# [WCA Regulations 2012] Proposed New Event: Skewb



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 7, 2011)

Hello,

I would like to propose Skewb as a new official event in 2012. This event has a large amount of popularity, many people own a skewb and there are several methods out there.

Scrambling: A ramdom-state scrambler would have to be produced. The one produced my meep here seems to be the best option at the moment: http://meep.cubing.net/html5/skewbscrambler.html

I'd like to propose U, D, L and R as the possible moves. To see these moves, hold the skewb as you would a standard 3x3x3, then do the rotations y/2, x'/2. U is a third turn around the top corner, D is around the back corner, the one that is not visible from the front, and L/R are the two back corners on the left and right sides respectively.

Penalties: 1 turn is defined as a 120 degee rotation around a corner. So following this, +2 is a angle of more than 60 degrees from solved state, the same limits as pyraminx. 
In terms of pops, as far as i know, all pieces are functional, so any pops at the end of a solve would be a DNF.

If I've missed anything out, feel free to let me know, and I'll edit this accordingly.

Also, a warning:
*This discussion is meant to be serious and useful. Posts construed as silly, inane, or similar will be moderated and dealt with harshly. Please post both constructively and respectfully.*

EDIT: changed notation to fixed corner, as documented here: http://meep.cubing.net/skewb-fcn.html
EDIT2: Added scrambler link.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

Should use this fixed corner notation; 

boobs


----------



## Meep (Dec 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Should use this fixed corner notation;
> 
> boobs


 
This. It's been around for years (acubist).
Should link to my new page though: http://meep.cubing.net/skewb-fcn.html
'Cause I'm probably gonna take down the atspace one soon (Or make it redirect in the meantime).


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

MEEP MAKE A HTML5 SCRAMBLER WITH PICTURES


----------



## Meep (Dec 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> MEEP MAKE A HTML5 SCRAMBLER WITH PICTURES


 
I've never made a solver before ): Making the pictures given a scramble/state shouldn't be too hard though.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't *need* to be random state.

I can help you make a solver though if you want :£


----------



## aronpm (Dec 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> As far as I'm aware, it doesn't *need* to be random state.
> 
> I can help you make a solver though if you want :£


 
It doesn't need to be, but for such a "simple" puzzle I think a random-state scrambler is the best method.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 7, 2011)

I approve this proposal no matter how scrambling procedure is going to be! It's the missing link of the minx family!


----------



## jrb (Dec 7, 2011)

This would be awesome! I've been getting into Skewb more recently, and realizing how cool it is


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 7, 2011)

Unlike team BLD, this is just like other events. The only thing to be stated is +2, which should be 60 degrees. There are already scramblers for skewb, all that's needed is for a more official one to be put together. http://www.logan.cc/skewb.html Similar to this but with FCN.
Ron wanted 8 unofficial for it to show enough interest, more than 8 were recorded, and there were even more such as Australian Nationals which weren't submitted.
So the only thing needed is a scrambler correct?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 7, 2011)

Not really. We can hack together a non-random state scrambler pretty easily and that's good enough.

I started work on a random state scrambler.


----------



## Meep (Dec 7, 2011)

Yeah I quickly turned my sim into a non-random state (15 moves, God's Alg is 11) scrambler with pretty pictures. Testing the scrambles, they seem scrambled 'enough,' but that's not for me to decide:



Spoiler












I can upload it when I get home if people want to try it.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 7, 2011)

How much do skewb scrambles affect times? I know 2x2 isn't that much fun officially when you get to a somewhat high level of it, compared to bigger puzzles, since your results are very, very dependent on the scrambles/cases you get, and being a smaller puzzle it would seem like skewb would be similar, which would kind of suck. Do any fast people have an opinion on that?


----------



## Dene (Dec 7, 2011)

I will again be the lone person to object to this event. My main objection is the blatant simplicity of the puzzle. Best times are going to become a joke in the regulations eventually, just like magic, master magic, 2x2, and pyraminx. I do not think it is in the interests of competition to introduce such simple puzzles to official competitions.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 7, 2011)

Dene said:


> I will again be the lone person to object to this event. My main objection is the blatant simplicity of the puzzle. Best times are going to become a joke in the regulations eventually, just like magic, master magic, 2x2, and pyraminx. I do not think it is in the interests of competition to introduce such simple puzzles to official competitions.


 
How are magic and master magic singles "a joke"? There is no variance derived from having a "lucky scramble".

Please explain why "simple puzzles" should not be involved in WCA competition.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm not totally against skewb at this moment, but I'm swaying that way. As Dene says - it's just too simple a puzzle. Correct me if I'm wrong but you learn about 10 algs and then you can 2-look it. To me that suggests that it's even simpler than 2x2.

Also, maybe it's just me, but the puzzle is really annoying to turn so it's just not enjoyable to practise. So I'm going to end up feeling really stupid after solving it in 8 moves and taking more than 5 seconds doing it.

Yes, I know that feet is like 1tps, but at least you're not expecting to be able to turn fast with feet.

Having said all that, if we really want a new puzzle then I haven't heard any better suggestions than skewb so far.


----------



## Dene (Dec 7, 2011)

Magic and master magic averages are also a joke. The reason is because the events are so basic that the times achieved are so low that it becomes a competition of who can start and stop the timer the fastest. The same reason applies to the other two puzzles mentioned.

Why not simple puzzles? Because of the reason above. And because we have to upkeep the competitive spirit. We are hosting competitions here, not funfairs. You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but you learn about 10 algs and then you can 2-look it. To me that suggests that it's even simpler than 2x2.



You're wrong. Either way, why should it matter?



kinch2002 said:


> Also, maybe it's just me, but the puzzle is really annoying to turn so it's just not enjoyable to practise.



You honestly think that no one enjoys practising skewb?

I don't see why being unable to do 9tps is justification for not adding a puzzle.

First of all, comparing Skewb to Magic is pants on head retarded.



Dene said:


> You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.


 
You're the only one who sees Skewb as silly.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You're the only one who sees Skewb as silly.


 
Skewb is silly.

To add, I think it'd be a cool event to have, but it seems like it'd get the same hate that 2x2 does with all the silly scrambles and random world records and such.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You're wrong. Either way, why should it matter?
> 
> You honestly think that no one enjoys practising skewb?
> 
> I don't see why being unable to do 9tps is justification for not adding a puzzle.


 
I have this feeling that it might look silly because you're doing a few slow moves then stopping after a few seconds (inb4 you say why does it have to look good?). At least magics and 2x2 you can see some speed involved. It is speedsolving after all.

There are many people who enjoy practising skewb - I was just saying why I don't. Just to clarify - I'm not definitely against it - I was just voicing the negative opinions that I had seeing as the positive ones are kinda obvious, like 'a new challenge', 'there's no harm in adding it', 'some people really like it'.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

Kinch2002:

Let's remove clock, it turns weird, I don't enjoy practising it, I cannot do the moves any fast because the turn mechanism is weird. ohh and I don't want to waste my money on it.

Kirjava:

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!! (that is.. 0.88 U-perm  )


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 8, 2011)

Odder said:


> Kinch2002:
> 
> Let's remove clock, it turns weird, I don't enjoy practising it, I cannot do the moves any fast because the turn mechanism is weird. ohh and I don't want to waste my money on it.


Sure, take it out. I'm getting fed up of trying to explain wtf it means to be clock world champion 
Seriously, clock doesn't have a lot going for it, and wouldn't stand a chance of getting added if it wasn't already in there.


----------



## bamilan (Dec 8, 2011)

Dene said:


> Magic and master magic averages are also a joke. The reason is because the events are so basic that the times achieved are so low that it becomes a competition of who can start and stop the timer the fastest. The same reason applies to the other two puzzles mentioned.
> 
> Why not simple puzzles? Because of the reason above. And because we have to upkeep the competitive spirit. We are hosting competitions here, not funfairs. You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.


 
100% agree.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I have this feeling that it might look silly because you're doing a few slow moves then stopping after a few seconds


 
I think you have the wrong idea of the state of skewb solving.

Saying solutions are "a few slow moves" is very wrong.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 8, 2011)

Please keep it civil. Any more discussion about whether an event is "silly" will be heavily moderated.

Please focus on constructive things like
- how to implement Skewb as a new event
- legitimate reasons for adding the event (or not) *apart from personal preference / opinion of the event*.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I think you have the wrong idea of the state of skewb solving.
> 
> Saying solutions are "a few slow moves" is very wrong.


This is quite possible. Can you or anyone else give me an idea of move count for solutions using Kirjava-Meep or Sarah Strong's method? Also an approximate alg count would be useful. My opinions are indeed formed off whatever general information I've heard floating around.

EDIT: Lucas, is it a problem saying that I can't turn the puzzle fast? It's a personal opinion but I say things like this because I want to know whether other people felt the same way so I think it's still a constructive thing to say


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 8, 2011)

Why just perform the same events for the next century? Speedsolving should not be limited to what is a small amount of puzzles. It gives something new for everyone to try and compete with. Methods used to solve the skewb should not be brought into the decision of its use in competition. Events have been added prior to the development in optimized methods, so why look at the number of algorithms it may take? No such event should be prevented by stating "it's simple."


----------



## Escher (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't see how any arguments that derive from x event being 'silly' really apply when the act of repetitively playing with a slightly different unproductive piece of plastic is not considered so. 

I also don't really understand why speedcubing is supposed to 'look fast' (assuming that fast skewbing doesn't look fast - which it does). Especially when you look at FMC.

In the end the WCA is about "more fun". I don't even Skewb but I can see how it would be fun, and I don't see how it's inclusion detracts from the fun of other elements of competing. 

The only logic I've really seen that holds up towards non-inclusion is that it is being picked out of a bunch of other possible side-events that might also eventually deserve inclusion.

However, in my opinion, the WCA should be making yearly steps to steadily increase the number of events. If this was the case then the inclusion of Skewb would just be a first step - not a categorical statement that it is more important than anything else. I'm also implying I don't agree with the idea that there should be a maximum bound to the number of events we can have, due to competition time constraints. The bound should be considered in terms of quality/difficulty/uniqueness of puzzles, ease of (regulation) implementation, and community desire.

Anybody want 3x3x4 in 2013?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

I just realised something.

With Skewb, it's easy to pick up the puzzle and start turning straight away compared to most other events.


----------



## collinbxyz (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I just realised something.
> 
> With Skewb, it's easy to pick up the puzzle and start turning straight away compared to most other events.


 
This doesn't really affect anything though, since everyone will have this 'advantage', if you can call it that. Although I guess you never said it was a problem in the first place.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 8, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but you learn about 10 algs and then you can 2-look it. To me that suggests that it's even simpler than 2x2.


Kirjava-Meep is a generally 3-look method, which requires 14 algs, if you do the first layer/side intuitively in one look.
My intermediate method is also 3-look, which requires 13 if you do the first layer intuitively in one-look, and my advanced method is 2-look but it requires *134 algs *to know the whole thing.



Dene said:


> Magic and master magic averages are also a joke. The reason is because the events are so basic that the times achieved are so low that it becomes a competition of who can start and stop the timer the fastest. The same reason applies to the other two puzzles mentioned.
> 
> Why not simple puzzles? Because of the reason above. And because we have to upkeep the competitive spirit. We are hosting competitions here, not funfairs. You can have fun with other puzzles whenever you want, but at official competitions we want there to be competition, and not silly events.



Skewb is NOT a silly event. 
Although I foresee skewb single being another 2x2 single event, a WR worthy skewb average isn't something easy that anyone with a little practice can get.

It's not just something you can learn a few algs and immediately get super fast at. It takes a lot of practice to get familiar with the turning and to develop good fingertricks, and to be fast at inspecting and solving the first layer intuitively. Most algs are also harder to learn and perform well than on cubic puzzles.
You're exaggerating how simple skewb is.


Another thing to add is that even though skewb single is lol, it's less lol than 2x2x2 single. I highly doubt that there will ever be any sub2 singles, unless you have a finger-trickable solution that's less than 6 moves. The fastest singles will be less condensed than 2x2 singles, and there should be fewer ties.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 8, 2011)

I have never used a skewb but so many people want it so it should be. THose it ins't as easy as clock it just one thing it is the turning that hard. I don't own one. ANy way those the sing;e would be like under 2 or 1 seconds and like 2x2 the average wouldn't and there is people who hate the other non cube events 2x2-7x7


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

tx789 said:


> I have never used a skewb but so many people want it so it should be. THose it ins't as easy as clock it just one thing it is the turning that hard. I don't own one. ANy way those the sing;e would be like under 2 or 1 seconds and like 2x2 the average wouldn't and there is people who hate the other non cube events 2x2-7x7


 
I often get sub 2 singles at home for pyraminx... however the WR single still remains 1.93 by Yohei Oka, so the single will probably be like low 3 or mid 2


----------



## Dene (Dec 8, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> Skewb is NOT a silly event.
> Although I foresee skewb single being another 2x2 single event, a WR worthy skewb average isn't something easy that anyone with a little practice can get.
> 
> It's not just something you can learn a few algs and immediately get super fast at. It takes a lot of practice to get familiar with the turning and to develop good fingertricks, and to be fast at inspecting and solving the first layer intuitively. Most algs are also harder to learn and perform well than on cubic puzzles.
> You're exaggerating how simple skewb is.


 
Sure, but 2x2 is the same. No one can get low 2s averages with only a little practise. It doesn't mean the puzzle itself isn't silly as an official event. I am of the opinion that speedsolving puzzles should be a challenge of skills with the puzzle (and brain), and not with the timer.


EDIT: I know I used the word "silly" again, and Lucas doesn't seem to like it, but I can't think of a more suitable word for now, so until someone else comes up with something more appropriate I will use it and hopefully no one will take offence.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 8, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> There are already scramblers for skewb, all that's needed is for a more official one to be put together. http://www.logan.cc/skewb.html Similar to this but with FCN.


 
That scrambler looks ugly. 

But really, what sort of notation to people prefer? I decided on having the top center fixed because I thought it would be easiest for people to understand. I also considered having the bottom center fixed so that there's always a stable base to hold.

As for it being easy, was 2x2 at World's boring? Sure, there may be a lucky scramble, but having a quick event is important. I have 6x6 and 7x7 very rarely because even with a few competitors it takes a long time.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 8, 2011)

Dene said:


> Sure, but 2x2 is the same. No one can get low 2s averages with only a little practise. It doesn't mean the puzzle itself isn't silly as an official event. I am of the opinion that speedsolving puzzles should be a challenge of skills with the puzzle (and brain), and not with the timer.


Of course. I was just clarifying that skewb isn't as simple as ones who have never tried it may think.



Bryan said:


> But really, what sort of notation to people prefer? I decided on having the top center fixed because I thought it would be easiest for people to understand.


The front corner fixed with 3 face visible. Meep calls it FCN. 
It's easiest to fingertrick (it feels somewhat like megaminx scrambling, with the 3x1x1 block at UL fixed), and you won't have any dumb F moves that you have to awkwardly regrip.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 8, 2011)

Odder said:


> I often get sub 2 singles at home for pyraminx... however the WR single still remains 1.93 by Yohei Oka, so the single will probably be like low 3 or mid 2


 
THat's where luck comes in the pyraminx pb is like 2.60 for a single(unsure about scramble)( but I average 9.5-12. Skewb would be the same. As pyra and 2x2


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 8, 2011)

A lot of these arguments against skewb (the low times, potentially easy scrambles and lucky solves, simple looking) can definitely apply to pyraminx, yet very few want to get rid of that. Pyraminx is actually way way easier than skewb (to solve, and to get decent at it) IMO, yet if you look at the rankings for pyraminx, the slowest of the top 100 averages is 6.61, while 2x2 is 3.59. 

I have personal experience with skewb. I decided to get fast at it, and practice it a lot. It is in no means a simple puzzle to get good at, like pyraminx (learn the method and develop fast tps). 

1. The algs are way harder to remember and learn than on any other puzzle. A lot of the algs require cube rotations and weird hand shifting because of the nature of the puzzle. They are also long algs for a puzzle that moves slowly. 3x3 algs may be longer, but you turn faster so it seems slower, and it is easier to use muscle memory to learn the algorithm. I often got lost in the middle of algs, even after a full month of practicing it most of the time. 
2. The recognition is a pain in the ass. A lot of the cases look the same, and the cycles are confusing, especially 5 center cycles, and you have to follow the line of centers to see which case you have. Cases can easily be confused with others. Doing the wrong alg is truly the worst experience imaginable because you have to preform another long and painful alg to fix it. 

I've experienced the horrors of learning advanced skewb, and it's safe to say it is not an easy puzzle. Learning 2x2 CLL cases is even easier than that IMO. I gave up on skewb after it made cubing sad for me. 




I would me "meh" if it does become official, because it means I'll be forced to start solving it again and go through the difficult process of practicing it.


----------



## Meep (Dec 8, 2011)

http://meep.cubing.net/html5/skewbscrambler.html

Here's a quick scrambler I threw together.

Though having done a lot of Skewb, I will admit that it's pretty darn simple. If you look at the scrambler and click scramble a few times, it doesn't take much to see a bunch of big blocks/skips almost independent of method (Rubikskewb, acubist, Kir-Meep, etc.). I guessed that it might not be random enough, but using my sim I did 500 move scrambles and ran into roughly the same frequency of these 'lucky' scrambles. I did a quick check of around 40 scrambles and just a bit under 50% had something unusually easy to start with (For the methods I listed above). Also, being a deep-cut puzzle, you might have a state 4-5 moves away that just isn't obvious from the scrambled state: I've had around 6 of these occur in the last two days, one sub-2 and the rest sub-3. I might even say it's worse than 2x2 in how often lucky/easy things happen. I haven't worked out the odds, but I've had entire averages of 5 that consisted of 'lucky' solves and really inconsistent averages of 12 for the same reason.

This may or may not be a big issue with regards to the criteria for being an official event. Just thought I'd throw that out there since there was debate over the issue and over the fact that people who haven't done much with the puzzle were bringing it up.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Dec 8, 2011)

I honestly can't see why anyone has arguments against skewb. It's a complex enough puzzle that has been hosted "unofficially" many times and has working sub-optimal scramblers. Why wouldn't it be added, considering the reasonably large demand?



Escher said:


> Anybody want 3x3x4 in 2013?


 
I would love to see 3x3x4 added.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

For notation I prefer:
hold it like a normal 3x3x3, do ½y and then ½x... then you have the moves L R B which are not affecting the top corner, (I hope it's obvious what those three moves are performed?) and then U which is basically just orienting the top corner. I like this notation because it reminds me of how I scramble my pyraminx.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 8, 2011)

Odder said:


> For notation I prefer:
> hold it like a normal 3x3x3, do ½y and then ½x... then you have the moves L R B which are not affecting the top corner, (I hope it's obvious what those three moves are performed?) and then U which is basically just orienting the top corner. I like this notation because it reminds me of how I scramble my pyraminx.



How is this different from the current one, or the one on the KM method site? (I don't know if it's the same of not, but I forgot how the current one is). This way is the most logical in my eyes, and I also thought of this notation independently.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> How is this different from the current one, or the one on the KM method site? (I don't know if it's the same of not, but I forgot how the current one is). This way is the most logical in my eyes, and I also thought of this notation independently.


 
I think the one on the KM site has a fixed corner, while my notation only has a "partial" fixed corner, as it can change orientation. But to be honest, I don't know any skewb notation, except of the ways I interpret scrambles, which might or might not be the right way to perform them.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 8, 2011)

FCN:


----------



## Forte (Dec 8, 2011)

Meep said:


> http://meep.cubing.net/html5/skewbscrambler.html
> 
> Here's a quick scrambler I threw together.
> 
> ...



I agree with the above.

The way I'm thinking about it, if 2x2 wasn't an event right now, but people were as fast as they are now, would people really want it to be added? I dunno if everyone remembers when Ben got that 2x2 average and everyone got mad at him because of how lucky he got in it, but Skewb would just be like that, but potentially worse.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 8, 2011)

Of course I would like Skewb to be added. Of course I know it'll get bashed. But I project that eventually no one will really care.

For scrambling, I've used FCN forever, but instead of Meep's usage of "D", I've always used "B" as it is in both Mr. Logan's scrambler and on qqTimer. I personally think it should be "B" to mirror pyraminx notation (without tips, of course). This needs to be resolved, but it's low-priority.
Another thing to be clarified: scrambling orientation. If we call the fixed corner UFR, then WGR as UFR works (considering a "normally" stickered puzzle here). 15's a great length for scrambles.

Concerning simplicity, Skewb is downright simple. The method I use has two quick blockbuilding steps, maxing out optimally at 11 moves (5 for the first according to acubist (whose site is down, btw; I have the .zip to the acubist solver if anyone wants it), and 6 for the second (unless I'm proven otherwise)) and then one final step (with 75 cases, solved state included; max 10 moves) that can be broken up into two looks (7 cases for the first, 3 for the second; solved states are always accounted for).
Total max movecount for my method is 21 to the best of my knowledge.

So yeah, the puzzle's easy and easy scrambles can be yielded, but the solver does require skill and experience to solve fast consistently.


----------



## Luis (Dec 8, 2011)

I would like to have Skewb as an official event in the near future. Many reasons have been given, but I want to give one that I couldn't see written above: like x2 and pyra, skweb offers a very interesting challenge 'in inspection time'. Having good fingers will not give you much unless you are able to do a deep inspection. I like (much) the idea of solving puzzles with the brain, not with the fingers.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 8, 2011)

Just to adress the issue about skewb scrambles being too easy:
I honestly think that the WR times will be similar to 3x3, maybe a bit lower. The single however is more likely to be between 3x3x3 and pyraminx times, just because of the chance of easy scrambles.
Also, the fact that it is a relatively fast event, it will take less time to run in a competition than things like 6x6/7x7.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Just to adress the issue about skewb scrambles being too easy:
> I honestly think that the WR times will be similar to 3x3, maybe a bit lower. The single however is more likely to be between 3x3x3 and pyraminx times, just because of the chance of easy scrambles.
> Also, the fact that it is a relatively fast event, it will take less time to run in a competition than things like 6x6/7x7.


 
I think the average will also be somewhere inbetween faz's 3x3x3 avg and Oka's pyraminx average, it doesn't require that much practise to get sub 8


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 8, 2011)

Am I the only one that thinks skewb is hard?


----------



## AustinReed (Dec 8, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> Am I the only one that thinks skewb is hard?


 
No. 
I think I've been thinking about. At tournament such as Nationals and Worlds, how many will sign up? How much time would it take?


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 8, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> I'm not totally against skewb at this moment, but I'm swaying that way. As Dene says - it's just too simple a puzzle. Correct me if I'm wrong but you learn about 10 algs and then you can 2-look it. To me that suggests that it's even simpler than 2x2. Also, maybe it's just me, but the puzzle is really annoying to turn so it's just not enjoyable to practise. So I'm going to end up feeling really stupid after solving it in 8 moves and taking more than 5 seconds doing it.



I agree, and there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.


 
People prefer to practise official events.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 8, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> Kirjava-Meep is a generally 3-look method, which requires 14 algs, if you do the first layer/side intuitively in one look.
> My intermediate method is also 3-look, which requires 13 if you do the first layer intuitively in one-look, and my advanced method is 2-look but it requires *134 algs *to know the whole thing.


Thanks Sarah - that's really useful to get a feel for how 'easy' (or hard) the event is


Kirjava said:


> People prefer to practise official events.


This is a good point. I have no doubt that my likelihood of practising it would increase greatly (probably to 100% ) were it official. Hopefully enjoyment would increase too


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> I agree, and there are only 2 or 3 people (that I know of) that actually practice skewb at all.


 
Meep
Sarah
Chris Bird
Odder
Lars V N
MaeLSTRoM

Just to mention some of the nerds


----------



## asportking (Dec 8, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> I think I've been thinking about. At tournament such as Nationals and Worlds, how many will sign up?


I'm guessing about 50-100 for something like Nationals. It wouldn't be as popular as 3x3, but it wouldn't be something like 5x5 BLD where only 20 or so people sign up.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 8, 2011)

aronpm said:


> How are magic and master magic singles "a joke"? There is no variance derived from having a "lucky scramble".
> 
> Please explain why "simple puzzles" should not be involved in WCA competition.


 
Because they require no skill.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Because they require no skill.


 
This is incorrect. Try again.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> This is incorrect. Try again.


 
How is it incorrect, I tought my friend how to solve magic in 7 minutes.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> How is it incorrect, I tought my friend how to solve magic in 7 minutes.


 
I'm assuming when people say "simple puzzles" that that includes skewb.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 8, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> How is it incorrect, I tought my friend how to solve magic in 7 minutes.


 
7 minutes? Either you are a bad teacher or your friend is incapable of learning  it took me less than a minute to learn magic and master magic.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 8, 2011)

IF skewb was offical more people would do and practice


----------



## Hershey (Dec 8, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> Because they require no skill.


 
I don't like rubik's magic, but if they require no skill then upload a video of a sub 1 magic average tomorrow. Can't do it? Exactly my point.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 8, 2011)

Odder said:


> 7 minutes? Either you are a bad teacher or your friend is incapable of learning  it took me less than a minute to learn magic and master magic.


 
I'm a bad teacher.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 8, 2011)

Hershey said:


> I don't like rubik's magic, but if they require no skill then upload a video of a sub 1 magic average tomorrow. Can't do it? Exactly my point.


 
By no skill, I meant that it requires no thinking.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 9, 2011)

Cheese11 said:


> By no skill, I meant that it requires no thinking.


 
I hope you realize how big the difference is between those two words.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 9, 2011)

magic is the same thing over and over so it is so easy to learn you sort of need to think and remember the method. Skewb is a twisty puzzle


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

tx789 said:


> magic is the same thing over and over so it is so easy to learn you sort of need to think and remember the method. Skewb is a twisty puzzle


 
Magic is a twisty puzzle. And magic is only the same thing over and over because that's how we do it in the WCA. What I don't understand is the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> What I don't understand is the point you're trying to make.


 
That Skewb is a more legitimate event to have than Magic.


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm still waiting for someone to give a reason rather than an opinion towards not having Skewb. If nobody can actually produce one then we should just /thread and let the actual discussion of implementation start on the WCA forums.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 9, 2011)

Escher said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to give a reason rather than an opinion towards not having Skewb. If nobody can actually produce one then we should just /thread and let the actual discussion of implementation start on the WCA forums.



Not saying I agree with this one, but here's a possible reason someone might come up with: There's already too many official events. Organisers sometimes feel pressure to hold as many events as possible/all of them so this would make matters worse. Also, continentals/worlds will always have all official events so it definitely puts strain on them.
Anybody got thoughts on whether there are enough/too many events?


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That Skewb is a more legitimate event to have than Magic.


 
Now that really is a silly point to make - no one in their right mind would object to that.



Escher said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to give a reason rather than an opinion towards not having Skewb. If nobody can actually produce one then we should just /thread and let the actual discussion of implementation start on the WCA forums.


 
I gave a reason, feel free to address it. (To make it easy for you, I basically said that skewb is just another quick and easy event that does not contribute to what should be a competitive spirit in competition).


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> I gave a reason, feel free to address it. (To make it easy for you, I basically said that skewb is just another quick and easy event that does not contribute to what should be a competitive spirit in competition).


 
"rather than an opinion"

I'm pretty sure you don't know how to solve a Skewb (and I'm 100% you aren't fast at it) so I don't see how you can think it's easy in the first place. 3x3 is also quick and easy.

I don't really know what you mean by 'competitive spirit'. Like everything apart from magic, it's 'fun' and requires skill to get to a 'competitive' level. The fact that it takes a short amount of time for the fast people only supports the inclusion argument, since it stresses time constraints less than other events that there is a desire for (such as team BLD).


@Dan: simple, get rid of clock


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

Escher said:


> "rather than an opinion"
> 
> I'm pretty sure you don't know how to solve a Skewb (and I'm 100% you aren't fast at it) so I don't see how you can think it's easy in the first place. 3x3 is also quick and easy.
> 
> I don't really know what you mean by 'competitive spirit'. Like everything apart from magic, it's 'fun' and requires skill to get to a 'competitive' level. The fact that it takes a short amount of time for the fast people only supports the inclusion argument, since it stresses time constraints less than other events that there is a desire for (such as team BLD).


 
If you classify that as an opinion rather than a reason then I fear that I could never actually come up with a reason rather than an opinion.

I cannot off the top of my head solve a skewb, however the only time I have ever encountered a skewb I looked up a 4 minute tutorial on youtube and learnt how to solve it in that 4 minute period. I played with it for a bit, realised how stupid it was, and decided I had absolutely no interest in playing with one ever again.

By competitive spirit I mean creating some sort of competition, something challenging and not something that will turn into another joke fest. I already talked about this, I don't feel like repeating myself.

I'm not exactly sure on this "inclusion argument" that you mention, but if I'm getting the gist of it correctly, you're saying we should include things that take less time, but I don't see any particular reason to support that reasoning. Please correct me if I'm way off.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm getting sick of these "Skewb shouldn't be an event because I think it's stupid" posts.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> By competitive spirit I mean creating some sort of competition, something challenging and not something that will turn into another joke fest. I already talked about this, I don't feel like repeating myself.


 
To be quite honest, skewb is more of a competitive event than feet and magics, and also all of what you have posted is opinions, and are not particularly relevant to this discussion. 
To re-iterate:
*
This discussion is meant to be serious and useful. Posts construed as silly, inane, or similar will be moderated and dealt with harshly. Please post both constructively and respectfully.*


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Meep said:


> I might even say it's worse than 2x2 in how often lucky/easy things happen. I haven't worked out the odds, but I've had entire averages of 5 that consisted of 'lucky' solves and really inconsistent averages of 12 for the same reason.


 

I don't think enough people have addressed this. If the difficulty of scrambles is so inconsistent that it's possible to get multiple significantly lucky solves in a row, there's no doubt in my mind that the WR average will eventually get to a point where it can only be set by getting extremely lucky scrambles.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> I don't think enough people have addressed this. If the difficulty of scrambles is so inconsistent that it's possible to get multiple significantly lucky solves in a row, there's no doubt in my mind that the WR average will eventually get to a point where it can only be set by getting extremely lucky scrambles.


 
Once the FMC WR is sub20, it will be impossible to beat it in certain rounds.

WR averages already expect to be set with 'easy' scrambles.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Once the FMC WR is sub20, it may not even be possible to beat it in certain rounds.
> 
> WR averages already expect to be set with 'easy' scrambles.



And you don't think that that's a problem?

For the majority of events, you can't objectively say that it's impossible to beat the WR average on a random set of scrambles. The only ones I would argue you could are 2x2, pyraminx, and eventually FMC. This seems to me a major issue, and is something that should be avoided if possible.

Not to mention, one of the main arguments people were making earlier is that it will always require skill to set the WR, and based on Kris' post, I'm not really convinced of that.

I think it should also be considered that since tps is so low on skewb, having a short case as opposed to a long one makes a much more significant difference than it does in other puzzles.


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> And you don't think that that's a problem?
> 
> For the majority of events, you can't objectively say that it's impossible to beat the WR average on a random set of scrambles. The only ones I would argue you could are 2x2, pyraminx, and eventually FMC. This seems to me a major issue, and is something that should be avoided if possible.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know enough about Skewb but I imagine the results will look like 2x2 a year or so from now - the top people are at the top, with a few people getting lucky and entering the top 20. It's worth mentioning that it's still young and will be subject to a lot of development so I'm sure there is a lot to be discovered in terms of alternate methods and optimisations, enough so that even with the same set of scrambles most other competitors would not see the sophisticated solutions.

Given the current format, 3x3, SQ-1, and clock will also be subject to freak case variance and probably near-impossible WRs in the near future. In my opinion the WCA should be looking towards extending the avg5 format for short/fast puzzles like these in the next few years...


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> And you don't think that that's a problem?



Not at all. Besides, the only way to combat it is with scramble filtering - which I really do not agree with.



JustinJ said:


> For the majority of events, you can't objectively say that it's impossible to beat the WR average on a random set of scrambles.



I'm not doing. But don't you think in the future that the WR for 4x4x4 avg will end up probably being the one with 0/5 OLL parities? 

This is just a natural aspect of cubing.



JustinJ said:


> Not to mention, one of the main arguments people were making earlier is that it will always require skill to set the WR, and based on Kris' post, I'm not really convinced of that.



Once someone good gets 'easy scrambles', I don't see someone unskilled completely fluking better than they do on equally easy scrambles.



JustinJ said:


> I think it should also be considered that since tps is so low on skewb


 
This is a common misconception that people who dislike skewb seem to promote. It's simply not true - people are getting close to 8tps for alg executions.


----------



## jrb (Dec 9, 2011)

@kinch2002 Your argument about how the Skewb is awkward to turn makes no sense. If speedcubing was about fast turning, then it would be called speedturning, not speedsolving. In other words, speedcubing is about solving the cube as fast as you can, not turning the cube as fast as you can.

Also, to the people that say Skewb is too easy to be made an official event, I highly doubt that Skewb WRs will reach sub-2 for single and sub-3 for average(like Pyraminx), and I have not seen one person who is complaining about Pyraminx being an official event. (I have nothing against Pyraminx, it's actually one of my favorite events).


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

jrb said:


> In other words, speedcubing is about solving the cube as fast as you can, not turning the cube as fast as you can.



People b*tch about how speedcubing is all about tps now and that makes it boring.

Then people b*tch about it being too hard to get high tps on a new proposed puzzle.

Go figure.



jrb said:


> I highly doubt that Skewb WRs will reach sub-2 for single and sub-3 for average(like Pyraminx),



I can see sub2 being plausable eventually for single. However, average will probably never reach anywhere near 3.



jrb said:


> and I have not seen one person who is complaining about Pyraminx being an official event.


 
Dene doesn't like pyra.


I'm looking forward to being told that we can't have Skewb because it's too easy, then going and competing in magic.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Not at all. Besides, the only way to combat it is with scramble filtering - which I really do not agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a valid point, however, OLL parity adds a much less significant amount of time relative to how long the puzzle takes. What I'm seeing so far is that the variance in cases for skewb causes a much more significant range of times.



Kirjava said:


> Once someone good gets 'easy scrambles', I don't see someone unskilled completely fluking better than they do on equally easy scrambles.


Easy sets of scrambles are not all equally easy, and someone unskilled getting good times isn't the only problem. What if someone who is the best at the time gets an average far, far beyond what is normally achievable, due to easy scrambles? The WR average is then completely unrepresentative of the skill of that person, or anyone else, until someone else gets a set of equally ridiculous scrambles.




Kirjava said:


> This is a common misconception that people who dislike skewb seem to promote. It's simply not true - people are getting close to 8tps for alg executions.


Citation needed? I'd be interested to see that for generic algs, not just the nicest cases.

But nonetheless, prove to me that the better half of cases for methods like Kir-Meep, acubist, and rubikskewb aren't completely imbalanced in terms of speed, compared to the worse half.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> That's a valid point, however, OLL parity adds a much less significant amount of time relative to how long the puzzle takes. What I'm seeing so far is that the variance in cases for skewb causes a much more significant range of times.
> 
> 
> Easy sets of scrambles are not all equally easy, and someone unskilled getting good times isn't the only problem. What if someone who is the best at the time gets an average far, far beyond what is normally achievable, due to easy scrambles? The WR average is then completely unrepresentative of the skill of that person, or anyone else, until someone else gets a set of equally ridiculous scrambles.



This issue applies equally to Pyraminx, and I don't see it happening at the moment.



JustinJ said:


> Citation needed? I'd be interested to see that for generic algs, not just the nicest cases.



People can nearly do U Perm sub1. U perm is 8 moves.

I think 4tps for a full solve is quite easily achievable.



JustinJ said:


> But nonetheless, prove to me that the better half of cases for methods like Kir-Meep, acubist, and rubikskewb aren't completely imbalanced in terms of speed, compared to the worse half.


 
I do not wish to put in the effort it takes to 'prove' this, but cannot see how they would be /that/ imbalanced.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> This issue applies equally to Pyraminx, and I don't see it happening at the moment.


It happened to 2x2. When Rowe got 2.45, nobody (including him) was anywhere near that at home.



Kirjava said:


> People can nearly do U Perm sub1. U perm is 8 moves.
> 
> I think 4tps for a full solve is quite easily achievable.



Here's Kris doing 9 moves for a different alg in 2.03 (4.4 tps), which looks pretty fast to me, and he's starting holding the skewb in the right places, with zero recognition time. U perm is much more finger friendly than most skewb algs.



Kirjava said:


> I do not wish to put in the effort it takes to 'prove' this, but cannot see how they would be /that/ imbalanced.



For Kir-Meep, for the CLL step (I don't think people use EG, since the algs are bad, I could be wrong though), There are two cases, Pi and L, which I believe have about a 50-50 occurrence rate. Pi is half the moves of L and doesn't require a regrip, and Kris says that L is horrible compared to Pi.

For L5C, he also told me that U can be done about twice as fast as H or Z, which can be done about twice as fast as every other case.

Considering U perm is fairly common, and can be made even more common by forcing them, it seems that the best method for getting a good official average with Kir-Meep will be to just go to competitions until you get an average with 4 U perms, and every other average you do is worthless.

I don't know much about other methods, so I had to focus on Kir-Meep, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar for others.


----------



## da25centz (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> It happened to 2x2. When Rowe got 2.45, nobody (including him) was anywhere near that at home.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So pyraminx shouldn't be an event because, say you use lbl, you could get a LL skip and that would give you a great solve?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> It happened to 2x2. When Rowe got 2.45, nobody (including him) was anywhere near that at home.



2x2x2 is much easier than Pyraminx and Skewb.



JustinJ said:


> Here's Kris doing 9 moves for a different alg in 2.03 (4.4 tps), which looks pretty fast to me, and he's starting holding the skewb in the right places, with zero recognition time. U perm is much more finger friendly than most skewb algs.



Z perm is much harder than U perm.



JustinJ said:


> For Kir-Meep, for the CLL step (I don't think people use EG, since the algs are bad, I could be wrong though), There are two cases, Pi and L, which I believe have about a 50-50 occurrence rate. Pi is half the moves of L and doesn't require a regrip, and Kris says that L is horrible compared to Pi.



People use EG. A face is often nicer than a layer.



JustinJ said:


> For L5C, he also told me that U can be done about twice as fast as H or Z, which can be done about twice as fast as every other case.



Doublesune, sune, fruruf etc vs every other CLL.



JustinJ said:


> Considering U perm is fairly common, and can be made even more common by forcing them, it seems that the best method for getting a good official average with Kir-Meep will be to just go to competitions until you get an average with 4 U perms, and every other average you do is worthless.



Same with Pyra and L3E cases.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> 2x2x2 is much easier than Pyraminx and Skewb.


From what I've seen, Skewb times are just as variant. 



Kirjava said:


> Z perm is much harder than U perm.


As is every other L5C alg that's not U perm.



Kirjava said:


> People use EG. A face is often nicer than a layer.


Examples of fast people who do?



Kirjava said:


> Doublesune, sune, fruruf etc vs every other CLL.


Not nearly as common as U perm on Skewb. Especially if you force the top center solved, which is really easy to see/do in some cases, apparently.



Kirjava said:


> Same with Pyra and L3E cases.


Which is bad. I don't think the time differences are as high though.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 9, 2011)

When I learnt algs for Skewb, I did Layer, CLL and force one centre, then L5C using U-perms. Luck happens, but the average world record always goes to the best. Look at Pyraminx's history, WR has mainly swapped between Odder and Yohei.
And when/if Skewb becomes official people will practise it more. I know a Japanese guy uses Layer -> rest of Skewb. 
If we get the best in the world at Pyra, Skewb and 2x2, Pyra would be most efficient, then 2x2/Skewb. Skewb tps is hardly half as good as 2x2.
I for one used to average 10~ and I probably had a pb average of 8/9. I do not remember U-perms being the deciding factor in solves.
Edit: Kirjava, 2x2 may be faster but the current WR pyra methods are more efficient.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 9, 2011)

Justin:

The points you are making also mostly apply to existing events. Until there is a serious movement for removing these events the complaints you have are invalid.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Justin:
> 
> The points you are making also mostly apply to existing events. Until there is a serious movement for removing these events the complaints you have are invalid.


 
Fair enough. I still think it's an issue, but I guess it's a necessary one. Don't get me wrong, I'll certainly enjoy watching skewb solvers, and to be honest, this isn't really a problem for anyone but the top, say, 0.5% of competitors. I guess we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Meep (Dec 9, 2011)

While the points that Justin is making do apply to existing events, they currently are issues with existing events. I believe he's trying to say that it's worth considering if what people want to add has the same, or a worse version of said issues. It's not really about removing the current events that have those problems but to prevent more of it from happening. It's valid, just a different perspective (As most of the posts in here are opinion based and not about actual statistics).


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> If you classify that as an opinion rather than a reason then I fear that I could never actually come up with a reason rather than an opinion.
> 
> I cannot off the top of my head solve a skewb, however the only time I have ever encountered a skewb I looked up a 4 minute tutorial on youtube and learnt how to solve it in that 4 minute period. I played with it for a bit, realised how stupid it was, and decided I had absolutely no interest in playing with one ever again.
> 
> ...


 
A reason might be something that wasn't essentially 'I don't like this puzzle because it does not fit my personal definition of what speedcubing should involve'.

My mention of inclusion wasn't supposed to imply an 'argument from time', more a counter to "including new events imposes some level of strain on those who run competitions" - of possible new events we are discussing, skewb does not pose much of a strain.

Again you're thinking about events that fit your definition of 'joke fest', or apparently 'stupid'. Right now 3x3 could be considered a joke fest, since times depend a lot on last layer case variance and ease of start. 


I wish people could just accept that luck is an intimate part of cubing, and efforts to control or reduce it are pointless, unless you start out an event this way or wipe the results database clean. If people really hate luck that much, they should go practice magic.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene: cool story. I don't like 7x7. It's time consuming and extremely simple. Oh it's one of your favourite events? How could that be?
I got my 7x7 for Christmas, and solved it on the same day. No tutorial. If Skewb is so simple why didn't you work it out for yourself?


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> To be quite honest, skewb is more of a competitive event than feet and magics, and also all of what you have posted is opinions, and are not particularly relevant to this discussion.


 
The way I see it, the only way someone can object to introducing this event is to go against the "constructive discussion" thing. And it is relevant. This discussion should not be about what the regulations for skewb should be, this discussion should be about whether skewb should be an official event or not.



Escher said:


> A reason might be something that wasn't essentially 'I don't like this puzzle because it does not fit my personal definition of what speedcubing should involve'.



I wasn't talking about speedcubing, I was talking about official WCA competitions. 



Escher said:


> My mention of inclusion wasn't supposed to imply an 'argument from time', more a counter to "including new events imposes some level of strain on those who run competitions" - of possible new events we are discussing, skewb does not pose much of a strain.



Oh right I see. Hmm well, I have no problem with adding events as a general statement, just adding events that I don't believe add to the competitive spirit sufficiently. Also, it might be worth my pointing out that the events that use up the most time at our competitions in Australia are the puzzles that take the shortest times to solve (except magics). This is because more people compete in these events. I assume the reason that more people compete in these events is because either the puzzles are simpler to learn and get fairly good at, or most people just don't have enough patience for puzzles that take longer to solve.



Escher said:


> Again you're thinking about events that fit your definition of 'joke fest', or apparently 'stupid'. Right now 3x3 could be considered a joke fest, since times depend a lot on last layer case variance and ease of start.



Well it's a good thing that I am of the opinion that it might be worth not recognising the 3x3 single WR as official in any sense. Of course there is still the risk of an average being lucky too, but it still won't be a good average unless the person is very fast. I'm also open to the consideration of making averages for faster puzzles that are more than 5 solves.



Tim Major said:


> Dene: cool story. I don't like 7x7. It's time consuming and extremely simple. Oh it's one of your favourite events? How could that be?
> I got my 7x7 for Christmas, and solved it on the same day. No tutorial. If Skewb is so simple why didn't you work it out for yourself?


 
I figured out most of skewb by myself playing around with it, but I'm the first to admit I was never very good at creating algorithms or doing comms or that sort of thing, which is pretty much essential to figuring out a puzzle by yourself. And your 7x7 reference is completely irrelevant. If I gave you that 7x7 before you had ever solved a Rubik's cube you would never have been able to solve it without a tutorial. Please think before you post.


----------



## mitch1234 (Dec 9, 2011)

Odder said:


> Meep
> Sarah
> Chris Bird
> Odder
> ...


 Chris doesn't really practice, but I'm one of those that does.


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> Well it's a good thing that I am of the opinion that it might be worth not recognising the 3x3 single WR as official in any sense.


 
I guess you're at least consistent then.

WCA/speedcubing whatever - you've said 'Skewb is silly' not 'Skewb as an event is silly'. 

The 'luck is bad' view really annoys me, I think I'm going to stop posting itt and just hope that Skewb is put in the next regulations.


----------



## Dene (Dec 9, 2011)

It's not about luck being bad, it's about the records being meaningless.


----------



## Escher (Dec 9, 2011)

Dene said:


> It's not about luck being bad, it's about the records being meaningless.


 
And by meaningless you mean luck-based?


----------



## tx789 (Dec 10, 2011)

The 2x2 world record single is meaningless a 4move solution what was the scramble backwards so there already meaningless records


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 10, 2011)

tx789 said:


> The 2x2 world record single is meaningless a 4move solution what was the scramble backwards so there already meaningless records


 
You may not see a meaning, but I could see a good amount of people that would have choked the solve if they had some pressure toward it. It shows that the WR holder can handle the case most efficiently. Though there isn't much more to it than what I have stated.


----------



## SoulSeeker (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> It's not about luck being bad, it's about the records being meaningless.


 
the problem i have with your opinion is that there is absolutely NO waterproof way of prohibiting lucky stuff in speedsolving. no matter which puzzle you choose luck can happen on all of them. even with 7x7 you can have incredibly easy centers or a last layer skip or whatever.. luck is just a part of our sport in my opinion.
what if someone had infinite money and could visit every competition worldwide. would you consider it unfair because his chance for a lucky solve is higher than for you and therefore the "competition" is meaningless?

but even with all the luck included it wont get you somewhere without some skill. you can have 5 last layer-skips in an average for 3x3 and still wont get the world-record if you normally average around 15-20s it just helps a lot


----------



## Dene (Dec 10, 2011)

Escher said:


> And by meaningless you mean luck-based?


 
That depends on the situation. Magics obviously don't apply here, so let's look at other puzzles. Is it lucky to get a 4 move 2x2 scramble? Maybe. But it's not so much the fact that the scramble is lucky is the problem, but the fact that solving the puzzle becomes a contest of how fast the timer can be started and stopped (just like with the magics), while the actual solving of the puzzle becomes a mere formality. This is hardly in the spirit of what we want to be doing, namely, solving puzzles.

Pyraminx, I believe, is similar, where many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible and not much about the challenge of solving.

For 3x3 the problem becomes more vague. The reason a record is potentially meaningless is indeed luck based, whereby someone that gets particularly lucky by fluke gets a time they do not deserve (for example, I could come very close to getting the 3x3 single WR with a LL skip, and I definitely do not deserve it). It's meaningless in the sense that the challenge of solving the puzzle has become less of a factor.



SoulSeeker said:


> the problem i have with your opinion is that there is absolutely NO waterproof way of prohibiting lucky stuff in speedsolving. no matter which puzzle you choose luck can happen on all of them. even with 7x7 you can have incredibly easy centers or a last layer skip or whatever.. luck is just a part of our sport in my opinion.
> what if someone had infinite money and could visit every competition worldwide. would you consider it unfair because his chance for a lucky solve is higher than for you and therefore the "competition" is meaningless?
> 
> but even with all the luck included it wont get you somewhere without some skill. you can have 5 last layer-skips in an average for 3x3 and still wont get the world-record if you normally average around 15-20s it just helps a lot


 
I guess the difference with puzzles that take longer to complete is that any luck factor is not going to contribute as much to the challenge of solving the puzzle. There is still a lot required of someone to solve a 7x7 in less than 3:30, even if their first 2 centres are extremely easy.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible


 
this is hugely over exaggerated


----------



## Escher (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> That depends on the situation. Magics obviously don't apply here, so let's look at other puzzles. Is it lucky to get a 4 move 2x2 scramble? Maybe. But it's not so much the fact that the scramble is lucky is the problem, but the fact that solving the puzzle becomes a contest of how fast the timer can be started and stopped (just like with the magics), while the actual solving of the puzzle becomes a mere formality. This is hardly in the spirit of what we want to be doing, namely, solving puzzles.
> 
> Pyraminx, I believe, is similar, where many scrambles become a contest of picking up the puzzle as efficiently as possible and not much about the challenge of solving.
> 
> For 3x3 the problem becomes more vague. The reason a record is potentially meaningless is indeed luck based, whereby someone that gets particularly lucky by fluke gets a time they do not deserve (for example, I could come very close to getting the 3x3 single WR with a LL skip, and I definitely do not deserve it). It's meaningless in the sense that the challenge of solving the puzzle has become less of a factor.


 
I think the obvious difference here is that I don't consider it a problem whatsoever - we're not 'solving puzzles' - we're speedsolving them. The element of 'doing it as fast as you can' involves throwing some cases to luck in larger puzzles and throwing some scrambles to luck for smaller puzzles. The single record is de facto less meaningful than an average result, but not meaningless. I agree to an extent with your last sentence - but the 'sense' of the whole thing is not pure puzzle solving, it's about executing things as fast as you can - whether that includes any/all of; looking-ahead, good recognition, ability to see deeply in inspection, or indeed luck - in combination with pure puzzle solving abilities.

I'm definitely with you on the extension of the number of solves in an average for some puzzles though.


----------



## da25centz (Dec 10, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Hello,
> 
> I would like to propose Skewb as a new official event in 2012. This event has a large amount of popularity, many people own a skewb and there are several methods out there.
> 
> ...


 
In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 10, 2011)

da25centz said:


> In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?


 
Probably not. One popped corner only has one place to be put, but it is still not present on the puzzle when the solve is complete. A center is equivalent to a corner for a skewb.


----------



## Meep (Dec 10, 2011)

da25centz said:


> In references to pops, a center pop at the end of the solve would have only one way of being put back into the cube, would this still qualify as solved?


 
The puzzle has to be intact in its resting state, with the exception of non-moving pieces. All of the center pieces and 4 detachable corners move on the puzzle.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2011)

Editing quotes is a ***** on my laggy phone, so I'm just replying to the part Kirjava quoted.

@Dene: if that were so, why aren't the best in magic, 2x2 and Pyraminx the same people? It has nothing to do with that. It's about case prediction, TPS and method. That and also for Pyraminx recognition, as few Pyraminx solves are one look for anyone.


----------



## Dene (Dec 10, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Editing quotes is a ***** on my laggy phone, so I'm just replying to the part Kirjava quoted.
> 
> @Dene: if that were so, why aren't the best in magic, 2x2 and Pyraminx the same people? It has nothing to do with that. It's about case prediction, TPS and method. That and also for Pyraminx recognition, as few Pyraminx solves are one look for anyone.


 
Or maybe because those people don't care about the other events enough to practise them? I think a better question is why do some random people manage to get comparably good times in those events when they are not exceptional at any other event?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> Or maybe because those people don't care about the other events enough to practise them? I think a better question is why do some random people manage to get comparably good times in those events when they are not exceptional at any other event?


 
You completely ignored the point Tim just made. If those events were just about starting and stoping the timer quickly, people wouldn't need to practise more than one of those events to be good at all of them.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 10, 2011)

I'm not sure if this is a valid point to make and will probably be shot down buuuut...
From the gist of what I've read on this thread, most of the arguments against skewb consist of a point that applies to other small puzzles (2x2, pyraminx; links have been made).
I would guess that people making these arguments don't necessarily like competing in these events either: are they forced to?
Just because it's an official event, doesn't mean everybody in the world needs to start considering it any differently; if you don't approve of it as a challenge, don't practice it.
Regarding the points on how luck is a significant factor in setting world records: if you feel that the WR was due to a lot of luck, don't view it as a target. Find records of a non-lucky solve/average and just aim to beat that. Is that not the aim of a speedsolver? I don't like this view that the official best has to be the actual best.
Just to put things into perspective: I have only been to one official competition and I was pretty slow at the events I entered. I also haven't posted much on here (or anywhere else, for that matter) so you could call me a noob. I just felt I should contribute.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 10, 2011)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> I'm not sure if this is a valid point to make and will probably be shot down buuuut...
> From the gist of what I've read on this thread, most of the arguments against skewb consist of a point that applies to other small puzzles (2x2, pyraminx; links have been made).
> I would guess that people making these arguments don't necessarily like competing in these events either: are they forced to?
> Just because it's an official event, doesn't mean everybody in the world needs to start considering it any differently; if you don't approve of it as a challenge, don't practice it.



Good.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> Regarding the points on how luck is a significant factor in setting world records: if you feel that the WR was due to a lot of luck, don't view it as a target. Find records of a non-lucky solve/average and just aim to beat that. Is that not the aim of a speedsolver? I don't like this view that the official best has to be the actual best.
> Just to put things into perspective: I have only been to one official competition and I was pretty slow at the events I entered. I also haven't posted much on here (or anywhere else, for that matter) so you could call me a noob. I just felt I should contribute.


 
Good idea, but people will still b*tch about it. Ultimately, it's their problem. It's causes more trouble b*tching about things than just not caring.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 10, 2011)

The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Dec 10, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.


 
Not all comps will be hosting skewb, there its obviously going to be some time for a considerable quantity of competitors in a certain region for skewb to be held, and consider the fact that some small comps are made of the fast events, as there are some only hosting big cubes or even some with only non cubical events, so it could be easy to find a spot for it..


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 10, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> The only bad thing about skewb become official IMO is how competition organizers will have to make room for skewb, and be under more stress of what events they want.


 
And the Marietta Competitions will never see skewb becuase Andrew is delegate.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 10, 2011)

No competition would be required to hold Skewb. Not even Worlds would require it (even though it'd be stupid not to have it). Saying that organizers would stress about making room for it is silly =P


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2011)

In all WCA puzzles (except magic) I would say the main things to be fast in rough order is;
practice, base speed, method, natural talent and finally the puzzle they're using (GuHong etc) and luck.
If someone is sub 10 at 3x3, they can achieve sub 4 at 2x2 a lot easier than someone who does 3x3 in over a minute. This is why, even though Feliks hardly practices events until his records are broken, because if he practices 5x5, it'll help with similar puzzles too. However base skill only goes so far. Some people focus mainly on one or two events (ie: Cameron 222/333, Odder pyra/mega).
Even after base speed the main factors are the amount of practice put into it and the method used. At one stage I averaged 50 on 3x3 and 10/11 on Pyraminx because I focused on Pyraminx and learnt a good method.
When/if Skewb becomes official, sure, the world record holders of similar events could be up there, but if you look at the current fasted people, Meep, Sarah, Odder, Ranzha to name a few, they are the people that have learnt good methods, and practiced a lot.

Edit: *tl; dr: Skewb won't be dominated and made pointless by luck, the people who practice it the most will be the best.*


----------



## tx789 (Dec 10, 2011)

Why doesn't someone start a poll asking if skewb was offical would you compete and see the number of people and number who won't


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 10, 2011)

tx789 said:


> Why doesn't someone start a poll asking if skewb was offical would you compete and see the number of people and number who won't


 
Because we already know Skewb is popular enough, that's not what the debate is about.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 10, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Because we already know Skewb is popular enough, that's not what the debate is about.


 
It's about the simplicty of the puzzle


----------



## Dene (Dec 10, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You completely ignored the point Tim just made. If those events were just about starting and stoping the timer quickly, people wouldn't need to practise more than one of those events to be good at all of them.


 
I said the events *become* about who can start and stop the timer the fastest. Obviously some practise has to be put into it, but to be honest, not an awful lot. Now you can address my question.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> I'm not sure if this is a valid point to make and will probably be shot down buuuut...
> From the gist of what I've read on this thread, most of the arguments against skewb consist of a point that applies to other small puzzles (2x2, pyraminx; links have been made).
> I would guess that people making these arguments don't necessarily like competing in these events either: are they forced to?
> Just because it's an official event, doesn't mean everybody in the world needs to start considering it any differently; if you don't approve of it as a challenge, don't practice it.
> ...


 
It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.

As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 10, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Some people focus mainly on one or two events (ie: Cameron 222/333, Odder pyra/mega).
> ... but if you look at the current fasted people, Meep, Sarah, Odder, Ranzha to name a few, they are the people that have learnt good methods, and practiced a lot.[/b]


 
I don't focus in just pyra/mega, I barely touch a pyra (except when I have an upcomming comp), I barely practise mega... (but I'll begin again since that south korean kid is too fast for me).

Did I put time in learning a good method for skewb!?!? I know 3 algorithms for skewb..... 1 is just the inverse of another one.

And I really don't get the simplicity discussion, why don't you guys just make a proposal of deleting:
2x2x2
Clock (so simple... I just suck at it)
Magic
Master Magic 
Pyraminx


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.
> 
> As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.


 
The undeniable truth is that Skewb is popular enough to be official and that if people don't like it being an event, they don't have to practise it. Also, people who take Skewb seriously can probably agree that none of the methods currently in existence are near-optimal. Therefore, skill is still required to solve fast consistently. Anyone with a right mind would agree that it's more meritable to be consistently fast than to get lucky once.



Tim Major said:


> When/if Skewb becomes official, sure, the world record holders of similar events could be up there, but if you look at the current fasted people, Meep, Sarah, Odder, Ranzha to name a few, they are the people that have learnt good methods, and practiced a lot.



I may have a decent method, but my algs are so sub-optimal, and my turning style doesn't allow for much improvement. 7 is probably my limit. WR average will probably be Sarah/Meep with mid-5 in a year or two.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> I said the events *become* about who can start and stop the timer the fastest.



Is there any evidence for this or is it just something you've made up?



Dene said:


> Now you can address my question.


 
No need.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> It's not about whether or not you have to do it. If that was the case then we may as well make every event ever thought up an official event. I'm sure you think that is a bad idea, so your argument is strongly flawed.
> 
> As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.



I actually don't think every puzzle as an official event is a bad _idea_, just not practical; do not assume how I think.
Besides, the suggestion is not to add everything, it's to add something that a reasonable portion of the community would benefit from. I personally don't have a skewb but, I am for it being an event because it appears to be 1. popular and 2. a reasonable puzzle.
as for Luck/Skill factors; poker has a rather significant luck factor, yet there is still a hierarchy of skill amongst players. The fact is everybody has the same probability of getting lucky, therefore in terms of probability, luck negates itself. In real world application this may not be the case however, I honestly don't see why luck makes something unfair. Unfortunate yes, but not unfair.


----------



## Escher (Dec 10, 2011)

Dene said:


> As for the comments about luck, I just think that when ability becomes less of a factor, and pure chance/unrelated skills become more of a factor, those records should not be recognised as they are meaningless.


 
I have no idea what you mean by 'ability'. Abstract ability to solve the puzzles? In that case Michael Gottlieb should be crowned king of cubing and that should be that. Moreover I am intrigued to know what 'unrelated skills' means. I've already replied to previous posts regarding your irrational distinction between 'meaningful/meaningless', it'd be nice if you could reply to that.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 10, 2011)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> The fact is everybody has the same probability of getting lucky, therefore in terms of probability, luck negates itself. In real world application this may not be the case however, I honestly don't see why luck makes something unfair. Unfortunate yes, but not unfair.


 
To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 10, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.


 
Just go to more competitions? simple, right?


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 10, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a one second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.


 
That's a weird example.

The process by which two people will solve the same scramble can be drastically different. Luckiness only applies subjectively.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 11, 2011)

Odder said:


> Just go to more competitions? simple, right?


 
Which obviously makes this puzzle biased toward people who can afford to do that. (I assume you're joking, though)



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> That's a weird example.
> 
> The process by which two people will solve the same scramble can be drastically different. Luckiness only applies subjectively.


 
What if the optimal solution to the hypothetical puzzle is either two moves, or a 25 move parity case?

The point wasn't to give a practical example, I was just trying to illustrate that luck _can_ make things unfair in response to the post I quoted.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 11, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> To give an very extreme example, if there was a puzzle that had a 1% chance of getting a 1 second solve, and the other 99% of solves were 15 seconds, regardless of skill, that would be a very unfair, since the only people who would would have a chance at a good time would be the ones who happen to get that 1% of solves.


 
The key there is "regardless of skill". The fact is, Skewb still requires skill and I believe the point has already been raised that only those who practice and have a solid method would be the ones who are able to recognise the "lucky case", thus preserving a sense of hierarchy. Furthermore, isn't there a small chance of getting a really big skip (IE: solved in 5 moves or less) in 3x3? How would it be dealt with if some 25 averager got a really lucky sub 4 because he had to do 5 intuitive turns?
Besides, the fact remains that everybody still has the same odds of getting a lucky solve, so if you did deem it unfair, just keep entering until you get a lucky solve yourself. You have the same chance of getting that lucky solve as everybody else.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 11, 2011)

JustinJ said:


> What if the optimal solution to the hypothetical puzzle is either two moves, or a 25 move parity case?


 
If a method is this extreme, it's hardly optimal. Either that or you've got a very odd puzzle.


----------



## asportking (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> Now you can address my question.


 


Kirjava said:


> No need.


I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be *any* simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 11, 2011)

asportking said:


> I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be *any* simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.


 
Even if that is his point, doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary? At what point does the amount of simple events become too many events? Why not add one more, or why not take away a few? I'm in favor of either removing all events in question, or just adding skewb. But arguing arbitrarily about "silly" or "simple" events is simply unproductive.


----------



## JustinJ (Dec 11, 2011)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> The key there is "regardless of skill". The fact is, Skewb still requires skill and I believe the point has already been raised that only those who practice and have a solid method would be the ones who are able to recognise the "lucky case", thus preserving a sense of hierarchy. Furthermore, isn't there a small chance of getting a really big skip (IE: solved in 5 moves or less) in 3x3? How would it be dealt with if some 25 averager got a really lucky sub 4 because he had to do 5 intuitive turns?
> Besides, the fact remains that everybody still has the same odds of getting a lucky solve, so if you did deem it unfair, just keep entering until you get a lucky solve yourself. You have the same chance of getting that lucky solve as everybody else.


 


ZincK_NOVA said:


> If a method is this extreme, it's hardly optimal. Either that or you've got a very odd puzzle.


 
My point didn't have anything to do with Skewb specifically, I was just pointing out that luck _has the potential_ to make things unfair, in a general sense, even if everyone has the same chance for the skip.

Plenty of people don't have access to a large number of competitons, so the "just keep entering until you get a lucky solve" method is unfair for the people who are able to do that, and the WR for an event shouldn't automatically go to whoever goes to the most competitions.


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 11, 2011)

Without practice, you probably won't recognize a lucky solve, especially on a skewb. Unless you refer to dumb-luck with awkward turn sequences that result in a quick solve, which can happen to just about anything. (Happens to me in 3x3 F2L all the time)


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2011)

tx789 said:


> It's about the simplicty of the puzzle


 
... I wasn't asking, that's what I was trying to tell you. If you just worked it out, good job. :tu

And if it was all about luck, explain this www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=&eventId=pyram&years=&history=History

And if it's about timer starting, why is it getting faster? What do you think, we're evolving? And if it doesn't require much practice, I challenge you, Dene, to become the Pyraminx world record holder. Can't do it? Why not?


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

Odder said:


> And I really don't get the simplicity discussion, why don't you guys just make a proposal of deleting:
> 2x2x2
> Clock (so simple... I just suck at it)
> Magic
> ...


 
I'm all for it, but it will never happen because people don't like change. I mean, I could make a thread proposing a huge uphaul of the official events, creating a new philosophy based around the sorts of puzzles and events that we want to be official. But then I'd just hurt some the feelings of some people and it would turn into a flame fest and get nowhere.



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> The undeniable truth is that Skewb is popular enough to be official and that if people don't like it being an event, they don't have to practise it. Also, people who take Skewb seriously can probably agree that none of the methods currently in existence are near-optimal. Therefore, skill is still required to solve fast consistently. Anyone with a right mind would agree that it's more meritable to be consistently fast than to get lucky once.


 
Is it really popular enough? I see maybe 20 or 30 people on here arguing for it. I'm not claiming it isn't, I just don't think you have evidence to back up that claim. I don't see how your second point is relevant to anything. Your final statement of course I agree with.



Kirjava said:


> Is there any evidence for this or is it just something you've made up?



Yes there is. Magic is like that, and 2x2 single is now. I'm not sure about pyraminx.



Kirjava said:


> No need.


 
Maybe you didn't understand the point I was making, although I'm not sure why it wasn't clear, because the issue does not apply to most events. There aren't a bunch of random people with near WR bld solve times because of lucky solves, nor 4x4 or any other bigcube, nor OH; basically all the more challenging events. Even if some nub gets a lucky solve they will never be able to compete with the WR times in those events.



Escher said:


> I have no idea what you mean by 'ability'. Abstract ability to solve the puzzles? In that case Michael Gottlieb should be crowned king of cubing and that should be that. Moreover I am intrigued to know what 'unrelated skills' means. I've already replied to previous posts regarding your irrational distinction between 'meaningful/meaningless', it'd be nice if you could reply to that.


 
By ability I am referring in a general sense to being good at a particular event. I don't see any need to elaborate further, it should be clear enough what I mean. The unrelated skills I refer to are what I have mentioned several times, that is, starting and stopping the timer, which is clearly not a part of solving the puzzle but is a limitation forced upon us due to technological shortcomings.

Sorry, I thought our discussion on what is meaningless was finished. I'm not sure if I really have any more to say. It's just the same thing I've been arguing all along: when an event becomes less about solving a puzzle and more about other factors such as starting and stopping the timer as fast as possible, and performing a few solves on a barely scrambled puzzle, the entire event loses meaning (refer 2x2 single for a very specific case of this). Not sure why you think it's so irrational to think this.



asportking said:


> I think the point Dene's trying to make isn't that Skewb shouldn't be added just because it's too simple and there should never be *any* simple events, but that it shouldn't be added because there are already enough "simple" events. Although if that's the case, I'd happily give master magic the boot if it meant Skewb being allowed.


 
Nah, that's not my point. I actually think there shouldn't be any recognition of simple events because the official records eventually become meaningless.



Tim Major said:


> And if it's about timer starting, why is it getting faster? What do you think, we're evolving? And if it doesn't require much practice, I challenge you, Dene, to become the Pyraminx world record holder. Can't do it? Why not?


 
It's *becoming* about starting and stopping the timer, as well as getting easier and easier scrambles. Obviously this is going to be a progressional change. And I can tell you that at home I have had times on pyraminx very close to the single WR time. I couldn't guarantee that I've had a time faster than the WR single as it has been a very long time since I've practised pyraminx, but considering I only ever practised for a few weeks and was averaging 7-8 seconds, the fact that I could get times close to the WR single demonstrates my point exactly. 

Also, I will be the first to admit I was never adept at starting and stopping the timer fast, so that would always limit me from getting such obscenely fast times.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> Yes there is. Magic is like that, and 2x2 single is now. I'm not sure about pyraminx.



The point was that if those events are about starting and stopping the timer the fastest, why don't the same people have the top results?



Dene said:


> Maybe you didn't understand the point I was making, although I'm not sure why it wasn't clear, because the issue does not apply to most events. There aren't a bunch of random people with near WR bld solve times because of lucky solves, nor 4x4 or any other bigcube, nor OH; basically all the more challenging events. Even if some nub gets a lucky solve they will never be able to compete with the WR times in those events.



I don't see how the issue only applying to certain events changes it's validity.

Also, it'd be nice if you weren't being so condescending.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> Is it really popular enough? I see maybe 20 or 30 people on here arguing for it. I'm not claiming it isn't, I just don't think you have evidence to back up that claim. I don't see how your second point is relevant to anything. Your final statement of course I agree with.


 
Just to point it out: >on here
I don't doubt there are other people who aren't here that would advocate for it, but that's not a big concern to me. The popularity will most likely grow as Skewb gets more explored and noticed.
In regard to my second point, I was referring to the exploration of Skewb and how as time continues, competition will get closer as more things about the puzzle are discovered. Ultimately, it does require skill to solve it fast, generally speaking. In the event that luck happens, the meaningfulness lies in the ability to recognize an easy case. Also, on Skewb, it's a bit more difficult to look ahead than a puzzle like 2x2 due to the deep-cutness of the puzzle.
Third point herp derp.


----------



## asportking (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> but considering I only ever practised for a few weeks and was averaging 7-8 seconds, the fact that I could get times close to the WR single demonstrates my point exactly.


Just because *you* happened to be able to improve quickly at pryaminx doesn't necessarily make it an easy event. 


Dene said:


> I actually think there shouldn't be any recognition of simple events because the official records eventually become meaningless.


So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2011)

asportking said:


> So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.


 
This. Skewb WR could be sub-1. Probably will be soon enough. That doesn't mean the holder of that record is the best Skewb solver.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene: Arnaud got a 12 on Sq1. I think he averages over 40. So should we remove Sq1?

OH NOES NOT MY GOOD EVENT.

Edit: Ranzha, Skewb single will never be sub 1. Not in the next 10 years anyway. It's nothing like 2x2 in that respect.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Edit: Ranzha, Skewb single will never be sub 1. Not in the next 10 years anyway. It's nothing like 2x2 in that respect.


 
I've gotten 1.3ish with a 3-mover, and I nubbed it up.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I've gotten 1.3ish with a 3-mover, and I nubbed it up.


 
Hundreds of people have sub1 on 2x2x2 at home, hardly any in comp.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Hundreds of people have sub1 on 2x2x2 at home, hardly any in comp.


 
According to Jaap's site, there is three times the chance of getting a scramble with optimal solution 4 moves or less on Skewb than 2x2! =3


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> According to Jaap's site, there is three times the chance of getting a scramble with optimal solution 4 moves or less on Skewb than 2x2! =3


 
and it's much easier to sub1 a 4 move 2x2x2 scramble than a 4 move skewb one.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> and it's much easier to sub1 a 4 move 2x2x2 scramble than a 4 move skewb one.


 
(Wait sorry, 3.5x, just getting the fact straight.)
I don't doubt that eventually, in the next few years, there will be a sub-1 official Skewb result.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2011)

A Skewb with 4 moves applied looks much more scrambled to the average cuber than a 2x2.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> The point was that if those events are about starting and stopping the timer the fastest, why don't the same people have the top results?



I will say, once again, that obviously it isn't *only* about starting and stopping the timer the fastest. I may have said that, or at least strongly implied that when I first made the point, but to continue to hold me to that is silly when I have obviously developed my argument.



Kirjava said:


> I don't see how the issue only applying to certain events changes it's validity.


 
Sorry I'm starting to lose track of everything that's going on, which issue are you talking about, and are you claiming it is or is not valid?



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> The popularity will most likely grow as Skewb gets more explored and noticed.


 
This would apply to any event made official.



asportking said:


> Just because *you* happened to be able to improve quickly at pryaminx doesn't necessarily make it an easy event.



For your reference, I was never good at pyraminx. 7-8 seconds is not fast at all. 



asportking said:


> So what if the world record is meaningless? The 2x2 record is incredibly lucky, but Christian Kaserer isn't being acknowledged as the fastest 2x2 solver just because he has the 2x2 WR.


 
So what's the point of acknowledging 2x2 single as a WR? That's what I'm saying. You essentially just conceded that 2x2 single is meaningless, and the WR holder gets no credit because he doesn't deserve it, so the way I see it there is no reason to acknowledge 2x2 single as a record of any sort at all.



Tim Major said:


> Dene: Arnaud got a 12 on Sq1. I think he averages over 40. So should we remove Sq1?


 
Everyone that matters has been aware of the major issues with the square-1 scrambler for a long time. And in case you aren't aware, the official scrambler for the square-1 has been changed very recently to what is hopefully a random state scrambler (cheers Lucas!), which will hopefully eliminate the problem of blatantly lucky scrambles. Point being, the issues with square-1 were due to the scrambler and not the puzzle.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> For your reference, I was never good at pyraminx. 7-8 seconds is not fast at all.


 
Then why did you bring it up?
derp I'm averaging 5:45 at 6x6, a puzzle I've solved at most 20 times. My point? What's this about having a point?

How about making a quick list of your problems with Skewb, you keep going back on your own points and it's getting a little confusing (all about the speed of picking up the puzzle).


----------



## Escher (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> which will hopefully eliminate the problem of blatantly lucky scrambles. Point being, the issues with square-1 were due to the scrambler and not the puzzle.


 
No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 11, 2011)

To be quite honest, I don't see the point in removing any events.
If you don't like an event, or how it's run, just don't compete in it. From some of the posts in this thread it seems like some people would like to remove a lot of events, but there isn't really any point. If you're an organizer, just don't hold that event, and as a competitor don't compete.
Removing events is just a silly thing to do, because by adding more events we are allowing competitions to grow, but by getting rid of half the events because they are too "easy" just seems like a bit of a bad idea.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 11, 2011)

Escher said:


> No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.


 
Please tell me you're just being Devil's advocate


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 11, 2011)

MTGjumper said:


> Please tell me you're just being Devil's advocate


 
I think he's just stating it isn't just the scrambler. I don't think he wants it removed. Then again, I'm not him, so I can't know what he's thinking.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> To be quite honest, I don't see the point in removing any events.
> If you don't like an event, or how it's run, just don't compete in it. From some of the posts in this thread it seems like some people would like to remove a lot of events, but there isn't really any point. If you're an organizer, just don't hold that event, and as a competitor don't compete.
> Removing events is just a silly thing to do, because by adding more events we are allowing competitions to grow, but by getting rid of half the events because they are too "easy" just seems like a bit of a bad idea.


 
I don't want any events removed. I was just saying that if Dene wants to remove Pyraminx and 2x2 because of luck, why don't we remove Square-1, due to the similar luck. (the magics I can't argue against, other than bringing in more and younger competitors).


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Then why did you bring it up?



Because it perfectly illustrates my point that despite being not too fast at pyraminx, I can still get the odd time that is near WR, despite clearly not deserving it. How was that not clear?



Tim Major said:


> How about making a quick list of your problems with Skewb



- It's too simple.
- I don't think it would add anything to competitions other than another potential event available. In which case why arbitrarily choose skewb? No one has given any reason why skewb should be chosen over other events other than that there is a small population on speedsolving.com that wish for it to become official.
- It is going to become another event similar to magics, 2x2, and pyraminx, whereby records become meaningless (already argued what I mean by that, not going over it again).
- I am of the general belief that we should be reducing the number of official events, not adding more, especially with no reason other than a mild popularity. 

I don't feel like thinking of more reasons now. This is really all I've been arguing for the whole time, although maybe because things have been so scattered it hasn't been all that clear.



Escher said:


> No, the issue with sq-1 is that it suffers a bunch from a ridiculous amount of case variance. I've had times 1/3rd of my usual average simply by virtue of happening on a slightly sub-optimal way of solving cubeshape. You don't get that with better puzzles like 5x5 so it should be removed.


 
I will admit that is a bit of an issue, but overall it does not make much difference to someone that is good at square-1; probably my slowest cubeshape was sub4 when I practised, and I was never that great at square-1. Someone that is not so fast might get times undeserved of their ability, but those times would still not be near WR unless it was a case of an obscenely lucky scramble, which is a problem that should be eliminated with the random state scrambler. However I do admit that there are considerable variances in square-1 times which rely a lot on what I assume are fundamental qualities of the puzzle itself. I won't deny that perhaps an argument could be formulated to object to the recognition of square-1 single as an official record, and if that was shown I would also agree to that. I don't think there could be a good argument against square-1 average though, at least not if average was extended beyond 5 solves.


----------



## asportking (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> - It's too simple.
> - I don't think it would add anything to competitions other than another potential event available. In which case why arbitrarily choose skewb? No one has given any reason why skewb should be chosen over other events other than that there is a small population on speedsolving.com that wish for it to become official.
> - It is going to become another event similar to magics, 2x2, and pyraminx, whereby records become meaningless (already argued what I mean by that, not going over it again).
> - I am of the general belief that we should be reducing the number of official events, not adding more, especially with no reason other than a mild popularity.


-It may be a somewhat simple puzzle to solve, but it isn't "simple" to get good times with it. That still takes lots of practice. 

-You seem to be under the impression that only the 5-10 people who are arguing on this thread are the only ones that want skewb. 

-So the records are meaningless. Boo hoo. Speedcubing is about having fun and getting personal bests, not about getting the world record. 

-Ok, that's your opinion. Our opinion is that one or two more events couldn't hurt. What would be so bad about adding another event? We're not forcing every competition to hold it, we're just giving them the option of holding it officially.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> Sorry for assuming that you wouldn't advocate a really stupid view.


Because I believe that if it can be competitive, it's nice to have some kind of records? Your opinion I guess.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 11, 2011)

I haven't read this too intensively, so I'm curious as to what Dene means by "simple". Simple does not seem to have an intuitive definition when it comes to speedsolving.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

asportking said:


> -So the records are meaningless. Boo hoo. Speedcubing is about having fun and getting personal bests, not about getting the world record.


 
So what's the point of having a World Cube Association? Why bother going to all the time, cost, and effort of hosting competitions for people all the time? It seems like the more you're saying, the more you're completely undermining the existence of the WCA.

NOTE: This is my own view, and not necessarily the view of the WCA.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> Because I believe that if it can be competitive, it's nice to have some kind of records? Your opinion I guess.


 
Jolly good. Well I just invented a new puzzle. It is completely unique, so I am the only one that possesses it and I don't want anyone other than my best friend and myself to solve it. We work hard to beat each others' times, so when we solve it we are competitive. Now I want to host my own puzzle as a new official event.

Yes, you seemingly just advocated my little scenario which I just made up. Now you see why it's silly?



JonnyWhoopes said:


> I haven't read this too intensively, so I'm curious as to what Dene means by "simple". Simple does not seem to have an intuitive definition when it comes to speedsolving.


 
Simple in the sense that, due to the nature of the puzzle and the means needed to solve it, the solve time is very short. Whereas in comparison, a more complicated puzzle like square-1 or 3x3 could also be solved with very few algorithms or not much thought needed, but because of the nature of the puzzles, solving them in such basic ways is going to take more time in the vast majority of cases. With a puzzle like pyraminx, 2x2, or skewb, very few moves are needed to solve them, and this results in very low times. Even if basic methods are used like ortega (I couldn't quote you on the average move count of ortega) very fast times can be achieved. 

I'm not sure if I got my point across clearly, hence my examples, but I don't know if they helped or not >.<


----------



## asportking (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> So what's the point of having a World Cube Association? Why bother going to all the time, cost, and effort of hosting competitions for people all the time? It seems like the more you're saying, the more you're completely undermining the existence of the WCA.
> 
> NOTE: This is my own view, and not necessarily the view of the WCA.


I was only referring to the single (and average, depending on the times) world record becoming meaningless. The records from individual competitions definitely aren't meaningless. For example, the 2x2 WR is pretty much meaningless because it was so lucky, but other records such as the 2x2 average WR aren't.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

asportking said:


> I was only referring to the single (and average, depending on the times) world record becoming meaningless. The records from individual competitions definitely aren't meaningless. For example, the 2x2 WR is pretty much meaningless because it was so lucky, but other records such as the 2x2 average WR aren't.


 
Hang on, I don't really understand what view you are supporting. You agree with me that the 2x2 single WR is meaningless, but you still feel that times that people get at individual competitions have meaning? To me I don't see how these are really separate things.


----------



## asportking (Dec 11, 2011)

Dene said:


> Hang on, I don't really understand what view you are supporting. You agree with me that the 2x2 single WR is meaningless, but you still feel that times that people get at individual competitions have meaning? To me I don't see how these are really separate things.


I'm starting to get a bit confused as well. What exactly do you mean by "meaningless?" I'm defining it as "an extremely lucky solve that doesn't really reflect on the cuber's actual talent," but you might be defining it as something different.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

asportking said:


> I'm starting to get a bit confused as well. What exactly do you mean by "meaningless?" I'm defining it as "an extremely lucky solve that doesn't really reflect on the cuber's actual talent," but you might be defining it as something different.


 
I'm referring to the entire event, not the one solve.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2011)

Seems like you don't want to discuss this point, so I thought I'd drag it up.



Dene said:


> why do some random people manage to get comparably good times in those events when they are not exceptional at any other event?





Dene said:


> Now you can address my question.





Kirjava said:


> No need.





Dene said:


> Maybe you didn't understand the point I was making, although I'm not sure why it wasn't clear, because the issue does not apply to most events. There aren't a bunch of random people with near WR bld solve times because of lucky solves, nor 4x4 or any other bigcube, nor OH; basically all the more challenging events. Even if some nub gets a lucky solve they will never be able to compete with the WR times in those events.





Kirjava said:


> I don't see how the issue only applying to certain events changes it's validity.



I said that the points you are making also apply to some of the existing events. (Therefore until there is a serious movement to remove these events the complaints you have are invalid.) 

Then you said that they only apply to some of the existing events.

You're right, I don't understand the point that you were making.


----------



## Dene (Dec 11, 2011)

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but I've said all along that I think it also applies to other events, namely, 2x2, magics, pyraminx, and I think those events should be removed.


----------



## tx789 (Dec 11, 2011)

What happened when 6x6 and 7x7 were added and how did people feel


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

Dene said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but I've said all along that I think it also applies to other events, namely, 2x2, magics, pyraminx, and I think those events should be removed.


 
The point is that as long as those events are part of the WCA (and lets be honest, they're not going anywhere anytime soon), any complaints put against Skewb as a new event that also apply to existing events are invalid.


----------



## Dene (Dec 12, 2011)

I don't see why those complaints are invalid, it just means that the WCA really needs to sort itself out and come up with a more specific philosophy which dictates the sorts of events it wants to hold.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Dec 12, 2011)

Dene said:


> I don't see why those complaints are invalid, it just means that the WCA really needs to sort itself out and come up with a more specific philosophy which dictates the sorts of events it wants to hold.


 
It pretty much does:
The goal of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions.

You could say from this that the WCA would like to hold all events, if not for competition, then for fun.


----------



## Dene (Dec 12, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> It pretty much does:
> The goal of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair conditions.
> 
> You could say from this that the WCA would like to hold all events, if not for competition, then for fun.


 
And yet in the 5 years that I've been around only 2 events have been added (at the same time, and for exactly the same reason), and Tyson, as I recall (I may be wrong) opposed it.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

Dene said:


> I don't see why those complaints are invalid


 
If the WCA is already holding these events, it has no problem with holding events with these 'complaints'.

The things that you are posting would be better suited in a new thread you should make about removing events.


----------



## TimMc (Dec 12, 2011)

Some simple questions:

What's gods number for a Skewb?
How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
What's a decent solve time for a Skewb?

Tim.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Some simple questions:
> 
> What's gods number for a Skewb?
> How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
> ...


 
1) 11
2) Don't know.
3) 7


----------



## Carrot (Dec 12, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Some simple questions:
> 
> What's gods number for a Skewb?
> How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
> ...




11
28, 25, 22, 21, 18, 24, (16), 26, (31), 17, 21, 19 => 22.10 (funny, because I guessed it would be 22)
7


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 12, 2011)

TimMc said:


> 2. How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
> 3. What's a decent solve time for a Skewb?


2. ~18-19 for me


Spoiler



number of solves: 100/100
best: 12 
worst: 24
best avg5: 15.00 (σ = 0.82)
best avg12: 16.00 (σ = 1.67)
current avg100: 18.60 (σ = 2.97)

(I didn't get any optimal solves.)


 
3. 6-7


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Dec 12, 2011)

Dene said:


> Jolly good. Well I just invented a new puzzle. It is completely unique, so I am the only one that possesses it and I don't want anyone other than my best friend and myself to solve it. We work hard to beat each others' times, so when we solve it we are competitive. Now I want to host my own puzzle as a new official event.
> 
> Yes, you seemingly just advocated my little scenario which I just made up. Now you see why it's silly?


Well this is a major exaggeration, it seems like you're failing to understand what I mean. For starters, if your example _was_ the case, you and your friend would be the only two competitors therefore moderation would be very easy and probably require no other recognition of reliability than your friend and yourself. Skewb is a puzzle that is solved by a considerable amount of people from around the world who may not all have the ability to contact eachother. They're going to require some form of database which is accessible by all and moderated by an independent board (to ensure no cheating etc.). I guess I just thought it'd be convenient if this independent moderator was the same as the one for most other twisty puzzles.
Second point, why do you keep using the word "silly"? It is very ambiguous and has already led to some confusion, could you please be more literate?


----------



## Meep (Dec 12, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Some simple questions:
> 
> What's gods number for a Skewb?
> How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
> ...


 
2. 19, 12(Lucky), 17, 17, 12, 18, 6(Lucky), 6(Lucky), 16, 16, 19, 6(Lucky) -> 13.67
3. Sub-8


----------



## Carrot (Dec 12, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> 2. ~18-19 for me


 


Meep said:


> 2. 19, 12(Lucky), 17, 17, 12, 18, 6(Lucky), 6(Lucky), 16, 16, 19, 6(Lucky) -> 13.67


 
Now I get why you two are so fast!


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

I don't have any concerns specific to skewb, (aside from the fact that the thing turns freaky and I can't solve it), but I'm worried about the sense of entitlement some people seem to be showing. Simply because an event wouldn't be a terrible idea doesn't mean it should automatically be accepted as an official event. The standard response being "If you don't like it, just don't hold it". These people obviously aren't competition organizers. Sometimes you're going to host all the events. There has to be a reasonable limit. I don't want to see a bunch of people saying "We added skewb last year, let's see how many we can add this year!" and thinking it's totally reasonable.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> I don't have any concerns specific to skewb, (aside from the fact that the thing turns freaky and I can't solve it), but I'm worried about the sense of entitlement some people seem to be showing.



I have doubts that it will actually be added. I don't feel entitled to have it held just because it is a valid option for a new event. It's been very hard explaining my reasoning in this thread and this can be misconstrued.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

If it isn't added, it'll be because of inertia/apathy, not anything serious against it. Though that's pretty obvious. 

In China, it seems like there aren't really any people that solve skewb currently.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 13, 2011)

keyan said:


> In China, it seems like there aren't really any people that solve skewb currently.


 
There will be many if it becomes official.


----------



## keyan (Dec 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> There will be many if it becomes official.


 
Of course, just noting its current state.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 14, 2011)

TimMc said:


> Some simple questions:
> 
> What's gods number for a Skewb?
> How many moves on average does it take for most speedcubers to solve a Skewb?
> ...


 
11 (already been said.)
20


Spoiler



20 trials:
13 (3 looks)
15 (3 looks)
15 (3 looks)
22 (4 looks)
25 (4 looks)
20 (4 looks)
18 (3 looks)
14 (3 looks)
29 (4 looks)
28 (4 looks)
19 (3 looks)
19 (3 looks)
16 (3 looks)
27 (4 looks)
18 (3 looks)
21 (4 looks)
29 (4 looks)
18 (3 looks)
16 (3 looks)


Sub-8


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 14, 2011)

Closing this thread. Please see this post.


----------



## Waterfire (May 20, 2013)

*Make Skewb an Official Event!*

Based of of the popularity of this puzzle and the number of people who want it included at competitions, I think we should petition the WCA to make Skewb an official event. This puzzle would be very easy to implement, and would attract some new cubers.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 20, 2013)

This has been discussed before.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34012-WCA-Regulations-2012-Proposed-New-Event-Skewb

AFAIK, the WCA aren't accepting new events right now. Possibly if they do another round of asking for reg changes it can be brought up again.


----------



## Waterfire (May 20, 2013)

They just removed magic and master magic, so if there is any time to add a new event it is now.


----------



## Meep (May 20, 2013)

Chuckstar120 said:


> They just removed magic and master magic, so if there is any time to add a new event it is now.



Removing events doesn't imply adding more.


----------



## emolover (May 20, 2013)

Meep said:


> Removing events doesn't imply adding more.



We should add 2-9 relay.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 21, 2013)

emolover said:


> We should add 2-9 relay.



we should add one handed FMC


----------



## Mollerz (May 21, 2013)

ben1996123 said:


> we should add one handed FMC



we should add clock with feet


----------



## Ninja Storm (May 21, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> we should add clock with feet



we should add getting a life


----------



## KongShou (May 21, 2013)

Ninja Storm said:


> we should add getting a life



We should add everything


----------



## qqwref (May 21, 2013)

KongShou said:


> We should add everything


we should add 20x20x20 sim


----------



## KongShou (May 21, 2013)

qqwref said:


> we should add 20x20x20 sim



No a 111x111x111 sim


----------

