredit our sport in the eyes of many, especially in the eyes of the public/sponsors and media. [...] Someone mentioned in the other thread that non-cubers think inspecting the cube is cheating but well, we can explain to the public that this is the way it works. It will not make them despise our sport and they will probably find it fair (everyone has the same amount of time to inspect ...). But if they know a world-record on a 3x3 was set in one move (R2, M', ...), they will have a harder time to take this sport seriously.


And this was one of the reasons why I decided to trigger that discussion in a seperate thread as I think it is important to be discussed.


peterbone said:


> I think there should not be rejection of easy scrambles. I think that everyone knows by now that the 2x2x2 single record means nothing. We can tell from the guy's reaction, who got the 0.69 record, that he did not consider it a major achievement. Maybe the WCA should just stop listing the 2x2x2 single results. Lucky scrambled should not significantly effect the 2x2x2 average.


That's kind of like the 400m runner saying "Oh, who cares about 100m sprint" or the one doing a marathon saying "Oh, those spoiled sissies runnning in a stadium only a few hundret meters, who cares about them". It's personal preference. But a competition is not really competitive as long as luck decides to a big chunk who's the winner.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Maybe you could reword the question to: *Should luck be excluded from cubing competitions?*



Yeah, go for it. That's a less legitimate argument.



Eric79 said:


> Ok, so what if some get REALLY lucky and get 5 easy scrambles in a row and thus even a new WR average? Maby several seconds better than their usual times? Ok, it's unlikely to happen, but not totally impossible... shouldn't be taken care of those contingencies BEFORE they happen?



Nope. That should be perfectly valid. 



Eric79 said:


> So Thom, would you go one step further and say "don't even list and keep track of the single world records as almost all of them will be a product of luck in the long run?



No, that is a terrible idea.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> if easy scrambles are deleted, then .96 will be WR pretty much until someone learns how to one look 2x2. you cant just make up a new rule about 2x2 scrambling after 8 years of cubing just cuz the WR is too fast. Sure its dumb that the record is .69 with 4 moves by someone who averages 4, but who cares? vincent averaged 7.
> 
> Also, if everyone is always saying how 2x2 single WR means nothing (which it does), then why make such a fuss about it? just relax and let christian kaserer have his WR until some other dude comes along and gets a 3 move scramble. then he can have the dumb WR for a while.
> 
> ...


Rowe, for me it seems you kind of misunderstood what this thread is really about: The recent 2x2x2 records just started discussions again, but *this thread should NOT be about 2x2x2 and the records in specific, but about lucky scrambles in general*.
You are right about what you say regarding some delegates deleting scrambles and some don't and that is why maybe a rule regarding which scramble has to be deleted and which hasn't should be created. 


Kirjava said:


> Yeah, go for it. That's a less legitimate argument.


Less legitimate? You didn't mean less illegitimate? Just asking - I'm a bit confused. Either way, I decided to add it to the original post. 


Kirjava said:


> Nope. That should be perfectly valid.
> No, that is a terrible idea.


So you are "pro-luck"?


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> But if you would want to change something that big to make a competition less depending on luck to the benefit of competition itself, of course such drastic steps hat to be done.



1.) No:


Mike Hughey said:


> 2. less than or equal to the smallest minimum distance that we know to have already existed in a competition - if this is done, then it's reasonable to maintain the current records as they are reasonably.


2.) "that big"? Huh, did I miss something? Removing short scrambles would be barely noticeable. It's not like the average 2x2 solve will increase by 0.5 seconds...



Eric79 said:


> That's why it was about setting a minimal move count for the _solve_ instead of setting a minimal length of scrambles.


 
I used "scramble length" and "length of optimal solution" synonymously, since we're mainly discussing 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx (we already have random state scramblers for them). So, my argument remains valid.

I love Rowe's post btw.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Less legitimate? You didn't mean less illegitimate?



No.



Eric79 said:


> So you are "pro-luck"?



I'm certainly not against luck, but I do not think we should be filtering averages so they contain at least one scramble that is 'lucky'.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

tim said:


> 1.) No:


I am quite missing the context of that statement. But anyway, this was Mikes opinion, mine is different. And I enver said they should be "deleted"... Say in formula one (not that I was a fan of that) they used to use an "auotmatic starting automatic" to start driving as quick as possible after the lights turned green. It's not allowed to use it nowadays anymore. But still, the "old" records remained "legit", they were not taken back. I talked about... just making the "old" records in cubing "previous lucky scramble rule" (if done) and start over again. Why not, they still were achieved once, but new records would be achieved under a different condition.


tim said:


> 2.) "that big"? Huh, did I miss something? Removing short scrambles would be barely noticeable. It's not like the average 2x2 solve will increase by 0.5 seconds...


Big in the sense of affecting the setting of records - of course not regarding the average solve times. Luck was eliminated when setting a record - well, at least regarding the below mentioned events.


tim said:


> I used "scramble length" and "length of optimal solution" synonymously, since we're mainly discussing 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx (we already have random state scramblers for them). So, my argument remains valid.[...]


Sure, you could scramble a cube with 100 turns and still solve it in one single turn - so you are right regarding that scramble length does not affect lucky scrambles. But you said


tim said:


> [...]Setting a scramble length doesn't help much in terms of "lucky scrambles"


 Leave the scramble length aside, they are not topic of this thread as there are already rules regarding them, it's not like there are 3x3x3 scrambles for 3x3 legit for competitions which only are 6 (just an example) turns long - this one simply is about the minimal move count legit to solve the puzzle. (It may result in the same, but doesn't include each other from a certain scramble length on.)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Luck was eliminated when setting a record


 
Filtering scrambles cannot eliminate luck.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> [...]'m certainly not against luck, but I do not think we should be filtering averages so they contain at least one scramble that is 'lucky'.


Do I get this right? You think one lucky scramble for each average is al right? Ok. So, what's your opinion on average scrambles containing more than one lucky scramble?


Kirjava said:


> Filtering scrambles cannot eliminate luck.


Well, it can eliminate "lucky few move solves". That's what we are discussing in this thread. We are not talking about the luck one has when using a random method and gets a skip of a step of the used method.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> you cant just make up a new rule about 2x2 scrambling after 8 years of cubing



If it is consistent with everything that happened so far, why not?

If I'm not mistaken, a rule removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles would actually be *more* consistent with what happened so far than a rule forbidding removing scrambles. And I'm quite certain removing 2-moves-or-less is definitely more consistent with what happened so far, at least in the only case I heard about where a 2-mover occurred, it *was* removed.

That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Do I get this right? You think one lucky scramble for each average is al right? Ok. So, what's your opinion on average scrambles containing more than one lucky scramble?



No, you didn't understand me.



Eric79 said:


> Well, it can eliminate locky few move solves.


 
Why would you want to do that?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> 2x2 is dumb, i cant believe there are like 3 threads about this bullcrap.



It's not just 2x2 though, it's also Clock, Sq-1... there was talk that it should prevent Skewb from being an official event..


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> [...]That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.


Well, I actually talk about more than just that... your rule would keep it just as it is right now. So how is your opinion on eliminating luck for few moves lucky solves by setting a minimal move count necessary to solve the puzzle? 


Kirjava said:


> No, you didn't understand me.


Then please explain if you don't mind my asking.


Kirjave said:


> Why would you want to do that?


To avoid few moves lucky solves to have actual results representing someones ability, not his/her luck regarding getting an easy scramble. Comparability also is a reason. Single records set by luck, no matter which event, are quite meaningless - as you said before - as long as luck is the most deciding factor.


Godmil said:


> It's not just 2x2 though, it's also Clock, Sq-1... there was talk that it should prevent Skewb from being an official event..


Exactly, I added this before to the original post to clarify things. But I didn't know there were talks not to include skewb because of that.


----------



## timelonade (Nov 15, 2011)

peterbone said:


> Maybe the WCA should just stop listing the 2x2x2 single results.


 

But this would take away so much drama ;P. However I do think this is a good idea, people would start to concentrate a lot more on averages and there would not be so much an element of "luck", unless we want to zoom out a little and look at whether 5 solves (for an avg) can be "luckier" than 5 other solves..


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> I am quite missing the context of that statement.



I assumed you've already read his post and knew the context. (You can always klick on the small double arrow right next to the name, btw.)



Eric79 said:


> And I enver said they should be "deleted"



You said "such drastic steps *has to be done*". And even if you just want to invalidate existing WRs: That's not necessary as Mike already suggested.



Eric79 said:


> Leave the scramble length aside, they are not topic of this thread as there are already rules regarding them


According to you, they are:


Eric79 said:


> *Should lucky scrambles (few move solutions) not be used in future competitions?*


and there are no rules regarding scramble length for 2x2 and 3x3, that's why we're discussing them in the first place.



Eric79 said:


> it's not like there are 3x3x3 scrambles for 3x3 legit for competitions which only are 6 (just an example) turns long - this one simply is about the minimal move count legit to solve the puzzle. (It may result in the same, but doesn't include each other from a certain scramble length on.)


 
Scramble length for 3x3 = Length of optimal solution.
Have you lived under a rock for the last 2(?) years?


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

timelonade said:


> But this would take away so much drama ;P. However I do think this is a good idea, people would start to concentrate a lot more on averages and there would not be so much an element of "luck", unless we want to zoom out a little and look at whether 5 solves (for an avg) can be "luckier" than 5 other solves..


Well, it could be done for every event where the problem occurs. It was a more mild solution then what I hypothetically suggested. But in the end it more or less only was a psychologic solution as it does the same: By having five solves instead of one, luck gets almost eliminated naturally due to its seldom occurrence.
Official world single records though still would be nice to have which would make somthing similar to what I wrote down neccessary.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> If it is consistent with everything that happened so far, why not?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, a rule removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles would actually be *more* consistent with what happened so far than a rule forbidding removing scrambles. And I'm quite certain removing 2-moves-or-less is definitely more consistent with what happened so far, at least in the only case I heard about where a 2-mover occurred, it *was* removed.
> 
> That's not making up a new rule, that's just writing down a rule that's already being used.



I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second. If the WR was still like 2.xx or 1.xx and this rule was made, then it would be more fair. Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me). And also, im totally half asleep right now, i hope what im saying makes any sense at all to anyone.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

tim said:


> I assumed you've already read his post and knew the context. (You can always klick on the small double arrow right next to the name, btw.)


Nope, haven't done that yet. Too busy right now...


tim said:


> You said "such drastic steps *has to be done*". And even if you just want to invalidate existing WRs: That's not necessary as Mike already suggested.


Well, I maybe should read what he wrote in context later.


tim said:


> According to you, they are:


No they are not - look what is written in brackets that specifies what I am talking about: "few move solutions". A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used.


tim said:


> and there are no rules regarding scramble length for 2x2 and 3x3, that's why we're discussing them in the first place.


Well, obviously no few move scrambles (e.g. somethign between 2-10 turns) are used in competitions depending on the event, are they? They all are of a certain length which should ensure to have the cube acutlly scrambled and it wasn't meant to get 2 move solves from them - I assume it was relied on the seldom statistical occurrence of too easy scrambles... which not quite worked out as you can see by the discussions going on right now.


----------



## timelonade (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Well, it could be done for every event where the problem occurs. It was a more mild solution then what I hypothetically suggested. But in the end it more or less only was a psychologic solution as it does the same: By having five solves instead of one, luck gets almost eliminated naturally due to its seldom occurrence.
> Official world single records though still would be nice to have which would make somthing similar to what I wrote down neccessary.



I enjoy your signature.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second. If the WR was still like 2.xx or 1.xx and this rule was made, then it would be more fair. Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me). And also, im totally half asleep right now, i hope what im saying makes any sense at all to anyone.


Well Rowe, but it seems to be not minded of in the first place. You can't just say: "Oh, we are polluting the air... oh well, now it already is dirty, who cares." Things which need improvement should be improved. IF they need improvement which should be discussed in this thread. Of course people who have already a record would not like this. But they would just need to go to another competition to get it back if they are actually good enough and not just lucky, right? Regarding fairnes: Is it more fair to just let people call themselves "official world record holder" (instead of "former ...") which they got partially for having luck or have a fair competition where it only is about how good someone actually is?


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> They all are of a certain length


 
No. The cube has to be in a random position. The resulting scramble length (read "optimal solution") might be indeed only 4 moves long.




rowehessler said:


> Its like the same thing that happened with multibld (thanks to me).


 
I still hate you for that!


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

timelonade said:


> I enjoy your signature.


Yeah, especially within that context :-D As said, what I write here in this thread is not neccessarily my opinion - what I write, it is hypothetical, something to start thinking if it actually is good as it is right now or if things should be changed.


tim said:


> No. The cube has to be in a random position. The resulting scramble length (read "optimal solution") might be indeed only 4 moves long.


Tim, you recognized that this is part of what I talk about? Setting a minimum number needed for solving a puzzle, not just having ANY possible random scramble usable? I clearly stated this in the first post as well as that rules had to be changed to implement that.


----------



## MostEd (Nov 15, 2011)

Aren't 3x3 scramble taken from cube explorer, a person clicks the cube scrambled then gets a 20 move scramble which would
have a 19-20 move solution by the prog itself. wether its easier for roux, or a ZZ solve thats about the user of the method, his colorsheceme(blocks/cross) etc.. who sees wether its easy or hard


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

rowehessler said:


> I just think this rule shouldve been made official before the WR started to get under 1 second.



Yes, it might have been better to do it earlier, but it's still not too late. If we only forbid scrambles that haven't been used so far anyway or that even already have been rejected, there's no problem. There'd only be a problem if we already had let's say a WR set with 2 moves, then it would be bad to introduce a rule like no-3-moves-or-less that would've forbidden it.



Eric79 said:


> So how is your opinion on eliminating luck for few moves lucky solves by setting a minimal move count necessary to solve the puzzle?



How is my opinion for my own suggestion? I don't think I understand your question.


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Tim, you recognized that this is part of what I talk about? Setting a minimum number needed for solving a puzzle, not just having ANY possible random scramble legit?


 
Eric, you recognized that I simply corrected your false statements?


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

MostEd said:


> Aren't 3x3 scramble taken from cube explorer, a person clicks the cube scrambled then gets a 20 move scramble which would
> have a 19-20 move solution by the prog itself. wether its easier for roux, or a ZZ solve thats about the user of the method, his colorsheceme(blocks/cross) etc.. who sees wether its easy or hard


They are taken from cube explorer for 3x3, not for other events (here is the link Tim posted earlier to the rule where also the scramble software is provided).


Stefan said:


> How is my opinion for my own suggestion? I don't think I understand your question.


Right, you didn't understand: You just were suggesting to set the limits to where they are set by records right now - which still includes some luck as 3 move solves are still quite lucky and have not too much to do with someones ability and knowledge to speedsolve a twisty puzzle. I talked eliminating luck to a level where it doesn't lead to "normally" implossible solves (2,3,4,... moves), about more stricter rules like... e.g. a minimum of 5 moves (or whatever the WCA decides) for 2x2 and so on for other events and to "void" the records set up to date. This is what I was asking you for your opinion about.


Stefan said:


> I didn't ask that, Thom did (you mixed up the quotes, please correct it).


Didn't see it when posting. Corrected it. Thanks.


tim said:


> Eric, you recognized that I simply corrected your false statements?


Well, looking at the words, it wasn't wrong: All scrambles are of a certain lenght - only the length itself is not certain. But joke aside... Still, I am not talking about scramble lengths but solution move counts. Just two sentences before what you say you corrected, I wrote: "A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used."


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Still, I am not talking about scramble lengths but solution move counts.


 
We all are! These two things are the same for 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx. Dude, I'm so out...


----------



## timelonade (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Yeah, especially within that context :-D As said, what I write here in this thread is not neccessarily my opinion - what I write, it is hypothetical, something to start thinking if it actually is good as it is right now or if things should be changed.


 

I appreciate that .
I like what you say about correcting only events in which there is a problem. I think although you have written in your first post that this thread is not aimed directly at 2x2x2, it is something that should be thought about mostly for this event.. And I like the idea of filtering for events where there is a problem.

There is not such a need, I feel, for scrambles at 3x3x3 to be filtered in such a way since there does not seem (IMO) to be as great a problem with luck.. (although my position on this would easily change should the world record become 0.8seconds for a 2 move solve or w/e) 

Don't fix it if it's not broken right?  That's my 2c anyway.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

tim said:


> We all are! These two things are the same for 2x2, 3x3 and Pyraminx.


And a last time: "A scramble of a certain length (which was what you were talking about) does not ensure that there are no lucky solves, while sorting out lucky solve scrambles before done ensures that no "bad" scrambles are used.": A cube could be scrambled with 100 or 2 turns - both having the same optimal solution of two turns... So scramble length and solution length are not neccessarily the same length as opposed to what you say.


tim said:


> Dude, I'm so out...


On that specific topic, I now too.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

timelonade said:


> I appreciate that .
> I like what you say about correcting only events in which there is a problem. I think although you have written in your first post that this thread is not aimed directly at 2x2x2, it is something that should be thought about mostly for this event.. And I like the idea of filtering for events where there is a problem.
> 
> There is not such a need, I feel, for scrambles at 3x3x3 to be filtered in such a way since there does not seem (IMO) to be as great a problem with luck.. (although my position on this would easily change should the world record become 0.8seconds for a 2 move solve or w/e)
> ...


But as Rowe (I think it was him) said: Now that the records are set, it shouldn't be changed. (Probably because of people getting angry to lose there records or whatever - that's just what I assume.) So, shouldn't be taken care of such things BEFORE they occur? The sooner the better? As you said, you probably would change your mind regarding the 3x3x3 as soon as one of those crazy lucky solves occures...


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> A cube could be scrambled with 100 or 2 turns - both having the same optimal solution of two turns... So scramble length and solution length are not neccessarily the same length as opposed to what you say.



Since you've never been to a competition, you might not know that: For 2x2, 3x3, Pyraminx and Clock (the puzzles we're mainly talking about) the state is chosen randomly and then a solution is calculated which results in the scramble (or its inverse, that doesn't really matter). For 2x2 and Pyraminx this solution is optimal (see provided scramblers on WCA page). For 3x3 it might also be optimal if the delegate chooses so, otherwise it's close to optimal. I have no knowledge about the Clock scrambler, though. See? There's no 20 move long scramble which results in a cube 2 moves away from solved.

/edit:



Eric79 said:


> 2) All scrambles used in competition could be checked for the fewest move solution using software like e.g. cube explorer so even one who is not good enough to "see" the easy solution can check. (Or - to make it easier and not as time consuming - use a scrambler which excludes scrambles not nard enough.)


 
Oh, you really had no clue how scrambles work nowadays. What a waste of time...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> e.g. a minimum of 5 moves (or whatever the WCA decides) for 2x2 and so on for other events and to "void" the records set up to date. This is what I was asking you for your opinion about.



Ah, ok. So not just some minimum distance, but a higher one than I had in mind. Answer: I don't like it. My reasons for minimum 4 or 3 moves (see the other current threads about it, here and here) don't apply to or even speak against a minimum of 5 or higher.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 15, 2011)

tim said:


> [...]


The thing is, I wasn't limiting my original post to any specific event but was writing generally about scrambles. But thanks for the explanation anyway... Oh, and I highly doubt that every person who partook in a competition as a competitor knows how scrambles are picked. Actually I think only the fewest do really know.



Stefan said:


> Ah, ok. So not just some minimum distance, but a higher one than I had in mind. Answer: I don't like it. My reasons for minimum 4 or 3 moves (see the other current threads about it, here and here) don't apply to or even speak against a minimum of 5 or higher.


Ok, so you don't like it because former records had to be voided if higher than minimum distance solves would be discarded or just because you still like the involved luck factor too much to get rid of it?


----------



## timelonade (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> But as Rowe (I think it was him) said: Now that the records are set, it shouldn't be changed. (Probably because of people getting angry to lose there records or whatever - that's just what I assume.) So, shouldn't be taken care of such things BEFORE they occur? The sooner the better? As you said, you probably would change your mind regarding the 3x3x3 as soon as one of those crazy lucky solves occures...



Perhaps the current records should stand, the rules should be changed and people should just find ways to improve ;D.
Although 0.69 is low enough to say there is probably no way to improve a method to make solves subWR a possibility in say... 5% of scrambles..

A problem, we have found.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 15, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Well Rowe, but it seems to be not minded of in the first place. You can't just say: "Oh, we are polluting the air... oh well, now it already is dirty, who cares." Things which need improvement should be improved. IF they need improvement which should be discussed in this thread. Of course people who have already a record would not like this. But they would just need to go to another competition to get it back if they are actually good enough and not just lucky, right? Regarding fairnes: Is it more fair to just let people call themselves "official world record holder" (instead of "former ...") which they got partially for having luck or have a fair competition where it only is about how good someone actually is?


well whoever calls themselves an "official world record holder" for a 2x2 single cube and are cocky about it then they are just losers. I always considered 2x2 WR a joke, even when i did have it. My opinion on the fairness hasnt changed because it was beaten. im going to stop participating in this thread, this was a terrible idea to post in here...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Ok, so you don't like it because former records had to be voided if *higher *than minimum distance solves would be discarded or just because you still like the involved luck factor too much to get rid of it?


 
Do you mean lower?

It doesn't have to do with me "liking luck too much". If you insist on looking at it that way, I'd say I "don't dislike luck enough". But really, I'm rather neutral about "luck". Again, my reasons for making the cut between 3 and 4:

- As far as I know, that's consistent with what we've done so far. At least one 2-mover has been rejected and none used, don't know about 3-movers but I'd probably know about one being used, and at least one 4-mover has been used and none rejected. Looks like we've already made a cut between 3 and 4 (or 2/3 or 2/4, not sure).

- Everybody seems to agree that up-to-3 is easy. I doubt that for some 4-movers.

- I actually prefer the word "trivial" here, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily. Again, I doubt that for some 4-movers. And I'd also call a Jperm scramble "easy" or "lucky", but not trivial - non-cubers can't solve it (and it needs 10 moves, almost the maximum of any scramble). In essence, I'm not for or against "easy" or "lucky" scrambles, just against "trivial" ones. Those that kinda aren't really scrambles in the first place.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Everybody seems to agree that up-to-3 is easy.


 
That doesn't mean that they also want them removed.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That doesn't mean that they also want them removed.


 
And I didn't say they do. That was not an argument about whether to have a cut, but where to put it (if at all). I was solely explaining why I'd put the cut between 3 and 4, and not somewhere higher. It's *something* that differs between those two, something that I can't say for higher cuts like Eric is thinking of and asked me about.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Nov 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> - I actually prefer the word "trivial" here, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily.



My opinion too


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> My opinion too


 
That seals it. I win.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 16, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Oh, and I highly doubt that every person who partook in a competition as a competitor knows how scrambles are picked. Actually I think only the fewest do really know.



Maybe they don't, but they would if they actually looked at the WCA regulations like they are supposed to. If a competitor doesn't know how scrambling works, it is their own fault.



But this thread can end now because Gaétan just agreed with Stefan.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> they would if they actually looked at the WCA regulations like they are supposed to


 
No, not necessarily. The regulations don't tell you (except in the scrambler source code, which you really don't have to read).


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> No, not necessarily. The regulations don't tell you (except in the scrambler source code, which you really don't have to read).


 
Oh wow, I seriously thought that the explanation was in the regulations...I wonder why....

Well, at least they could see that the scramble length isn't fixed for those four events, which in itself Eric did not seem to understand in his earlier posts.


----------



## Dene (Nov 16, 2011)

I really hope Tim generates a 2 move 2x2 scramble for our competition in two weeks so we can put an end to all this silliness. Without a specific regulation I would let the scramble stay, and I'm thinking faz would sub 0.3 it. That would really put an end to all the talk.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Well, at least they could see that the scramble length isn't fixed for those four events, which in itself Eric did not seem to understand in his earlier posts.


 
I just tried it and got five scrambles from 8 to 10 moves, so they were almost the same length. And the visual length difference can be explained by the proportional font. So I really had to count to see that they have different lengths. And I only counted because I was actively looking for this. One can easily miss it if not already looking for it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2011)

I think if a rule is implemented that limits the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 (or even if this also includes clock, pyraminx, square-1, etc.) then this *must* be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out. It seems unfair to me to limit the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 and 3x3x3, but not for 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. If we do this we do it all the way.

I don't like the idea of limiting the starting positions, other than I do think that the solved state should be explicitly eliminated for all puzzles as a possible starting position. Other than that, I think any state should be allowed, and thus I agree that an element of luck should be allowable.

If we are to eliminate more starting positions than just the solved state, then I like the arguments of cutting out 3 or fewer turn scrambles for 2x2x2. This has us eliminating the 0.01% shortest possible positions of the puzzle.

A proportional cutoff for 3x3x3 would mean to eliminate the top 4325 200327 448986 shortest positions (about). Using a very rough estimation of n turns creating:
\( 18*15^{n-1} \) possible positions we would have to eliminate any position solvable in about 13 moves or less.

For pyraminx we would eliminate any position solvable in less than 4 turns (not exactly the same percentage, but close enough).

For Megaminx we would have to eliminate the top \( 10^{64} \) positions closest to the solved state.

Using:
\( 48*44^{n-1} \) as a very rough estimate for the number of positions reachable within n moves, we would have to eliminate any position solvable within about 39 moves or less.
 
I guess where I am going with this is I don't like the idea of eliminating 3 move 2x2x2 scrambles if we don't also eliminate 39 move Megaminx scrambles. I think doing this for all puzzles would be a lot of work, and I don't see a huge problem with allowing for easier cases for all puzzles.

For the record I think it's a bit silly to make sure all Megaminx scrambles less than about 39 moves are removed and never appear, but if people are so adamant about removing easy positions on 2x2x2, are you equally as adamant about removing positions with approximately the same probability of occurrence on a larger puzzle? Or do you just want easy positions removed on easy puzzles where the solution times would be very short in the perception of the general public (less than one second). What if the Megaminx WR was set on a 30 move scramble by something who took excellent and skillful advantage of block building and commutators at, say 19 seconds? To the general public 19 seconds is "fast" for Megaminx, but not as "absurdly fast" as less than 1 second for 2x2x2. The times are actually fairly proportional in terms of what we cubers would probably consider "unreasonably fast for that puzzle". But to the layperson 19 seconds on Megaminx would just be "cool, that's fast!" Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.

So what _really_ is the underlying issue for those who want certain portions of the total number of positions of a puzzle to be eliminated from the pool of possible scrambling starting states? Why are we not clamoring just as loudly to remove 39 move Megaminx scrambles as we are 3 move 2x2x2 scrambles?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

Chris, I don't know why you're looking at that as a percentage as if that's the only way to do it. And I don't know why you're then using that percentage for another puzzle as if that's the only way to do it.

Again, one of my reasons for removing 3-movers for 2x2 is that they're _"trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily"_. Would you say 39-movers for megaminx are trivial? Can non-cubers solve these? No. If I were to advocate removing short megaminx scrambles, I'd set the limit to around 4 as well. However, I don't care about it for megaminx, simply because that's really not going to happen. For 2x2, it already has.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Chris, I don't know why you're looking at that as a percentage as if that's the only way to do it. And I don't know why you're then using that percentage for another puzzle as if that's the only way to do it.



It's not, and I realize that now. However, I feel that if we begin to remove possible starting positions from puzzles, that this should be done across the board. That was my main point.



Stefan said:


> Again, one of my reasons for removing 3-movers for 2x2 is that they're _"trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily"_. Would you say 39-movers for megaminx are trivial? Can non-cubers solve these? No. If I were to advocate removing short megaminx scrambles, I'd set the limit to around 4 as well. However, I don't care about it for megaminx, simply because that's really not going to happen. For 2x2, it already has.


 
I agree that the probability of a 3 or 4 turn megaminx scramble is so astronomically low that it's basically negligible. However, the probability of having a scramble in the mid 30's is probably not too terribly low. It's possible that over about 20 years of cubing that one or more of these may come up (would you agree? That would seem reasonable to me). I have a feeling that a megaminx scramble such as this would have so many options for blocks that can be preserved that it would result in a world record that is far faster than the other times that we will have seen up until that point. This would be particularly so if a megaminx specialist were to receive such a scramble. This is of course speculation, but I feel that if such a thing were to happen that a discussion very similar to this one would crop up about throwing out "easy" megaminx scrambles as well.

This is a reason why I feel that _if_ we being to restrict starting positions, that we should do this across the board for all puzzles now. This makes sure there is far less chance of another issue happening on another puzzle in the future.

What would be a good scheme to restrict moves on a megaminx? I feel that this is in no way an easy question, and is part of my argument that we should not restrict starting cases (except for banning the solved state as a possible scramble position).


----------



## JCub3r (Nov 16, 2011)

I think they should make 2x2 scrambles at least 6-8 moves then if someone solved it in six moves then they had the skill to see the six move solution rather than four.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 16, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> A proportional cutoff for 3x3x3 would mean to eliminate the top 4325 200327 448986 shortest positions (about). Using a very rough estimation of n turns creating:
> \( 18*15^{n-1} \) possible positions we would have to eliminate any position solvable in about 13 moves or less.
> 
> Or do you just want easy positions removed on easy puzzles where the solution times would be very short in the perception of the general public (less than one second). Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.


I got to 13 moves without using math 
As per my earlier post: for me it is indeed the perception of the general public counts. 



Stefan said:


> _"trivial, in the sense that even non-cubers might solve these without help rather easily"_.


As usual Stefan know how to word it best.


----------



## adragast (Nov 16, 2011)

Chris, as Stephan stated, the aim is not to remove easy/lucky scrambles but the "trivial" ones. Blindfold solve with all corners solved ? Well, this is luck but you still have to know how to solve the edges... Blindfold solve where you only need to perform RU ? No, this is too silly. 
So Stephan and a few others are advocating for an official removal of "2-move scrambles" and maybe 3-move too. 2-move scrambles have been removed in the past so this would only make this removal official instead of secret/ambiguous. If people really want those 2-move to be legitimate, then I would really like to see it officially on the WCA with a note saying that those scrambles should not be discarded no matter what. But again, this would have harm the image our sport has to the public/media... ("of course he can do it blindfold, he just needs 2 moves to solve it").


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> this *must* be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out.



It's not possible or fair to do things like this.



cmhardw said:


> Sub-1 second is actually in the realm of incomprehensibility for a larger portion of American adults than I think most of us Americans would be comfortable admitting.



Well good for America, I guess.


----------



## tim (Nov 16, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I think if a rule is implemented that limits the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 (or even if this also includes clock, pyraminx, square-1, etc.) then this *must* be done for all puzzles and events. BLD scrambles that have more than a certain number of pieces solved should be thrown out. 7x7x7 solves with too many groups of like centers together should probably be thrown out. It seems unfair to me to limit the number of possible starting positions for 2x2x2 and 3x3x3, but not for 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. If we do this we do it all the way.


 
I agree with you that unfair scrambles should be thrown out for all events (if we do it for any event) just for the sake of consistency. But I don't think it's "unfair" to keep lucky 4x4x4 scrambles and remove lucky 3x3x3 scrambles on the other hand, since everyone has still the same chances to get WRs in each event.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

adragast said:


> Chris, as Stephan stated, *the *aim is not to remove easy/lucky scrambles but the "trivial" ones.



To clarify: that's *my* aim now, others might want to throw out a fixed shortest percentage of scrambles like Chris discussed.



cmhardw said:


> This is a reason why I feel that _if_ we being to restrict starting positions, that we should do this across the board for all puzzles now.



Alright, so I suggest to throw out scrambles solvable in 3 moves or less across the board for all puzzles.

(Maybe make it three _interdependent_ moves, cause L M R on 7x7 is still 100% trivial... though since that's not going to happen and still has flaws (l u r is still quite obvious), I prefer the simpler rule anyway)



cmhardw said:


> However, the probability of having a scramble in the mid 30's is probably not too terribly low. It's possible that over about 20 years of cubing that one or more of these may come up (would you agree? That would seem reasonable to me). I have a feeling that a megaminx scramble such as this would have so many options for blocks that can be preserved that it would result in a world record that is far faster than the other times that we will have seen up until that point. This would be particularly so if a megaminx specialist were to receive such a scramble. This is of course speculation, but I feel that if such a thing were to happen that a discussion very similar to this one would crop up about throwing out "easy" megaminx scrambles as well.



I'd say there's a huge difference between a mid 30s megaminx scramble and a 3 moves 2x2 scramble. Not only can non-cubers not solve that megaminx at all, but even good cubers still need a lot of skill to set a world class time with it. I just tried a 30 move scramble and a 25 move scramble and they felt rather normal and I got normal times (note: that's the number of moves I made, not necessarily the lowest number of moves necessary). Then I tried a 20 move scramble and I did have blocks in the beginning (none after the first layer plus edges), but trying to use them caused more harm than good, and I actually ended up with a worse than normal time.

I any case, this is not the kind of scramble I'd like to filter, and I very much doubt it would spark the same kind of discussion as a 2-move or 3-move world record.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Nov 16, 2011)

The 2x2 yes, the small one and this cube seems the best example explains gaps irreversible speed records.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2011)

Stefan said:


> To clarify: that's *my* aim now, others might want to throw out a fixed shortest percentage of scrambles like Chris discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so I suggest to throw out scrambles solvable in 3 moves or less across the board for all puzzles.



Yes I think the 3 moves or less rule would probably be a very good idea as well, now that I've read the arguments in favor. Should this discussion be moved to the WCA forum, or has it already been?



Stefan said:


> I'd say there's a huge difference between a mid 30s megaminx scramble and a 3 moves 2x2 scramble. Not only can non-cubers not solve that megaminx at all, but even good cubers still need a lot of skill to set a world class time with it. I just tried a 30 move scramble and a 25 move scramble and they felt rather normal and I got normal times (note: that's the number of moves I made, not necessarily the lowest number of moves necessary). Then I tried a 20 move scramble and I did have blocks in the beginning (none after the first layer plus edges), but trying to use them caused more harm than good, and I actually ended up with a worse than normal time.
> 
> I any case, this is not the kind of scramble I'd like to filter, and I very much doubt it would spark the same kind of discussion as a 2-move or 3-move world record.


 
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for trying that as an experiment as well, I would definitely consider you a Megaminx specialist. If you can't find anything particularly nice to do with such a scramble, then it seems like a wasted effort to try to work so hard to remove scrambles like that. It seems that such scrambles are less helpful to the solver than it might at first seem before you try it.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Should this discussion be moved to the WCA forum, or has it already been?



The WCA thread was actually started before this one (and the other here).


----------



## Nostra (Nov 16, 2011)

There already is a discussion on the WCA forum (here). It's a very short thread, I personally think that Stefan had already sum up what I think (like forbid 3 or less move solutions) and a very nice idea (in an average 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 moves are the minimum to ensure non-lucky average)

I'm in favor of filtering scrambles, but whatever is your opinion, I'm pretty sure that it's important to have several different persons giving them opinion in the WCA thread to have a clear idea of what should be done.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

I like how you went on discussing things although I have the feeling that the discussion is drifting into too specific details instead of covering the main topic first: Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records? Going on like that, soon (I'm not talking about some weeks, more likely a few years) there will be only records left which where set because of luck.
You know, discussing "up to how many moves to solve scrambles" should actually be removed still can happen after it is agreed if we actually want to do so, after we agreed on that we care having luck as such an important factor or not. You also wouldn't plan out in detail what you are going to do on which day of your possible sight-seing holiday trip if you're not even sure if you should travel somewhere at all or rather stay at home.
As explained in my original opening post to this thread, in most other events (actually I can't think of another one besides speedsolving), no matter if sports, something intellectual,... or as another good example also in speed stacking, which we are compared so often with, the only thing that matters is the competitors professionality, his/her ability to do his/her thing as good as possible - not if being lucky enough to get an easy scramble which gives him a huge advntage over others in other competitions, just because he was at the right spot at the right time.

So let me ask you again:
*Do you really want luck to be the most determining factor for getting records in speedsolving by giving some people trivial scrambles? And if you don't mind having luck decide who is "best" in the world (as lucky scrambles are faster solvable), why don't you?*

As others expressed before, it's also about the image of speedsolving in public. For example: For those who know of Stefans successful blind underwater solve in german television (I wrote an article about in on my google+ if you don't know about it yet) the guests of the show scrambled the cube and "made sure" that the cube is "scrambled as good as possible". For WCA rules it just says "random state" - which could be anything from 2 turns up (for 3x3), right? If a WCA official would have scrambled the cube with two, three or four turns - which would be totally legit, what do you think the audience would have thought? Everybody would have said the scramble was faked. So no matter what the WCA rule says (for now), it allowes a lot of luck.
If we handscramble a cube, we make sure there are no blocks and F2L pairs already built as good as possible. If someone would post a video saying "unofficial world record 3x3 0.73 seconds" everyone would laugh about him and say it's just a big joke even though the scramble was legit from what the WCA rules say and resulted in a 3 turn solve (not saying that in official scrambles that would happen as Tim explained in great detail, but the rules actually don't tell how many moves there have to be for 3x3, they don't "force" us to use those given specific programs or how to select the scrambles - everything is legit as long as it is random in the case of 3x3).

My personal opinion is, remove as much luck as possible, keep competitions an actual competition not a lottery. Of course for EVERY event, not just pyraminx or 2x2. It's not like that if a few million possibilities for e.g. 3x3 were removed, there weren't enough then "legit" scrambles left. The responsible people should think really good about what state is a legit SCRAMBLE and which one still is just too easy/trivial to be actually be called it scrambled. Just because we have a rule that says "random position" doesn't mean that rule is good or should not be changed. And also: void records set up to today. There's nothing wrong with that. People who got the records before still got them before - it's not like it never happened. Those people still being active and good enough probably will get there record back at one of the first competitions there will compete at. But by doing this, the bar is just raised - records will happen as before, but it will not depend on luck but on the actual ability of the competitor. I personally just have a hard time acknowleding records which are set more because of luck rather than skill - while I highly respect records being achieved by great abilities.
OR just don't keep track/list the single solve records any more at all - put those we already have in an archive or something. Although the highly unlikable case of more than one lucky scramble witrhin an average is still not elliminated.

So, I am still curious for your opinion on how you feel about the luck factor... if you mind or if you don't and if the latter, why so. Also, what was wrong with voiding records and starting over again? There's nothing wrong with perceiving that it wasn't good (if that is the case) how it was done before and thus just do it again, but different.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Do we want luch to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?



I think skill will always be the most determining factor.



Eric79 said:


> You also wouldn't plan out in detail what you are going to do on which day of your possible sight-seing holiday trip if you're not even sure if you should travel somewhere at all or rather stay at home.



I'd say you have that backwards. The way I see it, we're talking about possible details *in order to decide* whether we should travel at all.

We've talked about this several times through the years, this isn't the first time. I really really doubt you'll get enough support for your big anti-luck idea, partly because it's likely indeed impossible to find a good filter of your desired magnitude.



Eric79 said:


> If we handscramble a cube, we make sure there are no blocks and F2L pairs already built as good as possible.



I don't. I just make a lot of moves, trying to not repeat myself. I usually don't look while scrambling at all.



Eric79 said:


> void records set up to today



lolno


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I think skill will always be the most determining factor.


Well, for averages: Probably - if people don't get like 2-4 very easy scrambles in an average of 5. For single records probably not as in future more and more lucky scrambles will cause new records rather than the skill. For 2x2 this already is the case for the top three in the rankings - just saying.


Stefan said:


> I'd say you have that backwards. The way I see it, we're talking about possible details *in order to decide* whether we should travel at all.


Sure, but say a customer approaches you and askes you for a totally new software - you don't ask him at first how it should do things but what it should do in the first place, do you? Well, I think you get my point. And maybe that's just the way you are thinking while I from my job and education am just used to first analyze things to see if there is an actual problem or what the problem/requirements is/are (or if it's just a minor "disfigurement") and afterwords I take care/figure out the possibilities on how they could be avoided, solved or implemented. I'm fine with different ways of thinking...


Stefan said:


> [...]I really really doubt you'll get enough support for your big anti-luck idea, partly because it's likely indeed impossible to find a good filter of your desired magnitude.


Well, I am not really looking for support. What I want is a differing discussion of the topic, the pro and cons and as you verified by mentioning that this discussion came up several times before over the years, there seem to be people questioning the way it is done. And only because there may not be as many doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. In my opinion those facts should lead to a decission. Maybe not a final one, maybe things are different in a few years again, but if people question how things are done over and over again, isn't that a hint that something should be changed? And if not so many people mind at all, couldn't it be that they just haven't thought about it yet? Or that they just don't care? As said, I am not looking for support, I just want a productive discussion about the legitimacy of luck in competitions which results in "unfair" (because not comparable) world records.


Stefan said:


> I don't. I just make a lot of moves, trying to not repeat myself. I usually don't look while scrambling at all.


Well, I do. And I know others who also do this: If after scrambling the cube still has to many clocks I scramble it some more until it doesn't. But that's just personal preference and a poll on this topic also could be quite interesting as it would also tell us something about how people feel about easy scrambles.
Why do I do it? I want the challange of solving a hard scramble - not the ease of 3 turns.


Stefan said:


> lolno


Ok, but why not? What are the reason for not doing so? I can't think of any... besides maybe pride of those having the records right now - no offence, there is just nothing else I could think of that was so important to not void them if it was decided that luck should be excluded as much as possible from cubing competitions (I talk about single solve records - not neccessarily averages).


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2011)

Luck will always play a big role in cubing (not as big as skill, though). PERIOD. Even if 3x3x3 scrambles are chosen from a pool of "well scrambled" cubes, you'll still have some people getting PLL/OLL/LL/* skips, because different people solve the same scramble differently.



Eric79 said:


> And also: void records set up to today. There's nothing wrong with that.





Spoiler


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> more and more lucky scrambles will cause new records rather than the skill.



Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.



Eric79 said:


> For 2x2 this already is the case for the top three in the rankings



I disagree. I tried about 10 times to beat the 2x2 WR with the WR scramble. Couldn't do it. Takes skill.



Eric79 said:


> used to first analyze things to see if there is an actual problem



Sorry, I guess I'm just ahead of you - I already know that we won't agree on whether it's a problem.

Also, if you ask "Are you ok with luck?" and I don't know what you mean with "luck", how am I supposed to answer? We do need to talk a little about what it shall mean.



Eric79 said:


> Ok, but why not?



There's nothing wrong with them.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Nov 17, 2011)

If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".


----------



## aronpm (Nov 17, 2011)

fazdad said:


> If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".


 
Same thing. We're arguing whether this should happen at all.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

fazdad said:


> why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".


 
No, that *is* filtering.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

tim said:


> Luck will always play a big role in cubing (not as big as skill, though). PERIOD. Even if 3x3x3 scrambles are chosen from a pool of "well scrambled" cubes, you'll still have some people getting PLL/OLL/LL/* skips, because different people solve the same scramble differently.


We are talking about luck from the start which allowes to solve the puzzle with unusual few moves. We are not discussing having "luck" (it's no real luck as it is a natural result of how you solved the puzzle up to that point where the skip occurs, is it? Ok, it most of the times happens unintentionally so you may call it luck) because of using a specific method and thus being able to skip a step which normally was part of the solve - like those skips you mentioned. It was stated in the first post of this thread that it is about the scrambles.


Stefan said:


> Non-lucky Feliks beats non-skilled lucker.


In general? No - otherwise the three guys being lucky at the Trentin Open still were worse than the best up to that date. For the same scramble? Probably. But scrambles are different every competition/round/group so it need luck to get such an easy scramble in the first place to be able to set a corresponding record.


Stefan said:


> I disagree. I tried about 10 times to beat the 2x2 WR with the WR scramble. Couldn't do it. Takes skill.


Ok, if you take this example: I never said it wouldn't take any skill at all and others didn't either - of course you have to have a high TPS which probably was the reason why only 3 people were sub 1. But: Did you already check the avg. times from the world rankings for 2x2? Yours: 5.56s, Brancaleoni: 3.97s, Provasi: 4.2s, Kaserer: 4.33s. They all are more then a second faster than you on avergare. Maybe that could be a reason why they were able to do it and you were not. Maybe you could have done it with an eleventh try. Who knows. But whatever it was, there were several possibilties explaining it. Luck undenieably is a big one.


Stefan said:


> Sorry, I guess I'm just ahead of you - I already know that we won't agree on whether it's a problem.


Which is ok for me in case you didn't know yet, although I said I am not looking for support. Different people may have different opinions. So for me and in our case there is no "being ahead of someone" as I can respect different opinions - it's just different thinking. But variety helps improving things: If everyone living in the 18th century would have thought the manual looms wouldn't need any improvements, we still had no warp knitting machines. And that's what we do - we tell what we think and discuss it and if we are lucky (;-)) we find a solution which satisfies most of the community.


Stefan said:


> Also, if you ask "Are you ok with luck?" and I don't know what you mean with "luck", how am I supposed to answer? We do need to talk a little about what it shall mean.


I thought we already cleared that long ago, the latest when you threw in "trivial solves" instead of my general (and maybe bad worded) "lucky scramble solves". Also it is in the Threads Title: "Lucky Scrambles" which kind of implies about which kind of luck we talk.
anyway: If I had asked if luck was ok, it is about the luck responsible to get a statistically really rare and thus "lucky" scrambles of a puzzle which then could be solved with just a few movements/turns or however it is manipulated. Regardless if that may be 2, 3, 4 or more moves; as I think this is somthing which should be discussed after it is agreed on if lucky scrambles are ok or not. Not until then discussion about where the limits may be set for each event exactely makes sense in my opinion. But we didn't find a general consent yet (maybe an explained poll would be a good way to find one): Some say luck is just part of cubing and others say we don't want that luck which is responsible for lucky scrambles and you say (if I sum this up correctly) luck is ok but trivial scrambles should (or could?) be removed.


Stefan said:


> There's nothing wrong with them.


Not yet. But say there was a new rule regarding scrambles which have to require a minimum of (e.g.) 6 moves to solve (e.g.) a 2x2, then there is something wrong with the current ones as they needed fewer turns.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

fazdad said:


> If the WCA dictates a certain program generates scrambles for all competitions, then why not alter the program to, say, always generate a "minimum" number of moves. Removes the need for any "filtering".


Yes, I already suggested that in the original post of this thread: "Or - to make it easier and not as time consuming - use a scrambler which excludes scrambles not nard enough."


Stefan said:


> No, that *is* filtering.


Not sure, but I guess he meant "filtering" manually, after actually scrambling a cube. Although I may be wrong with that assumption.


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> *We* are talking about luck from the start which allowes to solve the puzzle with unusual few moves.



You didn't until you've completely changed your last post. WTF?



Eric79 said:


> it's no real luck as it is a natural result of how you solved the puzzle up to that point where the skip occurs, is it?



wat?



Eric79 said:


> It was stated in the first post of this thread that it is about the scrambles.



Again: You asked another question in your post until you completely reworded it.

Lesson learned:
ALWAYS quote people even if they seem reliable. -.-


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Stefan said:
> 
> 
> > Non-lucky Feliks beats *non-skilled* lucker.
> ...



You seriously call those three guys non-skilled?



Eric79 said:


> So for me and in our case there is no "being ahead of someone"



To clarify: I meant ahead in the discussion, in the sense that I skipped the stage that I know (ok, suspect) won't lead anywhere. The one where you don't want to talk about details yet (even though you really are already).


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

tim said:


> You didn't until you've completely changed your last post. WTF?


Pardon me? This is wrong. The thing that never got changed and which was there right from the start in the original first post which started this thread: *"So, what could be done regarding "lucky" scrambles?"* And this is the key sentence which you now seem to forget about. And you even replied only regarding lucky scrambles with your very first post in this thread which was:


tim said:


> [...] And as I've already stated in the other thread: Setting a scramble length doesn't help much in terms of "lucky scrambles".


before you went on - also - about scrambles. No word about anything but scrambles (regarding luck) up to your second last post where you suddenly started to talk about PLL/OLL/LL skips. Nobody but you was talking about them at all up to this point (maybe Thom did when he wrote that luck simply was part of cubing as he didn't exclude that he also meant those lucky skips). That's why the "we" isn't wrong at all - call it "we except Tim" if that makes you happy. But most important: Even the title of this thread always was "future competitions and *lucky scrambles*."


tim said:


> wat?


If you get a one of those skips you mentioned it
1) depends on the method you are using
2) depends on how you solve the puzzle up to the point where the skip occurs
If you solve (in this case for your examples) the F2L in a different way, there may not be one of those skips while if you do it the "rigth" way, maybe even do some extra moves before actually solving the F2L, you get a skip. Those skips all depent on the method you are using and on how you solve the puzzle up to the point where the skip occurs - even if it wasn't "optimal" to do some extra turns just to get a "forced" skip - besides the fact that I don't know of anyone who actually could do it intentionally for every case. But I also stated before that thus you could call it "luck" to get such a skip while in reality it just is a consequence of how you did the former, not skipped steps.


tim said:


> Again: You asked another question in your post until you completely reworded it.
> 
> Lesson learned:
> ALWAYS quote from people even if they seem reliable. -.-


Again and for the last time: No, I did not. And to make it short as I already wrote this above: The threads title - which defines what the topic is about - always was "future competitions and *lucky scrambles*." and not "future competitions and lucky OLL/PLL/LL skips". So don't blame me if you suddenly decided to discuss those skips, if you missed, forgot or even mixed something up and don't try to discredit me by making false statements. Enough said.


Stefan said:


> You seriously call those three guys non-skilled?


I never did, I explicitly said they were lucky and worse than the best up to that date which they on average still are - that doesn't particularly explude skill at all. I even pointed out by wrinting down the times, that they seem to be even more skilled than you are regarding 2x2 - judging from the world rankings. And only about 4 of my sentences later I also wrote "I never said it wouldn't take any skill at all and others didn't either". I just picked up your example of that 2x2 WR where you said you tried it 10 times and didn't make it as good as they did. So Stefan, don't twist my words.
The topic still is "future competitions and lucky scrambles" and if they should be excluded from competitions and thus the luck to get them. It's not if those guys were lucky, skilled or whatever (also stated in the first post of this thread) - I guess that's already discussed at other places where I by the way am not participating - just saying.


Stefan said:


> To clarify: I meant ahead in the discussion, in the sense that I skipped the stage that I know (ok, suspect) won't lead anywhere. The one where you don't want to talk about details yet (even though you really are already).


That is right, you are ahead of me regarding that - maybe because you thought about the whole topic more often within the last years than I did. And well, yes, the topics are quite intersecting but my reason not to discuss those specific details in this thread was because they are already discussed for example in those threads you linked to earlier. I still think we would need more peoples opinion on if it is ok as it is and why so or if they don't want the several times by now defined kind of luck in competitions before we go ahead and plan out details.

Actually, now that I think of it and as I have already stated my opinion on the topic and if you would like to, you also can discuss this in here and I could tell you my subjective opinion on it for some puzzles I guess. But I also could (as I already kind of did before) just sum that up by saying right away:
I would like all puzzles/events as good scrambled as possible - meaning to give it to the competitors with as few as possible blocks (starting from 1x2 blocks) already given. As in my opinion competition results should be comparable - which they aren't if some only have e.g. 2 moves while others in other competitions have to do e.g. 10.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> I would like all puzzles/events as good scrambled as possible - meaning to give it to the competitors with as few as possible blocks (starting from 1x2 blocks).


 
In the first part of your post you expressed that you don't want rules to apply to specific methods.

Then this idea applies to specific methods.

You don't understand the topic very well and shouldn't be taking part in this debate.


----------



## adragast (Nov 17, 2011)

Ninja'ed by Kirjava but oh well...

The problem, as people mentioned earlier is that it is difficult to determine the "as good scrambled as possible". Typically your suggestion of avoiding blocks is not good enough (have you thought about M2R2, corner first, ZZ, HTA, ... ?). Also this would only be about the beginning of the solve. Easy cross but difficult F2L, no oll skip and no pll skip is not easier than difficult cros but trivial f2l (only 3-move cases) and ll skip. And as people stated earlier you cannot sort scrambles about whether or not they may lead to a pll skip. People solve f2l in different ways, different orders, some may get skips some other not.


----------



## tim (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> And you even replied only regarding lucky scrambles with your very first post in this thread which was:





Eric79 said:


> But most important: Even the title of this thread always was "future competitions and *lucky scrambles*."





Eric79 said:


> The threads title - which defines what the topic is about - always was "future competitions and *lucky scrambles*."



That's not relevant. I replied to your recent post not to your first post.



Eric79 said:


> So don't blame me if you suddenly decided to discuss those skips



I didn't discuss them, they were an example for my reasoning about luck in speedcubing, since you wanted to know: "Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?". The bold part of your post said something very similar, btw.

adragast and Kirjava sum it up perfectly.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> In the first part of your post you expressed that you don't want rules to apply to specific methods.
> 
> Then this idea applies to specific methods.[...]


In the first part of my last post? I cannot find where I say something even close to that. But I know that in the first post of the thread I already said


Eric79 said:


> 1) A limit could be set for the fewest move solution "legit" for each puzzle


So, "each puzzle", exactly what I now again said.


Kirjava said:


> You don't understand the topic very well and shouldn't be taking part in this debate.


The original topic was if lucky scrambles should be allowed. There's not much to know to have an opinion on that. I just told Stefan he now also may discuss further details if he wants to (as I have expressed regarding the topic what I wanted to, several times already). And I already told my general opinion on what I think makes a good scramble. I didn't even say I would want to get involved discussing details as being discussed before by Stefan and Chris already. And as you may have noticed, I already didn't reply to those earlier posts - for a reason.
Saying I shouldn't take part in a debate that wasn't even the original topic set by the one who started this thread - which was me by the way, and in which I didn't even partake when it started before is like saying "Oh, but you shouldn't talk about that, you have no idea of cooking" if all your 3 year old kid said was "I want waffles. But waffles with a special taste." He didn't say "The taste has to be cinnamon apple". Transferring to what I said: "I want Scrambles, scrambles which exclude luck to have compareable competitions" - I didn't tell how that should be done, let alone in such detail as Stefan or Chris started discussing it. All I did was expressing my opinion on what I think a good scramble should be like. So if you want to - and I'm sure you could add useful thoughts, join in with Chris and Stefan, I don't mind any more.


adragast said:


> Ninja'ed by Kirjava but oh well...
> 
> The problem, as people mentioned earlier is that it is difficult to determine the "as good scrambled as possible". Typically your suggestion of avoiding blocks is not good enough (have you thought about M2R2, corner first, ZZ, HTA, ... ?). Also this would only be about the beginning of the solve. Easy cross but difficult F2L, no oll skip and no pll skip is not easier than difficult cros but trivial f2l (only 3-move cases) and ll skip. And as people stated earlier you cannot sort scrambles about whether or not they may lead to a pll skip. People solve f2l in different ways, different orders, some may get skips some other not.


Of course my "suggestions" probably isn't good enough - it wasn't even meant as one. That's just my opinion on what a good scramble should be (in the meaning of challenging and comparable to others - as said before, you can't really compare times needed of a 2 move solve with a 10 or 40 move solve). However that could be achieved. And sure some people get a skip and others don't with the same scramble, that is about what I also said before. So we completely agree on that. It simply is about scrambles which don't allow solves that only need a few turns - which may not be simple to realize at all.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> The original topic was if lucky scrambles should be allowed. There's not much to know to have an opinion on that. I just told Stefan he now also may discuss further details if he wants to (as I have expressed regarding the topic what I wanted to, several times already). And I already told my general opinion on what I think makes a good scramble.



Exactly, your definition of lucky scramble is flawed.



Eric79 said:


> Saying I shouldn't take part in a debate that wasn't even the original topic set by the one who started this thread - which was me by the way


 
I was replying to *something you said*. Just because it wasn't the *original topic* doesn't mean that you are immune to replies about it.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Stefan said:
> 
> 
> > Eric79 said:
> ...



I said non-skilled, and you tried to use them as counter-example. So yes, you did call them non-skilled.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> In sports it is all on how good competitors are trained and what their body is capable of or how good they play together as a team, in "mental" competitions like chess, it is on how good you attack and defend your king.



If the best speedcuber average of 2x2 and the best cuber fewest move of 3x3 want to participate for an average of 5 2x2 fewest move on to the next WC. I Imagine my first one championship.

The only one fewest move official challenge is a single 3x3 in 60 minutes I think ? 

10 minutes for a 2x2 seems sufficient for a rule. Impossible to resolve the scramble in less than 7 HTM. Compulsory from 7 to 11 (max alg god). This is only my opinion.

......................................................................................................................

Are you able to find an algorithm of 7 HTM which can be solved in 6 HTM on a 2x2? 
The first one shortcut 

................................................................................................................

Yes I am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW790cTRCwI

Happy cubing


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

tim said:


> That's not relevant. [...] since you wanted to know: "Do we want luck to be the most determining factor in our "sport" regarding getting records?".


 And that quote was defined more precisely several times as being the luck responsible for way to easy scrambles.
If there is a discussion about oviparous domestic animals and how they are bred for their meat, you can't just start talking about horses and cows because they also are domestic animals bred for their meat. You would have missed the one importent defining criterium: They just are not oviparous animals.
And this is why all that what you said wasn't relevant is the only thing which actually is relevant.


Kirjava said:


> Exactly, your definition of lucky scramble is flawed.


I never claimed it was a perfect, flawless solution - it's just my approach "on what a good scramble should be (in the meaning of challenging and comparable to others - as said before, you can't really compare times needed of a 2 move solve with a 10 or 40 move solve)." Feel free to enhance or perfect it.


Kirjava said:


> I was replying to *something you said*.[...]


If you are talking about what you quoted, then I have to point to what I just said before a few lines above. My opinion is not meant to be understood as the already perfect, flawless solution of all the problems - it's my... (see above). If you were replying to something else I said, exactly point me to it.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> I never claimed it was a perfect, flawless solution



I never said you did. It's a terrible and flawed definition created by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. This is why I advise you to stop posting. Your ideas are awful.



Eric79 said:


> If you are talking about what you quoted, then I have to point to what I just said before a few lines above. My opinion is not meant to be understood as the already perfect, flawless solution of all the problems.


 
I never said it was. It's a terrible and flawed opinion created by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. This is why I advise you to stop posting. Your ideas are awful.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I said non-skilled, and you tried to use them as counter-example. So yes, you did call them non-skilled.


The verb I used was "lucky" not "non-skilled" as the rest which you misappropriated explaind in detail. Again, don't twist my words - read what actually is written, not what you'd like to read between the lines.


Gaétan Guimond said:


> If the best speedcuber average of 2x2 and the best cuber fewest move of 3x3 want to participate for an average of 5 2x2 fewest move on to the next WC. I Imagine my first one championship.
> 
> The only one fewest move official challenge is a single 3x3 in 60 minutes I think ?
> 
> ...


I am sorry Gaétan, I can't follow your drift - but I guess: Go for it.


Kirjava said:


> [...]It's a terrible and flawed definition[...]


Approaches or opinions aren't definite - thus what I said never was meant as an definition which is how you seem to have understood it. As said: "It's just my opinion on what a good scramble should be[...]" Regarding an actual definition I wouldn't go further as agreeing on what Stefan said, that they were trivial to solve.


I'd appreciate if you get back on topic or the details you started discussing earlier. If you don't want that... well, your decission. Going for words, maybe trying to twist them, doesn't help the original problem getting solved. As said before, I already mentioned everthing I wanted to say regarding the actual topic and for that reason don't expect me to reply to your posts any more, as long as they aren't on topic or about what an actual "fair", compareably, luck-excluding scramble is or could be in detail.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Again, don't twist my words - read what actually is written, not what you'd like to read between the lines.



Gosh, why did I bother building the quote-tree if you just ignore it anyway... non-skilled *was* written! Look again, I even bolded it for you! Twice!


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 17, 2011)

I have to be perfectly honest that I am lost as to the track this discussion is taking.

I will try to list what my understanding of this discussion is so far. I imagine this may not be (fully?) correct, so someone please help me to clarify:

1) Eric79 proposes to discuss the topic of whether "lucky" scrambles should be allowed.
2) Various discussion takes place
3) Stefan proposes to limit scrambles that are "trivial", which could include scrambles that are less than 4 turns in length.
4) Various other discussion on this topic takes place in which some people agree with Stefan's proposal, and Eric79 seemingly does not find it sufficient
5) Currently we are now debating why Eric79 does not find Stefan's proposal a sufficient solution to eliminating "enough" of a luck element from cubing competitions?

Have I understood this correctly? The reason I ask is that I feel the proposal to eliminate scrambles of length less than 4 turns is a good one, and one that does not require the eliminating of all records before such a new rule is added.

I find Eric79's proposal to reset all single records and start from scratch unreasonable, but if he can provide an instance where this has happened previously in another sport then I might consider it with more of an open mind. I do not like the idea of restarting the records over from scratch. Has Guinness ever done this with their records? Has any other sport who made a large change done this? It seems reasonable that some other sport at some point in their history may have done this before. However, I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this _might_ (possibly) be a viable option for cubing. Such a drastic change should not be taken lightly in my opinion. I agree with Stefan, I see nothing wrong with the current records, and I have not yet been convinced that a change beyond Stefan's proposal is even necessary in the first place.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> Approaches or opinions aren't definite - thus what I said never was meant as an definition which is how you seem to have understood it.


 
You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

The point is that you had an idea, and it was bad. Very bad.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 17, 2011)

Thanks for the summary Chris, skimming over this thread I was glad I didn't get involved 



cmhardw said:


> I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this _might_ (possibly) be a viable option for cubing.



Do you need to look any further than cubing, isn't this what happened when the Multi-BLD rules changed? (EDIT: ninja'd)


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.


 
I agree, that is a good example. I feel that this was, sadly, necessary from the viewpoint of how difficult the old style was for organizers to include that event in competitions. At least the 1 hour limit does allow for MultiBLD to continue to be included in competitions.

I think it's sad that we had to lose Tim's 24/24 result as the "current" record. I say current because his record is still the record for the old style. However, I think that the circumstances made it clear that such a change was necessary.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Well, we did somewhat start over from old multiblind to new multiblind when we introduced the 1-hour limit.


 
Talking to me?


----------



## whauk (Nov 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I do not like the idea of restarting the records over from scratch. Has Guinness ever done this with their records? Has any other sport who made a large change done this? It seems reasonable that some other sport at some point in their history may have done this before. However, I would like to see a concrete example of what effect this had on that sport or competitive activity before we even begin to consider if this _might_ (possibly) be a viable option for cubing. Such a drastic change should not be taken lightly in my opinion.



look at javelin throw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_throw
the records went from 100+ meters down to sub90 meters when the new design was introduced.
today the WR is at 98 again.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 17, 2011)

I am currently reading the private forum thread, and I have to say that this post is very convincing to me.

This leads me to another proposal (apologies if this has already been discussed and I missed it).

Definition of a "proper" scramble: A scramble is a starting state of the puzzle that would be defined as a "DNF" state by the regulations.

Proposed rule change: All puzzles must be given a "proper" scramble.

This allows for the possibility of 2 move scrambles for 2x2x2/pyraminx/etc. It would also allow 1 turn STM scrambles in 3x3x3 (M, E, or S as the scramble for example), 4x4x4, 5x5x5. In a meta sense, making this the cutoff for what constitutes a "good" scramble "feels" less arbitrary than us picking a number like 3 or 4 turns. I agree with Stefan's arguments that a 3 turn scramble is arbitrary in the sense that most non-cubers could solve it. However, I have seen some non-cubers struggle with scrambles like (R U R') and not be able to solve it.

However, I feel that making the cutoff such that a "proper" scramble means "A DNF state" might be a less arbitrary definition (though it is still an arbitrarily decided cut-off).

I am simply stating this as another possible option to discuss in this thread.

--edit--
This proposal was already mentioned here.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I have to be perfectly honest that I am lost as to the track this discussion is taking.
> 
> I will try to list what my understanding of this discussion is so far. I imagine this may not be (fully?) correct, so someone please help me to clarify:
> 
> ...


From what I see, you summary is correct.
I'd love to present you an example where records were voided (I'm not talking about revoking) in sports. The problem is: In sports there is no lucky factor similar to the one we have for easy scrambles - at least I can't think of one. The only factor I can possible think of is wind: But in athletics wind speeds are usually given together with records (while in speedsolving the move count is not given together with the record) where it is a factor affecting times a lot (sprinters usually are 0.1s faster per 1m/s tail wind speed). The rule was implemented in 1938 to avoid falsification of competition and if there are stronger tail winds than 2m/s, all jump (long, triple and pole vault) and sprint (100m and 200m) disciplines are paused. What happened with the before set records? Nothing, they were just slower. But e.g. in 100m sprint world records history: After the new wind rule, there was no new rekord set (last one set in 1936) until 1956 but the sprinters before 1038 still were relatively slow, conditions were not always almost the same, so it wasn't almost "impossible" to beat the record and times still kept improving ever since.
I would assume the responsible people in athletics implemented to rule just in time while in speedcubing the statement "random scramble" just wasn't thought through well enough - causing what this thread is about: Scrambles which allow "trivial solves" due to luck.
Regarding Guinnes records, new approaches for a world rekord have to be accomplished under the exact same conditions - which also is different to speedsolving as the scrambles are not always the same but differ from e.g. 10 move solves to e.g. possibly 2 move solves.
So I couldn't find anything without extensive research and don't really have the time for it right now but in my opinion the WCA made the mistake to not create a rule from the start which takes care of every solve within the same event is, at all competitions, actually a compareable challenge instead of just being lucky being at the right competition/group/time.
Caused from this I would assume that we already have quite some records set which mostly are based on lucky scrambles. Thus I hypothetically suggested to void all records set up to date. If I have a client who wants a sophisticated construction for a machine or a device, it can happen that I am done, that the constructed unit actually would perfectly do what it is supposed to after being built but still the client doesn't like anything at all and asks me to redo it - just everything in a different way. Then I can't waste time whining around about all the wasted time and hard work, I have to put it aside, accept that the client just wants something different for whatever reason and start over again - and especially in research where prototypes are developed this happens quite often.
But as said, I don't even say "delete" all records so far, I just say: Make a new list, fill it with new, future records based on possibly new rules - if rules would exclude previous set records. About as you probably meant it when you said:


cmhardw said:


> [...]I say current because his record is still the record for the old style. However, I think that the circumstances made it clear that such a change was necessary.



Edit: Wow, quite a lot now posts in the meantime...


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> [...] In a meta sense, making this the cutoff for what constitutes a "good" scramble "feels" less arbitrary than us picking a number like 3 or 4 turns.[...]


I'd say it wasn't very arbitrary if the most successfull cubers right now have a pow wow where they find out, up to which scramble length they see the "trivial" solution on average (even if it wasn't trivial at all any more for others). Then, rise that border by one and there you have a possible cutoff.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> I'd say it wasn't very arbitrary if the most successfull cubers right now have a pow wow where they find out, up to which scramble length they see the "trivial" solution on average (even if it wasn't trivial at all any more for others). Then, rise that border by one and there you have a possible cutoff.


 
It would very likely be above 3.

uh oh


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> It would very likely be above 3.[...]


And that is one of the reasons why I don't like the idea of drawing the line at only 3 moves as suggested by Stefan or even fewer as by others, but higher: 1) different people find differend scramles still "trivial" - and none should 2) I just don't consider a cube, scrambled with a only 3 moves scramble as actually "shuffled" even though technically it is.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Eric79 said:


> but higher


 
This would be unfair.


----------



## Eric79 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> This would be unfair.


To whom and why? Everyone had another chance at their next competition.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

times set with 4 move scrambles become potentially unbeatable


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Talking to me?


 
No, you just ninjad me. I saw it but thought it was clear I was answering Chris's request.



cmhardw said:


> I agree with Stefan's arguments that a 3 turn scramble is arbitrary in the sense that most non-cubers could solve it.


 
That's just one of my three arguments for that specific limit. The first one still is that it's the most consistent regarding previous handling of short scrambles.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

k. Do you have a good reason for filtering yet?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> k. Do you have a good reason for filtering yet?



I still just have the same arguments. Do you have a good reason to stop filtering yet?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

There is no rule for filtering at the moment.

"Don't fix something that isn't broken"


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> There is no rule for filtering at the moment.


 
No rule, but precedent. It's what we've actually been doing.



Kirjava said:


> "Don't fix something that isn't broken"


 
Rule and reality differ, I'd say that *is* broken. Or do you find it ok that one delegate might throw out a scramble that another wouldn't? We should fix it one way or another, and I say actual precedent is no less valid than missing rule.


----------



## Dene (Nov 17, 2011)

Also, bear in mind my refusal to throw out any scramble. Do we really want Feliks to be confronted by a 2 move scramble? I'm actually really hoping one shows up at the next competition in a week. (I should point out that Tim will be organising the scrambles for the competition)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> No rule, but precedent. It's what we've actually been doing.



We shouldn't've been.



Stefan said:


> Or do you find it ok that one delegate might throw out a scramble that another wouldn't?



Of course not, none should be thrown out.



Stefan said:


> We should fix it one way or another, and I say actual precedent is no less valid than missing rule.


 
Saying that the "no filtering rule" is missing is like saying the "don't poo on the delegate" rule is missing.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> We shouldn't've been.



I agree. But we have.



Kirjava said:


> Saying that the "no filtering rule" is missing is like saying the "don't poo on the delegate" rule is missing.


 
Only if the WCA board was asked whether a certain delegate should be pooed on, the board said yes, and it was done. Did I miss that?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Only if the WCA board was asked whether a certain delegate should be pooed on, the board said yes, and it was done. Did I miss that?


 
Good point. WCA should have clarified this long before now.


----------



## jskyler91 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Good point. WCA should have clarified this long before now.


 
I know that much has already been said on this so I will keep my response short, but I would like to say that I think there should simply either be filtering or not; there should not be both happening. I believe that both arguments for and against filtering are legitimate and I say we should just choose one. It doesn't really matter, as long as the filtering is minimal enough that WR's can still be beat, we just need to make a rule about it. Considering that both arguments are equally compelling, I say we just go with the one that is easiest i.e. no filtering, because it will make implementation easier and less subjective. Just my two cents


----------



## gewinnste (Nov 2, 2016)

Eric79 said:


> *Future competitions and lucky scrambles or "Should luck be legit?"*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I totally agree and had this idea myself a while ago. 

Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.

I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.


----------



## Ronxu (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available.



aka scrap all scrambles.


----------



## sqAree (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> I totally agree and had this idea myself a while ago.
> 
> Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.
> 
> I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.



But we can't really force PLL skips to not happen as we don't know how different cubers solve their F2L or which OLL algs they use etc. What if someone knows all ZBLLs and skips PLL every time? I remember a thread some while ago where someone wrote code that produces natural looking CFOP solutions to any scrambles that always result in LL skip.

Ok, I probably just missed that you were being sarcastic. ._.


----------



## Torch (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> I totally agree and had this idea myself a while ago.
> 
> Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.
> 
> I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.


https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/cfop-variation-cf.37349/


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> I totally agree and had this idea myself a while ago.
> Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.
> 
> I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.



Um... how about a method like ZZ-CT, where every solve forces a last-layer skip? Or what if you use ZBLL or WV in a solve and force a "skip?" Or what if some guy didn't know any PLLs, so his method was to keep solving over and over until he got a PLL skip? Or what if you totally messed up and had to resolve F2L in an unconventional way that would lead to a skip? EVERY scramble can lead to a skip in EVERY method depending on how you solve it. Besides, WCA regulations absolutely must be method neutral, because methods change and evolve over time, and many methods have dozens of intricacies that make it hard to determine if the solver got a skip.

Say you use ZZ, and you only know COLL and EPLL algs for LL. There's a 1/12 chance of getting a PLL skip. Sure, you would be lucky if you got one, but making this illegal would make 1 in 12 of your solves also illegal (technically more if you also count OLL skips). That's just over one per competition if you compete in 3 rounds of 3x3. We already have movecount requirements that are relatively reasonable; it would be flat out impossible to illegalize skips.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.


 No it can't, there was a thread in which someone demonstrated a program that would generate CFOP solutions to any scramble (https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/cfop-variation-cf.37349/) and making it so that it would always end up with an LL skip, this is just not possible, you could do F2L differently and get a skip because solving the F2L differently can affect the last layer pieces. This is a really naive and dumb post IMO.


----------



## YouCubing (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> I totally agree and had this idea myself a while ago.
> 
> Since for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 all possible positions are known meanwhile, it could be accomplished to only allow scrambles that lead to positions that CANNOT be solved with (a) skip(s) by any method available. It could just be looked up from a database that contains only non-lucky-solvable scrambles.
> 
> I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.


I don't understand you, your logic, or any way that would be possible


----------



## Dash Lambda (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> I find this really is of high importance since, especially for the 2x2x2, the current records are almost irrelevant for cubing expertise. Even for the 3x3x3, it's obviously important since there's quite a large gap between the single-WR and the ao5-WR. Almost all single-WRs were lucky solves with move counts around 45 whereas CFOP, the exclusive method for WRs lately (or even ever since?) is ~ 55.


You see, the thing about cubing, is that it's about three-quarters skill and one quarter probability. The average movecount for CFOP is 55, but they'll typically be anywhere from ~30-70 moves because that's how samples and averages work. If you don't like probability, then this really isn't the sport for you.

A good exercise I do is that, whenever there's a new WR, I get the scramble and do it myself before I watch the video. I think you'll find that, no-matter how lucky the solve, you probably can't do it as fast the guy with the record (except for 2x2 and pyra, but those are trivial).


----------



## turtwig (Nov 2, 2016)

Even if you exclude a certain set of scrambles, within the scrambles that you allow, there will still be luckier ones, and some records would still be very hard to beat. For example, if we exclude all possible skips (it's impossible, but just for the sake of argument), someone could still get a 1 move cross, 4 3-move pairs, sune and U perm, which would then become virtually unbeatable.

I personally don't think that we should filter any scrambles (except solved cubes and +2's, obviously), but filtering by minimum movecount is much better than filtering by arbitrary things like skips which is impossible and doesn't make any sense.


----------



## biscuit (Nov 2, 2016)

*some 15 second solver gets an E1, gets a two move solution that no one else gets.*

*gets a record that will never be beaten*

That's the kind of scenario that makes me think no filtering is an awful idea, even if it is an arbitrary limit.


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 3, 2016)

biscuit said:


> *some 15 second solver gets an E1, gets a two move solution that no one else gets.*
> 
> *gets a record that will never be beaten*
> 
> That's the kind of scenario that makes me think no filtering is an awful idea, even if it is an arbitrary limit.



Totally agree with this. The fact that 2 move scrambles are allowed at all (and that this is true all the way up to 7x7) just seems wrong, especially when 2x2 scrambles are filtered out at sub-4 moves.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 3, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> Totally agree with this. The fact that 2 move scrambles are allowed at all (and that this is true all the way up to 7x7) just seems wrong, especially when 2x2 scrambles are filtered out at sub-4 moves.


I don't think this is true though, can Lucas Garron verify?


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> I don't think this is true though, can Lucas Garron verify?



Yeah, idk what TNoodle actually filters out, but the regs say:


> 4b3) Specification for the scramble program: An official scramble sequence must produce a random state from those that require at least 2 moves to solve (equal probability for each state). The following additions/exceptions apply:


which applies for 3x3 and 4x4, and


> 4b3e) 5x5x5 Cube, 6x6x6 Cube, 7x7x7 Cube, and Megaminx: sufficiently many random moves (instead of random state), at least 2 moves to solve.



Although I would like some insight on how TNoodle handles this (especially the "equal probability for each state" part, which sounds like a 2-move solution should be included in the pool of possible scrambles).


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 3, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> Yeah, idk what TNoodle actually filters out, but the regs say:
> 
> which applies for 3x3 and 4x4, and
> 
> ...


I've heard TNoodle does filtering above 2 moves for 3x3, idk what it is for other puzzles

misscrambles are allowed on 7x7 so a delegate who gave 0 ****s could just let a 2 mover happen


----------



## Dash Lambda (Nov 3, 2016)

biscuit said:


> *some 15 second solver gets an E1, gets a two move solution that no one else gets.*
> 
> *gets a record that will never be beaten*
> 
> That's the kind of scenario that makes me think no filtering is an awful idea, even if it is an arbitrary limit.


I don't know about other people, but if I got that scramble, I'd just do a DNF. Maybe solve it, do a superflip, then stop the timer.


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 3, 2016)

Dash Lambda said:


> I don't know about other people, but if I got that scramble, I'd just do a DNF. Maybe solve it, do a superflip, then stop the timer.


I have a feeling like 60% of the people would think it was a mistake, and it wasnt scrambled, then would send it back to find out it was the real scramble and then get an extra scramble or a DNF, idk how that would work


----------



## biscuit (Nov 3, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> I have a feeling like 60% of the people would think it was a mistake, and it wasnt scrambled, then would send it back to find out it was the real scramble and then get an extra scramble or a DNF, idk how that would work



I'd probably think it's a mistake too. However, if you ever get something crazy like that, notify your judge that you think there's a mistake, solve it as normal, then go talk to the delegate.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 3, 2016)

To put this into perspective, a 2 move solve is so ridiculously incredibly unlikely, and we're not talking one in a billion unlikely. We're talking in the order of a billion times less likely than that. If you had a unique scramble for each star in the Milky Way galaxy, theres still a better than 999,999 in a million that you would not be able to solve any of them in 2 moves.

I do think the limit should be higher for 3x3 though, but more for thoroughness than I think it will ever actually happen.



DGCubes said:


> Although I would like some insight on how TNoodle handles this (especially the "equal probability for each state" part, which sounds like a 2-move solution should be included in the pool of possible scrambles).


The cool thing is that TNoodle is open source, so if you know some programming, you can dig in the code and see exactly how it works. It's not the most straight forward code to read, but it's not impossible to decipher. To understand the scrambling, you'd want to look at the .java files in the scrambles/src/puzzle/ folder. Specifically, all puzzles with limits different from the default define a variable wcaMinScrambleDistance, in accordance with the limits in the regulations.

The only one that's hard to figure out is the limit for 3x3 because of the way it's set. Fortunately there's an automatically generated readme that displays the limits for all puzzles. When you run TNoodle, there's a question mark in the top right corner. If you click that, you'll see what limits it was using, and at the moment, it uses 2 moves for 3x3.

Regarding selecting states so that each state has equal probability, yes scrambles under the limit are originally included in the pool of possible scrambles. It essentially has a way of numbering every single possible unique state (including those that can be solved under the move limit, and yes, even the solved state) from 0 to n and picks a random number. Here's the code that generates the state for pyraminx. If it turns out the state it picked can be solved in fewer moves than the limit for that puzzle, it scraps that state, picks a new one and tries again.

That doesn't affect the relative probabilities of the valid states at all. Imagine if you roll a dice, and if you roll a 1, you get to roll again until you get something other than 1. The probabilities of rolling a 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 are still all equal.

It is perfectly possible that the program will keep generating the scrambles under the limit which would basically cause the program to freeze. But that's so incredibly unlikely you can virtually guarantee that that won't happen. Your computer's far far more likely to be struck by lightning while generating the scrambles.


----------

