# Speed FMC Trial Competition



## Mike Hughey (Dec 23, 2019)

I would like to run a couple of trial speed FMC test competitions to see what scoring method makes the most sense. We've had two different proposals that seem to have some support. For this first one, I am going to use the logarithmic scoring method. However, at the end, I am going to list the winners by both the linear and the logarithmic scoring methods, just to compare. But the winner of this round will be declared based on the logarithmic scoring method.

So that we have time to run a couple before the end of the year, this will be a very short competition. I hope some people might participate since it is the holidays, but we'll see.

The scoring formula used for this round will be:
score = moves * ln (time in seconds) (where ln is natural logarithm)

And we will have a 10 minute time limit. Anything past 10 minutes is a DNF.

I also have wondered - if this is really intended to be a fairly fast event, it seems like it would be in the spirit of the Weekly Competition to make this an average of 5 instead of a mean of 3? For this round, I am going to provide 5 scrambles. If this proves to be an unpopular idea, I will scale back to 3 on the next trial competition. 3 would be easier for me to implement than 5, since it would then be the same as regular FMC in the form and in the timer. But I wouldn't like to start with mean of 3 this year and then have to switch to average of 5 next year, so I'd like to play with this now to see what happens. If no one participates with all 5 scrambles, I'll assume it was a bad idea and go with mean of 3.

The rules:
Same as normal FMC - you can use up to 3 solved cubes, stickers, and pen and paper. Maximum time of 10 minutes. For each attempt, time the solve from the time you reveal the scramble. You must have the full solution written down on paper before stopping the timer. Then submit here for each solve your solution as well as the time taken to perform the solve.

Scrambles for round 1:
1. R' U' F R2 F' L2 B R2 D2 F' L2 R2 B2 L' R2 F' U' B' L2 D2 U B2 U' F' R' U' F
2. R' U' F D2 R2 D2 F2 D L2 B2 F2 R' U L F D B2 F L D R' B2 F2 R' U' F
3. R' U' F R2 D' L2 D2 B2 U' R2 D' B2 U2 R F R U' L2 U L B U' F2 R' U' F
4. R' U' F L2 R2 D L2 D U2 F2 D2 U' B' F2 D R' D2 L D' B2 D' F R D R' U' F
5. R' U' F D2 U2 L2 U2 L R2 D2 F2 R B F2 U B2 F' L D2 U' F R F' R' U' F

I apologize for the shortness of these rounds, but I would like to do 2 rounds in time for next year's first competition. Therefore, this competition will close just before midnight GMT on December 26, 2019. So that's only 3 days. So hurry if you'd like to compete!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 23, 2019)

Please also feel free to discuss formats/rules in this thread. I will sort through and collect results when the first round is complete.

One thing worth discussing is this: I would like to go with a linear scoring method for the second round. What should k be?
score = moves + k * (time in seconds)

I played a little with k = 1/60, but to me it seems like it would almost always be worth it at that value of k to use all 10 minutes, and that's a little silly.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 23, 2019)

Wow, I'm bad at this.

Solve 1: 9:33.30, 50 moves (score: 317.57)


Spoiler



scramble: R' U' F R2 F' L2 B R2 D2 F' L2 R2 B2 L' R2 F' U' B' L2 D2 U B2 U' F' R' U' F
solution: F D L2 F L F' U D' R2 D F R' D' R D R' B' R' B2 R D2 R D2 R' D2 R D2 R' F' R F2 L' F2 R' F2 L F' R' L' D2 L D L' D2 R D' L D' B R

2x2x2: F D L2 F L F' U F
2x2x3: F' D' R2 D F R' with premove R
3x cross: D' R D R' B' R' B2 R with premove B
4th pair: D2 R D2 R' D2 R D2 R'
OLL: F' R F2 L' F2 R' F2 L F'
PLL: R' L' D2 L D L' D2 R D' L D'



Solve 2: 9:54.50 (ouch - scary!), 54 moves (score: 344.94)


Spoiler



scramble: R' U' F D2 R2 D2 F2 D L2 B2 F2 R' U L F D B2 F L D R' B2 F2 R' U' F
solution: R' F2 R F' L2 D L' D' L2 D' B2 D B L2 F' D2 F L' D2 L' B D' B' D U2 D R' F' R F U F' U D' B L' F L2 B' L F' U' D' L2 U D L2 D' B D2 F' L' F L

2x2x2: R' F2 R F' with premoves F' L' F L
2x2x3: L2 D L' D' L2 D' B2 D B
3x cross: L2 F' D2 F L' D2
4th pair: L' B D' B' D with premoves D' B D2
OLL: U2 D R' F' R F U F' U D'
PLL: B L' F L2 B' L F' U' D' L2 U D L2



Solve 3: 8:23.40 (not quite as scary), 50 moves (score: 311.07)


Spoiler



scramble: R' U' F R2 D' L2 D2 B2 U' R2 D' B2 U2 R F R U' L2 U L B U' F2 R' U' F
solution: D2 U B U F U2 L U' L2 U L' U' L B2 L' D' B2 D L' B L B U B U' D L B L' B' L B L' B' D' R B2 R' B2 R D' R' B' R B R D R2 B' U2

2x2x2: D2 U B U F
pseudo 2x2x3: U2 L U' L2 U L' U'
3x cross: L B2 L' D' B2 D with premove U2
4th pair: L' B L B U B U'
OLL: D L B L' B' L B L' B' D'
PLL: R B2 R' B2 R D' R' B' R B R D R2 B'



Solve 4: 9:47.77 (this is just crazy - I have to stop doing that!), 39 moves! (score: 248.68)


Spoiler



scramble: R' U' F L2 R2 D L2 D U2 F2 D2 U' B' F2 D R' D2 L D' B2 D' F R D R' U' F
solution: U2 F' D R2 L D L' F' D F D2 R F2 R' F2 R F R' D R F R' F' D' R' L' F2 L F L' F2 R F' L F R' L2 F2 L'

2x2x2: U2 with premoves L2 F2 L'
2x2x3: F' D R2 with premove R'
3x cross: L D L' F' D F D2
4th pair: R F2 R' F2 R F R'
OLL: D R F R' F' D'
PLL: R' L' F2 L F L' F2 R F' L F



Solve 5: 5:34.68 (was tempted to go for corner insertion, then decided not to), 37 moves! (score: 215.09)


Spoiler



scramble: R' U' F D2 U2 L2 U2 L R2 D2 F2 R B F2 U B2 F' L D2 U' F R F' R' U' F
solution: B L B' U B' U2 F' D2 F2 D' F2 R D R D2 R2 D2 R F' R' F B R D R' D' B' R' B R' F2 R B' R' F2 R2 F2

2x2x2: B L B' U B' U2
2x2x3: F' D2 F2 D' F2
3x cross: R D R D2 R2
4th pair: D2 R F' R' F with premove F2
AB3C: B R D R' D' B'
PLL: R' B R' F2 R B' R' F2 R2
Very lucky! Would probably have been a decent regular FMC solve for me with insertion; I would have been tempted to quit after finding this!



Ao5: 292.44


----------



## fun at the joy (Dec 23, 2019)

Spoiler: Scramble 1 - DNF



I went over the time limit.





Spoiler: Scramble 2 - 58 moves in 2:51.05 Score: 298.23



Scramble: R' U' F D2 R2 D2 F2 D L2 B2 F2 R' U L F D B2 F L D R' B2 F2 R' U' F

Solution:
z2 U' R' F D L' D U R' // Cross
L' U L2 U' L' // 1st Pair
F' U' F U' L' U L // 2nd Pair
U' R U' R' U R' U' R // 3rd Pair
U2 R U R' U' R U2 R' // 4th Pair
y L' U' L U' L' U L U L F' L' F // OLL
U' Lw' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 // PLL

Final Solution: D' L' F U R' U D L' R' D R2 D' R' F' D' F D' R' D R D' L D' L' D L' D' L D2 L D L' D' L D2 L' F' D' F D' F' D F D F L' F' L D' B' L B' R2 B L' B' R2 B2





Spoiler: Scramble 3 - 45 moves in 2:12.19 Score: 219.79



Scramble: R' U' F R2 D' L2 D2 B2 U' R2 D' B2 U2 R F R U' L2 U L B U' F2 R' U' F

Solution:
x2 R' F2 L D // Cross
L' U' L y R' U R2 U R' // 1st Pair
U R' F R F' // 2nd Pair
y' R U' R' // 3rd Pair
U2 L' U L U' L F' L' F // 4th Pair
y R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // OLL
y F2 U' L R' F2 L' R U' F2 U' // PLL

Final Solution: R' B2 L U L' D' L F' D F2 D F' D F' R F D' R' D2 L' D L D' L B' L' B F D2 F2 D' F2 D' F2 D2 F' D' L' R F2 L R' D' F2 D'





Spoiler: Scramble 4 - 54 moves in 6:23.84 Score: 321.31



Scramble: R' U' F L2 R2 D L2 D U2 F2 D2 U' B' F2 D R' D2 L D' B2 D' F R D R' U' F

Solution:
y B' D R D R2 U' F D // Cross
y' U R' U' R // 1st Pair
y' z' D' L' U2 L D // 2nd Pair
y' U2 R U' R' U R U R' // 3rd Pair
R U' R' U2 F' U F U F' U F // 4th Pair
y2 F R' F' R U R U' R' // OLL
y L U R U2 L' U L U2 L' R' // PLL

Final Solution: L' D B D B2 U' R D U R' U' R B' U' F2 U B F2 L F' L' F L F L' U F' U' F2 R' F R F R' F R L D' L' D F D F' D' L F' R F2 L' F L F2 R' L'





Spoiler: Scramble 5 - 56 moves in 4:18.16 Score: 311.00



Scramble: R' U' F D2 U2 L2 U2 L R2 D2 F2 R B F2 U B2 F' L D2 U' F R F' R' U' F

Solution:
y x2 F R' U' L2 F' D' // Cross
R U' R' L U' L' // 1st Pair
U2 R' U R y U' L U' L2 U L // 2nd Pair
F U2 F' // 3rd Pair
U2 R U R2 F R F' // 4th Pair
y Lw' U' L U R U' Rw' F // OLL
R2 F2 R U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 // PLL

Final Solution: L B' D' F2 L' U' B D' B' F D' F' D2 B' D B D' L D' L2 D L B D2 B' D2 R D R2 B R B' F' R' B R F R' B' R F2 R2 F D2 F D2 F' R F D F' D' F' R F2 D2


awful solutions and lol time consistency


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 24, 2019)

Yes!! I'll give this a shot! I'm so excited to have Speed FMC in Weekly Comps! 
Also, I support logarithmic scoring and average of 5.

#1 - 43 in 9:46 (274pt)


Spoiler



U D' R'
B' U D R2 B'
D2 L2 D L2 D L2
B D' F' D B' D' F L2
D R2 B2
R2 D' R' D R' B2 L U' L'
R2 D'


#2 - 33 in 9:13 (208pt)


Spoiler



R L F
U2 L
D' R2 B2 U' L2 U
R D2 R U' R' D2 R2 B2 F D2 F' U2 F D2 F
D' B2 L2 U2 L2 U2 L2


#3 - EDIT: DNF solution didn't work lmao

#4 - 57 in 3:28 (304pt)


Spoiler



D2 B' R D L F' L'
U' R U2 R2 U' R
F U2 F' L U L'
R U R' U F' U' F
U2 F' L F L2 U2 L
U' F U F' U F U' F'
L F' L' B L F L'
B U R L' B2 R' L U B2


#5 - 27 in 9:27 (171pt)


Spoiler



B'
L' U2 F2 L2 F'
U R U D' R
U D2 L'
B2 L B L' F2 L B' L'
U2 D F2 R2 D



(Log scoring ofc,)
Final Average of 5- 262.0

This is really fun and stressful! You have to be so very quick and make decisions to not explore things because it takes time, you just gotta go! Solves 1 and 3 I was panicking a ton at the end due to time and I was going to DNF if I tried to find the best insertion. I'm really happy to have this event in the Weekly Comp!


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 24, 2019)

Spoiler: #1: 36 in 9:58.51 = 230.20



Whew. Found a fat sune skip really early, barely found it again in time to write it all on normal.

F L2 U R2 D' F //222+pair
(D2 L D' L') // F2L-2
(D B D' B' D' B' L B L') //F2L-1
(D2 R F' R' F D' F D' F') //Fat sune
(B R F' R F R2 B' D2) //finish

Final: F L2 U R2 D' F D2 B R2 F' R' F R' B' F D F' D F' R F R' D2 L B' L' B D B D B' D' L D L' D2





Spoiler: #2: 46 in 9:29.42 = 291.85



Pretty garbage, ended up just doing a setup to Tperm on the last.

F D B' //221
L' U L' D L' D2 F //223
R' B R2 B' //+square
F' R2 F D R' D' R' D2 B' D' B //LL
D2 L2 D' z R2 Uw R2 Uw' R2 y' R2 Uw' R2 Uw R2 U' F U2 //finish





Spoiler: #3: 39 in 9:49.33 = 248.78



This is where I realize that doing solves on inverse really puts a time crunch on you.

U2 F' U B D R U //222
F' L2 F' D F L' D //223
F2 L F2 L F' //3C+2T
F L F' R' F L' F' R //5C
L U' R' U L' U' R U' //3C
U' L' U' R U L U' R' //finish

Final: R U L' U' R' U L U2 R' U L U' R U L' R' F L F' R F L2 F2 L' F2 D' L F' D' F L2 F U' R' D' B' U' F U2





Spoiler: #4: 39 in 9:56.86 = 249.28



Tried to do some quick un-stickered insertions, but ran out of time. Note that there is a move in here that I did cancel in my final written solution.

L2 R2 F L' F' U2 //222
D2 L' D L F2 //223
F L F' //F2L-1-edge
R D' L2 D R' //F2L-1
B' L2 B L B' L' B L' D L' D' L //3C
D2 R D' L2 D R' D' L2 D' //finish





Spoiler: #5: 37 in 6:18.21 = 219.61



Finally tried to go for an earlier finish to see if that actually helps you in scoring significantly. Had time to do 3c, but was curious to calculate stuff after to see if attempting to save moves was worth it. And same as last time, I had done the cancel appropriately in my final solution.

U2 D' B2 D //221
R U R //222
L F' D2 F L2 D' //F2L-1-edge
F U B U' F' //F2L-1
B' L B L' //5c
L' D' R D L D' R' D //3c
B' R F' R' B R F R' //finish



Final ao5: 242.75

This was really fun!  It's nice to see that the natural log function does seem to give the right tradeoff to mostly discourage inserting - I'd have to do 3 moves better within 3 minutes on solve 5 to get a better score. Although I do agree with the critiques from the old thread that this scoring method is rather opaque, and I don't really know that tradeoff in the moment very well.

I'm actually wondering if a better way to address time would be to do an additive method like proposed in the earlier thread, but weight each of the seconds differently. That is, your final score would be:

Move Count - Time Remaining Score, where

Time Remaining Score = (1/120)*(unused seconds in the last minute) + (1/100)*(unused seconds in the second to last minute) + (1/90)*(unused seconds in the third to last minute) ... etc.

I'm not convinced about what the right strategy is here, nor have I tested what the appropriate coefficients should be, but my thought is that weighting the earlier seconds more might promote people to stop when they have a decent solution since they will be giving away their most valuable seconds. But on the other hand, it could encourage people to keep going since they have already passed on the very most valuable seconds, the initial ones. Maybe this stream of consciousness should just be more evidence we should do this purely linearly, since it's easiest to understand in this manner and is the middle ground to this balance.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 24, 2019)

My gut feeling after trying this myself and seeing the other attempts so far: Average of 5 is really the right format for this. Any disagreement?


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 24, 2019)

Can you explain how the scoring works a little more? I’m kinda confused...


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 24, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> My gut feeling after trying this myself and seeing the other attempts so far: Average of 5 is really the right format for this. Any disagreement?


I sure don’t disagree, ao5 is the way to go! The reason FMC has mo3 is because it’s very time consuming, but this you could do all 5 in under an hour. Also, I know DNF’s will be VERY common in this event, so having a buffer is nice, it does sort of ruin your mean but it’s better than everyone getting DNF means all the time. Just my thoughts.


Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Can you explain how the scoring works a little more? I’m kinda confused...


I know it can be a bit confusing eek
Currently, and hopefully forever, score is calculated by ([number of moves] multiplied by the natural log of [seconds used]). Lowest score wins.
Other methods include ([seconds used] times (some constant k) plus [number of moves]),or perhaps ([number of moves] times [used minutes]), or even ([number of moves] plus the log of [seconds leftover]).


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 24, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I sure don’t disagree, ao5 is the way to go! The reason FMC has mo3 is because it’s very time consuming, but this you could do all 5 in under an hour. Also, I know DNF’s will be VERY common in this event, so having a buffer is nice, it does sort of ruin your mean but it’s better than everyone getting DNF means all the time. Just my thoughts.
> 
> I know it can be a bit confusing eek
> Currently, and hopefully forever, score is calculated by [number of moves] multiplied by natural log of [seconds used]. Lowest score wins.
> Other methods include [seconds used] times (some constant k) plus [number of moves], or perhaps [number of moves] times [used minutes], or even [number of moves] plus log[seconds leftover].


Still confused lol. So multiply the number of moves by the amount of seconds? Cuz I tested that on one of mikes calculations and it didn’t appear to be the same as what he put.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 24, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Still confused lol. So multiply the number of moves by the amount of seconds? Cuz I tested that on one of mikes calculations and it didn’t appear to be the same as what he put.


Not quite, okay, so you take the number of seconds used first, let’s use Mike’s first solve as an example. He used 9:33.30.
9:33.30 = 573.30 seconds
Now, get the natural log of 573.3, which you can do by typing “natural log of 573.3” into google.
In(573.30) = 6.3514...
Now, take the number of moves in your solution and multiply it by this number. Mike got 50 moves for his first solve.
50 * 6.3514... = 317.57 points

Hope this helps!


----------



## qT Tp (Dec 24, 2019)

Spoiler: #1 39 (8:46.15) SCORE:244.35



F R D' B2 R2 F' R' //223-1EDGE
U' F2 L' F' L U //F2L-1 IN 13
D' L' D L D' B D' B' //F2L
F D L D' (L' F') // 2 CORNERS TWIST
(F L) F' L' F L F' R F L' F' L F L' F' R'

Really good start, 13 move f2l-1. Messing around with different OLL's for a minute or 2 till I found this 19 move LL





Spoiler: #2 SCORE: DNF



Thought I had a 49 in 9:38.66. turns out I made a mistake in scrambling





Spoiler: #3 46 (8:38.03) SCORE:287.50



B' L' D R' U B2 //222
R' F' R F' R' D U' R' U R' //F2L-1 -1EDGE
F' R' L D' L' //EO
F D2 F D' F D'L' (F' L) //F2L
(L' F) F R F R' F (L) //OLL
(L') D' L D L B' L2 D L D L' D' L B//T-PERM





Spoiler: #4 43 (9:26.64) SCORE:275.35



U2 L2 B' U L' U2 R' F' R F //2X2X3
L B L' //EO
B' D2 B //F2L-1 IN 16
D' B D' B' D B D' B' //F2L IN 24
Z2 L F R' F' L' F R F' //OLL
R2 D' R' L F2 R L' U2 D R2 U2 //U-PERM

Found some nice pairs starting with U2. build them out to a 2x2x3
fairly standard petrus style solve.





Spoiler: #5 38 (7:36.83) SCORE:232.65



B2 R B//221
L' U' F2 U2 R U' L U' L2 U2 //223
L2 B U B U' B' //F2L-1 (L')
L' B' L' B2 L //F2L + OLL-SKIP
D' B2 D B2 D' R D B D' B' D' R' D2 B'//R-PERM



AO5: 269.07

I really enjoyed Speed FMC. The 10 minute time limit combined with the AO5 format makes this a really nice event to do when you don't have 3 hours to dedicate to regular FMC. 
My strategy for Speed FMC was to always go for a block building/petrus style. DR is not viable in this amount of time for me and also tends to finish with edge/corner cycles which are difficult to find insertions for within the time limit.


----------



## ZZ'er (Dec 25, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Not quite, okay, so you take the number of seconds used first, let’s use Mike’s first solve as an example. He used 9:33.30.
> 9:33.30 = 573.30 seconds
> Now, get the natural log of 573.3, which you can do by typing “natural log of 573.3” into google.
> In(573.30) = 6.3514...
> ...



So the longer you take the better?


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 25, 2019)

ZZ'er said:


> So the longer you take the better?



Lower scores are better.


----------



## TheLegend12 (Dec 25, 2019)

ZZ'er said:


> So the longer you take the better?


I think the goal is to get the lowest score.


----------



## ZZ'er (Dec 25, 2019)

Ok that makes more sense, thanks.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 25, 2019)

1: DNF


Spoiler



Spent too much time trying to get
F L2 U R2 D' F2 D B D B' F' //Pseudo F2L-1 corner
to work.



2: 37 in 7:24.87 (219.52 points)


Spoiler



R D' R' U B2 L F' B D B' F' R2 B2 R' L' B L' B' U' F U2 F' U' F U2 F' R U2 R D L' B2 L D' R2 U (36)

Spent too much time trying to get a nice pseudo start with
R D' R' U B2 //Two squares
At 6 minutes I panicked and quickly did
L F' B D B' F' R2 B2 R' //2x2x3+pairs
L' B L' B' //F2L-1
U' F U2 F' U' F U2 F' //F2L
R U2 R D L' B2 L D' R2 U //Lucky ZBLL



3. DNF, looks like I miscrambled :/

4. DNF, real waste of the nice start


Spoiler



U2 L2 B' U L' U2 R' F' R F D2 //2x2x3+Square



5. 38 in 7:58.98 (234.52 points)


Spoiler



D' B2 D R U R L B' D2 B2 D' R' U2 F U F2 L F L2 U2 L2 U' L' U L' U' D' B D' F2 D B' D' F2 D2 L' R B2 (38)

D' B2 D R U R //2x2x2
L B' D2 B2 D' //2x2x3
(B2) //F2L with one twisted corner and one flipped edge
R' U2 F U F2 L F L2 U // F2L+EO
U L2 U' L' U L' U' //OLL
D' B D' F2 D B' D' F2 D2 L' //PLL 
R B2 //Adjusting layers



This was stressful, though I would probably done a bit better if had more than one cube at hand (not at home at the moment).


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 25, 2019)

Spoiler: Solve 1 33 in 9:25.18, score 209.12



U D' R' B' D U2 R2 D' B2 D2 B L2 D B D B2 L2 B D F' D F B D' B' D2 F B D' B' D F' D2





Spoiler: Solve 2, 40 in 8:36.50 Score: 249.88



L R F R D' R U2 R2 L2 U' L' U L' B2 D2 U R' U2 R U L' U' L U L' U2 L D2 L2 Uw' L U' L U L' Uw L2 F U' F'





Spoiler: Solve 3 DNF



ran out of time





Spoiler: Solve 4, 38 in 6:01.28 Score: 223.81



D2 L2 B' U2 R2 B' L B' U R' B2 D R' D R D' B D' B' L' D2 L B D R D' R' D R D' R2 B' R D R D' R' D2





Spoiler: Solve 4, 37 in 5:56.76, Score: 217.45



F2 L' F L B' L' F' L B D' L B L' D' L' D L B' D2 F D' F' D R' D R D2 F' L2 F L' F' B' U' R2 D' R'


Ao5: 230.38


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 25, 2019)

I admit, I haven't tried, but I have doubts about the formula.
If someone solves the cube with his left hand while writing down the solution with his right hand, without barely any attempt to optimize, he may very well solve in 50 moves and 50 seconds, for a score of 195.6. Better than almost every score posted until now.
But I might be wrong, I haven't tried.

Also, it's disappointing if the HTM metric is used because it disqualifies the Roux method which is one of the best method (if not the best) for speed FMC. But the world is ruled by CFOP users! (Just kidding)


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 25, 2019)

Pyjam said:


> I admit, I haven't tried, but I have doubts about the formula.
> If someone solves the cube with his left hand while writing down the solution with his right hand, without barely any attempt to optimize, he may very well solve in 50 moves and 50 seconds, for a score of 195.6. Better than almost every score posted until now.
> But I might be wrong, I haven't tried.
> 
> Also, it's disappointing if the HTM metric is used because it disqualifies the Roux method which is one of the best method (if not the best) for speed FMC.


I use Roux, and I disagree with the second point. That's exactly how regular FMC works in competition, and so why shouldn't this work that way as well? HTM just seems cleaner from an FMC point of view.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 25, 2019)

Well for me it's silly that U2 counts for 1 when M counts for 2... I don't see how it's cleaner but that's just me…

Anyway the question is: is it (good) optimized speed solves, or bad (or lucky) FMC in 10 min?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 25, 2019)

Pyjam said:


> I admit, I haven't tried, but I have doubts about the formula.
> If someone solves the cube with his left hand while writing down the solution with his right hand, without barely any attempt to optimize, he may very well solve in 50 moves and 50 seconds, for a score of 195.6. Better than almost every score posted until now.
> But I might be wrong, I haven't tried.
> 
> Also, it's disappointing if the HTM metric is used because it disqualifies the Roux method which is one of the best method (if not the best) for speed FMC. But the world is ruled by CFOP users! (Just kidding)


That's sort of the purpose for these trial runs. If you would, please try it! Let's see what can be done, and try to find the flaws. Specifically I'd like to know if someone can really do 50 moves in 50 seconds. I suspect it's quite possible, but I know it's completely out of my reach.

Or if Pyjam can't, maybe someone else will?

Keep in mind that this is different from a normal solve. You have no inspection time, and you have to scramble before you start to solve, and you have to actually write everything down. A 50 move solve is a pretty efficient solve; really good solvers can do it, but generally only with a 15 second inspection. And that plus the scramble would equal at least a 75 second solve.

And if you want I can compare scores with slice HTM to see what they do too. Now is the time to experiment.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 26, 2019)

Pyjam said:


> Also, it's disappointing if the HTM metric is used because it disqualifies the Roux method which is one of the best method (if not the best) for speed FMC.


This statement reads like "Roux is good but only if we change the rules", which comes with the implication that Roux is actually not good under the current rules… which I don't think is "obviously" true. (It _might_ be true; it just needs some real justification!) I mean, for the usual one-hour non-speed FMC, Roux is roughly on par with methods like Petrus and ZB even when counting the moves with the face turn metric, even though people keep talking about how Roux is bad for FMC because of M slices.



Mike Hughey said:


> Specifically I'd like to know if someone can really do 50 moves in 50 seconds. I suspect it's quite possible, but I know it's completely out of my reach.
> 
> Or if Pyjam can't, maybe someone else will?
> 
> Keep in mind that this is different from a normal solve. You have no inspection time, and you have to scramble before you start to solve, and you have to actually write everything down. A 50 move solve is a pretty efficient solve; really good solvers can do it, but generally only with a 15 second inspection. And that plus the scramble would equal at least a 75 second solve.


I'll try this. I don't think I can hit 50 moves in 50 seconds, but 80-100 seconds might be doable.

_(watch me fail terribly as I overestimate my solving and writing speeds)_

edit: ha ha ha nope, I can't think and write simultaneously fast enough

#1: 42 in 3:26.405 (score = 223.85)
#2: 53 in 4:32.914 (score = 297.29)
#3: 43 in 5:30.549 (score = 249.43)
#4: DNF
#5: 37 in 3:54.707 (score = 201.96)

Average: 256.86



Spoiler: solutions



#1 (42):
F B' L2 U R2 // 222 (5/5)
F' L D' L2 F2 L // xxcross (6/11)
D R' D' R D' F D F' // third slot (8/19)
B D2 B' // EO (3/22)
D2 L' D2 L D2 L' D' L // last slot (8/30)
F' D B D' F D' B' D' B D' B' D // ZBLL (12/42)

#2 (53):
R D' R' F2 R F // p222 (6/6)
D' L D' L2 // another square (4/10)
R' B' R B2 L' F' // realign stuff (6/16)
D2 B' D B D' B' D' B // third slot (8/24)
D' R' D2 R D' F L D L' // VHLS (9/33)
D F' D F D' F' D F D2 F' // OLL (10/43)
B2 R D R' B2 L U' L U L2 // J perm (10/53)
This one was pretty bad. I actually know the ZBLL for the inverse of this case but switching to inverse seems like cheating…

#3 (43)
U F' R2 D B // EOline (5/5)
R2 U L R' U L // left sq (6/11)
U' R2 U R' L U2 L' // left (7/18)
R' U' R' U R' U' R U2 R' D // right+align (10/28)
U' L U2 B' L U L U' L' B L2 U L2 U L' // ZBLL (15/43)
(okay I "cheated" and used the inverse ZBLL this time; I haven't learnt this case yet, but I know the inverse)

#4 DNF
it's really bad

#5 (37)
D' B2 D R U R // 222 (6/6)
L B2 D2 B' // 223 (4/10)
D2 B D U B' U' // EO (6/16)
B2 L B' L' B2 // F2L-1 (5/21)
D L2 D' L' D L' D' L' // edges; ab3c (8/29)
B2 L' F' L B2 L' F L // L3C (8/37)


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 26, 2019)

Whoops, didn’t mean for my thoughts to go on and on. TL;DR 50 in 50 no, 50 in 100 yes.

—-

It seems to me everyone is talking about how a good OH solver could just get sub-200 points all the time by getting 50 or so moves in 50 or so seconds, but I do not think this is possible. I tried this out myself, but I realized it doesn’t matter how good of an OH solver you are, I’m pretty bad if I’m being honest, but the real bottleneck is writing speed.

It takes a bit over a second to write each move, even if it’s really sloppy, which I was lol. My best time for this strategy was 1:49, which is 109 seconds. It was also 51 moves, which suggests getting 50 moves all the time super quick is not much of a challenge, it’s pretty reasonable, but maybe not 50 seconds all the time. At the end of my 109 second attempt, what I had on the paper was what you call chicken scratch. Lol. I had trouble reading it myself because I was trying to go too fast, while in any other situation I can read my writing perfectly fine. Now, there’s no rules on how sloppy you can write, as long as you can read it yourself, without a cube of course. So, as a result of this, or just a side effect or whatever you call it, there is a rule in which once you stop the timer, you are not allowed to use a cube until you’ve submitted your solution. Element of surprise added as bonus hehe . Although, people are probably already doing this so this shouldn’t be an issue.

So, I have concluded that consistently getting 50 moves in 50 moves is not possible, but consistently getting 50 moves in 100 seconds just might be.

Edit: Forgot about computer keyboards. I need to do the same test but on a keyboard and see if it makes it any faster, perhaps I can get it down to 80 seconds, but maybe I’ll find out it’s not actually that good? I’ll come back later with results and see.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 26, 2019)

So, good news. 
Now, if you get a 50 moves solutions in 2 minutes (240 pts), is it worth trying to get a better result?
That's a risky bet. Interesting!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> ...
> This one was pretty bad. I actually know the ZBLL for the inverse of this case but switching to inverse seems like cheating…
> ...
> (okay I "cheated" and used the inverse ZBLL this time; I haven't learnt this case yet, but I know the inverse)


Why would it seem like cheating? It's perfectly fine if it's within the rules. It's trickier because you have to place it properly in the solution, but it should be fine to do it. And wow, it's helpful for this event to know ZBLL!


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Why would it seem like cheating? It's perfectly fine if it's within the rules. It's trickier because you have to place it properly in the solution, but it should be fine to do it. And wow, it's helpful for this event to know ZBLL!


Oh, I meant it in the sense of trying to write down a solution as quickly as possible, rather than writing down a reasonably good solution in a reasonable amount of time. And it's faster to write down OLL+PLL (especially when it's a short PLL), rather than grabbing another cube to set up the last layer case on. I'd totally use NISS (if it was worth it) in a proper attempt.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 26, 2019)

#1-#4: DNF (time ran out much to soon)

#5: 32 in 9:46.09 (score = 203.95)
lucky skeleton in 5 min and fast insertions (and IF says: optimal), probably not beatable by my anymore


Spoiler: solution



L2 * F2 L' # B D' L' D2 // 222
U' L' B U2 L' B // 223
U' L' U L U2 // F2L-1
L' B L2 B' L2 // L5C in 23
* L B L' F2 L B' L' F2 // 8-4/27
# D F2 D' B D F2 D' B' // 8-3/32
solution: L' B L' F2 L B' L2 D F2 D' B D F2 D2 L' U' D2 L' B U2 L' B U' L' U L U2 L' B L2 B' L2


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2019)

Jacck said:


> #5: 32 in 9:46.09 (score = 203.95)
> lucky skeleton in 5 min and fast insertions (and IF says: optimal), probably not beatable by my anymore


Optimal 5-corner insertion for speed FMC - there's something wrong about that. 

I'm going to start the next round in a few hours. Any opinions on a possible value for k for a linear scoring formula? Or are we already convincing ourselves that the logarithmic formula is really the way to go?


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 26, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Optimal 5-corner insertion for speed FMC - there's something wrong about that.
> 
> I'm going to start the next round in a few hours. Any opinions on a possible value for k for a linear scoring formula? Or are we already convincing ourselves that the logarithmic formula is really the way to go?



I like 1/60, as then that scoring system translates to exactly "Moves plus minutes" which is incredibly easy to understand. I've done comparisons of results and it tends to agree with the log scoring system as to which result is better. The main difference is that moves plus minutes seems to prefer a quicker time more than a shorter solution, which I think fixes the issue that taking all 10 minutes in this strategy is easily the best use of your time if you aren't trying to go for ultra fast solutions. Maybe I'll run some code to see how moves+minutes compares to log.

I'd also like to say that at this point I support moves+minutes over log scoring.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 26, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> I like 1/60, as then that scoring system translates to exactly "Moves plus minutes" which is incredibly easy to understand.


That does seem like a particularly elegant formula - hard to be much simpler than "moves plus minutes"!


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 26, 2019)

Here are some contour plots from WolframAlpha for each scoring system. The x-axis is the number of moves, and the y axis is the number of minutes. These plots draw lines that connect pairs of inputs with the same output. Below is the plot for moves+minutes. Thus, we can see that a 40 move solution in 0 minutes (lol) is worth the same as a 30 move solution in 10 minutes, as the line connects those two outcomes.



Here's the same contour plot for log scoring:



So when the solution gets to about 4+ minutes on log scoring, these contours seem to have around the same slope as the contour lines of the moves plus minutes, meaning that the trade-off of spending more time to get a shorter solution is roughly the same. The trade-off is far different for really quick solutions, which is what people have been communicating through examples - 50 moves in 50 seconds is a very good result, and you lose a lot of points fast if you spend more time.

I'm fully in support of the moves+minutes scoring system at this point.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

Results of first round, based on logarithmic scoring:
1. TipsterTrickster 230.38
2. Kit Clement 242.75
3. xyzzy 256.86
4. WoowyBaby 262.23
5. qT Tp 269.07
6. Mike Hughey 292.44
7. fun at the joy 310.18
8. irontwig DNF
8. Jacck DNF

Results of first round, based on linear scoring (moves + minutes):
1. TipsterTrickster 45.19
2. Kit Clement 47.92
3. xyzzy 50.50
4. qT Tp 51.62
5. WoowyBaby 51.82
6. Mike Hughey 55.58
7. fun at the joy 60.52
8. irontwig DNF
8. Jacck DNF

Interesting - we do have a rearrangement of fourth and fifth place. It might be worth discussing the relative merits of the two systems based on those differences.

Thanks everyone for giving this a try.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

Round 2, closes at midnight GMT on December 29, in a little under 3 days. That gives me time to make last minute changes before it goes live in competition (assuming I can really get it done in time, which looks promising at the moment).

Scrambles for round 2:
1. R' U' F D B2 F2 U L2 F2 L2 D R2 B2 D' L2 B' D F L' R B U2 L R' U R' U' F
2. R' U' F B R2 F' L2 B D2 F' L2 B R2 U2 R F D U R' B2 U2 F' L2 D' R' U' F
3. R' U' F D F2 L U2 L' B2 D2 R' D2 R2 B2 F' L2 U' B2 F' U B L D R' U' F
4. R' U' F R2 B2 R2 D F2 U' B2 D2 L2 D B2 L' B' R B' D2 B' L' D U L' R' U' F
5. R' U' F U2 F D2 R2 F' L2 B R2 B D2 U F' R' U' L' B U' R B' U' R' U' F

*No time limit this time!*

Official scoring for this round will be:
score = moves + minutes (measured in hundredths of a second, with overall score rounded to hundredths of a point)


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 27, 2019)

Have a lot going on right now so I don't have time to post solutions, but here's what I got

1. 44 in 10:00.00 (solution written and circled just before timer expired)
2. 41 in 9:46.58
3. 36 in 6;34.52
4. 35 in 5:54.21
5. DNF

That gives an average of 40.78.

It probably should be discussed if the situation for #1 should be DNF or not, which I didn't think about until afterward (and probably wouldn't have DNF'd 5 if #1 was DNF'd). I think that it should work similar to MBLD, where you get the current result you have as time expires, and in real FMC you still get to turn in your solution/write your name once time expires. But whatever we think, we should decide before we put this on the SS comp!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 27, 2019)

Jacck said:


> #5: 32 in 9:46.09 (score = 203.95)
> lucky skeleton in 5 min and fast insertions (and IF says: optimal), probably not beatable by my anymore


Did I wrote that? Take a look at #4:
1. DNF
2. DNF
3. 39 in 9:41.10 (score = 48.69; ln-score = 248.23)
4. 30 in 7:40.81 (score = 37.68; ln-score = 183.99)
5. DNF (45 in 10:07.05)



Spoiler: solutions



3.
R F' L // EO
D B D' // 222
U2 L2 U2 B U2 B' F U' F' // 223
U B U B U2 // L6C in 20
U2 B' D' B U2 B' D B // 8-4/24 L5C
B D F2 D' B' D F2 D' // 8-1/31 L3C
L U' R2 U L' U' R2 U // 8/39
solution: R F' L D B D' U2 L2 U2 B U2 B' F U' F' U B U D' B U2 B' D B2 D F2 D' B' D F2 D' L U' R2 U L' U' R2 U

4. 30 in 7:40.81
D' L R2 D' // 222
F D' L D L' // 223
L' U L // F2L-1
U R U2 R' U F' U F // L5C in 19 after 3:45 min
ssf: D' # L R2 D' F D' L D L2 U L U R U2 R' U F' * U F
* F R F' L F R' F' L' // 8-2/25 L3C
# D' L D R2 D' L' D R2 // 8-3/30 (IF says 29)
solution: D2 L D R2 D' L' D L D' F D' L D L2 U L U R U2 R' U R F' L F R' F' L' U F


----------



## qT Tp (Dec 27, 2019)

1. 41 in 7:28.64 score:48.48
2. 40 in 9:37.02 score:49.62
3. 42 in 8:11.15 score:50.19
4. 37 in 5:18.64 score:42.31
5. 34 in 9:27.95 score:43.47

average: 47.19



Spoiler: solutions



Solve 1:
D U R2 F2 R2 F2 //222
U B L B2 L' F U B' F' //F2L-2
U2 R' U2 R //F2L-1
F U F' U2 F U' F' //F2L
R U B U' B' //OLL (R')
R2 U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U //J-PERM

F2L in 26, regular OLL-PLL

solve 2:
R F2 D2 L2 F U R' //222
D2 F' L U L2 U' F2 // F2L-2 (L2)
L F' D2 F2 D' F' D L D B // 2E2C
B //SETUP N-PERM
L D' R D2 L' D R' L D' R D2 L' D R' D B'

23 moves to 2e2c, was short on time so resorted to a setup-N-perm.

solve 3:
B2 F' L U B2 U //222
D2 L' B' L' D' B2 //F2L-2
L2 U' L2 F L' F' L' U // F2L
B L B' L' B' U B U' //OLL
D L2 D' L2 D F' D' L' D L D F D2 L //R-PERM

F2L in 20, regular OLL-PLL

solve 4:
D' L R2 D' //222
F2 D F' D' //223
F' U2 F L' B' U B L U2 //F2L-1
F R' F R F' R' F2 R //F2L/OLL
U2 B' R F' R F R' B U2 L F' L' //G-PERM

8 move 223, followed by some "strange" block building to setup F2L/EO, forced OLL skip and G-perm

solve 5:
U F D B D2 B //222
U L U L2 U F' //223
B L B2 U2 B L** U L' *U2 //5C
*= R D2 R' U R D2 R' U' (8-1)
**= L D L' U' L D' L' U (8-2)

5 corners left in 21 with the timer at 4 minutes. I tried some insertions finishing in the last minute. It would have probably been a better score if I just did regular 3-cycle commutators at the end


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

Kit Clement said:


> It probably should be discussed if the situation for #1 should be DNF or not, which I didn't think about until afterward (and probably wouldn't have DNF'd 5 if #1 was DNF'd). I think that it should work similar to MBLD, where you get the current result you have as time expires, and in real FMC you still get to turn in your solution/write your name once time expires. But whatever we think, we should decide before we put this on the SS comp!


At first I was confused by this - it seemed to me that of course it should count as a success. But then I realized - what you're talking about here is that you didn't stop the timer? Actually, after thinking about this, I really think we'd need to count that as a DNF. Just like with a regular solve, you must finish the solve, release the cube, and stop the timer in order for the solve to count, I think you need to release the pen (and/or any cubes) and stop the timer for this to count. If you don't stop the timer before it runs out, I think it should count as a DNF.

I am currently working on the timer for the weekly competition. It's a mess to deal with, and I'm not sure if I'll have it ready by Monday, but the manual entry page is already ready, so I intend to have the event added - the timer might be disabled, depending on how much luck I have with fixing it before the start of the competition. But I do intend to make it so that if it reaches 10 minutes, it sets the result for the attempt as a DNF; I think that's the right thing to do. You must stop the timer before time runs out in order for it to count.

I would probably like to have an audible alarm letting people know time is getting close to running out. Again, this probably won't happen right away - it will probably be several weeks before that is implemented, even if I get the basic timer done in time, and we would want to define the times that should be announced. Perhaps one minute, 15 seconds, 5 seconds? Don't know. Also, there are some browsers where it seems like the audio announcements are a little flaky with my code; people will need to be wary of that until/unless I can fix it.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 27, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> At first I was confused by this - it seemed to me that of course it should count as a success. But then I realized - what you're talking about here is that you didn't stop the timer? Actually, after thinking about this, I really think we'd need to count that as a DNF. Just like with a regular solve, you must finish the solve, release the cube, and stop the timer in order for the solve to count, I think you need to release the pen (and/or any cubes) and stop the timer for this to count. If you don't stop the timer before it runs out, I think it should count as a DNF.
> 
> I am currently working on the timer for the weekly competition. It's a mess to deal with, and I'm not sure if I'll have it ready by Monday, but the manual entry page is already ready, so I intend to have the event added - the timer might be disabled, depending on how much luck I have with fixing it before the start of the competition. But I do intend to make it so that if it reaches 10 minutes, it sets the result for the attempt as a DNF; I think that's the right thing to do. You must stop the timer before time runs out in order for it to count.
> 
> I would probably like to have an audible alarm letting people know time is getting close to running out. Again, this probably won't happen right away - it will probably be several weeks before that is implemented, even if I get the basic timer done in time, and we would want to define the times that should be announced. Perhaps one minute, 15 seconds, 5 seconds? Don't know. Also, there are some browsers where it seems like the audio announcements are a little flaky with my code; people will need to be wary of that until/unless I can fix it.



Yeah, that's the weird thing with SpeedFMC, as if you look at FMC, there's no timer to stop, and if you have your pen down with the solution written down in time, then the solution counts. Same with MBLD -- while you have to stop the timer to get the attempt under 1 hour, your attempt still counts even if you just finish a cube right before the 1 hour mark and put your hands down after the 1 hour mark. But with speedsolving a 7x7, if you're around 10 minutes, you need to include the timer stop in that solve, which is different than time in MBLD. I think either choice is fine and can be justified with how either speedsolving events are handled or with how long events are handled, but I figured it was good to discuss now what we would do about it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

If you imagine what this event would actually be like in an official competition, well, the first thing that would occur to you is how impractical it would be.  That's the benefit of being able to do this in an at-home online competition - we don't have to worry about all those pesky details! But it would be absolutely necessary in an official competition to have a judge at every competitor, watching for the end of the solve, to make sure the timer was properly stopped and that nothing else was written after the timer was stopped. I guess if you did this in an official competition with two rounds, it might be doable - the idea would be that you would have two groups (with two different sets of scrambles!) first round, and half the competitors would judge the other half. Then the half of the competitors that didn't make the cut to the second round would be required to stay and judge the half that made it, so that you could have enough simultaneous judges to judge everyone with the same set of scrambles to make the finals fair. It would be truly a nightmare! But I think it would be necessary; the chaos that already exists after regular FMC would be so much worse for this event, there's no way it could work without a separate judge for each competitor. Even one judge per two competitors would be really inadequate for difficult scenarios - in fairness it would have to be one judge per competitor.

In any event, my vote is that a timer stop should be required. I intend to go with that unless there are significant objections. But since this was just a trial run, I have no objections with counting your solve for this round anyway, since the rules had not been clearly stated before the round began.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2019)

By the way, I did update the results for the first round using the alternative moves + minutes scoring method. Interestingly, there was a rearrangement between fourth and fifth place. And third place was much more clear based on the linear method.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 28, 2019)

In my opinion we dont need a hard time limit for the linear scoring, as (relatively) long attempts are already discouraged by the scoring itself.


----------



## qT Tp (Dec 28, 2019)

I'm in favour of the linear scoring system. The other system doesn't seem as LOGical . The 1/60 makes scoring easy understand and gives an nice way to know how much time has a factor (1 min is 1 move). I do agree on not requiring a hard cap in time limit with the linear system. Anything >10-15 or so minutes tends to not be worth it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2019)

Okay. I realize this is unfair to those who have already gone this round, but the main purpose of this thread is to look for the best possible approach more than to compete, so let's say that round two is without time limit. So Kit's 10 minute solve definitely counts. And Jacck, if you'd like to go again with your own generated scrambles, please do so.

No time limit would help a little with judging this in an official setting - one judge to two people would be much more practical then, since you wouldn't have the big rush at exactly 10 minutes. Official competitions could still impose time limits for convenience, like 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 10 minutes for convenience/speed of schedule. Although clearly with a 10 minute schedule they would need to have lots of judges.

It would also be nice to eliminate the misery that comes from DNFing a couple of solves.

And it would make my life easier on the timer too! I will put off fixing the time expiration part of the code until we decide this.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 28, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Okay. I realize this is unfair to those who have already gone this round, but the main purpose of this thread is to look for the best possible approach more than to compete, so let's say that round two is without time limit. So Kit's 10 minute solve definitely counts. And Jacck, if you'd like to go again with your own generated scrambles, please do so.
> 
> No time limit would help a little with judging this in an official setting - one judge to two people would be much more practical then, since you wouldn't have the big rush at exactly 10 minutes. Official competitions could still impose time limits for convenience, like 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or even 10 minutes for convenience/speed of schedule. Although clearly with a 10 minute schedule they would need to have lots of judges.
> 
> ...


And also, even though Ao5 seems to be the best format, in competition it could be shortened to best of 3 for time sakes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> And also, even though Ao5 seems to be the best format, in competition it could be shortened to best of 3 for time sakes.


Yes, this is actually a lot like 7x7x7 in time requirements; I believe mean of 3 for 7x7x7 is a good official competition format, but average of 5 is clearly best for an online competition.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 28, 2019)

My twenty cents:

Time limit: I think there _should_ be a time limit. 10 minutes, 15, 20, a full hour, or whatever, but there should be one. If you've already lost a bunch of points because you wasted (say) five minutes on a I-thought-this-was-good-but-it's-actually-bad start, it might still be the best option to continue spending time to search for better solutions. The log scoring system has a lower per-time penalty as you burn through more time, providing _more_ incentive to spend more time; the linear scoring system isn't as pathological, but the optimal course of action might still be to continue burning through time. You could work around this by using a scoring formula like (moves + time^2) instead, but that probably has pathologies of its own and it's simpler to just outright set a time limit anyway.

(I'd say 10 minutes, 12 minutes (so five attempts fit snugly in an hour!), or 15 minutes would all be reasonable time limits.)

With that in mind:


Kit Clement said:


> It probably should be discussed if the situation for #1 should be DNF or not, which I didn't think about until afterward (and probably wouldn't have DNF'd 5 if #1 was DNF'd). I think that it should work similar to MBLD, where you get the current result you have as time expires, and in real FMC you still get to turn in your solution/write your name once time expires. But whatever we think, we should decide before we put this on the SS comp!





Mike Hughey said:


> At first I was confused by this - it seemed to me that of course it should count as a success. But then I realized - what you're talking about here is that you didn't stop the timer? Actually, after thinking about this, I really think we'd need to count that as a DNF. Just like with a regular solve, you must finish the solve, release the cube, and stop the timer in order for the solve to count, I think you need to release the pen (and/or any cubes) and stop the timer for this to count. If you don't stop the timer before it runs out, I think it should count as a DNF.


I think the important aspect of FMC is having a short solution written down, and if we're going to have a time limit, we shouldn't require the timer to be explicitly stopped. Just as in regular FMC, a solution written before the time limit should be accepted, even if time runs out. If there are multiple solutions written, as long as one of them is circled (or otherwise unambiguously marked), that should be accepted too. (If we're not implementing a time limit, this is irrelevant.)


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 28, 2019)

Can some one explain scoring? The way I understand, is move the decimal point on time, to the left x number of times and then add that to moves?


----------



## irontwig (Dec 28, 2019)

1. 41 in 6:55.21 (47.92 points)


Spoiler



R2 B' F U2 F' D U L U' L2 U B U B2 U' L2 B' U B L' U' B' F' U2 F U F' U F L2 U' B F' L2 F B' U' L2 U' B U2 (41)

R2 B' F U2 F' D //2x2x2
U L U' L2 U B U B2 /2x2x3
U' L2 B' U B L' //F2L-1
U' B' (B U2) //F2L
F' U2 F U F' U F //OLL
L2 U' B F' L2 F B' U' L2 U' //PLL

Slow for such a simple-minded solution



2. 38 in 6:46.87 (44.78 points)


Spoiler



U L U' L D2 F D2 L' D F L2 B2 L2 B' L D' B D L B2 L' B' L B' L' R D' R' U R D R' U' B' L B L' F (38)

U L U' L D2 F D2 L' D F //Pseudo 2x2x3
L2 B2 L2 B' L //Pseudo F2L-1
D' B D (L B L' F) //F2L
L B2 L' B' L B' L' //Leaving three corners
R D' R' U R D R' U' B' //Last three corners



3. DNF, didn't feel like it.

4. 41 in 6:44.52 (47.74 points)


Spoiler



R' F2 U' D2 L B L' F2 B U2 B2 U F //2x2x3
R' U R B2 R B R' //F2L-1
B' L' B L //Leaving four corners
R D' R' U2 R D R' U2 // Leaving three corners
L2 F' L B2 L' F L B2 L //Last three corners

Wasted time on something that didn't give anything good.



5. 39 in 10:18.75 (49.31)


Spoiler



U' R D F U F R2 B2 U R2 B R' U R2 U L U' R2 D R' U R D' R U' R' U2 F' U' F2 R' F2 U F U2 R2 U L' D2 (39)

U' R D F U F R2 B2 U R2 B (D2)//2x2x3
R' U R2 U L U' R U (L)// F2L-1
(U' R2 U2 F' U' F) //F2L
(F R F2 U F U2 R U R2) //Leaving three corners (Four moves cancel (lol))
(R D R' U' R D' R' U) //Last three corners

Decent move count, but way too slow.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Time limit: I think there _should_ be a time limit. 10 minutes, 15, 20, a full hour, or whatever, but there should be one. If you've already lost a bunch of points because you wasted (say) five minutes on a I-thought-this-was-good-but-it's-actually-bad start, it might still be the best option to continue spending time to search for better solutions.


I guess my question is: why exactly is this a bad thing? Is there general agreement that it is a bad thing?

I will admit that, with no time limit, if I am currently stuck with F2L done and a really high-move OLL and PLL, I would burn extra minutes looking for something on the finish of F2L with a better OLL/PLL combination, or AB3C (not to insert - just to apply the alg for last 3 corners, which is almost always shorter than a typical PLL). So having no time limit would make this strategy pay off pretty nicely. Do people feel that would be a bad thing?


----------



## Zeke Mackay (Dec 28, 2019)

Spoiler: Solution 1: 46.02



R U B L //cross
D' R D R' D' L' D L //Pair 1
R D R2 D' R2 D' R' D' R D R' //Pairs 2+3
D L D' L' D2 B D' F' D F B2 //Pair 4
L B' R2 B L' B' R2 B2 D2 //PLL
43 in 3:00.91



I'll finish later.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 29, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I guess my question is: why exactly is this a bad thing? Is there general agreement that it is a bad thing?
> 
> I will admit that, with no time limit, if I am currently stuck with F2L done and a really high-move OLL and PLL, I would burn extra minutes looking for something on the finish of F2L with a better OLL/PLL combination, or AB3C (not to insert - just to apply the alg for last 3 corners, which is almost always shorter than a typical PLL). So having no time limit would make this strategy pay off pretty nicely. Do people feel that would be a bad thing?


It's not a bad thing per se, but I'm thinking that the event should have a hard time limit just so that the best strategy for approaching it doesn't result in attempts taking too much time. (It's _speed_ FMC, right?) For example, with regular FMC, while you can spend as little or as much time as you want (under an hour), you would generally want to spend almost the whole hour on one attempt if you were taking it seriously, so it ends up being a very time-consuming event. If we had regular FMC without time limit, it's plausible that one might spend multiple hours on just one solve.

No-time-limit linear scoring might have a similar problem (although less extreme). Time that has already been burnt has no bearing on how you should continue to use your time: every unit of time costs the same amount of score no matter what the clock is saying now. (I don't know if this will really be a problem in practice, but it wouldn't hurt to just set a time limit anyway. The difference between no-time-limit speed FMC and no-time-limit regular FMC is that knowing how good/bad you yourself are at FMC allows you to judge how likely spending more time is to be worth it, so e.g. if you've been stuck at 40 moves for a long time, it's very unlikely to find something better.)

edit: For the record, I'm not married to the idea and I wouldn't be offended or anything if we end up going with no time limit.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> it wouldn't hurt to just set a time limit anyway


I guess this is the part I have a problem with. I don't see it that way. A time limit guarantees a significant increase in DNFs, and I don't know that that is justified. Since this is an online competition, I'm currently inclined to say we shouldn't have a time limit, and we should see how that works out. Since the time required will be being stored, it will be simple enough to keep track of what happened in the past if we eventually decide to add a time limit, and we can even choose to invalidate solves retroactively that are over that time limit if we feel strongly about it (although I'm inclined not to).

Just so everyone knows, right now I am leaning towards the following:
Linear scoring: moves + minutes, with precision to hundredths of minutes.
No time limit. Time is determined by when you stop the timer; solution must be written and clearly indicated (for instance, by circling it) before stopping the timer, and cube and pen must be released before stopping the timer.
Average of 5.

I know that xyzzy objects to my choice of no time limit, but I am curious what other people think. Please speak up now - I'm working hard on the code, and the competition starts in less than 48 hours.  I can still be swayed to change my mind, but not for much longer.


----------



## Kit Clement (Dec 29, 2019)

I'm in favor of no time limit.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 29, 2019)

I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wastes a bunch of time, then their score will reflect that. No need to give them a DNF.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 30, 2019)

Whatever scoring method we use, we should compare results that give you the same score and ask yourself if they deserve the same score, like,
46 moves in 2 minutes
43 moves in 5 minutes
41 moves in 7 minutes
38 moves in 10 minutes
32 moves in 16 minutes
29 moves in 19 minutes
26 moves in 22 minutes
All give a score of 48.
I’m my opinion, they aren’t 100% equal but it’s pretty close. So, I totally support this type of scoring. I’m pretty sure most people do, so I hope it is going to be implemented.

Also, time limit? I don’t think so. No. If you spend a lot of time, like 30 minutes, then you’re going to get a really bad score, as ProStar said, no need for a DNF. I feel much more strongly about no time limit than linear scoring, so I’m really hoping it’s going to be put in!!
Also, I hold the unofficial-unofficial record single for Speed FMC, which really doesn’t even mean anything at his point lmao, getting just 25 moves in only 9:06.0, which is 34.1 points, although I’m sure that someone out there has gotten better, so it’s probably not even the best. I know I will take a loooonng long long time to beat that though.

Overall, I’m really excited to have Speed FMC in the Weekly Comp!


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 30, 2019)

average: DNF (51.27)

1. DNF (47 in 2:09.33 = 49.16)
2. DNF (50 in 2:26.85 = 52.45)
3. DNF (45 in 2:09.59 = 47.16)
4. DNF (52 in 2:29.58 = 54.49)
5. DNF (50 in 3:07.48 = 53.12)


The first three solves each had 1-2 missing apostrophes and I think the last two were misscrambles. I did rushed OH ZZ (5/5 [speed oriented] ZBLL) solves while writing down the moves, just to see if I could get a really good result that way. I guess not.

The thing that I found the hardest was figuring out if <L,B,D,F> moves were prime or not so there was lots of hesitation when writing down the moves. I did two warm up solves that were also both off by two and a single apostrophe. I think part of this was rushing but also I don't have a lot of experience doing FMC/writing down moves/solves.
I think if I did a bunch of solves and got used to remembering what moves do what and writing faster, sub1 could be possible. I don't know about an average, but a sub1 single is definitely possible.



Spoiler: solutions



1.
x2
R F L2 U B R D' R' D
R2 U2 R' U2 L' U L' U' L
R' U' R U2 R' U R
U' L U2 L' U L U' L'
R U R*[']* U R U' R D R' U' R D*[']* R2 U2

2.
x2
U F' U2 D' B R2 L' D
R; U R U L2 U*[']* R2 L' U L
R U' R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R'
y
R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R'
B*[2]* U' R L' B2 R' L U' B2 U'

3.
x2
D B' D2 L' U F*[']* R U D B2 L2
U R U' R' U2 R' U L'
U R' U2 R' U' R' U R U' R'
y'
L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U R U R' U' R U' R' U'

4.
x2
L F' R' U' B' R' L' D
R' U' L' U' L R U2 L' U' D R' U' R D' R
L U L U2 L U' L' U2 L U L' U L2
y
F U' R U' R' U R U R' U2 R U2 R' U F' U2

5.
x2
R F U2 R L' B' D R D
L U' L' U L U' R' U' R2 U R U' R'
U2 L' U2 L U L U L U L2 U' L' U L
y'
R U R' U LO R U R' U' R U2 R' U




E: forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but will there be an 80 move limit, as in normal FMC? If not, I feel like it should (but, as staff members don't need to count the moves, I understand why a limit is not necessarily necessary, but I still think that there should be one).
And, just to throw in my two cents, I'm inclined to say that there should be at least an hour time limit, as with normal FMC. I think it would encourage people to not troll as hard as they can with 8+ hour attempts, just to have the slowest solves in the database. I think a 10 minute limit would be a little bit too harsh, so, since as woowybaby demonstrated, it's not impossible to get good results past 20 minutes, I personally think a 30 minute time limit seems perfectly reasonable, as anything past that obviously isn't for a good result. I feel like the time within the limit should be able to produce results that could feasibly win/do well. A 25 in 20 minutes would be really lucky, and a 45 seems like it would stand a chance. However, a 20 in 30 minutes would be impossibly lucky, but still *possible*. I don't think a 15 in 45 or a 10 in 50 really makes much sense even if they're technically possible.
Even if you disagree with that view, I think just as a measure to keep trolls out of the system, a time limit of some sort, however long, should be implemented, but my vote is for an hour.


----------

