# Other events for Weekly competition



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

For 2008 I added all events that got 10 votes or more in this thread. I also added all WCA official events.

For all other events, the votes have gone down to 0 and from now on voting can be done throught a poll. If you want events added to the poll, just let me know.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 1, 2008)

KJiptner said:


> Here is my vote for Mensch ärgere dich nicht.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch_ärgere_dich_nicht


Excellent idea! I'm in.



Lucas Garron said:


> I vote for:
> 
> Master Magic (3-of-5)
> 3x3x3 speed blindfolded (best of two executions)
> I also think the 3x3x3 blindfolded should be "best of three," like in official competitions.



That leaves Master Magic to be desired. Do I revote?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

Do you have a scrambler for Mensch ärgere dich nicht?  (I so hope you are kidding)

Master Magic is already in the weekly competition.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 1, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Do you have a scrambler for Mensch ärgere dich nicht?  (I so hope you are kidding)


Kai can create them. Or we can try team FMC...



AvGalen said:


> Master Magic is already in the weekly competition.


Then I vote for speed BLD again, instead


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

If I am not mistaken, Mensch ärgere dich nicht is a game you play against each other and has a fixed starting position. I really don't see how I could fit that in the weekly competition so I am not going to make that a votable option.

And there is no reason you have to chose between events, you can vote for multiple events to be added.


----------



## Jack (Jan 1, 2008)

If you added events to the poll, people who had already voted couldn't vote for the new events, could they?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

You are right Jack. I didn't know how the "multiple choice"-poll worked. I was expecting that you could change your choices after voting. Let's just hope I don't have to add many events


----------



## Erik (Jan 1, 2008)

I vote against any more events, there are just WAY too many now in my opinion. How can I also do feetcubing and bloody multi BLD and clock?? Should I quit school and give my life to the weekly contest?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 1, 2008)

Erik said:


> I vote against any more events, there are just WAY too many now in my opinion. How can I also do feetcubing and bloody multi BLD and clock?? Should I quit school and give my life to the weekly contest?


yes 

Seriously, there is no need to do all events every week. I might be the person that has done the most solves in all competitions last year, but I haven't learned 4x4x4_bf and 5x5x5_bf last year just so I could get more points. And I am not planning on doing multi_blind every week either (just sometimes).


----------



## hdskull (Jan 2, 2008)

Yea, I kinda don't want anymore events to be included because it already takes quite awhile to do like 1/2 of the events. I only voted for the 2,3,4 relay because I don't own a 5x5, haha.


----------



## CraigBouchard (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree. Having all the events there makes me want to do them, and doing them all takes a VERY long time, especially for someone who may be slower at some events...This may be some incentive to go faster though  Hahaha...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree - I think that's the main reason I want to be faster: so I can do all of the events each week without taking so much time.


----------



## hdskull (Jan 3, 2008)

It's hard to get fast at all the events at the same time, haha


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes it is. Have you seen my times? They're proof of that.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 3, 2008)

I like doing all these different events. My 3x3x3-ing has helped my 5x5x5-ing. My 5x5x5-ing has helped my megaminxing and my megaminxing has helped my 3x3x3-ing.


----------



## MistArts (Feb 8, 2008)

How about 3 in a row or algorithm execution?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 4, 2008)

I should really start to do them. I would only do 3x3, fmc in like 2min and get 50moves, 3x3OH, and pyraminx. Scrambling 4x4 is too much of a pain already.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 15, 2008)

I decided I want to suggest scrambled Magic. It should be possible to come up with a notation for scrambling - surely a "flipping-only" scrambling method can be come up with that will get to a large percentage of the significant possible permutations.

I think this would be great fun! The only problem is that at first I would probably have some solves that were very fast, and others that took many minutes to solve. But it would probably result in getting very good at unscrambling a magic, if we had to do 5 solves every week.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 15, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> KJiptner said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my vote for Mensch ärgere dich nicht.
> ...



It's called "Fia med knuff" in Sweden 

I played it a lot as a child.


----------



## Karthik (Apr 15, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > KJiptner said:
> ...


Isn't that Ludo?


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 16, 2008)

Please, no more talk about "Mensch ärgere dich nicht". I don't see any way (or reason) to include it in the weekly competition. I think the original proposal (by Kai?) was a joke.

Mike, if you can come up with a way of scrambling the Magic (3D, not just flipping) you will be my hero.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 16, 2008)

Okay, I guess I have a new project now. Just what I needed. 

Fortunately, I'm a programmer, so I should be able to handle writing a scramble program if I can think of how to notate it. I may be slow about it, but I *will* work on this...


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Apr 16, 2008)

SOMEONE PLEASE VOTE FOR 4X4 FEWEST MOVES!!!! lol


----------



## Erik (Apr 16, 2008)

Derrick: no 

Idea: 
link this 3x3 competition to the sunday contest! (so avg of 12 instead with their scrambles) Only have to figure a way to make sure the times are added there too, everyone can do it individual maybe?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 28, 2008)

Before I start adding 6x6x6, 7x7x7, 6x6x6_blind, 7x7x7_blind, 23456_relay and 234567_relay I would like to know:

a) Which of those events would you participate in?
b) Would 80 moves for 6x6x6 and 100 moves for 7x7x7 be ok?
c) Should these events be 5 solves, 3 solves or just 1? (Currently it is 5 for regular, 3 for blind and 1 for relay. But I don't think anyone will do 3 7x7x7 blindfolded attempts on a weekly basis)
d) Are there any problems with these scrambles:
d1) http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_cube.htm?size=6&num=5&len=80&col=yobwrg&multi=on&subbutton=Scramble%21
d2) http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...n=100&col=yobwrg&multi=on&subbutton=Scramble!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 28, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Before I start adding 6x6x6, 7x7x7, 6x6x6_blind, 7x7x7_blind, 23456_relay and 234567_relay I would like to know:
> 
> a) Which of those events would you participate in?


This might finally drive me to not participate in everything.  But I guess that even if you add them all, I'll still try (but maybe not succeed every week). There is one catch - I refuse to solve a 6x6x6 or 7x7x7 sighted until I first solve them BLD. So it could be a while before I can start participating in the non-BLD events.


> b) Would 80 moves for 6x6x6 and 100 moves for 7x7x7 be ok?


I've wondered the same thing, but I think it makes sense to me. What do the computer simulations use? (Sorry, I don't do them often enough to know.)


> c) Should these events be 5 solves, 3 solves or just 1? (Currently it is 5 for regular, 3 for blind and 1 for relay. But I don't think anyone will do 3 7x7x7 blindfolded attempts on a weekly basis)


Not even me.  Actually, if you really made 7x7x7 BLD 3 solves, I might occasionally do 3, but I'd really prefer just 1 for 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD. (And you know that if I prefer it, surely everyone else does too!) I'm game for 5 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 solves, but it might still be enough to keep me from doing everything each week - 3 would be less difficult to manage. 1 is too few for speedsolves, though - it needs to be at least 3.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 28, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Before I start adding 6x6x6, 7x7x7, 6x6x6_blind, 7x7x7_blind, 23456_relay and 234567_relay I would like to know:
> 
> a) Which of those events would you participate in?


obviously speed for me 


AvGalen said:


> b) Would 80 moves for 6x6x6 and 100 moves for 7x7x7 be ok?


Michael Gottlieb said you need a minimum of 73 and 95 respectively to reach all cases. So 80/100 works fine.


AvGalen said:


> c) Should these events be 5 solves, 3 solves or just 1? (Currently it is 5 for regular, 3 for blind and 1 for relay. But I don't think anyone will do 3 7x7x7 blindfolded attempts on a weekly basis)


1 BLD solve is all you really need. I don't think that the 3 (Chris, Mike, Dan) people doing 7x7 BLD will want to do 3 of them. For speed, you need 5... I hate mean of 3 in everything, and it should be thrown out.


I don't think there's anything wrong with the WCA scrambles. As they are just good extensions of the 4 and 5 scrambles.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 29, 2008)

> Michael Gottlieb said you need a minimum of 73 and 95 respectively to reach all cases. So 80/100 works fine


20 for 3x3x3 hasn't even been proven, but Michael knows that it will be 73 and 95 for 6x6x6 and 7x7x7?

Or did he calculate how many positions there are on a 6x6x6 and how many positions can be reached with 72 moves? Like the way that it is easy to prove that not every position can be reached on a 3x3x3 within 17 moves because the number of positions that can be reached within 17 moves is < the total number of positions?

I always thought the total number of positions grew slower compared to the number of positions that could be reached within n moves when cubes become bigger


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 29, 2008)

Arnaud, I'm not quite sure, but it's something he mentioned to me when we were talking about scramblers/notation. He was really into cube theory, and I suspect that his answers are usually correct . I'll ask him about how he knows, but I think I'll just trust him for now.


----------



## Dene (Jun 29, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> There is one catch - I refuse to solve a 6x6x6 or 7x7x7 sighted until I first solve them BLD. So it could be a while before I can start participating in the non-BLD events.



I have a feeling, Mr. Hughey, that you will succeed on the first attempt.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 29, 2008)

Dene said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > There is one catch - I refuse to solve a 6x6x6 or 7x7x7 sighted until I first solve them BLD. So it could be a while before I can start participating in the non-BLD events.
> ...



That would be sooo cool if it were true.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 29, 2008)

Okay, yeah, so here's how the bigcubes maths works (or at least where I got 73 and 95 from). We don't know the length of God's Algorithm, but we can find an easy lower bound by calculating the number of moves it would take to have a greater number of possible scrambles than the number of positions on the puzzle. The number of positions is well-known and easy to calculate, but the number of positions for each scramble (if you want it exactly) follows a rather complicated recurrence relation. But anyway, for a 3x3x3 (for example) it takes 17 moves' worth of scrambling to get at least 4.3 * 10^19 possible scrambles, so thus any scrambling algorithm under 17 moves cannot possibly reach every position and is unacceptable. This also means that there will be optimal solutions of at least 17 moves for a 3x3x3. But you can do this with pretty much any puzzle if you are willing to work on the relation. (By the way I think it was my idea to do this for bigcubes and other weird puzzles first XD)

Anyway, the same calculations for 3x3 through 7x7 give minimum required move-counts of 17, 31, 50, 73, and 95. Note that these are the same numbers whether we use slice or multislice, since the number of possible scrambles are the same. Incidentally the number of moves for megaminx is 43 and the number for gigaminx is approximately 135 (perhaps slightly higher, since I used an approximate number-of-scrambles formula for this one because the recurrence relation was too complicated). Using the new megaminx scrambles would require a mind-boggling 226 moves (including cube rotations), by the way.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Okay, yeah, so here's how the bigcubes maths works (or at least where I got 73 and 95 from). We don't know the length of God's Algorithm, but we can find an easy lower bound by calculating the number of moves it would take to have a greater number of possible scrambles than the number of positions on the puzzle. The number of positions is well-known and easy to calculate, but the number of positions for each scramble (if you want it exactly) follows a rather complicated recurrence relation. But anyway, for a 3x3x3 (for example) it takes 17 moves' worth of scrambling to get at least 4.3 * 10^19 possible scrambles, so thus any scrambling algorithm under 17 moves cannot possibly reach every position and is unacceptable. This also means that there will be optimal solutions of at least 17 moves for a 3x3x3. But you can do this with pretty much any puzzle if you are willing to work on the relation. (By the way I think it was my idea to do this for bigcubes and other weird puzzles first XD)
> 
> Anyway, the same calculations for 3x3 through 7x7 give minimum required move-counts of 17, 31, 50, 73, and 95. Note that these are the same numbers whether we use slice or multislice, since the number of possible scrambles are the same. Incidentally the number of moves for megaminx is 43 and the number for gigaminx is approximately 135 (perhaps slightly higher, since I used an approximate number-of-scrambles formula for this one because the recurrence relation was too complicated). Using the new megaminx scrambles would require a mind-boggling 226 moves (including cube rotations), by the way.


That is indeed the theory I thought it would be. However it amazes me that the number of moves needed grows in this way. 14 -> 19 -> 23 -> 22. So let me get this straight:
For a 3x3x3 there are 6 possible moves (RLUDFB) and for every move there are 3 variations (normal, half and back). I am assuming that slices turns are not allowed. This could be simplified to:
3-axis (RUF)
2 moves for every axe (RL, UD, FB or more generally: 1R 2R, 1U, 2U, 1F 2F)
3 variations (1, 2, 3)
All these possibilities are independent from each other so they give 3x2x3=18 possibilities for the n=1 moves.
For n=2 moves there would be 18^2 possibilites, but because of the relation you mentioned it will be less (1R1 + 1R2 = 1R3, 1U1 + 2U2 = 2U2 + 1U1, 2F2 + 2F2 = 1R1 + 1R3, etc)

I wonder if you have a generic way to determine the relation and if I am correct in assuming that for a 7x7x7 there would be:
3-axis, (7-1 = 6) moves for every axe, 3 variations = 3*6*3 = 54 possibilities for the first move and 54^95 (-relation) after 95 moves.
I always assumed that the number of possibilities formula (3*(n-1)*3)^n (minus relation) would grow so fast that something like this could be true
Count(godsAlgorithmForCubeN) = 10*(N-1) (+1 for even N's)
So 0 for 1x1x1, 11 for 2x2x2, 20 for 3x3x3, 31 for 4x4x4, 40 for 5x5x5, etc.


----------



## Mohammad96 (Jun 30, 2008)

*Please put up speed stacking*

I luv sport stacking and it would be very nice if theres a sport stacking weekly competition as there are no other weekly competitions online in sport stacking that i know of. It would be very nice because im realy good at sport stacking and i guess people lyk Jason Baum will like it to

Jason baum i think i saw u on the unofficial records in sport stacking in the WCA website


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 30, 2008)

Mohammad96 said:


> I luv sport stacking and it would be very nice if theres a sport stacking weekly competition as there are no other weekly competitions online in sport stacking that i know of. It would be very nice because im realy good at sport stacking and i guess people lyk Jason Baum will like it to
> 
> Jason baum i think i saw u on the unofficial records in sport stacking in the WCA website


 
Look closely at the poll

(Personally I don't like having cupstacking in a speedcubing competition, but if enough people disagree I will include it)


----------



## MistArts (Jun 30, 2008)

Omg....VOTE FOR 4x4 FEWEST MOVES!!!!


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 1, 2008)

I never thought 4x4x4 FMC would make it, but know I have to think about the actual rules. Things that need to be defined are notation, scramble-length and event-time-limit.

Anyone has any ideas?
I figure 40 moves and 1 hour might not be enough and xyzrufldbRUFLDBMES is not clear
What about this:
50 moves scrambles
2.5 hours time limit
xyz = 0 moves
RUFLDB rWuWfWlWdWbW = 1 move
rufdlb = 2 moves

And


----------



## MistArts (Jul 1, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I never thought 4x4x4 FMC would make it, but know I have to think about the actual rules. Things that need to be defined are notation, scramble-length and event-time-limit.
> 
> Anyone has any ideas?
> I figure 40 moves and 1 hour might not be enough and xyzrufldbRUFLDBMES is not clear
> ...



That's good...too bad my Rubik's 4x4 broke. I like Rw instead of rW.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 1, 2008)

Good grief - adding 6x6x6, 7x7x7, 6x6x6 BLD, 7x7x7 BLD, and 4x4x4 fewest moves all at the same time? Now I'm really going to have trouble doing them all every week!

But at least now I have a clock, so I can do that. THANK YOU, JOEY!!!!!!!


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 1, 2008)

Yes! 4x4 FMC!!!!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 1, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> That is indeed the theory I thought it would be. However it amazes me that the number of moves needed grows in this way. 14 -> 19 -> 23 -> 22.


What? (Remember that my method only gives a lower bound for the God's Algorithm number - so for example we know that the depth of the 4x4 is somewhere between 31 (as per my calculations) and 77 (Norskog's Thistlethwaite-style solver).



AvGalen said:


> So let me get this straight:
> For a 3x3x3 there are 6 possible moves (RLUDFB) and for every move there are 3 variations (normal, half and back). I am assuming that slices turns are not allowed. This could be simplified to:
> 3-axis (RUF)
> 2 moves for every axe (RL, UD, FB or more generally: 1R 2R, 1U, 2U, 1F 2F)
> ...


Er... not really. (By the way 2R is M in my notation, and the singular of "axes" is "axis".) You've come close to the basic approximation, though. A 3x3 cube has 6 faces, and each face has 3 moves. Since scrambles never put the same face twice in a row the number of possibilities in this basic approximation is 18 * 15^(n-1) for n moves. This is very easy to calculate and very simple to use, since you can even use logarithms to avoid explicitly calculating it out for any n.

However there is a more complicated approximation which I was talking about, which takes into account the fact that after doing a series of moves along the same axis we cannot use a slice on that axis that was already used. This doesn't make a difference on the 3x3 but it does provide a better lower bound on larger cubes and the Megaminx (and besides we don't care about 3x3 really because a lower bound of 20 is known ). I'll describe it more closely: we have a recurrence relation with two sequences, a and b. We will let a_n be the number of scrambles of length n which end in just one turn from the axis, and b_n be the number of scrambles of length n which end in two turns from an axis (like U' D2). Then the recurrence relation is:
a_1 = 18, b_1 = 0
a_n := 12 * a_(n-1) + 12 * b_(n-1)
b_n := 3 * a_(n-1)
Note that the 12s are because there are 4 possible faces that are not on a given axis, and to get a_n we must have changed axis right before the last term. Anyway this gives a very precise count of the number of scrambles we can generate: the number of scrambles for n moves is just a_n + b_n. This becomes a bit more tricky for larger cubes because an NxNxN cube needs N-1 of these sequences. For example on the 5x5x5 we have sequences a, b, c, d and
a_1 = 36, b_1 = 0, c_1 = 0, d_1 = 0
a_n := 24 * a_(n-1) + 24 * b_(n-1) + 24 * c_(n-1) + 24 * d_(n-1)
b_n := 9 * a_(n-1)
c_n := 6 * b_(n-1)
d_n := 3 * c_(n-1)
So the basic approximation is okay, but this calculation will give you an exact value for the number of scrambles. Recurrence relations like these can be created for any puzzle, but they get rather complicated (for example the megaminx has 4 and I imagine the gigaminx would have even more).



AvGalen said:


> I wonder if you have a generic way to determine the relation and if I am correct in assuming that for a 7x7x7 there would be:
> 3-axis, (7-1 = 6) moves for every axe, 3 variations = 3*6*3 = 54 possibilities for the first move and 54^95 (-relation) after 95 moves.
> I always assumed that the number of possibilities formula (3*(n-1)*3)^n (minus relation) would grow so fast that something like this could be true
> Count(godsAlgorithmForCubeN) = 10*(N-1) (+1 for even N's)
> So 0 for 1x1x1, 11 for 2x2x2, 20 for 3x3x3, 31 for 4x4x4, 40 for 5x5x5, etc.


Well yes, the approximation for 7x7 is 54 * 51^(n-1) for n moves. But as you can see the larger the cube the higher chance that the same-axis slices will get in the way of each other. Interestingly there are some scramblers which change axis after every turn; that would actually reduce the number of possibilities to 54 * 36^(n-1), which is not an approximation since turns don't affect future possible turns at all. Intriguingly this would mean that we now need 102 moves to scramble a 7x7 

As far as the growth of the optimal number of turns, I think we are way too far away from that kind of knowledge to even make a decent guess at it. All I have are a couple of lower bounds with absolutely no guarantee of how close they are, and for even the 4x4 it is quite difficult to get a better lower bound (you might have to optimally solve positions) or to get a decent upper bound (since you need some kind of solution method to prove that, assuming you don't have an optimal solver). So unless we can know more about at the very least the 4x4 I don't think it it is reasonable to guess a pattern based on 2x2 and 3x3. However, taking the complete and total guess that the number of moves is about three more than predicted in my calculation, I think something like 
1/2 (5 (N-1)^2 + 3 (N-1) + 14) = 1/2 (5 N^2 - 7 N + 16)
for an NxNxN cube (N >= 2) might fit reasonably well. It's likely to be more or less quadratic, although of course it probably won't follow a simple sequence such as this.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 2, 2008)

Thanks Michael, that was very interesting and well explained. Now let's see how long it will take for this to be "proven"


----------



## alexc (Jul 2, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Good grief - adding 6x6x6, 7x7x7, 6x6x6 BLD, 7x7x7 BLD, and 4x4x4 fewest moves all at the same time? Now I'm really going to have trouble doing them all every week!
> 
> But at least now I have a clock, so I can do that. THANK YOU, JOEY!!!!!!!



Don't forget 2-6relay and 2-7relay!


----------



## MistArts (Jul 2, 2008)

Now that 4x4 FM is up....I want 2x2 FM!


----------



## mam046 (Jul 2, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Now that 4x4 FM is up....I want 2x2 FM!


+1

I agree to add 2x2 Fewest and Rubik's Snake for weekly competition.

Bye!


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 3, 2008)

2x2 FMC wouldn't be much fun. Everyone will just find an optimal solution every week. When I ask for an explanation everyone will say either "I just saw the whole solution" or "ABC solves 3 corners, DEFG to finish". I don't think the question would be "if" you found an optimal solution but "how fast" you did it.

Snake was already in the poll and will be in the weekly competition from now on because it got 10 votes.

Man, the weekly competition is going to be changed to a 2-weekly competition pretty soon, because it will be impossible to do all events in one week. What if we get V-Cubes up to 11x11x11 and people vote for 11x11x11 FMC and multi-blind?


----------



## MistArts (Jul 3, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> 2x2 FMC wouldn't be much fun. Everyone will just find an optimal solution every week. When I ask for an explanation everyone will say either "I just saw the whole solution" or "ABC solves 3 corners, DEFG to finish". I don't think the question would be "if" you found an optimal solution but "how fast" you did it.
> 
> Snake was already in the poll and will be in the weekly competition from now on because it got 10 votes.
> 
> Man, the weekly competition is going to be changed to a 2-weekly competition pretty soon, because it will be impossible to do all events in one week. What if we get V-Cubes up to 11x11x11 and people vote for 11x11x11 FMC and multi-blind?



How about multiple puzzle multi-BLD. Like a different puzzle would be worth different points. For example you can do 2 clocks, 3 3x3, 1 4x4 and a minx or do like 7 pryaminx, 2 3x3 and 5 4x4.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 3, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Man, the weekly competition is going to be changed to a 2-weekly competition pretty soon, because it will be impossible to do all events in one week. What if we get V-Cubes up to 11x11x11 and people vote for 11x11x11 FMC and multi-blind?



I think it's already there. It looks like I may not be able to get everything done this week, since we have relatives visiting and I've already missed more than a day of working on it, and all I've done is 3x3x3 fewest moves. And now speed BLD? That's going to be the hardest of all for me to add. I think I've reached my breaking point.

And right after I got my clock, too!


----------



## mam046 (Jul 3, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> 2x2 FMC wouldn't be much fun. Everyone will just find an optimal solution every week. When I ask for an explanation everyone will say either "I just saw the whole solution" or "ABC solves 3 corners, DEFG to finish". I don't think the question would be "if" you found an optimal solution but "how fast" you did it.




Yes, but you'll see in the next weeks the number of persons who will have done 4x4 Fewest Moves... It's a category that requires more time, and has a lot of troubles to get a optimal solution, and a complicated notation.

I say to add 2x2 because I like the puzzle and I'm able to spent a bit of time for this. I think that adding this category is not a problem (is only add one more scramble, like 4x4)

Thanks by adding Snake 

Cheers


----------



## Makhieval (Jul 11, 2008)

What about FM 3x3x3 with no time limit?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 11, 2008)

Makhieval said:


> What about FM 3x3x3 with no time limit?



Such a thing would still have a time limit - one week!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 13, 2008)

How about BLD FMC? It's like regular FMC, but you have to memorize the cube and put on a blindfold before you start doing turns. You still have an hour. You'd probably wanna use a computer to type your solution... I guess at the end you can submit any solution you have written down.


----------



## MistArts (Jul 14, 2008)

I don't agree with cupstacking. It's a speedsolving forum.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 16, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Makhieval said:
> 
> 
> > What about FM 3x3x3 with no time limit?
> ...


Per took over the FMC from Dan Harris. They have what you want. You could also submit a 1 hour solution and post what you found after 1 hour.

I really don't want to increase the number of events to much. Bld FMC doesn't sound like something that would get 10 votes


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jul 18, 2008)

MistArts said:


> I don't agree with cupstacking. It's a speedsolving forum.



So you solve a set position to a set position. It's like [a slower] magic. 

Pyraminx Crystal!


----------



## MistArts (Jul 18, 2008)

Blindfolded pyraminx and blindfolded clock (when I can find where to get one..)


----------



## edd5190 (Jul 29, 2008)

MistArts said:


> I don't agree with cupstacking. It's a speedsolving forum.



Magic isn't exactly "solving" either, we just include it because it was invented by Rubik lol; if it weren't invented by someone else, we wouldn't have it... therefore, stacking makes just as much sense as magic in my eyes.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 29, 2008)

edd5190 said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with cupstacking. It's a speedsolving forum.
> ...


Believe me, if it was up to me (or Tyson) the Magic event would be very different or just not in the competition. However, it is an official event in WCA competitions so it is in the weekly competition as well. Cupstacking won't be


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 2, 2008)

How about even and odd relays?

Even: 2x2, 4x4, 6x6
Odd: 3x3, 5x5, 7x7

I guess even is about twice as fast as the odd one.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Sep 25, 2008)

I agree with kenneth. I dont have a 2x2 so i can't do ANY of the relays on the weekly comp 

also i have a new event.

4x4 match the scramble? xD xD


----------



## mrCage (Feb 17, 2009)

Hi 

How about Pyraminx fewest moves? Oh well - i might consider that for my own website - once i know how to check all contributions automatically 

Per


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 17, 2009)

Pyraminx (or 2x2x2) FMC should have a very strict time limit (like 5 minutes or even 60 seconds) otherwise everyone should be able to find an optimal solution.

I think that would be something that would be fun for 2 weeks, but not for every week


----------



## Gparker (Mar 12, 2009)

i have an idea, could you do like a 2 3x3s, or 3 3x3s in a row relay? and you can do that for all cubes like 2 2x2s, 4x4s , etc.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 13, 2009)

Gparker said:


> i have an idea, could you do like a 2 3x3s, or 3 3x3s in a row relay? and you can do that for all cubes like 2 2x2s, 4x4s , etc.



There's no way everyone will want to do relays for all cubes every week. If we're going to do something like this we should leave it at a 3-cube 3x3 relay.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 13, 2009)

yea okay, thats good too


----------



## byu (Mar 27, 2009)

Just a suggestion, I don't know how good of an idea this is, but how about 2-gen (R and U) scrambles?


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jun 22, 2010)

Icon?!?


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 7, 2010)

I don't know if it has been suggested before but Linear FMC?

Limit 5 or 10 minutes?

Format single, Mo3, 3(5)?


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 7, 2010)

I want Skewb first. Skewb is new, whereas Linear fmc isn't (kind of~)
Quite a few people already do Linear in the weeklies.


----------



## RCTACameron (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm surprised that Skewb has got so little votes. It's already popular for being added to the WCA, so trying it out here would be a good idea.


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 7, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> I'm surprised that Skewb has got so little votes. It's already popular for being added to the WCA, so trying it out here would be a good idea.


 
Check the date on this thread 
It's more popular now, and one reason could be the fact it's easier to buy now (more choice, and more stores have it).


----------



## cubefan4848 (Oct 7, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Check the date on this thread
> It's more popular now, and one reason could be the fact it's easier to buy now (more choice, and more stores have it).


 
You seem to like skewb and you are good at it could you tell me what method you use and where you learnt it


----------



## RCTACameron (Oct 7, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Check the date on this thread
> It's more popular now, and one reason could be the fact it's easier to buy now (more choice, and more stores have it).



Yeah, I noticed the date, but I didn't realise Skewb has got more popular since then.


----------



## KboyForeverB (Oct 7, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> Yeah, I noticed the date, but I didn't realise Skewb has got more popular since then.


 
I'd like skewb, if it was at MCD, I think Alastair would come first,(he syas hes like sub 20) Tim or me 2nd I guess (avging around 20-30 i guess) have you improved Tim?


----------



## Attila (Dec 26, 2010)

I think, should be added "no time limit FMC" event, because with current rules many excellent solution not published. Reply pls. who likes FMC.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 26, 2010)

Can't you just do the "Classic" event at http://fmc.mustcube.net/ ?


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 26, 2010)

Attila said:


> I think, should be added "no time limit FMC" event, because with current rules many excellent solution not published. Reply pls. who likes FMC.


I like FMC, because it gives me something to do when my hands are too cold/sweaty/tired to speedsolve. But, I think one scramble a week is enough for FMC because most people really don't have the time or dedication to do more than one, and I don't blame them. Also, Per still has the no time limit competition on his site which you're probably aware of. I'm not entirely against the idea, but I don't think it would add much to the competition. Sometimes people post solutions that they found after the hour is up anyway (but of course don't count them) so you could do that.


----------



## Attila (Dec 26, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Can't you just do the "Classic" event at http://fmc.mustcube.net/ ?


 
Earlier I sent a solution here, but did not accept


----------



## irontwig (Dec 26, 2010)

It's probably because you've a habit of writing ´ instead of '.


----------



## Attila (Dec 26, 2010)

kinch2002 said:


> I like FMC, because it gives me something to do when my hands are too cold/sweaty/tired to speedsolve. But, I think one scramble a week is enough for FMC because most people really don't have the time or dedication to do more than one, and I don't blame them. Also, Per still has the no time limit competition on his site which you're probably aware of. I'm not entirely against the idea, but I don't think it would add much to the competition. Sometimes people post solutions that they found after the hour is up anyway (but of course don't count them) so you could do that.


 
maybe it could be like this week: i send my solution, but i write the time and a note, that this solution out of competition.


----------



## Attila (Dec 26, 2010)

irontwig said:


> It's probably because you've a habit of writing ´ instead of '.


 
This does not mean, but if next time no accept my solution, help me please


----------



## irontwig (Dec 26, 2010)

According to this pic it looks like Shift+1 should do the trick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungarian_keyboard_layout.svg


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 27, 2010)

Attila said:


> maybe it could be like this week: i send my solution, but i write the time and a note, that this solution out of competition.


 
I for one am happy to see such solutions. If Mats is okay with it, I think it's great if you do that! But I know Mats had trouble a few weeks ago with it. If he says it's okay (perhaps he can give you a way to easily mark it so it won't show up in his results), I think it would be great if you do that. Perhaps you can first give your under an hour solution, and then give your best solution, so you can have one that counts as well.

You may have seen that I often do non-BLD events BLD. Obviously not the best way for me to get good results, but it's fun, so I do them anyway. I can't do it in an official competition because it slows everyone down, but here it doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## Attila (Dec 27, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I for one am happy to see such solutions. If Mats is okay with it, I think it's great if you do that! But I know Mats had trouble a few weeks ago with it. If he says it's okay (perhaps he can give you a way to easily mark it so it won't show up in his results), I think it would be great if you do that.


OK, i waiting for Mats reply. I am happy, that we agree


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2010)

I have about decided to add skewb to the weekly competitions starting the beginning of 2011. There seems to be much demand for it, the Kirjava-Meep method has advanced it a good bit, and there is even the possibility it might be added as an official event. Skewb is clearly in a class by itself with regard to history and popularity among non-added events. It is unfortunately true that not many people did skewb during the Christmas Competition 2010 (just 3), but then, it appears that the Christmas Competition was unfortunately not very heavily participated in as a whole.  Lots of people had good intentions, but not many people entered times. It is still a few hours from the end, though, so maybe a bunch of results will roll in at the last minute.

Since Mats and I are now running these competitions, I am also inclined to add 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD as events. I'm still thinking about these (and I don't have long to think about them, since I need to get the new competition out soon). It is true that these events were even more popular (so far, as of the time of this posting) than skewb in the Christmas Competition - 4 people tried them (me, Mats, Chris, Daniel). If there are no objections, I may add them as well. If so, I'm inclined to follow the same rules that Arnaud initially had for them: 3 scrambles provided; you receive participation points even if you do just one.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 31, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Since Mats and I are now running these competitions, I am also inclined to add 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD as events.


 
Of course I am for big big BLD, but it might suffice with one scramble each week.
Arnauds rule of one to get participation points is ok for me too.

If you add Skewb you have to decide how hard it is compared to other events for the 
program to count. I have never even held one in my hand. Can it be compared to Square-1
for instance? (as how hard it is to solve).


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 31, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Since Mats and I are now running these competitions, I am also inclined to add 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD as events.


 
I don't think I'll likely do these every week, but I'm thoroughly convinced about how much doing the bigger cubes helps with the smaller cubes, so I would do at least one solve on each cube fairly often I'd say.


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 31, 2010)

Im sure andrew will love the skewb being added


----------



## Shortey (Dec 31, 2010)

Since Skewb is being added, can we remove MTS?  I hate doing it and I know I'm not the only one. We just do it for points.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 31, 2010)

Shortey said:


> Since Skewb is being added, can we remove MTS?  I hate doing it and I know I'm not the only one. We just do it for points.


But I love it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 31, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> Of course I am for big big BLD, but it might suffice with one scramble each week.
> Arnauds rule of one to get participation points is ok for me too.


I'm okay with just providing one scramble. I doubt I would ever do more than one anyway, except when I decide to do 7x7x7 multi.  So maybe I'll just give one scramble.



MatsBergsten said:


> If you add Skewb you have to decide how hard it is compared to other events for the
> program to count. I have never even held one in my hand. Can it be compared to Square-1
> for instance? (as how hard it is to solve).


I think we should just treat it the same as a 2x2x2. I see no reason to overly encourage competition; we can see how popular it actually is. As far as speed solving, it's going to eventually be somewhere between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 in speed - probably never as fast as 2x2x2, but always faster than 3x3x3.



Shortey said:


> Since Skewb is being added, can we remove MTS?  I hate doing it and I know I'm not the only one. We just do it for points.


In honor of Arnaud being the person to start these competitions and run them for the first several years, since he loved MTS, I will not remove it except by his request.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 31, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm okay with just providing one scramble. I doubt I would ever do more than one anyway, except when I decide to do 7x7x7 multi.  So maybe I'll just give one scramble.


 
:tu I would be fine with this as well, it's probably about as much as I would be able to handle on a weekly basis anyway. If I want to do more than that I'll just use the speedsolve scrambles.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 4, 2011)

Sorry for the bump, but this is what the thread is for.

I would like to suggest Gigaminx and 3x3x5.
I think Gigaminx should be 1 solve a week, like 6BLD/7BLD becuase it takes a long time.
I think 3x3x5 should be Ao5 becuase it doesn't take that long.

Let me know what you think.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Jun 4, 2011)

no gigaminx, It would just be another thing I'd have to buy XD


----------



## JianhanC (Feb 26, 2012)

May I suggest 8x8? I know not many people bother solving or even own one but it would be fun and motivational for those who have one. Mo3 would be suffice.


----------



## Reprobate (Apr 30, 2012)

FWIW, I'd like to see 8x8 as well. It takes me forever, but the practice is fun, and makes my other big cubes seem easier.


----------



## mycube (Apr 30, 2012)

what about 2x3x3 und mastermorphinx?


----------



## Schmidt (Apr 30, 2012)

PLL time attack from A - Z 
(A, A, E, F, G, G, G, G, H, J, J, N, N, R, R, T, U, U, V, Y, Z)


----------



## emolover (Apr 30, 2012)

I also suggest 8x8. It's been a few months.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Jun 6, 2014)

Well since this dead thread has been bumped, I guess It won't hurt to keep posting in it. I agree with Schmidt's over two year ago post to add PLL time attacks, since that will motivate me to actually try some.


----------

