# Possibility of 8x8 becoming an official event?



## Derek (Nov 22, 2013)

I asked myself the question would 8x8 ever become an official event?
Personally I would love if they added 8x8 as an official event.

The main problem most people would have is the time issue. I worked 
out a reasonable solution. When MBLD or FMC is happening only a small 
portion of competitors compete in these events which leaves a free hour 
for a lot of people. Why not take advantage of that free hour to do 8x8.


----------



## Ollie (Nov 22, 2013)

Derek said:


> Why not take advantage of that free hour to do 8x8.



This isn't so straight forward. Taken from the experience of UK comps, you need to take into account scrambling time for 2/3 solves per competitor and the time it takes for competitors to find someone to judge them. 

Most importantly, there would be no time for lunch


----------



## SirWaffle (Nov 22, 2013)

If 8x8 were to become an official event the only way that would be good to run it in my opinion is to have a limit as to how many people can sign up for it, have really strict cutoffs and force people not doing multi/fmc/8x8 to judge and scramble. But even then it would be a very a tight schedule considering how slow most people are at 8x8. As much as I'd like it to be an official event the cubing world is just not ready yet. But whatever just my opinion.


----------



## DrKorbin (Nov 22, 2013)

I asked myself the question would Teraminx bld ever become an official event?
Personally I would love if they added Teraminx bld as an official event.

The main problem most people would have is the time issue. I worked out a reasonable solution. When 8x8 is happening only a small portion of competitors compete in these events which leaves a free hour for a lot of people. Why not take advantage of that free hour to do Teraminx bld.


----------



## Derek (Nov 22, 2013)

yeah the main problem is the time and getting judges along with scrambling etc.
maybe they can have an area set up to the side throughout the competition and 
you do your solves when you have free time. The judge could also be a volunteer that 
has free time. As far as scrambling goes the scramblers could scramble it in between 
their normal scrambling and set your cube to the side for when you are ready. 
It seems like a lot of work though unless you just dedicate a large portion of the competition 
to it but I think most people would rather use the time for a lot more smaller events like
clock and square-1


----------



## Renslay (Nov 22, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> I asked myself the question would Teraminx bld ever become an official event?
> Personally I would love if they added Teraminx bld as an official event.
> 
> The main problem most people would have is the time issue. I worked out a reasonable solution. When 8x8 is happening only a small portion of competitors compete in these events which leaves a free hour for a lot of people. Why not take advantage of that free hour to do Teraminx bld.



I see what you did there.


----------



## Dapianokid (Nov 22, 2013)

^ as sarcastic and snotty and just plain mean that comment was, his point is accurate, and pretty much sums up the invalidity of 8x8 as an event at this time.
Seriously, the world record holders of the day in 8x8 take about as long as your average 3x3 blindfolded. That's just too long, and the bigger the cube, the longer it takes to scramble and validate the scrambles. The world isn't ready yet, as he said. First off, more companies need to make 8x8s, and second, people need to get generaly better at bigcubing. SirWaffle, you don't count.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 22, 2013)

7x7x7 is bad enough


----------



## Kian (Nov 22, 2013)

I cannot imagine 8x8x8 ever becoming an event. There is no way it would have popular support from the existing delegates or board.

Also, you note that a number of competitors don't participate in MultiBLD or FMC, but you aren't acknowledging the resources that are required for MultiBLD. We need a judge per competitor. It is one of the most difficult events to run, even when it is not done so concurrent to other events.

There is rarely any "free time" at a competition. You might feel you have free time, but the people running the competition probably don't. 

Regardless, it's not going to happen, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.


----------



## kinch2002 (Nov 22, 2013)

Derek said:


> When MBLD or FMC is happening only a small
> portion of competitors compete in these events which leaves a free hour
> for a lot of people


Sorry, but that's not true. Last time we had those events, 21 people did FM, 16 did multi. Given that some people attend the first round of 3x3 only, there were only around 35 competitors left at the venue during these events, minus a few at lunch. Running FM and multi at the same time isn't even possible/fair because of the amount of overlap of competitors, and that doesn't account for the judges that are needed. Running 8x8 at the same time as those 2. Just lol. I don't even need to touch on whether 8x8 should be official to start with.


----------



## nibble4bits (Nov 22, 2013)

Why to add another big cube event to the list when you could think of puzzles like Skewb, cuboids, Helicopter Cube, Fisher's Cube, Pyramorphix, Rubik's Snake, Snake Cubes, Void cube... etc.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Nov 22, 2013)

It is very much like supply and demand, i think cubers as a whole would be much faster/efficient at 8x8 if it was an official event because they would practice more. I don't practice 8x8 much due to it not being an official event.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Nov 22, 2013)

What does 8x8 add to the current list of events? Anyone that can solve a 7x7 can solve and 8x8. In fact anyone that can solve a 4x4 could realistically solve any cube of higher order. Adding 8x8 accomplishes nothing but wastes time. This argument is similiar to the one that asks for events to be removed. Good reasons for an even to be added/kept are that the event is fun/can be speed solved, shows off interesting puzzles that can be speedsolved and enjoyed, adds a new spin to an existing puzzle yet still retain the original concept of the puzzle and is not too long and boring to hold up a competition (events such as Big/MultiBLD do not count here as they are normally ran alongside the main competition - and besides they are very impressive when executed correctly).

8x8 does little of this except perhaps being a little bit more fun, (wow I can solve such a large cube! -.-) and add a little bit more to already existing puzzles. Because of this, and already mentioned reasons above, I doubt that any new events (except for maybe skewb) will be added soon.


----------



## elrog (Nov 22, 2013)

The main problem is not the time, although that does play a factor. It is the fact that you solve an 8x8 the same exact way as the 6x6 and there's nothing new/interesting about it. This would also lead people to try and get the 9x9 as an official event which also does not need to happen.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 22, 2013)

elrog said:


> The main problem is not the time, although that does play a factor. It is the fact that you solve an 8x8 the same exact way as the 6x6 and there's nothing new/interesting about it. This would also lead people to try and get the 9x9 as an official event which also does not need to happen.



So lets cancel 5x5-7x7. Cos u solve them the same way as a 4x4.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 23, 2013)

Derek said:


> When MBLD or FMC is happening only a small
> portion of competitors compete in these events which leaves a free hour
> for a lot of people. Why not take advantage of that free hour to do 8x8.



Or (assuming your comment about their being plenty of free time were actually true) why not take advantage of that free time to do more events that are already events?


----------



## Derek (Nov 23, 2013)

Thanks for all the opinions guys. I mainly wanted to see if 8x8 would be in the future so I could practice for it but from what I have seen so far it is very unlikely. Personally I think a few smaller puzzles would be a better add such as skewb or helicopter cube.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 23, 2013)

If 8x8 is every added it won't be for a long long time.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 23, 2013)

Derek said:


> I mainly wanted to see if 8x8 would be in the future so I could practice for it


And what's stopping you from practicing for it anyway? A lot of people find unofficial events fun and interesting. The experience of solving bigger cubes can help you improve on smaller ones, too.


----------



## Dapianokid (Nov 23, 2013)

qqwref said:


> And what's stopping you from practicing for it anyway? A lot of people find unofficial events fun and interesting. The experience of solving bigger cubes can help you improve on smaller ones, too.



THIS MAN says what I've been waiting for. +1, new best bro.
I averaged 17 on 3x3 a few weeks back. I got an SS 4x5-5x5 and exclusively solved both until sub-5 at 5x and sub2 at 4x and suddenly when I came back to 3x I was sub-15. MAJIKZ, U ASK?!1!!!1!11!!! No, just experience with cubing and learning better lookahead with bigger cubes.
Take the Skewb, for example. Or 7bld. Both of the unofficial events are practiced outside competition and even at comps with similar popularity to all other events (and more so than magics and clock) all around the world. Practically, they are just as valid as the other events. However, Skewb is much more likely to becme an official event than 7bld anytime soon. Why is that? Because 7bld is not substantially more impressive than 5bld, or even 4bld. For that matter, any cuber who has tried/does perform bigbld understands that it's not only minimally more difficult, but knows that it's not any more impressive to cuberes than a 3x3 is once you've learned how to solve it. Such events get old. Now, when I see pyraminx solvers? I get excited! Why? Because I don't understand that and it's as mindblowing to me as 3x3 was back before I started.

Conclusion? New, interesting, original events are more tempting for the WCA board than just another cube with a few extra pieces with the exact same solving mechanics as the smaller sizes. This is what we cubers see: 3x3? X pieces. 4x4? Y pieces. 5x5? Z pieces! 6x6? Hmm. I'd say that doesn't look like a significant higher number than Z so we'll label that as Z. Same goes for 7x-10x and beyond.

Basically, don't stop doing unofficial events, but don't get your hopes up on events that are clearly just boring to the cubing world as official. The reason we don't exclusively do 3x3 in comp is because it gets boring after a while. I want Skewb!


----------



## LNZ (Nov 23, 2013)

Even if 8x8 does not become an official WCA event, don't ingore it. 

Solving twisty puzzles that are not official is fun and enhances your puzzle solving existance.

One could argue that some cuboids (like 3x3x2, 3x3x4, 3x3x5, 4x4x6, etc) have a case to be official WCA events as well.


----------



## Derek (Nov 23, 2013)

qqwref said:


> And what's stopping you from practicing for it anyway? A lot of people find unofficial events fun and interesting. The experience of solving bigger cubes can help you improve on smaller ones, too.


I know When I got my 7x7 my times on 5x5 dropped a lot from just doing 7x7. I am still going to practice but not nearly as much.


----------



## Rnewms (Nov 23, 2013)

Dapianokid said:


> Because 7bld is not substantially more impressive than 5bld, or even 4bld.



I completely disagree with this, but I do agree with the idea that sighted solves don't make too much of a difference as size increases, and there isn't a very good reason to make 8x8 official without there being a strong reasoning against it.


----------



## elrog (Nov 23, 2013)

KongShou said:


> So lets cancel 5x5-7x7. Cos u solve them the same way as a 4x4.



I'd be completely fine with getting rid of the 6x6 and 7x7, but the 5x5 can stay because it has differences from the 4x4. Certain methods work better on it than the 4x4 because the ability for you to tell if you have to do a parity algorithm before you dive right into solving like a 3x3 if your doing reduction. It also keeps you from having to worry about permutation parity.


----------



## Dene (Nov 23, 2013)

There is zero possibility of 8x8 becoming an official event.


----------



## piyushp761 (Nov 23, 2013)

Well I don't think that 8x8 will become an official event till V-cubes releases one! Otherwise Verdes would probably go against WCA for making an official event in which all the people are using knockoff puzzles!


----------



## god of rubic 2 (Nov 23, 2013)

Pls don't give a free WR to Feliks.


----------



## Derek (Nov 23, 2013)

god of rubic 2 said:


> Pls don't give a free WR to Feliks.



Honestly I don't think it would be Feliks. It would probably be Kevin or vladislav.


----------



## Sajwo (Nov 23, 2013)

Derek said:


> Honestly I don't think it would be Feliks. It would probably be Kevin or vladislav.



no.


----------



## god of rubic 2 (Nov 23, 2013)

Feliks had a 5 min solve on 8x8 a while ago IIRC


----------



## Derek (Nov 23, 2013)

god of rubic 2 said:


> Feliks had a 5 min solve on 8x8 a while ago IIRC



Vladislov Has a 5:25 solve and averages sub-6


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 23, 2013)

Derek said:


> Vladislov Has a 5:25 solve and averages sub-6



...and? I'm not saying Feliks would hold the WR, in fact he probably wouldn't. But it wouldn't be "Vladislov". Can you link his WCA profile? Because if you mean this guy, https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2012SHAV01 I highly doubt he would get the world record.

https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...onId=&years=&show=100+Persons&average=Average

Most of the top 50 on this list would average under 6 minutes with a little practise. The top 10 would potentially be sub 5.


----------



## Sajwo (Nov 23, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> ...and? I'm not saying Feliks would hold the WR, in fact he probably wouldn't. But it wouldn't be "Vladislov". Can you link his WCA profile? Because if you mean this guy, https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2012SHAV01 I highly doubt he would get the world record.
> 
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...onId=&years=&show=100+Persons&average=Average
> 
> Most of the top 50 on this list would average under 6 minutes with a little practise. The top 10 would potentially be sub 5.



Actually Vladislav is on comp today, so we'll se what he can do


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 23, 2013)

Counter proposal, get rid of 7x7?
It takes up too much time and adds nothing that other events already provide.

Edit - I have now read the thread.
Kong Shou sort of made the same point as me except that I was being serious.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Nov 23, 2013)

but then I would never compete in 7x7 

6x6/7x7 do add a small amount of extra knowledge to 5x5, but not very much at all (commutators on centres for example). I can certainly see arguments, particularly from comp organizers for it's removal.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 23, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> 6x6/7x7 do add a small amount of extra knowledge to 5x5



That's why I only said 7x7.
There is no reason to have both IMO.
It just gives the 3 people who placed in 6x6 another medal.


----------



## notfeliks (Nov 23, 2013)

Personally, I would like to see a fully functional cuboid puzzle become an official event, like 3x3x5 or something. That would be cool to watch.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 23, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> That's why I only said 7x7.
> There is no reason to have both IMO.
> It just gives the 3 people who placed in 6x6 another medal.



I think my WCA profile shows that there's a difference between 6x6 and 7x7. I really think that the current amounts of events are fine and that nothing should be changed.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 23, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> I think my WCA profile shows that there's a difference between 6x6 and 7x7.



You have exactly 1 data point for 6x6 =P


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 23, 2013)

What if we stagger the big cube competitions. Say, anyone can compete in 4x4 and 5x5-to compete in the main 6x6 event, your 5x5 single has to be below 1.30. To compete in the main 7x7event, your 6x6 has to be below 2.30. Or something like this, making sure that slow solvers are not in the main event, but have to fit in their solves independently (w/ judge of course) at a time they are free.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 23, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> What if we stagger the big cube competitions. Say, anyone can compete in 4x4 and 5x5-to compete in the main 6x6 event, your 5x5 single has to be below 1.30. To compete in the main 7x7event, your 6x6 has to be below 2.30. Or something like this, making sure that slow solvers are not in the main event, but have to fit in their solves independently (w/ judge of course) at a time they are free.



What if we... Keep things the same?



cube-o-holic said:


> You have exactly 1 data point for 6x6 =P


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 23, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> What if we... Keep things the same?



If everybody's complaining about the time taken for big cube events, then doing nothing is hardly a solution.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 23, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> If everybody's complaining about the time taken for big cube events, then doing nothing is hardly a solution.



Well, limiting 7x7 to the top 25 6x6 solvers doesn't seem like a good solution. I simply don't see that being effective, or fair. 

And who's "everybody"? I feel like there are a lot of people complaining about 8x8(which is reasonable), but 6x6 and 7x7 aren't too difficult to deal with in competition, and don't take huge amounts of time because of cutoffs and the mean of 3.


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 23, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> Well, limiting 7x7 to the top 25 6x6 solvers doesn't seem like a good solution. I simply don't see that being effective, or fair.
> 
> And who's "everybody"? I feel like there are a lot of people complaining about 8x8(which is reasonable), but 6x6 and 7x7 aren't too difficult to deal with in competition, and don't take huge amounts of time because of cutoffs and the mean of 3.



I've just given those cutoffs as an example, it doesn't need to be that way, they can be slower or based on the times of people actually at the event (eg maximum 20 solvers in the main event, everyone else doing solves on their own time). It would allow the main event to be more rapid, exciting and watchable, while still allowing slower people to clock times in competition and have something to aim for: I think it makes a lot of sense. (Another note: if people think they've improved their times, they can attempt to prove it to the delegate/judge before the event, on their own time again, to compete in the main event.)

Also, I think people are complaining about the time taken for events. In the UKC discussion thread people wanted longer events, but weren't able to fit them into the schedule, mainly because big cubes take a long time. It was even proposed we didn't have them in the event. This solution would allow a greater breadth of events in the main timetable while allowing people to compete if they aren't of the standard which is most highly competitive.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 23, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> I've just given those cutoffs as an example, it doesn't need to be that way, they can be slower or based on the times of people actually at the event (eg maximum 20 solvers in the main event, everyone else doing solves on their own time). It would allow the main event to be more rapid, exciting and watchable, while still allowing slower people to clock times in competition and have something to aim for: I think it makes a lot of sense. (Another note: if people think they've improved their times, they can attempt to prove it to the delegate/judge before the event, on their own time again, to compete in the main event.)
> 
> Also, I think people are complaining about the time taken for events. In the UKC discussion thread people wanted longer events, but weren't able to fit them into the schedule, mainly because big cubes take a long time. It was even proposed we didn't have them in the event. This solution would allow a greater breadth of events in the main timetable while allowing people to compete if they aren't of the standard which is most highly competitive.



We already have cutoffs, though. It's simply on a competition by competition basis. There are lenient cutoffs at competitions who have plenty of time, and harsher cutoffs at big competitions, such as national championships. 

Trying to have 4 or five people do 7x7 solves with the delegate watching each one seems like it would waste more time than it would save.

I don't see how the example works. The only way to not have these events at UKC is to _remove_ them from the WCA list? Why not just not do them?


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 23, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> We already have cutoffs, though. It's simply on a competition by competition basis. There are lenient cutoffs at competitions who have plenty of time, and harsher cutoffs at big competitions, such as national championships.
> 
> Trying to have 4 or five people do 7x7 solves with the delegate watching each one seems like it would waste more time than it would save.
> 
> I don't see how the example works. The only way to not have these events at UKC is to _remove_ them from the WCA list? Why not just not do them?



I didn't say to remove them from the WCA list of competitions!


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Nov 23, 2013)

The only way that 8x8 could become official is if we only let world class people do it and make it best of 1.



Spoiler



And I'll make 7x7 cutoff before that happens


----------



## elrog (Nov 23, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> but then I would never compete in 7x7
> 
> 6x6/7x7 do add a small amount of extra knowledge to 5x5, but not very much at all (commutators on centres for example). I can certainly see arguments, particularly from comp organizers for it's removal.



This is true and it is why I think that the 6x6 and 7x7 are tolerable. But the 8x8 and 9x9 are just ridiculous. No knowledge is gained from learning to solve one because the 6x6 and 7x7 already have the extra centers.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 24, 2013)

elrog said:


> This is true and it is why I think that the 6x6 and 7x7 are tolerable. But the 8x8 and 9x9 are just ridiculous. No knowledge is gained from learning to solve one because the 6x6 and 7x7 already have the extra centers.



MOAR OBLIQUES

I think it's more about time than difficulty, when it comes to those. It's quite hard(for most people) to get a 8x8 within reasonable cutoff range(7:00), let alone a 9x9.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 24, 2013)

8x8 can take quite long. There are a small group of people that can sub 10, 9, 8, and VERY FEW than can sub 7.

Scrambling would be a bit hectic.

The amount of interest in certain areas is varied. 

I would not see it becoming an event. Just like people did with 15puzzle when I tried to request it ;P

We still need that event called Lunch.


----------



## Hays (Nov 24, 2013)

Yellowsnow98 said:


> The only way that 8x8 could become official is if we only let world class people do it and make it best of 1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And even then I wouldn't really want to do it.


----------

