# Inspection time down to 10 seconds



## Kirjava (Apr 5, 2010)

More info

I do not think we should change the inspection time for events with inspection.

What do you think?


----------



## Edward (Apr 5, 2010)

I think that we shouldn't try to fix things that have never been broken.


----------



## kinch2002 (Apr 5, 2010)

I don't really see the need to change anything, although I don't think it wouldn't make much difference to anyone's solves anyway if it was changed. I think the only even it might make a difference is clock, because there are often 1 or more lucky cases that take a small amount of time to work out how to use.


----------



## dunpeal2064 (Apr 5, 2010)

I agree. The idea that 15 seconds is too long really only applies to fast 3x3 solvers and 2x2 (and pyra). I think it will give slower solvers a larger disadvantage. Also, 15 seconds to someone who does't like time warnings, is really only 8 seconds. With there being only 10, when would the warning come, and how much time would it take to say the warning and explain the rules if someone is new

Also, I like the idea of consistant inspection times on puzzles, and 10 seconds for bigger cubes doesn't seem to fit.


----------



## Toad (Apr 5, 2010)

If it were to be changed, which I don't think it should, then surely all the times with the old rules should be deleted because then it's unfair?

If this has to be true then it's just a ridiculous suggestion.


----------



## schimpler (Apr 5, 2010)

I don't see much point for changing something, I think it´s good how it is.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 5, 2010)

Keep it at 15. My reasons.


----------



## Sir E Brum (Apr 5, 2010)

I use ZZ and the method relies quite heavily on pre-inspection. So much in fact that it is an inefficient method for big cubes after reduction because the EO is a crucial part. Even 10 seconds would be pushing it for EOLine and 5 would make EOLine impossible to plan. This change would make the entire method almost completely useless.


----------



## Mitch15 (Apr 5, 2010)

love the vote. give the people what they want


----------



## iasimp1997 (Apr 5, 2010)

Edward said:


> I think that we shouldn't try to fix things that have never been broken.



I second this.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

Ron said:


> Nothing will change unless our community wants it.


I think this poll speaks for itself.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 5, 2010)

lolol i think inspection time should be like 90 seconds.


----------



## MTGjumper (Apr 5, 2010)

Maybe change the thread title? I thought you were saying that it had changed 

Anyway, it should stay at 15 seconds, for reasons others have stated.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 5, 2010)

If Fridrich wasn't the most popular method would this change have been proposed?


----------



## Carson (Apr 5, 2010)

Leave it as it is... but perhaps add inspection time to magic.


----------



## Rook (Apr 5, 2010)

^ Ha.

I have to agree with the above posters; If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 5, 2010)

But I liek 15 second inspection.
.-.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

I _can_ do inspection sub-5, including starting the time, but it's really annoying. Fifteen is perfectly fine for me.


----------



## r_517 (Apr 5, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> If it were to be changed, which I don't think it should, then surely all the times with the old rules should be deleted because then it's unfair?
> 
> If this has to be true then it's just a ridiculous suggestion.



Ron has said they won't be deleted.

On topic: really indeed no need


----------



## kunz (Apr 5, 2010)

i know it said that it wouldn't invalidate the old records, but wouldn't that make it unfair?


----------



## dada222 (Apr 5, 2010)

Νο, leave it as is.


----------



## Neo63 (Apr 5, 2010)

just saying that I disagree since there's no need to repeat reasons


----------



## qqwref (Apr 5, 2010)

If you're going to have inspection at all - and that isn't necessarily guaranteed - the only thing that makes sense is to pick one number and stick with it, since any number will be as arbitrary as any other. 15 seconds is reasonable as a limit, and has already been used for every competition the WCA has ever run. Changing it now would make no sense.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 5, 2010)

I'm pretty sure this idea has already been dropped for this year. It doesn't seem like there's much enthusiasm for it, so I really doubt it will happen.

I still sort of wish it had always been no inspection; it seems like inspection time is strange to the casual observer, and it is true that you mentally begin to solve the puzzle as soon as you first see it. From my perspective, the time required to solve a puzzle is the time from when you first see it until the time when it is solved. We would be able to do away with the stopwatches too, which are responsible for a large amount of the complexity and problems when judging.

But that ship has already sailed. I think we should stick with 15 seconds, since we already have it and it's impractical and unreasonable to eliminate inspection entirely.


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 5, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> lolol i think inspection time should be like 90 seconds.


imagine what haiyan would do with that


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > lolol i think inspection time should be like 90 seconds.
> ...



...he only needs 10.


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 5, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> cincyaviation said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



maybe he could speedblind it


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> maybe he could speedblind it



Does he even know a speedcubing method?


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 5, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> cincyaviation said:
> 
> 
> > maybe he could speedblind it
> ...



ummmm, i have no clue, what would he do for speedbld if he didn't?


----------



## Edward (Apr 5, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > cincyaviation said:
> ...



M6.


----------



## TheMachanga (Apr 5, 2010)

Its your choice if you use the full 15 seconds or not...


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 5, 2010)

<+Dene> btw, I think it should stay at 15 just to be clear


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 5, 2010)

Edward said:


> cincyaviation said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...


 i was thinking more along the lines of 6 cycle for edges and 4 cycle for corners


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > cincyaviation said:
> ...



nope he uses a petrus/fridrich/roux/heise/waterman/TICT/ZBOrtega/BLD hybrid method, its quite amazing.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> nope he uses a petrus/fridrich/roux/heise/waterman/TICT/ZBOrtega/BLD hybrid method, its quite amazing.



...no wonder he has so many DNFs...


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 6, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> cincyaviation said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...


i suppose that's a corners first method?


----------



## Dene (Apr 6, 2010)

Lol who's the outcast that voted for 10s?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > nope he uses a petrus/fridrich/roux/heise/waterman/TICT/ZBOrtega/BLD hybrid method, its quite amazing.
> ...


indirectly yes, its because the method is so awsome the cube just cant comprehend it and esplodes with the pure fazowsomness.



cincyaviation said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > cincyaviation said:
> ...


actually no its a centers first method.


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 6, 2010)

Dene said:


> Lol who's the outcast that voted for 10s?


probably pochmann


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

Dene said:


> Lol who's the outcast that voted for 10s?



guimond xP


----------



## Luigimamo (Apr 6, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > cincyaviation said:
> ...


actually no its a centers first method.[/QUOTE]
No his normal solves are faster than speedbld


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

luigi said:


> jms_Gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > cincyaviation said:
> ...


lolololwut?


----------



## Tyrannous (Apr 6, 2010)

like edward said, if it aint broke dont fix it


----------



## Daniel Wu (Apr 6, 2010)

lol @ the poll. That's 110-1-3.


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 6, 2010)

rickcube said:


> lol @ the poll. That's 110-1-3.


loldene


----------



## riffz (Apr 6, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm pretty sure this idea has already been dropped for this year. It doesn't seem like there's much enthusiasm for it, so I really doubt it will happen.
> 
> I still sort of wish it had always been no inspection; it seems like inspection time is strange to the casual observer, and it is true that you mentally begin to solve the puzzle as soon as you first see it. From my perspective, the time required to solve a puzzle is the time from when you first see it until the time when it is solved. We would be able to do away with the stopwatches too, which are responsible for a large amount of the complexity and problems when judging.
> 
> But that ship has already sailed. I think we should stick with 15 seconds, since we already have it and it's impractical and unreasonable to eliminate inspection entirely.



Personally I think the sport would be WAY less consistent if there was no inspection. If there wasn't, the cube would have to be placed the same way every time because it would be unfair to have to figure out the orientation as you were starting. Also, I think it would take less skill because things like solving the cross would suddenly become very simple as you would spot a cross piece and place it, instead of placing them at the same time in an efficient manner.

But I must agree that it does seem strange to people who don't understand the rules.


----------



## Hiero (Apr 6, 2010)

I was hoping it could be changed to 30 seconds.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm with keeping it to 15, but I see reasons to change it to 10 from a personal point of view.

I very rarely use any more than 6-8 seconds to inspect. The only times I'm cutting it close is when I see a hard scramble and I need to find a solution to it. Also, when I see an easy cross, sometimes I'll inspect more to see if I can pick out a couple pairs.

Still, I use normal CFOP. I'm sure ZZ users would be hurt from an inspection cut.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 6, 2010)

2x2-10s
3x3-15s
4x4-20s
5x5-20s
6x6-25s
7x7-30s
megaminx-20s
pyraminx-10s
sq1-20s (i have no experience with this, so i really dont have a good clue)
clock-15s


----------



## RyanO (Apr 6, 2010)

Having seperate inspection times for each event would be silly.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 6, 2010)

aznmortalx said:


> I'm with keeping it to 15, but I see reasons to change it to 10 from a personal point of view.
> 
> I very rarely use any more than 6-8 seconds to inspect.



That's the thing, though. This is intended to be a maximum inspection time for all cubers and for all events (having different inspections per event would add extra complexity for no real benefit since 15s is enough for everything). Just because you don't need all 15 sec doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to use it. Besides, sometimes it's nice to have an extra few seconds to relax before the solve (or to sync up a race with the person next to you ), even if you don't need it.


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Apr 6, 2010)

RyanO said:


> Having seperate inspection times for each event would be silly.



I think about this every time i do 7x7 inspection. I would like 7x7 to be 30 seconds, but that is a little crazy for 2x2.


----------



## Forte (Apr 6, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> sq1-20s (i have no experience with this, so i really dont have a good clue)



It seems so 

20s on square-1 will be either useless because of a hard cubeshape, or completely cheap because of an easy cubeshape


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

Forte said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > sq1-20s (i have no experience with this, so i really dont have a good clue)
> ...



wait hard cubeshape?


----------



## iasimp1997 (Apr 6, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Forte said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



...


----------



## Faz (Apr 6, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> 2x2-10s
> 3x3-15s
> 4x4-20s
> 5x5-20s
> ...



Lmfao wat.


----------



## Forte (Apr 6, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Forte said:
> 
> 
> > CubesOfTheWorld said:
> ...



like, a cubeshape for which you cannot predict very much of the solve


----------



## Ron (Apr 9, 2010)

I think one day a majority of our community will think we should bring down inspection time, but then it may be too late. Until then I will keep my mouth shut.
Future will tell.

Have fun!

Ron
PS: why are some people making unnice comments when I propose something, even if it is not a popular proposal?


----------



## Carrot (Apr 9, 2010)

Ron said:


> PS: why are some people making unnice comments when I propose something, even if it is not a popular proposal?



Because we are creatures of routine  and they dislike new things


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

Ron said:


> I think one day a majority of our community will think we should bring down inspection time, but then it may be too late.




I disagree. You know, I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.



Ron said:


> Until then I will keep my mouth shut.
> Future will tell.
> 
> Have fun!




Thanks for listening to the wisdom of crowds though! This is one of the things I like most about the WCA.


----------



## Edmund (Apr 9, 2010)

What was wrong with the system before? And if we do this it could be harder to break previous records because solves done in the past had 15 second inspection.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 9, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.



*Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle.* Solving is both mental and physical. With (long) inspection, part of the solving is not counted in the result, so a result of 12.34 does *not* mean you solved it in 12.34 seconds.

You disagree?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.
> ...




No, but this is not relevant to events with inspection. You are making a case for removing inspection altogether (if this were possible) rather than arbitrarily modifying the length of time inspection is allowed, which is a different issue altogether.

If my assumption is incorrect, how come you count 15 seconds inspection as part of the solving but do not count 10 seconds as part of the solving? The problem with descriptors like 'long inspection' is that they're subjective.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 9, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.
> ...



That is the reason for doing NIE (no inspection event). Why not have both? (long inspection and no inspection). We often did NIE here in Sweden some years ago.

In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.


----------



## dada222 (Apr 9, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't seen a valid reason for lowering it.
> ...



Still why? It's nice to have to practise both aspects of speedsolving (that is, looking ahead part of the solve and solving it). Adds more interest imo.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.




You're talking about 'Waterman Inspection'. In all official competitions they did it how we do it.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 9, 2010)

reducing the inspection time is stupid. 15s is just right IMO. in fact, technically isn't it really >12s inspection? I only finish inspecting at the 10s mark...for most puzzles.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 9, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



No, I see it as a reason for lowering the time. Cause it means getting closer to the ideal.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> No, I see it as a reason for lowering the time. Cause it means getting closer to the ideal.




I addressed this already in case my assumption was correct.

The way I see it, inspection and non-inspection are two different events. 

"Ideally, we'd measure how fast we can solve the puzzle." only applies if we attempt to have no inspection. We are not attempting to get close to this situation (we wish to have an event with inspection) - this is why I see the comment as irrelevant.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 9, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > In the 80's there was no limit at all, the puzzle was put on the surface and you saw five of the six sides. Then the rule was that you where not allowed to touch the cube before the judge said "go" (after you agreed the inspection phase was finished). When "go" the timer (stopwatch) was also started by the judge, and stopped again when the cube was put down by the competitor.
> ...



Not true. First thing, there was no "official" comps then, only WC 1982 has been made so later by the WCA. There was several comps using the inspection style I'm talking about. I cannot point any particular one out but I immediatly recognised the inspection style from the Waterman video when I first saw it some years ago and that because I knew this rule ever since the 80's.

Edit, hmm, mabye it was only in WC 1982 "our" style was used and that is the reason for only that comp have been made official... I don't know, records from national comps those years are really poor.

More edit: In the national championship of Finland 1981 they did not even time the solves at all!!! they where racing head to head (tornament style 2-by-2 I think). Jari Sandkvist won and got a place at the WC.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 9, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.



Yes, sure, but that's not what you ment from start


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > You said not true then outlined how it is true XD.
> ...




?!


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 9, 2010)

"In all official competitions they did it how we do it"

"all" = 1?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2010)

Yarp?


----------



## brunson (Apr 9, 2010)

I think the case could be made for removing the inspection or having an indefinite inspection time, any fixed amount of inspection time is arbitrary, so 15s is as arbitrary as any other. I'd vote either get rid of it all together or leave it as it is.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 9, 2010)

brunson said:


> I think the case could be made for removing the inspection or having an indefinite inspection time, any fixed amount of inspection time is arbitrary, so 15s is as arbitrary as any other. I'd vote either get rid of it all together or leave it as it is.



but getting rid of it would be stupid would it not?
15s has been around for ~27 years, with hundreds of competitions, and it has worked well so far. Why change it now.


----------



## MichaelErskine (Apr 9, 2010)

I voted to keep the inspection time as it is although I still rarely have time to come up with a decent cross solution. If the option were there I'd vote for "_whatever gives me an advantage over everyone else_"


----------



## qqwref (Apr 9, 2010)

There are really only two types of inspection to me, either you have some or you have none. Stefan has pointed out that inspection is part of the solve, and I agree, but only to the point where getting into a runner's stance is part of a 100m dash, practicing on the Olympic luge track beforehand is part of the sport, etc. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow people to prepare a bit before the official attempt, even if the official attempt is timed. But, if we do have inspection, every number is arbitrary, and equally so. Why 15 seconds, but also why 10, and why 5, and why anything else? The only reason to use a specific number is that everyone is used to it and that is (and always will be) the case for 15.



Ron said:


> PS: why are some people making unnice comments when I propose something, even if it is not a popular proposal?


Some people worry that it will be changed even if almost nobody wants it to.


----------

