# Competition Methodology



## Tyson (Nov 24, 2008)

So, I did some thinking over the last few weeks, and I think I came up with a way to make competitions much more efficient. And by much more efficient, you can take a look at the Caltech Fall 2008 competition, you'll see that we had 75 competitors. I think we were basically able to finish about two hours early. In other words, we had enough time left over that we added in a second round of Square-1, a second round of 3x3x3 OH, and a third round of 3x3x3 speed solve. We even had time for fantasy cubing. Anyway, the story goes like this.

I was at Drexel Open 2008 and I noticed something. I guess I had always known about this issue, but at Drexel it was so blatant that I thought it would be good to address. Right now how most competitions are set up is that there's a scrambling table off to the side. On the main stage, there are perhaps four tables with two timers set up at each table for eight timing stations. What happens is the following:

1. Competitor is called and brings up their cube
2. Scrambler scrambles the cube
3. Judge picks up the cube and calls the competitor
4. Judge and competitor walk to the timer
5. Solve is done
6. Judge returns the cube to the competitor

At Drexel, the tables farthest from the scrambling table were hardly used. It actually takes a good 5 to 7 seconds for the judge and the competitor to walk to the timer. If the area in back of the stage is crowded, it might take even longer.

This seems insignificant, but there are a number of issues that arise:

1. 5 to 7 seconds of walking translates to an increase of 15 to 30 seconds per competitor
2. Laziness of the judges to walk across the stage contribute to more lost time on the timers
3. Judges spend time looking for competitors
4. Judges get tired walking back and forth

The solution I came up with is the following. Instead of having the scrambling table off to the side, you put it in the middle of the stage. There are various setups, but this is the basic idea. This way, the scramblers are not very far from one set of timers.

Yes, you need to take care to make sure the scramblers can scramble without being seen. You can do this by putting up an obstruction around the table.

Anyway, instead of having the judges walk back and forth, you keep the judges stationary at the timers. They can even sit if they like.

A 'runner' takes the cubes from the scrambling table and feeds each timer with their judge the scrambled cubes. The judge then always has one competitor solving, and one or two cubes in the queue.

Even more efficient is if you can keep competitors at the same timer throughout the process. Then the judge has a very easy time of finding the competitor.

When a cube is solved, the runner brings the solved cube and time sheet back to the scrambling table. When the competitor is finished, the runner brings the score sheet back to the scrambling table. (the sheets can then be delivered to the computer, which we kept in a separate area)

The runners can run on the front of the stage. Yes, they do occasionally step in front of a competitor, but it is not distracting as they are not close, and for the people filming it is only momentary.

Anyway, I really thought this system made our competitor last Saturday very efficient. A more carefully planned version can yield tremendous results. I would recommend it. For some reason, being a runner isn't as tired as the old transient judge. Perhaps moving around continuously is better than moving, stopping, moving, stopping, etc.


----------



## Jai (Nov 24, 2008)

The thing is, now with runners and judges, you would need double the number of volunteers. Some competitions barely have enough judges, let alone runners.
Also, the layout of some venues might be difficult, and would make things more squished. Overall, though, it seems like a good idea.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 24, 2008)

The nice thing about runners is that they're pretty easy to recruit. A judge requires a certain amount of knowledge and training; a runner can be trained in just a few minutes. I really like this idea!


----------



## Jai (Nov 24, 2008)

That's true; you could recruit a kid, but the thing is, how many people would you find that would want to continually do this?


----------



## Pedro (Nov 24, 2008)

that looks like a good idea

could you give me some more details about Caltech Fall 2008? How many timers? how many people did you have exclusively to judge/scramble?


----------



## brunson (Nov 24, 2008)

You don't need one runner per judge. I think a single runner could keep up in all but the fastest of events. You'd need to mark on the timesheet which station the cube goes to, or simply feed the shortest queue and the judge can call the competitor. Keeping the competitors near their timer is a good idea if you have a large stage area, but both competitions I've been to had pretty cramped quarters on stage.


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 24, 2008)

I think in some cases, people would rather be a runner than a judge. A runner would have less pressure on them, and might welcome the chance to walk/run around when they might not have the chance to normally in such a claustrophobic environment.

I know I would be happy to do this anyway


----------



## Dave Campbell (Nov 24, 2008)

This is quite an interesting idea, Tyson. I have tried to figure out better ways to streamline the process myself, but i had not thought of this. So i am clear, the judge, who is sitting at the station, has a few scrambled cubes on the table for their next competitors? How do you cover them all, if you have 8 stations times 3 cubes, that is 24 covers required. I only have 11 at the current time.

I can see there be potential for the runner and judge to accidentally distract the competitor during this exchange, but with solid choreography, i think it could be minimized. I assume it is entirely the runner's responsibility, and the judge just finds the cubes waiting upon the completion of the current competitor's solve?

Where do the competitors themselves stand to wait for their turn? How does the judge find the competitor? We have a few competitors who are notorious for disappearing during their average in spite of my requests for them to stay in the waiting area. That often is where time is lost because judges are trying to find them. What is a possible solution to this issue in the aforementioned scenario, especially if one station has all 3 queued competitors MIA?

When you say you can keep the competitor at the same timer, does that mean you have to have a list of which competitors go to which timer, or did you write that on the score card for the runner? I can see it being difficult to time it so you don't have Station-1 done immediately because all the fast guys are there, and Station-5 is only on solve 2 because they are all slow. Did you plan that out before hand, or just made decisions on the fly?


----------



## shelley (Nov 24, 2008)

Jai said:


> The thing is, now with runners and judges, you would need double the number of volunteers. Some competitions barely have enough judges, let alone runners.



You just need enough judges to cover every timer. There only needs to be one or two additional people as runners; they can switch off with judges/scramblers (as few people want to do that all day). And as Mike pointed out, the runner's job is simpler than that of the judge/scrambler; you can easily recruit someone from the audience if you're short on personnel.



Dave Campbell said:


> When you say you can keep the competitor at the same timer, does that mean you have to have a list of which competitors go to which timer, or did you write that on the score card for the runner? I can see it being difficult to time it so you don't have Station-1 done immediately because all the fast guys are there, and Station-5 is only on solve 2 because they are all slow. Did you plan that out before hand, or just made decisions on the fly?



It doesn't have to be that involved. Our original plan was just to keep them at the same set of timers (the timers on one side or the other of the scrambling table). This could be coordinated by having each side of the scrambling table only scrambling cubes for their side of the stage. Competitors then just have to wait on one side of the stage. In practice this didn't actually happen, especially with the more busy rounds, but this was the first time we tried this method; it can still use some fine tuning.


----------



## blade740 (Nov 24, 2008)

Caltech Fall was run VERY smoothly. We added 3 extra rounds, stretched the 3x3 final round to over an hour (only one timer being used, plus fantasy cubing), and still finished on time. We weren't even rushing. Being a judge was a lot less painful than it used to be. You have a covered cube on the edge of your table. Once the timer is free, you call up that person. Actually, tyson was calling out who was "on deck" when he delivered scrambled cubes, so we rarely even had to find people. Anyway, you get the cuber, they do their solve, and you set the solved cube on top of the score sheet back at the front of the table. You pull the next cube up, and time them. All the while, the runner is picking up solved cubes and delivering scrambled ones.

Another thing: if you have a raised stage (as long as it's not TOO high) you can have the runner on the ground to avoid blocking filming at all. Push the tables all the way to the front edge of the stage, and clear the spectators back a few feet for a walkway.


----------



## jcuber (Nov 24, 2008)

Why can't you make a cube cover out of cardboard and duct tape?


----------



## Jhong253 (Nov 24, 2008)

I like Tyson's idea. I'll give that a shot at Indiana.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 24, 2008)

I am actually very excited about San Francisco 2009 now. I think we can get a lot done, and maybe even have time for some mystery puzzles.


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Nov 24, 2008)

Forgive me, because I have not attended one of these yet, but is the cube placed into a box for the runner? You wouldn't want runner to drop the cube and accidentally add a twist to it. And you wouldn't want a competitor to see it beforehand.


----------



## Bob (Nov 24, 2008)

I think I will be trying this in Virginia this weekend. It sounds very efficient.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Nov 24, 2008)

We REALLY could've used this idea at Westchester. From everything I've heard about Caltech, you actually pushed efficiency to a point that nobody has come close to.


----------



## JBCM627 (Nov 25, 2008)

AAAAHH Bob, your picture scares me


 I like this idea, though... [/fear]​


----------



## blade740 (Nov 25, 2008)

Well, to be fair, caltech does have another advantage in the way they run their competitions, compared to what I've heard about the east coast. Everyone at caltech who scrambled or judged has worked several competitions before. The "regular crew" is a given here on the west coast. We know who needs to get their solves out of the way early for a certain event, who is going to be out after the first round and can judge subsequent rounds, etc. We have very few "planning issues" because most of our plans are the same comp-to-comp. Once you've got an established structure, putting through changes like this is easier, because it's only one new thing, rather than changing up something we just learned. Don't expect to have 3 free hours magically.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 25, 2008)

It's true that we knew pretty much who was going to judge well before we started the competition, but I'd still say that this competition was way more efficient than other California competitions I've been to. I think there are even a few advantages of the new organization system that haven't been mentioned yet:
- Since the scrambling table is so close to the other timers, as opposed to being off to the side in a congested area, it was very quick to get cubes to the timer. At the beginning of rounds when there were only a few people going, I could get my cube scrambled pretty much immediately, and start the next solve within 15 seconds or less - if the timers aren't continuously full this system makes it almost like having your judge scramble the cube (like we did for some side events at Nationals).
- We had enough room behind the timers to have all the competitors hang out there instead of in the audience where they'd normally be, and because only competitors were walking around it was not at all busy back there - basically, this system allows you to have the Competitor's Area be actually on stage, without needing a huge amount of room back there.
- Having the judges stationary eliminates the wait for a timer that you might be familiar with from very busy rounds. As soon as timers become available, the judge there will already have the next cube, and can immediately call up the next competitor, so if you are called up you are able to do your solve immediately.


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 25, 2008)

Another idea that just came up. In Germany, for the first round of 3x3, Arnaud and Rama were judging people. They ended up sitting there at a station with scrambles, and went through a persons average instantly. With a judge who can also scramble well, this idea works out quite well for side events (Gavin Nelson and I did this for sq-1 at Westchester). It could also work well if you have enough judges that can scramble (Like a Caltech type competition).


----------



## blade740 (Nov 25, 2008)

That may be good for small side events, but when you have more competitors than you have timers, you end up with each timer being idle more than 50% of the time while the judge is scrambling the next cube. The efficiency you get from not having to find the cuber doesn't overcome the fact that you can grind through twice as many cubers with a dedicated scrambler and a judge.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 25, 2008)

Yeah, and when you have less competitors than timers, the competitors don't have to get up, so you can basically do Dan's idea in a less formalized way - once a competitor's done their cube is quickly brought to the scrambling table, then scrambled, then quickly brought back. It may take a few seconds longer but you don't have to change anything or move scramblers around, and you can still make do with one or two copies of each scramble.


----------



## Doudou (Nov 26, 2008)

Hi all,

What you did Tyson, we also did it in Madrid Open (4-5 april 2008), i was WCA deleguate. You probably can read what I wrote in the report. ;-)

Running is tiring for the judge, but that's not all. He also has to call somebody that he can not know, and that's mentally tiring because most of the time nobody replies.

With these ideas, there are less people moving on the stage, and that's easier for competitor to know who can call them. That's also better for the audience, who can easier see the times and the results.

And that avoid judges to leave before the end of the round, which slow down the competition.



We also went very fast with this way to go. And could move best of x into average of 5, etc...

The only "problem" is that you need more judges than with the other way. You need 2-3 running men. 

For big competitions, I think that's very good.


----------



## Bob (Nov 30, 2008)

I tried this today in Virginia. This was very efficient. We were so far ahead of schedule that I changed 4x4 to a final instead of combined final, added a 3x3x3 one-handed final, and added a 2x2x2 final. We even had fewest moves running parallel with only 5x5x5 BLD for an entire hour (best hour of the day for organizers). Genius.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 30, 2008)

Dan says I'm kind of a big deal.


----------



## Jhong253 (Dec 14, 2008)

I tried this thing at Indiana. The whole cube-runner thing didn't really work out because judges got confused about who was what, where they were supposed to be, etc. I think the main issue was that so many of the judges were used to the "old" way where the judge walked back and forth between scrambling table and their stations. But this idea did save a lot of time though. 

I added a 2x2 final, made 4x4 from combined final to a final (although this turned out this way accidentally, it still worked out), and added megaminx. 

This method, I think, requires a bit of space between timer stations and scrambling table. This decreases the possibility of people getting confused on who's the judge and who's the cube-runner.
In my competition, the tables were so close together that there really wasn't any need for cube runners anyway, but I ended up having some people cube run.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 14, 2008)

jhong253 said:


> This method, I think, requires a bit of space between timer stations and scrambling table. This decreases the possibility of people getting confused on who's the judge and who's the cube-runner.



At Caltech fall, we had very little space between the scrambling and judging tables. Enough room for someone to sit on a chair in between to scramble, but that's it. You just have to make sure the judges know not to move and the runners know not to judge.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 24, 2008)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I am catching up on older posts.

I have often wondered why some competitions are running so smoothly and others get very out of hand and even have to cancel some events. The answer is two-fold:
1) A smooth running competition has a good organisation.
2) A smooth running competition has many competitors helping with judging and scrambling (2 or 3 groups, if you are not competing you should be judging or scrambling)

Problematic competitions often start late, have (too) big delays between events and a lot of empty tables during an event (no judges or scrambled cubes)

As mentioned before in this thread we were completely overwhelmed at German Nationals. There weren't enough tables, there was chaos all around, a lot of slow competitors, not a lot of help with scrambling and judging and (because of the chaos) competitors often didn't show up when their names were called.
Yet dispite all of this, the experience of Ton (providing scrambles, getting help, processing results and simply scrambling/judging/solving continously at the table made everything work out just fine.

Having timers occupied as much as possible should be every organisers priority. So much time is lost waiting for a scrambled cube, waiting for a competitor to react after calling his name, walking to a table, preparing, inspection, finally the actual solve, writing down the result and walking back to the scrambling table. 

Having a seperate competitors area, knowing most competitors and short walking distance help a lot, but most of all I would like to stress these points:
1e2) All competitors must be available for judging, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.
1f2) All competitors must be available for scrambling, if needed by organisation team. Penalty: disqualification of the competitor for the competition.


----------



## Dene (Dec 25, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> waiting for a competitor to react after calling his name



The solution for this is simple. At the start of the competition say:
"You must be ready when your name is called. You will receive a DNF if you do not come immediately when called."

When the time comes:
"John Smith, you have 5 seconds to report to the table, or you will receive a DNF for your solve. 1, 2, 3, 4..."


----------



## Bob (Dec 25, 2008)

Dene said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > waiting for a competitor to react after calling his name
> ...



I'm pretty sure that isn't one of the allowed reasons given by the regulations:

2k)	Disqualification of a competitor for a competition may be enforced by the WCA delegate for the following reasons:
2k1) competitor fails to show up in time for registration for the competition;
2k2) competitor is suspect of cheating or defrauding the officials during the competition;
2k3) competitor behaves in a way that is unlawful, violent or indecent, or intentionally damages venue facilities or anyone's personal property within the venue;
2k4) competitor interferes or becomes a blatant distraction to others during the competition;
2k5) competitor refuses to abide by any of the WCA regulations during the competition.

2k1 comes close, but explicitly says registration.


----------



## Dene (Dec 25, 2008)

I didn't say disqualify, just DNF the solve.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 25, 2008)

We usually set them aside if they don't show up fairly quickly, and at the end ask for anyone who should have been called to compete but "didn't get called" (usually means either "didn't register" or "missed their name being called")


----------



## qqwref (Dec 25, 2008)

Dene said:


> The solution for this is simple. At the start of the competition say:
> "You must be ready when your name is called. You will receive a DNF if you do not come immediately when called."
> 
> When the time comes:
> "John Smith, you have 5 seconds to report to the table, or you will receive a DNF for your solve. 1, 2, 3, 4..."



This is exceedingly harsh. Especially at German Nationals (assuming I'm thinking of the right competition), the competition waiting area was very busy and pretty much standing-room-only, and it was also in the middle of a very busy festival. So if you were ready but perhaps at the other end of the crowd you might take longer than 5 seconds to get through to the table. Also, personally I also had to help out at the V-cube booth, so I'm sorry if I was late to some things, but it really was impossible for me to stand there all day.

I think a better solution would be to just ask every competitor who is in the middle of a round to sit in a waiting area behind the stage. This ensures that they will be in the area when called and makes it easy to see if someone is missing. Of course this requires a bit of extra space (although in any kind of auditorium this space would already be available), but if at all possible it is better to have a separate non-busy competitor's area near the tables.


----------



## Dene (Dec 25, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > The solution for this is simple. At the start of the competition say:
> ...



Well of course you give them more than 5 seconds. The countdown is a last resort.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 2, 2009)

Dene said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


There is something in the rules that says competitors have to be in a competitors area
There is something in the rules tha says competitors have to start within 1 minute once they are standing at their timer
But there is nothing concrete in the rules about having to move from the competitors area to the timer, let alone a time limit for that.

Sometimes names are pronounced so badly that it is impossible for a competitor to understand that a judge is calling you. Sometimes names are so illegible or hard to pronounce that is is impossible for a judge to call the correct competitor.

And if a competitor doesn't show up eventually, it shouldn't be a DNF but a DNS


----------

