# Time Limit For Multi!!!



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 11, 2008)

Rowe and i talked about that, so i'm just posting this:

There might be a time limit for multiple-blindfolded of 2:30 hours.
I think, that this is not really good, because the WR (24/24 in 2:15 h )will be really hard to break then, because as you know, Tim is one of the fastest at this.
There will never be a problem with the judge, because you can just install a screen, so that the cuber cannot see anything and the judge doesn't have to hold a piece of paper at all and the judge can sitch like every 30 min.
I dont understand the time-limit, because not many cubers really need more than 2:30 hours anyway, you only really need it, if you want to break the WR and there shouldnt be a time limit for that!
So where is the real problem?
Lets say:
You have a time limit for
2:30 hours and 10 min per cube...BUT if you want to beat the WR (that REALLY doesnt happen often ), you get the normal time limit of 10 min per cube, because multiple-blindfolded is a REALLY nice event wich fascinates MANY people at competitions...
And there is NO OTHER EVENT, where you cant break the WR cause of any limit!
So if you miss some events, you have to deal with that yourself, because nobody forces you to do that!

Please tell us what YOU THINK about that, cause we really want to know!

Thanks a lot, Rowe and Dennis


----------



## tim (Jun 11, 2008)

It's great, since i always saw multi bld as the "hour cards" for speedcubing.

Dennis: The only reason i'm faster than you is, that you didn't practice as much as i did.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 11, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.



I dont think i could have said it even better myself. EXACTLY.


----------



## tim (Jun 11, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.



So, i'm forced to miss other events if i want to win multi bld?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 11, 2008)

I think that the time limit makes perfect sense, as WRs aren't supposed to be easy to break. I think that you would both agree that 30 cubes is really not much harder than 24 cubes. It makes the number really meaningless as a representative of someone's ability. I think with a restrictive time, it makes people have to be better the event, instead of just being able to memorize large amounts of items. I have other ideas for the event, but they have already been thought of by people (tyson) a while ago, and would change the event completely, so I'm not going to say them.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> And there is NO OTHER EVENT, where you cant break the WR cause of any limit!



Of course, on the flip side, there is NO OTHER EVENT which takes longer as you get better at it. With multiBLD, the way it is scored now, the better you are at it, the longer you take.

The problem with the event the way it is now is that I really don't see why someone couldn't do what Ryosuke did (only a little faster, so it would meet the 10 minute limit) and take all day on a solve.

I really don't think it would take me more than a few hours of preparation (to invent 20 more Roman Rooms) in order for me to make a serious, honest attempt at 30 cubes. I would probably take very close to 10 minutes per cube to do it, but I think I could get it done in that time now, and I think I would have a very slight but real chance of getting them all right. And despite that, I know I'm not in the same league with Tim.

But it would be challenging to find a way to fix this event without completely invalidating previous results. It just seems like there's no good solution to this problem.

Right now, I'm worried about the US Open because I really would like to compete in fewest moves as well, and I'm wondering if that will limit the number of cubes I will be able to try for multiBLD. I may not get another chance at multiBLD, so I'd like this try to be a pretty good one. (No, I'm not going for 30 cubes, but I would like it to be a rather high number.)


----------



## Simboubou (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't think there should be any limit...
The only problem, I think, is that it is very boring for the judge and hard to organize ( I know that, I am organising the Toulouse summer open ). Maybe if we used some better blindfolds for this event, the paper would no longer be needed, the judge would just have to keep an eye on the compititor. He could even judge several competitor at the time. And the judges may switch their places once in a while...


----------



## tim (Jun 11, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Right now, I'm worried about the US Open because I really would like to compete in fewest moves as well, and I'm wondering if that will limit the number of cubes I will be able to try for multiBLD. I may not get another chance at multiBLD, so I'd like this try to be a pretty good one. (No, I'm not going for 30 cubes, but I would like it to be a rather high number.)



Go for 30 cubes and skip FM!


----------



## Sebastien (Jun 11, 2008)

tim said:


> So, i'm forced to miss other events if i want to win multi bld?



Yeah, i think so. But is that something new? At the German Open you would have missed magic, master magic, clock and 2x2 with a 2:30 multi-BLD. There are so many events right now, that they are already overlapping at almost all competitions, mostly time intensive events like multi-BLD, 4x4 BLD, 5x5 BLD and fewest moves. So you already have to miss events if you just want to participate (not even to win) at others.

Of course i don't think you should have as many time as you want to set a WR (I'm sure I could do 100 cubes blindfolded with a year for memo ) but there already is a very reasonable time limit with 10 minutes per cube that needs no improvement. 
In general i consider it as quite senseless to set an overall time limit for an unlimited number of cubes. And finally I can't see the sense in it for the organisators, because if someone decides to miss other events to do a really big number of cubes, it is just his problem i think.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 11, 2008)

@Simboubou:
EXACTLY man and a screen in fron of the competitior would solve that problem!

@Sebastien:
Yes man, i think exactly the same way!

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## tim (Jun 11, 2008)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > So, i'm forced to miss other events if i want to win multi bld?
> ...



Cuber X tries 30 cubes.
Cuber tim has to try 31 cubes to win and will miss several events => dilemma.

And yes: It's something new. With a time limit for each(!) event, it's obvious before(!) you register for a competition which events you can take part in.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2008)

tim said:


> Cuber X tries 30 cubes.
> Cuber tim has to try 31 cubes to win and will miss several events => dilemma.
> 
> And yes: It's something new. With a time limit for each(!) event, it's obvious before(!) you register for a competition which events you can take part in.



But cuber tim does not know that cuber X is going to try 30 cubes. So cuber tim has to guess how many cubes cuber X is going to try, and may have to miss even more events just to be sure he's going to win (what if someone tries to talk cuber X into trying 50?) (can you think of anyone who might do that?).

And Tim, Dennis mentioned that you're the reason he tried 20 cubes at the German Open. Trying to affect the US Open the same way? And I'm not sure I can see buying 20 more cubes between now and then (and I have a crazy color scheme so I probably can't handle borrowed cubes well enough).


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 11, 2008)

Well, if you want to win multi when someone tries to do WR, of course, you will miss other events then, but thats NOT very often...and thats the way it always has been. 
By the way, there is no WR-Atempt in every competition!
And if you try to beat WR, who cares, if you cant do 4x4 bf, 5x5 bf or FM (you cant memorize really much after that anyway or think about Fewest Moves very good) and even if there are important events...you have to prioritize.

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Dene (Jun 11, 2008)

I think, if you want to excel at every event you're being piggy. Especially you guys who can get to many competitions every year. We all know you're fast, so pick a few that you want to excel at and everyone's happy. There shouldn't be a time limit.


----------



## pcharles93 (Jun 11, 2008)

I have a solution that might work for people that have to miss events because of one time-consuming one. If that cuber really wants to attempt a multiBLD WR that would take all of the competition's duration, he can show up early and do his averages for all of the other events he's registered in. Immediately after finishing those averages, he starts his multiBLD so he can't tell the other competitors about the scrambles he was given.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 11, 2008)

tim said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.
> ...



um.. only if your sole purpose is to try a huge amount that well take awhile and again if someone is going to do that its your OWN DECISION. we can NOT have a 2:30 time limit but YOU can make the choice not to sacrifice your other events or not, but the people who REALLY practice for MultiBLD and are going for a HUGE amount let them make that decision thereselves.


----------



## tim (Jun 11, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > ExoCorsair said:
> ...



It's not my decision, you haven't read my other post.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 12, 2008)

tim said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...



dilemna? how is it a dliemna? you want WR dont you? sacrifice what u need to get it. the person before you if they broke WR had to, so why should'nt you have to also?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 12, 2008)

i think they should give you 10 minutes for each cube you are attempting. so someone attemptin 8 cubes would have 80 minutes, or 1 hour 20 minutes to complete their solves. based on the records of tim haabermass(24 attempts in 136 minutes, 5:40/cube), rowe hessler(30 attempts in 264 minutes, 8:48/cube), dennis strehlau(10 attempts in 97 minutes, 9:43 per cube), and ryosuke mondo(18 attempts in 130 minutes, 7:13 per cube) 10 minutes per cube seems to be a fairly reasonable limit for the higher multiblinds. besides, every other event gets 10 minutes to solve each puzzle(except fm), why shouldnt multiblind get 10 minutes per puzzle?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 12, 2008)

It's not a dilemma at all. You don't HAVE to win multibld. When someone does a large number of cubes you have to decide if it is worth more for you to miss a few events or to try to beat them. I'm sorry but unless you can convince the competition organizers to devote an entire day to just multibld that is going to be how it works. Besides, Tim, you are seriously mistaken if you think people would hold it against you if you chose not to attempt the 31 cubes. Having done 24 once is already impressive, and if you quit now you would still be considered one of the best multiblders in the world for many years to come.

I have sympathy for you guys but you seriously have to realize that VERY few people are any good at multibld, and that it takes a VERY long time. If Tim or Dennis or Rowe or Ryosuke want to have a decent attempt you have to set aside well over an hour just for that one event, and that's for one person! You might care a lot about multibld but other people might not be willing to delay the competition for well over an hour (which is the only way you would make sure to not miss events), especially if you are not going for a WR. I agree that you should be able to do as many cubes as you feel capable of, but you have to plan around the fact that if you take a very large amount of time on your multibld attempt you must by necessity miss other events. It's simply not feasable to delay a competition that much, and multibld is a ridiculously time-intensive event.

Of course there are alternatives. You could have a speed multiple blindfold event, like in memory competitions, where you have to multi as many cubes as you can in an hour, and the only thing counting is the number of solved cubes at the end (unsolved cubes are just worth 0 - you're supposed to try as many as you possibly can). Or, if your competition's organizer really loves multibld, perhaps you could convince them to have a separate day with just multibld so that you do not miss anything. Or maybe multibld could be a non-competition event, where any attempt is valid as long as you can get an official WCA delegate to observe and approve it (like with Guinness World Record attempts).


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 12, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Or maybe multibld could be a non-competition event, where any attempt is valid as long as you can get an official WCA delegate to observe and approve it (like with Guinness World Record attempts).



I don't do Multi yet. But I think if your attempt is rediculously long, that's a good idea.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2008)

Ok, I've missed a lot in this thread, even from this afternoon, but here are my thoughts to the responses:

A WR is supposed to mean something. As Dennis and Mike said, they both think Tim is amazing, and he's very fast. That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 12, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...



Exactly! I have absolutely no hope of ever getting a 3x3x3 BLD or 4x4x4 BLD world record, and almost no hope of a 5x5x5 BLD world record, but honestly, I could get lucky tomorrow if there were a competition then for multiBLD, and potentially set the world record. And there's no way I'm good enough to deserve that. If I did it, it would still be true that Tim is way better than me. Like I say, I'm not sure what format would fix it, but I can say that I don't think the current situation is very ideal. Fortunately, right now the ideal person holds the world record, though.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2008)

Ok, I guess I'll post my format idea for multiple BLD, but the thing is, it will change the event completely, forcing the old records to be archived.

Instead of having an undetermined number of cubes, we have preset quantities, i.e. 3, 5, and 10 cubes. You are only allowed to solve this many cubes, and you have to do it faster than others doing that same amount. I know that some of you object to this as being completely different from what is already the event, and I agree. This makes it more representative of 3x3, 4x4, 5x5 BLD, as they are respectable tiers in BLD solving. The event is called 3x3 multiple blindfold, and that's exactly what it is, solving multiple 3x3s while blindfolded. This "new" format allows for more comparable times, and still allows "novices" to compete. 

I mentioned this idea to Tyson, and he said he actually thought of it when multi was first being made official. This way, the event is still "speed"cubing based, and still accomplishes the goal of the event name.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 12, 2008)

Dan, I think given a choice between that and Tim's "hour cards-equivalent" approach, I'd prefer Tim's approach. So how many cubes can you solve in x time, instead of a set number of cubes. The more I think about it, the more I like the "hour cards" idea. I didn't realize until today that in memory sports, for the hour cards event, everyone gets an hour to memorize and then 75 minutes to recite them. So maybe something similar could be done here - an hour to memorize and then another hour to execute. Of course, in practice, this would almost always add up to about an hour and twenty minutes total time, since no one would need a full hour to execute. But you'd have the extra forty minutes to execute in case you're trying to recall that last memory location you're struggling with.

I think this would be a great event, and would appeal to me more than just solving a set number like 5 or 10 cubes.

It would be complex strategy, but another option would just be how many you can solve in an hour, and you have to decide when to stop memorizing and start executing. That would also be an interesting approach. Again, I think I like that better than the set number of cubes idea.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 12, 2008)

Of course i still think that people who dedicate lots of time to this should not have just a predetermined time limit for all their hard work, i still havent seen an answer yet in why we have to do THAT? also Rowe who doesnt have an account on here has someting to say that he wanted me to get out so ill post it here for him. and no im not LIEING he really told me to say this and it is copied and pasted WORD by WORD.

Rowe 
vvvvvvvvvvvv 

"ok guys...lets stop talking about changing mutlibld, and talk a bout how we can FIX it. MULTIPLE BLINDFOLD is DOING AS MANY CUBES AS YOU CAN BLINDFOLDED. u might as well just not call it this anymore if we keep changing the rules. me and dennis and mondo are not as fast as tim, but it was never a speed event, dennis mondo and I dedicate a good deal of our cubing time to mutlibld, and changing it every few months just ****es us off. Why? cuz were PRACTICING THE NUUUUUMMMBERRRR of cubes. what do u think is more impressive. doing 100 cubes....or 10 cubes in 10 minutes. which is more fun? solving 100 cubes or doing 10 in 10 minutes? whats more fun? humping a tree or a cactus? u see my point? , changing the rules to steer the event in a complete opposite direction is completely dumb cuz all it does is dissapoint some cubers who dedicate so much time and effort to solving as many cubes as they possibly can, and this limit will only make people ****ed and NOT happy."


----------



## Simboubou (Jun 12, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> i think they should give you 10 minutes for each cube you are attempting. so someone attemptin 8 cubes would have 80 minutes, or 1 hour 20 minutes to complete their solves. based on the records of tim haabermass(24 attempts in 136 minutes, 5:40/cube), rowe hessler(30 attempts in 264 minutes, 8:48/cube), dennis strehlau(10 attempts in 97 minutes, 9:43 per cube), and ryosuke mondo(18 attempts in 130 minutes, 7:13 per cube) 10 minutes per cube seems to be a fairly reasonable limit for the higher multiblinds. besides, every other event gets 10 minutes to solve each puzzle(except fm), why shouldnt multiblind get 10 minutes per puzzle?



You are right. And by the way, this is the way it work right now


----------



## Dene (Jun 12, 2008)

This has raised an interesting point of possibly splitting multi-BLD into two, or maybe even three events. Taking the ideas of 1: as many as possible (current); 2: as many as possible within a time limit (Tim's idea); 3: a certain amount of cubes as fast as possible (Mr. Cohen's idea).


----------



## qqwref (Jun 12, 2008)

I've had idea #3 well before this topic  I think I said something about it in #rubik a while ago - I have been keeping a list of the fastest 3 times I have heard of for every number of cubes in multibld. I never thought anyone would want to do it as an official event because the number of cubes is arbitrary and it makes way too many events if you include a reasonable number of possibilities (just like computer NxNxN cubes), but it makes a really good unofficial record category. I was planning that this "speed multibld" would be one of the starting things in my alternative unofficial world records page, but I never got around to making it... I could still set up the page if anyone's interested. But again it wouldn't make a good official event to do X 3x3 cubes BLD any more than it would be a good official event to solve X 3x3s in a row.

Besides, I know that there are many ways to interpret the idea of multibld, but we really do not need so many official BLD events. The fact is that the main component of BLD is the memory sport aspect of it. No matter how many totally different BLD events you make, I feel that they will be dominated by the same group of people who have trained their memory. If someone who is very good at 4x4 learns 5x5, they have to learn different techniques, and the skill doesn't really translate. (There is lots of evidence for this; many people have been very fast at one of these cubes but mediocre or even slow at the other.) But take someone who is very fast at 4x4 BLD and teach them 5x5 BLD - they'll be world class in a week, because all they have to do is memorize a bit more and learn to cycle +centers. Once you can turn a puzzle into cycles, memorize a large amount of data, and create commutators quickly, you can basically do any blindfold event well to the point where it doesn't even really matter what puzzle you're doing, as long as you have a mathematical understanding of it. I've spent enough time on gelatinbrain to know that if you have the sufficient number of 3-cycles and parity fixes any puzzle becomes easy and virtually equivalent to any other puzzle as far as solving is concerned. The point is that the four BLD events we have do pretty well at ranking people's BLD skill, enough that we don't really need three different types of multibld, especially when you know that the same people will win them all _without practicing them separately_. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the same person who can do 20 cubes faster than anyone else will also be able to do the most number of cubes in an hour. So I'd say to pick one type of multi - and like Dennis and Rowe have said the best kind is the kind whose goal is to do as many cubes as you can. That's how multi has been since the 1980s and that's what distinguishes it from other BLD events.


----------



## Erik (Jun 12, 2008)

I don't really see the purpose of this limit, the only thing that may cause trouble without a limit is that the competitor will miss other events, but that's his own choice! If he wants to break the WR for multi I'm sure he'd be willing to comply with this. Of course maybe there should be A time limit, but imho it should just be the beginning and ending time of the total competition. 
Who proposed this limit anyway? :confused:


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 12, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Dan, I think given a choice between that and Tim's "hour cards-equivalent" approach, I'd prefer Tim's approach. So how many cubes can you solve in x time, instead of a set number of cubes. The more I think about it, the more I like the "hour cards" idea. I didn't realize until today that in memory sports, for the hour cards event, everyone gets an hour to memorize and then 75 minutes to recite them. So maybe something similar could be done here - an hour to memorize and then another hour to execute. Of course, in practice, this would almost always add up to about an hour and twenty minutes total time, since no one would need a full hour to execute. But you'd have the extra forty minutes to execute in case you're trying to recall that last memory location you're struggling with.
> 
> I think this would be a great event, and would appeal to me more than just solving a set number like 5 or 10 cubes.
> 
> It would be complex strategy, but another option would just be how many you can solve in an hour, and you have to decide when to stop memorizing and start executing. That would also be an interesting approach. Again, I think I like that better than the set number of cubes idea.




But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:

59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!

Greetins...Dennis


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 12, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I've had idea #3 well before this topic  I think I said something about it in #rubik a while ago - I have been keeping a list of the fastest 3 times I have heard of for every number of cubes in multibld. I never thought anyone would want to do it as an official event because the number of cubes is arbitrary and it makes way too many events if you include a reasonable number of possibilities (just like computer NxNxN cubes), but it makes a really good unofficial record category. I was planning that this "speed multibld" would be one of the starting things in my alternative unofficial world records page, but I never got around to making it... I could still set up the page if anyone's interested. But again it wouldn't make a good official event to do X 3x3 cubes BLD any more than it would be a good official event to solve X 3x3s in a row.
> 
> Besides, I know that there are many ways to interpret the idea of multibld, but we really do not need so many official BLD events. The fact is that the main component of BLD is the memory sport aspect of it. No matter how many totally different BLD events you make, I feel that they will be dominated by the same group of people who have trained their memory. If someone who is very good at 4x4 learns 5x5, they have to learn different techniques, and the skill doesn't really translate. (There is lots of evidence for this; many people have been very fast at one of these cubes but mediocre or even slow at the other.) But take someone who is very fast at 4x4 BLD and teach them 5x5 BLD - they'll be world class in a week, because all they have to do is memorize a bit more and learn to cycle +centers. Once you can turn a puzzle into cycles, memorize a large amount of data, and create commutators quickly, you can basically do any blindfold event well to the point where it doesn't even really matter what puzzle you're doing, as long as you have a mathematical understanding of it. I've spent enough time on gelatinbrain to know that if you have the sufficient number of 3-cycles and parity fixes any puzzle becomes easy and virtually equivalent to any other puzzle as far as solving is concerned. The point is that the four BLD events we have do pretty well at ranking people's BLD skill, enough that we don't really need three different types of multibld, especially when you know that the same people will win them all _without practicing them separately_. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the same person who can do 20 cubes faster than anyone else will also be able to do the most number of cubes in an hour. So I'd say to pick one type of multi - and like Dennis and Rowe have said the best kind is the kind whose goal is to do as many cubes as you can. That's how multi has been since the 1980s and that's what distinguishes it from other BLD events.



Thanks for this post man, you got the point, really!

Greetins..Dennis


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 12, 2008)

Erik said:


> I don't really see the purpose of this limit, the only thing that may cause trouble without a limit is that the competitor will miss other events, but that's his own choice! If he wants to break the WR for multi I'm sure he'd be willing to comply with this. Of course maybe there should be A time limit, but imho it should just be the beginning and ending time of the total competition.
> Who proposed this limit anyway? :confused:



Thanks Erik...I think exactly the same way you did!
If you miss other events, because you want to reak the WR, who cares, you have to come up with that...
And the limit can be the time limit of the competition, cause the screen in front of the person is "the judge" and the real judge (wich can change every 30 min or so) can judge many multi-bld-cubers at the same time...

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 12, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:
> 
> 59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
> AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!
> ...



Huh. I didn't realize that. Pretty neat.

I guess I'm changing my mind. I'm starting to agree more with Rowe's attitude. I don't think we can ever really "fix" multiBLD to make it more practical for organizers and make everyone happy, so why not just leave it alone. It is what it is. Tim has an advantage right now over the rest of us in that he can do a very large multiBLD and still have time to do other events in a competition, while the rest of us need to skip most of the other day's events to do one. And since he can do them faster, he can practice more in a given amount of time, so he'll only get better. Someday someone like Rowe will get 40 cubes in 5 hours or so, and then Tim will get motivated to try again and do it in less than 4. And of course everyone will get faster the more they practice.

And I don't think that the other BLD events (3x3x3 to 5x5x5) are ultimately dominated by being memory sport as much as qqwref thinks they are (and masterofthebass has sometimes implied). The fact is that 3x3x3 BLD doesn't require that fancy of a memory method to do well, and there are now bunches of people that can memorize quite fast. The best 3x3x3 BLD solvers are now those who can execute fast. Perhaps when the record was around 2 minutes, it was all about memorization, but now it's primarily a cubing event, not a memory event. And I think that 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 will eventually get that way as well, as people get better at them. So then that leaves multiBLD as our one event that is truly primarily a memory sport. And I think it makes sense to keep one such event around, since it is fascinating to outside observers.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2008)

Ok, well first off, Mike's idea I find works well, for a bunch of reasons.

In response to Rowe and Dennis, multi BLD doesn't necessarily mean solving as many cubes as you can blindfolded, it means solving multiple cubes. For the same reason that someone can attempt 2 cubes and it is still called multi BLD. I think the reason for a time limit of some sort, is because without it there's absolutely no way a WR can be compared to another person. For example, lets say rowe got his 30/30 at Armonk. I personally think that the only reason why he got it was because he took much more time memorizing than tim, who got 24. In every other BLD event, the face that you memorized slowly makes you absolutely bad at the event. I don't think that Rowe's 30/30 and Tim's 24/24 would be comparable at all, therefore making the ranking pointless. Then, if Ryosuke comess along and gets a 50/50 in 8 hours, there's no way I would compare that to the previous WR. I'm sure that all of the top guys, with enough time, can all do 100 cubes. This doesn't really prove to be competitive, as the WR can just be based off of who has a competition where they decide to spend much more time than others. Unlike other events, multi BLD is the only event where there is no consistency between competitors and how they go about doing their attempt. In speed events, it makes absolutely no difference where the event is being held, because they are completely analogous to each other in every way. For mutli, no 2 attempts are ever alike, because one could take 5 hours and the other can take 20 minutes. In order for a WR of a certain amount of cubes to be legitimately compared to another result, there has to be some consistency for the event. Otherwise there is no point in giving people WRs for different amounts of cubes, there should be records for each individual amount, as they are comparable to themselves only.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 12, 2008)

tim said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there should be a time limit. If someone wants to try 100 cubes over the course of an entire competition day, he should be allowed to do it.
> ...



Yes, people already miss other events for big cube BLD, why shouldn't multi-BLDers? It's a choice you make; the organizers don't have to accommodate a small number of people when there are many others that want to speedsolve.

Either that or get faster at multi-BLD so that you don't miss any events. 

Like qqwref said, it's not a dilemma at all.



masterofthebass said:


> A WR is supposed to mean something. As Dennis and Mike said, they both think Tim is amazing, and he's very fast. That's the reason why he should have the world record. It would be similar if someone who was at 15s for 3x3 was able to get the WR from someone who is at 11s just because he did more solves. The reason Tim has the WR is because he's that good. I highly doubt that Tim's record is unbeatable, and even if it is, then its good for him. Look at how long the FMC record has lasted. A WR means that you are the best in the world, not that you decided to take way more time than someone else...



How do you determine if someone "should have the WR"? There are several people that are really good at each event, so what makes one person special enough that they "should have the WR"? All I can say to that is bull----.

And your analogy is completely flawed. Speedsolving events and multi-BLD are completely different. Multi-BLD cares about accuracy first, not time. It's far more impressive for someone to solve 100/100 cubes in eight hours than it is for someone to solve 25/25 in two hours. I always thought that that was the point of the event.



> 9f16) For the Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is lower than 0, the solve is disqualified.
> If competitors have the same result, then the order is based on total time (lower is better).



Which makes me wonder why the time limit was proposed in the first place. It appears to me like it defends Tim's WR until Ryosuke or Rowe get to a competition. :rollseyes:

Besides, with the scoring system, someone could attempt 24/25 and just pick the 24 easiest cubes and solve them in under 2:15 to take the WR.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 12, 2008)

What do you think about blindfolded events (especially multi-blind) becoming part of memory-sports instead of speedcubing?
All events (except mbf and fmc) are focussed on speed, even the regular blindfolded events. MBF has become so popular and reached such a high level lately (1 year ago I was 7th of the world with 2/2 in >25 minutes ) that I can understand that the regulations have problems keeping up. No other WR has ever made a leap like 10/10 to 24/24 and it doesn't seem that the limit has been reached, especially because perfection is no longer required. Just imagine you are organising a tournament, all the top mbf-ers are there and they all want to do 100 cubes (1000 minutes, so 16h 40m). If I was organising that tournament I wouldn't want to say no, but at the same time it would be incredibly hard to make it possible.



> Besides, with the scoring system, someone could attempt 24/25 and just pick the 24 easiest cubes and solve them in under 2:15 to take the WR.


That's wrong. 24/25 would be a maximum score of 23 so even if you do it in 1 second, you still don't have the WR. That is exactly why the current scoring system works. Otherwise someone could try 25/250 cubes and do only the "easy ones". Under the current rules that would be a maximum score of -200 which pretty much means "if you do this you are stupid".


P.S. I wouldn't mind 1000 minutes for a FMC-attempt while I am watching those crazy mbf-ers solve hundreds of cubes


----------



## tim (Jun 12, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > ExoCorsair said:
> ...



Nice, no one gets what i'm trying to say. It's not my decision.



ExoCorsair said:


> It's far more impressive for someone to solve 100/100 cubes in eight hours than it is for someone to solve 25/25 in two hours. I always thought that that was the point of the event.



Yes, because it's the same time per cube...



DennisStrehlau said:


> But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:
> 
> 59 decks (3068 cards) by David Farrow (Kanada) 2007!!!
> AND then there is memorizing in one hours, TOO!
> ...



Sources? It's not a discipline in official memory sports competitions


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> What do you think about blindfolded events (especially multi-blind) becoming part of memory-sports instead of speedcubing?
> All events (except mbf and fmc) are focussed on speed, even the regular blindfolded events. MBF has become so popular and reached such a high level lately (1 year ago I was 7th of the world with 2/2 in >25 minutes ) that I can understand that the regulations have problems keeping up. No other WR has ever made a leap like 10/10 to 24/24 and it doesn't seem that the limit has been reached, especially because perfection is no longer required. Just imagine you are organising a tournament, all the top mbf-ers are there and they all want to do 100 cubes (1000 minutes, so 16h 40m). If I was organising that tournament I wouldn't want to say no, but at the same time it would be incredibly hard to make it possible.


 
The time limit would be the time of the competition, no competition is like 16 hours...and then, the organizer just says: well, you ave time, untill the competition ends and if you want to sit there for the whole competition time...THEN DO IT!

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 12, 2008)

tim said:


> DennisStrehlau said:
> 
> 
> > But in "card-memory-sport", there is also a diszipline, where you have more than one hour, to memorize AS MUCH CARD DECKS AS YOU WANT TO:
> ...



He probably got it from here:
http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/memory.html#cards-most

It's true that the World Memory Sports competitions don't do this, though. Probably because it's impractical for competitions.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 12, 2008)

tim said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...




"Regeln:
Während der gesamten Zeit müssen zwei Schiedsrichter (Personen, die ein gesellschaftliches Amt bekleiden) den Versuch überwachen. Wird eine falsch benannte Karte sofort ohne Hinweis von außen korrigiert, gilt dies nicht als Fehler. Die Zahl der erlaubten Fehler darf ein halbes Prozent der gemischten Karten, aufgerundet zur nächsten ganzen Zahl, nicht übersteigen.
Die Zeit, die zum Einprägen und zur Wiedergabe der Karten benötigt wird, sollte bei der Rekordanmeldung mit angegeben werden, auch wenn sie für den eigentlichen Rekord unerheblich ist."

Its german, but it means like:
there have to be 2 judges, so and so many mistakes are allowed, you should be able, to tell the time, that you NEED to memorize and tell the card, EVEN IF ITS NOT IMPORTANT HOW LING IT TAKES...

Its official!

By the way, even if this WOULD NOT BE on a competition, you cant do that for multi. i mean: if you want to do 100 cubes and you have to ask for a judge (not in a competition) etc. its much more work, than if you would just go to a competiton and sit there (if you miss other events or not) and the judge judges you and some other multi-bld-cubers.
And again: there is no WR-Attempt in every competition guys!


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 12, 2008)

tim said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...



Okay then explain to us? its simple.. you want WR? SACRIFICE the other events to get it. if your not willing to do that. then your not dedicated enough in my mind. also btw there is all this talk about one person solves X number of cubes in a fast time, and then other person solves maybe 1 or just a FEW more cubes and just spends more time memoing so is slower to beat that person. well really think about it. if they took longer and memo'd more... doesnt that mean they worked HARDER then the last person and took more time in their attempt to get the WR? so really they worked longer, harder, and sacrificed much MORE to get there WR so shouldnt they DESERVE it?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 12, 2008)

Would you like Erik to chose between 4x4x4 and 5x5x5? Or Edouard between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3?

Why would someone that is good at MBF have to choose?

What if you were really fast and could win/WR both regular 3x3x3 and 3x3x3_mbf? Just be glad people like Tim/Dennis/Rowe/XX are sooooo slow for other events 

And I take much longer on 3x3x3 compared to Erik. Does that mean I work harder so I deserver the WR more? For speedcubing AND mbf being fast is good.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Would you like Erik to chose between 4x4x4 and 5x5x5? Or Edouard between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3?
> 
> Why would someone that is good at MBF have to choose?



But big cube events take little time for potential WR competitors; 10 minutes at the most. 2x2 and 3x3 even less time. Plus, they are NOT SIDE EVENTS.

Multi-BLD will take a long amount of time no matter if Rowe or Tim or Ryosuke or whoever is doing it (and going for the WR). It's worse than fewest moves, since fewest moves will always take one hour to complete.

People doing multi-BLD will HAVE to choose unless there was a time slot allocated specifically for multi-BLD, i.e. it becomes a main event. And again, doing so would accommodate a small number of people while many others are waiting to speedsolve.

I can see this time limit doing only two things:
1. Makes it easier for Tim's WR to stand (come on, 2:30 vs. the current 24/24 in 2:15?)
2. Possibly makes it easier for organizers to schedule the event.

But keeping multi-BLD as a side event like it has been treated defeats the purpose of #2.


----------



## Pedro (Jun 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Would you like Erik to chose between 4x4x4 and 5x5x5? Or Edouard between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3?
> 
> Why would someone that is good at MBF have to choose?
> 
> ...



I think your examples don't apply to this case...4x4 and 5x5 are really quick, compared to multi bld...

Rowe is not that slow  he's posted a 10.xx avg of 5 video...and he's good at 2x2 too


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Would you like Erik to chose between 4x4x4 and 5x5x5? Or Edouard between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3?


No, those are short. I would like Michael to pick between 20x20x20 an 21x21x21, though...

I already have to give up FMC for my 4x4x4 BLD attempts (not that I do much FMC, but if I didn't have to give it up, I would certainly focus on beating the NR)...

Z2, I think, may discriminate among events.

I think that the WCA-imposed limit is rather non-sensical (same with the 10/cube). Ron's main argument is that it allows the organizers to handle competitions better, and that it makes the event more fair for everyone around the world.

Why not allow the organizers to decide? If they can handle it logistically, then why stop them? Ron claims that the huge number of registered multi competitors at Euros will cause trouble. But then why not declare limits only for that competition?
As for bias among competitions, note that competition distributions are already unfair by proximity, continent (comps on the same continent tend to handle things similarly - you can't do foot-solving in the US...), etc. Chris Brownlee has had a great chance at breaking the megaminx WR for the last few years, but has not had a competition opportunity anywhere for it.
Multi, if someone cares for it enough, could easily be a single dedication for a competition. With the point system, it's not even the same risk it once was.
And if you have to miss other events, especially BLD events, why not just put give the competitor the choice to take her/his attempts immediately before multi?


If Tim wants his 1-hour limit, propose a new event: Have the competitor memorize cubes, requesting/drawing them from the judge in order. After at most one hour, the competitor must don the blindfold and solve as many as (s)hehas memorized, in a "reasonable" time.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> But big cube events take little time for potential WR competitors; 10 minutes at the most. 2x2 and 3x3 even less time. Plus, they are NOT SIDE EVENTS.



There's no official declaration of SIDE EVENTS. Technically, there can be a competition with only multi BLD, even though I don't think it would get approved.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Would you like Erik to chose between 4x4x4 and 5x5x5? Or Edouard between 2x2x2 and 3x3x3?
> 
> Why would someone that is good at MBF have to choose?
> 
> ...



Pretty much what the others said, those are all different cases besides has anything like this ever come up? no MBF is a different case and the people that are good at it really dedicate their time and make the sacrifice to get the WR's and Huge amount of cubes they earn. besides even if someone memo's forever everyone seems to think it takes less skill and they get WR by just getting more time, but they are NEVER GUARANTEED to get ALL those cubes successful i dont care HOW LONG they memoed MANY THINGS CAN STILL GO WRONG. memo error, stressed out from so much memo, forgetting memo while solving, pop/cube malfunction, and etc. and i dont understand why its so hard of a decision when all we do is person X wants to try as many cubes as they want, they have as much time as they want, and they dont distract, disturb, or take away anything from any of the other competitiors except they miss out on THEIR OWN events, and like i said is still not GUARANTEED of getting all the cubes. so what is the problem? and even if they do they did ALL THIS, and sacrificed all their events to do this, when all the people who are FOR the time limit seems that they would NOT sacrifice their events to do this. so if one pers0on is willing to spend ALL THIS time, still not be guaranteed all of the cubes, and miss their events should they not DESERVE the WR and a full competition time to try and do so? we arent asking for people to all be on the competitiors side hand and foot for DAYS on end, like really come on....


----------



## joey (Jun 12, 2008)

You don't need to get all cubes any more, rememeber.

If they are willing to spend the whole comp doing it, it doesn't increase the amount they deserve the WR.

Also, you still need a judge(s) to watch for all that time. I guess if the competitor could provide one?


----------



## Dene (Jun 12, 2008)

I must admit, all these people complaining about how they don't want to waste a whole competition doing just multi-BLD. Can't we be grateful for even being able to get to a competition in the first place?


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 12, 2008)

joey said:


> You don't need to get all cubes any more, rememeber.
> 
> If they are willing to spend the whole comp doing it, it doesn't increase the amount they deserve the WR.
> 
> Also, you still need a judge(s) to watch for all that time. I guess if the competitor could provide one?



I never liked that rule anyway, i wish it was still the way it used to be where u had to get 100% of course that was unfair a little but i liked it more then the way now. the purpose of MultiBLD is too see how many cubes u can get and get 100% but oh well. but yeah all You need is a judge which they have judges anyway so its easy, just switches judges every little bit, besides im sure some people wouldnt mind, if i was at a comp i would not mind to judge for even 1 or 2 hours at a time if i could, and im sure others just as dedicated wouldnt mind either.


----------



## joey (Jun 13, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> if i was at a comp i would not mind to judge for even 1 or 2 hours at a time if i could, and im sure others just as dedicated wouldnt mind either.


The "others just as dedicated", is the part I'm talking about.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 13, 2008)

After some more thought, I'm leaning towards moving multibld out of competitions, at least for people who are going for the WR and not just doing two or three cubes. It just has so many characteristics that are not suited to competitions - it can take hours, few people do it, and you don't really compete in it (how often do 2+ people who will even attempt a high enough number of cubes for a regional record even go to the same competition?). Logistically speaking there is no reason to be barred from some events, have 12 people there, schedule a month ahead of time, etc. just to attempt a multibld solve - except that at the moment we force multibld attempts to be during a competition. So maybe the best solution would be to allow people to try official multibld attempts whenever they can get an official WCA multibld judge to scramble for them and watch over it (with a limit of, say, once a week, to prevent people living near a judge from abusing it), whether it is at a competition or not. It's analogous with the 59 decks thing: clearly there is not enough time to do such a huge amount of memorization during a competition, so they probably have to set it up at some other time.

I think there is a parallel to this in WCA history - the "most cubes solved in 24 hours" thing. I saw a WCA news report a while back about how an official world record in this (unofficial?) event had been set, but of course it was not during a competition, just witnessed by a trusted observer. It might be prudent in the future for the WCA to make special provisions for events like this which take very long amounts of time.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 13, 2008)

Most of the people who are against this time limit are looking at multi BLD with a very narrow mind. You guys have preconceived notions of what you take "3x3 multiple blindfold" to mean. This is a new sport, and multi BLD is an even newer event. We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 13, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > But big cube events take little time for potential WR competitors; 10 minutes at the most. 2x2 and 3x3 even less time. Plus, they are NOT SIDE EVENTS.
> ...



Does it matter? Side events are generally accepted (at least from what I've seen) as events off to the side. Such as Pyraminx, Megaminx, and Magics at the US Open 2007. You will never see a multi-BLD event take place on the stage of most, if not all, competitions. Logistically, it's too noisy, inconvenient, not the best eye-catcher for the public, and it takes too bloody long.



masterofthebass said:


> Most of the people who are against this time limit are looking at multi BLD with a very narrow mind. You guys have preconceived notions of what you take "3x3 multiple blindfold" to mean. This is a new sport, and multi BLD is an even newer event. We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)



That is a naive view. What mistake is there with the "old multi-BLD"?

I think anyone who's seen Ryosuke's ridiculous attempts on YouTube can attest to this. Accuracy comes first, not speed.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Most of the people who are against this time limit are looking at multi BLD with a very narrow mind. You guys have preconceived notions of what you take "3x3 multiple blindfold" to mean. This is a new sport, and multi BLD is an even newer event. We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)



VERY NARROW MIND? we have mentioned tons of ideas, opinions, contributions, etc and that is Narrow? what else do you want us to do? and again where is the problem in not having such a small limit for MultiBLD? Actually putting a limit On MultiBLID is taking out bigger possibilites and making the event even more narrow itself so why do that? why not go farther and let the limits be reached and especially because it is such an amazing event?


----------



## Dene (Jun 13, 2008)

Mr Eide, you have taken what Mr. Cohen said completely out of context and twisted it to your own view (fallacy of equivocation).

Don't abuse ambiguities if you want people to take your argument seriously.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

i'm proving a point Dene, sorry if that seems TWISTED to you, but to me thats just my opinion man.


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2008)

Dan is right. We can learn a lot from the memory sports competitions/events, which seem to be well organized.

And Derrick: I don't care, if you see things in my posts i never said. Read more carefully! I never talked about world records.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 13, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> You will never see a multi-BLD event take place on the stage of most, if not all, competitions. Logistically, it's too noisy, inconvenient, not the best eye-catcher for the public, and it takes too bloody long.



Beijing Spring Open 2008... Really, the main announcer just told everyone to shut up for about 20min... Then again out of all the Chinese, none are above two cubes yet...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > You will never see a multi-BLD event take place on the stage of most, if not all, competitions. Logistically, it's too noisy, inconvenient, not the best eye-catcher for the public, and it takes too bloody long.
> ...



Rowe did multi-BLD on the back end of the stage at the 2007 US Open. It was kind of nice having him up there on top so you could look up occasionally and see how he was doing. (The back table was elevated higher than the front tables, so you could see what was going on up there easily.)


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

tim said:


> Dan is right. We can learn a lot from the memory sports competitions/events, which seem to be well organized.
> 
> And Derrick: I don't care, if you see things in my posts i never said. Read more carefully! I never talked about world records.



Okay well sorry if i got something wrong here but thats what this really is all about, we dont need to argue about a time limit really for all those people trying less cubes such as 2, 3 or 4 cube MultiBLD really this time limit would only apply for the people going FOR the WR and for that attempt i think they should be given as much as needed (whole competition) from the amount of dedication put in i dont they should just be Shi**ed on and left with no chance after all the work they put in... ESPECIALLY for something like 50, 60 or even 100 cubes. why when we are JUST reaching the limits of MultiBLD and seeing GREAT potential do we put a LIMIT on it NOW?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 13, 2008)

We are nowhere near seeing the limit Derrick. Tim simply raised the limit from 10 to 24 and did it very fast according to current standards. But even Tim thinks that he is still pretty bad at it. 100 cubes in 10 hours seems possible to me (not for me, yet), especially without needing 100% perfection. But I don't expect this to happen because not many people will ever put in the effort to try this. Maybe someone could offer a 1 Euro per Cube price? (or simply sponsor the top-mbf-ers by actually giving them 100 cubes)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> We are nowhere near seeing the limit Derrick. Tim simply raised the limit from 10 to 24 and did it very fast according to current standards. But even Tim thinks that he is still pretty bad at it. 100 cubes in 10 hours seems possible to me (not for me, yet), especially without needing 100% perfection. But I don't expect this to happen because not many people will ever put in the effort to try this. Maybe someone could offer a 1 Euro per Cube price? (or simply sponsor the top-mbf-ers by actually giving them 100 cubes)



If someone will truly give me 100 cubes, I'll try it! That would be a lot of money saved! (I'll probably eventually want to own 100 cubes anyway, so might as well get them for free if I can.) Note that they would have to be my weird color scheme, though! And decent cubes. 

Oh, and while I think Tim can indeed get somewhat faster, I don't know how much I trust his assessment that he's still pretty bad at it.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 13, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Most of the people who are against this time limit are looking at multi BLD with a very narrow mind. You guys have preconceived notions of what you take "3x3 multiple blindfold" to mean.


Even if we are going to have a time limit, 2:30 is completely arbitrary (it isn't a limit in any other memorization sport/event that I know of) and seems to be based just towards giving Tim the WR for as long as possible. Don't think I believe that Tim doesn't deserve to hold the WR, but placing the time limit so little above the current WR's time suggests that someone wants the WR to stay what it is for as long as possible and to discourage attempts with larger numbers of cubes. I might support an hour or something like that, but there is no reason to choose 2:30. Besides, if we move to a "most cubes in a certain amount of time" format we cannot transfer the old records through, so it's basically a new event entirely.
Incidentally, it's not like preconceived notions are always a bad thing, and there is definitely a difference between being stubborn about change and having a term defined in a specific way. For example I suppose you have a "preconceived notion" of what the "5x5x5 speedsolve" event means, and if I suggested we should replace it with "solve five 5x5 sliding puzzles as fast as you can" you'd be against it (and for good reason). Similarly, for many people "3x3x3 multiple blindfold" means a specific event with a specific goal, not just any blindfold event involving multiple 3x3x3s. If you want to create a totally new bld event, why not even bother to give it a new name?



masterofthebass said:


> This is a new sport, and multi BLD is an even newer event.


It's older than you think: this site gives the first date as 1998, so you'd be changing the event (or rather creating a new, similar one) after ten years. Few WCA events have been kept track of for that long, and there are several official and legitimate memory sports that are significantly younger than this (this link is a subpage in the "Memory and Mental Calculation World Records", so you can check that out). It's also interesting to note that one of their rules is that "For a record, all cubes must be fixed". If outside observers consider multibld a memory event, with the goal being to do as many cubes as possible with perfect accuracy, we should only change it if there is a very good reason why this doesn't work.
By the way, note that multibld must have started out as something outside of competitions, since their first four records were before Worlds '03. I still think we should go back to this. It might be cool to watch Rowe or Tim do huge numbers of cubes, but it's silly to make them miss hours of practice and events.



masterofthebass said:


> We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)


As we did with the score changes? I'd be interested to know, out of people who have done 5+ cubes multi in practice, how many believe the new points system is for the better. It might be more convenient now, and less stressful for the competitors, but I think few of us would call the past scoring a "mistake". Or maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> We are nowhere near seeing the limit Derrick. Tim simply raised the limit from 10 to 24 and did it very fast according to current standards. But even Tim thinks that he is still pretty bad at it. 100 cubes in 10 hours seems possible to me (not for me, yet), especially without needing 100% perfection. But I don't expect this to happen because not many people will ever put in the effort to try this. Maybe someone could offer a 1 Euro per Cube price? (or simply sponsor the top-mbf-ers by actually giving them 100 cubes)



True there never really is a LIMIT, but like i said we are reaching GREAT potentials and now and before we NEVER THOUGHT of 100 cubes to be possible but now it just could be so why make a limit now. but i really didnt mean a limit is 100 just in competition i meant because really 100+ cubes in just the time given for the whole competition would be VERY difficult.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

qqwref said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)
> ...



For what it's worth, I prefer the old points system. But I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to the new system; it's okay too I guess. I like the idea of it requiring perfection, even if that brings a fair amount of luck into it. Somehow the perfection makes it special. That's why I always try for perfection at a certain number of cubes in the weekly competitions before I move up to the next number. (still trying for 10)

And I agree about the time chosen. If we go with a time limit, I think 2 1/2 hours is a silly time to choose (and looks suspicious because it keeps Tim's record valid). An hour seems nice and round and logical to me. We could either go with an hour total time, or perhaps do like hour cards and go with an hour to memorize and another hour to solve. I think those are the two most logical times to choose, if we decide to do that.

I really think I prefer the original format now - I really would rather it not change. And knowing it has a 10 year history makes me even more convinced. (Thanks for that link, Michael.) But if it changes, I'll be happy to participate in the event no matter what it morphs into, I'm sure. (As long as I'm good enough to compete in whatever the rules become - if it has to be 3 minutes per cube, for instance, I might not be able to compete then.)


----------



## shelley (Jun 13, 2008)

I don't see the 2:30 time limit anywhere in the official regulations. If another competition is willing to devote 5 hours to multi-BLD, you can set the WR there.

Competition organizers should be allowed to (and in fact often do) set time limits for events with respect to feasibility and to keep a tournament running smoothly. Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> I don't see the 2:30 time limit anywhere in the official regulations. If another competition is willing to devote 5 hours to multi-BLD, you can set the WR there.



The time limit isn't in the regulations, yet; Dennis started this rumor with the following quote:


DennisStrehlau said:


> Rowe and i talked about that, so i'm just posting this:
> There might be a time limit for multiple-blindfolded of 2:30 hours.






shelley said:


> Competition organizers should be allowed to (and in fact often do) set time limits for events for feasibility and to keep a tournament running smoothly. Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.



I'm guessing there's probably some competition organizer out there who might be willing to accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes. Probably there aren't many, but there's likely to be somebody out there.

And I think it makes perfect sense for competition organizers to choose what they will and won't deal with. Time limits for a specific competition (as the rules specifically allow - rule 8d) are just fine by me.

Shelley: is there a time limit for multiBLD at the US Open?


----------



## Tyson (Jun 13, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the people who are against this time limit are looking at multi BLD with a very narrow mind. You guys have preconceived notions of what you take "3x3 multiple blindfold" to mean. This is a new sport, and multi BLD is an even newer event. We as a community need to be open to some change, as we realize past mistakes and try to fix them (as we did with the score changes)
> ...



I can't help but think that your signature takes away from your credibility. I do feel that the way you interpret multi-bld is your opinion, that isn't necessarily shared unanimously by the community.

Many of the points here are very good. First of all, what is multi-bld trying to measure? I don't necessarily think that it's this "as many cubes as you can solve" idea.

The multi-bld competition really only measures your ability to solve cubes in the multi-bld event according to its regulations. I'll admit, the regulations for the multi-bld are less than satisfactory right now.

We should be open to restructuring the regulations and the event mechanics to suit today's practicality for competitions.


----------



## shelley (Jun 13, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the 2:30 time limit anywhere in the official regulations. If another competition is willing to devote 5 hours to multi-BLD, you can set the WR there.
> ...



The 2:30 time limit he's talking about is the time limit we're putting on multi-BLD at the US Open, as we told Rowe. Rowe wanted to attempt 60 cubes, which would take pretty much the whole day. There hasn't been any talk about making 2:30 (or indeed any other time limit) part of the official regulations. At least not to my knowledge.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> I don't see the 2:30 time limit anywhere in the official regulations. If another competition is willing to devote 5 hours to multi-BLD, you can set the WR there.
> 
> Competition organizers should be allowed to (and in fact often do) set time limits for events with respect to feasibility and to keep a tournament running smoothly. Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.





Tyson said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > masterofthebass said:
> ...



@shelley: Please name me one competitor that has ever needed to take up to 2 HOURS to solve a 3x3..

@Tyson: Do you mean my signature or dans? Mine is not related to MultiBLD really or even this topic i changed it way weeks before.

Edit: Okay its obvious now that u mean my sig not dans, but what do u meant exactly by what u said?


----------



## Tyson (Jun 13, 2008)

2 hours was just a value she threw out. Most competition organizers would not tolerate a 9 minute 59 second one-handed solve either.

I guess let me explain to you what your signature conveys. Basically, you make it sound like you're whining, that somehow you have worked so hard at cubing and you deserve things as a result of your hard work. Furthermore, you undermine everyone else's hard work by saying that no one in the world works as hard as you on the cube.

How do you feel you should be rewarded for your hard work? What is the injustice that the world has committed against you, because you have worked so hard at the cube? Do you simply work the hardest out of all the cubers in the world, and no one recognizes you for your work? What type of reward would you like for your work on the cube, that has been more devoted than every other cuber out there?

What I mean is that people probably won't take you seriously if you have that type of attitude about the cube. I'm only telling you this because you asked for an explanation.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



Hey Shelley I talked to Ron and he said, its official already. But he also told me like: I wont organize competitions with more than 2:30 h time limit........so i guess, if an organizer wants a time limit, that is higher than the 2:30 h, he is still allowed to do that, because then, Ron wouldnt have to say: i wont organize comp. with more than 2:30 h anymore (too much work etc.).

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Tyson (Jun 13, 2008)

Hi Dennis,

I think there's a difference between official and de facto official. If WCA Delegates never organize a competition with a time limit longer than 2:30, and WCA never approves of any such competitions, then the regulation isn't official, but it is de facto official because of the circumstances allowed.

This isn't really necessary, but if you wanted to get technical about it, that's my viewpoint.

By the way Dennis, your reactions are really good. Have you seen Chris Krueger's 1:15 BLD solve in Canada?


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Hi Dennis,
> 
> I think there's a difference between official and de facto official. If WCA Delegates never organize a competition with a time limit longer than 2:30, and WCA never approves of any such competitions, then the regulation isn't official, but it is de facto official because of the circumstances allowed.
> 
> ...



Okay, thanks. Nice, that you like my reactions Yes, i saw Chris' reaction, it was crazy xD. He wasnt allowed to shout i guess
By the way: Whats your PB in bld-cubing???

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Tyson (Jun 13, 2008)

Well, my personal best in competition is 1:27.77 I think... on Monday I raced Bob in cubing. I did a BLD, and he solved a 4x4x4, and normally it would be a fair race, but he scrambled it quite easy and I did a 1:07.91, so I guess that's kind of my personal best, but it was an easy case. A strong time for me is about 1:20.

I'm old. I just can't compete with the elite anymore. You might as well ship me off and turn me into glue.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> The 2:30 time limit he's talking about is the time limit we're putting on multi-BLD at the US Open, as we told Rowe. Rowe wanted to attempt 60 cubes, which would take pretty much the whole day. There hasn't been any talk about making 2:30 (or indeed any other time limit) part of the official regulations. At least not to my knowledge.



Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know what I have to work with when I choose how many cubes to do.



DennisStrehlau said:


> Hey Shelley I talked to Ron and he said, its official already. But he also told me like: I wont organize competitions with more than 2:30 h time limit........so i guess, if an organizer wants a time limit, that is higher than the 2:30 h, he is still allowed to do that, because then, Ron wouldnt have to say: i wont organize comp. with more than 2:30 h anymore (too much work etc.).
> 
> Greetings...Dennis



If Ron is preventing any competition from going over 2:30 h anymore, it must be recent, considering Rowe did an officially recognized 4:24:11 30-cube attempt at the end of April this year. And from your words there, it just sounds like you're saying he personally won't organize one like that. There are plenty of other organizers out there, and some of them probably actually enjoy big multiBLD attempts. For instance, what's to stop you from organizing a competition with a 10 hour limit?


----------



## shelley (Jun 13, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> @shelley: Please name me one competitor that has ever needed to take up to 2 HOURS to solve a 3x3..



That's irrelevant. No competitor in WCA history has taken that long on an official solve, but that doesn't mean there doesn't exist anyone who takes over an hour to solve a cube. Unless you were born knowing how to solve the cube in under a minute, I'm sure even you have been at that level at some point. And if such a person does wish to compete at a competition, we probably wouldn't allow it.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Well, my personal best in competition is 1:27.77 I think... on Monday I raced Bob in cubing. I did a BLD, and he solved a 4x4x4, and normally it would be a fair race, but he scrambled it quite easy and I did a 1:07.91, so I guess that's kind of my personal best, but it was an easy case. A strong time for me is about 1:20.
> 
> I'm old. I just can't compete with the elite anymore. You might as well ship me off and turn me into glue.



Hi Tyson, 
maybe we can race a bld race on the WC I have time to practise till then
You use 3 cycle, right? I never tried a solve with that.

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > The 2:30 time limit he's talking about is the time limit we're putting on multi-BLD at the US Open, as we told Rowe. Rowe wanted to attempt 60 cubes, which would take pretty much the whole day. There hasn't been any talk about making 2:30 (or indeed any other time limit) part of the official regulations. At least not to my knowledge.
> ...




Okay
What??? You mean me? i should organize a competition?!
Greetings...Dennis


----------



## shelley (Jun 13, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> Okay
> What??? You mean me? i should organize a competition?!
> Greetings...Dennis



Sure.. why not?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > @shelley: Please name me one competitor that has ever needed to take up to 2 HOURS to solve a 3x3..
> ...



From the list on speedcubing.com for 3x3x3:
2174	3 hours 5 minutes	Christian Walter	First time I tried to solve!	20060228
2175	4 hours	Joe Baldwin	First time I have ever actually solved one, only got to the LL 5 or 6 times 
HEHEHE second slowest time	20060217
2176	5 hours	Lyon Saha	i'm just not very good at the moment, maybe some day.?	20070312
2177	8 hours 15 minutes	Dave Hmurovich	My first time ever!! 

There's 4.


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.



Two hours for one 3x3 is bad, but i wouldn't call 100 cubes multi-BLD bad.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> DennisStrehlau said:
> 
> 
> > Okay
> ...



I'd love to do that...am i allowed to do that?!

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 13, 2008)

tim said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.
> ...


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

Tyson said:


> 2 hours was just a value she threw out. Most competition organizers would not tolerate a 9 minute 59 second one-handed solve either.
> 
> I guess let me explain to you what your signature conveys. Basically, you make it sound like you're whining, that somehow you have worked so hard at cubing and you deserve things as a result of your hard work. Furthermore, you undermine everyone else's hard work by saying that no one in the world works as hard as you on the cube.
> 
> ...





shelley said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > @shelley: Please name me one competitor that has ever needed to take up to 2 HOURS to solve a 3x3..
> ...





tim said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Just as we won't accommodate someone who takes two hours on a "speed"solve, we won't accommodate someone who wants to do 100 cubes multi-BLD.
> ...



@Shelley: Yeah i meant 2 hours in competition since you related it to MultiBLD in comp having a limit of 2:30 i related to your comment saying no one would be allowed of the 2 hours for a 3x3 as well but no one really ever has, andyes i know that is still a number, a limit for the 3x3 is accomomdated to the type of event it is, so as u know the limit for the 3x3 would be a lot less then say a puzzle that takes a lot longer, if u get what i mean. 

@Tyson: Yeah it was really just a number she threw it im just saying like the limit is close to that event itself like i mentioned above if it made any sense lol. and about my sig sorry if you misunderstood but i dont mean that at all. I am whining a little but hey i dont expect people to pay much attention to my sig anyway, and what i REALLY meant was I am the LEAST REWARDED for as hard as I do work. (which is a LOT btw) 

@Tim: Yes another good point i wanted to mention.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 13, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > DennisStrehlau said:
> ...


Of course you are - how do you think competitions happen? You can even compete in it if you have someone else as the main judge. And you have to get a delegate. All the usual stuff to organize one. It's a lot of work, but you can do it.

You and Tim could hold competitions for each other so you can break the record as many times as you want. You just need enough other competitors, so you could have two events, for instance: 3x3x3 (to get enough competitors) and multiBLD.  Or throw in whatever you want enough to justify doing it. Maybe throw in a favorite event of a nearby delegate so you can get the delegate to come.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

YEAH! i bet Dennis would have the most KICK ASS competition EVER!


----------



## shelley (Jun 13, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> @Shelley: Yeah i meant 2 hours in competition since you related it to MultiBLD in comp having a limit of 2:30 i related to your comment saying no one would be allowed of the 2 hours for a 3x3 as well but no one really ever has, andyes i know that is still a number, a limit for the 3x3 is accomomdated to the type of event it is, so as u know the limit for the 3x3 would be a lot less then say a puzzle that takes a lot longer, if u get what i mean.



Wow.. that was one of the least coherent responses I've read on this thread.

I wasn't relating a 2 hour solve to multi-BLD. I was only illustrating that allowing a 2 hour solver isn't practical considering the way we typically run competitions. Similarly, allowing a 100 multi-BLD attempt isn't practical if we only have 8 hours to work with and other events to run.

I know you want to push the limits of multi-BLD. If you can do 50 or 100 or whatever crazy number of cubes multi-BLD at home that's great. But for an official attempt, you have to work with competition officials, fellow competitors, competition schedules. You have to be willing to make some compromises.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 13, 2008)

shelley said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > @Shelley: Yeah i meant 2 hours in competition since you related it to MultiBLD in comp having a limit of 2:30 i related to your comment saying no one would be allowed of the 2 hours for a 3x3 as well but no one really ever has, andyes i know that is still a number, a limit for the 3x3 is accomomdated to the type of event it is, so as u know the limit for the 3x3 would be a lot less then say a puzzle that takes a lot longer, if u get what i mean.
> ...



yes it was quite weird and made no sense cause i was typing it in a hurry sorry lol. i basically meant limits for the puzzles should be set depending on the event/category. obviously a lot longer for the harder and time consuming puzzles. and multiBLD i believe fits into a category that i believe should be given the time to solve as many cubes as they want because afterall they ARE given a choice to how many they can solve, so are we now saying people arent allowed to choose then because really who can do 50 or 60 cubes in under 2:30 hours? its not IMPOSSIBLE yeah but HIGLY unlikely. and yeah i also understand what u mean about making comprises but didnt dennis already talk about that? or maybe just me talking to rowe on msn.. not sure but we mentioned about maybe just competition time given or maybe just like 5 or 6 hour limit with 8 minutes for every cube like it is now.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> YEAH! i bet Dennis would have the most KICK ASS competition EVER!



HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Maybe

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Inusagi (Jun 14, 2008)

I think it SHOULD be a limit. You can't sit there in the whole day, while doing it, and if the WCA delegate is going home the next day, then he can't watch you and make sure it's official.


----------



## Erik (Jun 14, 2008)

Hey Dennis, I'm still planning to do Twents Open as you know. The plan is to do most main events on the first day and do fun stuff (still secret) and side events on the 2nd day. If it's up to the organisor to set the time limit at that competition I don't see a problem with making a 4 hour limit or such. Provided you would not be the only one to try a bit amount of course, I hope Tim will come too.

What I saw from some posts (I didn't read all, no time) was that there was a bit confusion about what the purpose of multiBLD exactly is. Maybe we should have such things in the WCA regulations too in the future? Just a side note but multiple blindfolded sounds to me as: 'do as many cubes BLD in a row as you can', which obviously doesn't say anything about time, but of course there is the practical issue that competitions have certain time limits. I think it'd be very bad to put in a 'hard' limit of for example 2:30 in the standard regulations, it'd be good if the organisor can decide about that (I'd call that a 'soft' time limit).
If that's going to be the case (or it is already in fact) maybe there should be guide lines like: 'prefered time limit' somewhere? It'd be weird if one competion would have a 1 hour time limit and the other 6. 
anyway, I suck at multiBLD anyway since I don't have a memo system, I wish all you guys who plan to do crazy number the best of luck!


----------



## Stefan (Jun 14, 2008)

Almost 100 posts about a rumor? The creator of this thread ought to be banned.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



cant believe i've never seen this post before but Mike i meant in COMPETITION not at home or anything  sure i know there are tons of noobs and such who take hours upon hours to solve the cube at home but i meant at comp. nice findings though xD

Sorry for the FUTURE double post


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Almost 100 posts about a rumor? The creator of this thread ought to be banned.





DennisStrehlau said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey said:
> ...



It's not a rumour.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 14, 2008)

Erik said:


> Hey Dennis, I'm still planning to do Twents Open as you know. The plan is to do most main events on the first day and do fun stuff (still secret) and side events on the 2nd day. If it's up to the organisor to set the time limit at that competition I don't see a problem with making a 4 hour limit or such. Provided you would not be the only one to try a bit amount of course, I hope Tim will come too.
> 
> What I saw from some posts (I didn't read all, no time) was that there was a bit confusion about what the purpose of multiBLD exactly is. Maybe we should have such things in the WCA regulations too in the future? Just a side note but multiple blindfolded sounds to me as: 'do as many cubes BLD in a row as you can', which obviously doesn't say anything about time, but of course there is the practical issue that competitions have certain time limits. I think it'd be very bad to put in a 'hard' limit of for example 2:30 in the standard regulations, it'd be good if the organisor can decide about that (I'd call that a 'soft' time limit).
> If that's going to be the case (or it is already in fact) maybe there should be guide lines like: 'prefered time limit' somewhere? It'd be weird if one competion would have a 1 hour time limit and the other 6.
> anyway, I suck at multiBLD anyway since I don't have a memo system, I wish all you guys who plan to do crazy number the best of luck!



nice idea and some really good points erik...thanks!

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 14, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Almost 100 posts about a rumor? The creator of this thread ought to be banned.



Why banned? What did i do?!


----------



## shelley (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> DennisStrehlau said:
> 
> 
> > *Hey Shelley I talked to Ron and he said, its official already. But he also told me like: I wont organize competitions with more than 2:30 h time limit*........so i guess, if an organizer wants a time limit, that is higher than the 2:30 h, he is still allowed to do that, because then, Ron wouldnt have to say: i wont organize comp. with more than 2:30 h anymore (too much work etc.).
> ...



Selective reading, anyone? Ron didn't say it's official. If it hasn't been discussed as a new ruling and it's not in the regulations, it's not official. Ron isn't the only competition organizer in the WCA. Just because he doesn't want to organize competitions with more than 2:30 time limit doesn't mean nobody else is allowed to.

I do think the multi-BLD event needs some restructuring though. Either a number of cubes solved blindfolded in a time limit format, or there are certain levels which you can attempt (you can choose to do 3, 5, 10, 20 cubes or something) and you're ranked by accuracy and time within each of those categories. Right now there's nothing keeping people from going out of control and attempting 100 cubes multi-BLD and eating up an entire day or more (aside from setting time limits, which will vary depending on different competition organizers, and as we have seen make a few people unhappy).


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

shelley said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > DennisStrehlau said:
> ...



Um... yeah its official... Rowe cant do 60 cubes anymore at Nationals cause tysons not letting him, plus ron said 2:30 limit is offical now too.. what else more is there to it to need to be official?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



...how is that official? For the prospective Shanghai competition I'm helping organize, I could just say someone can go multi 20 cubes in 3hr20min. Oops! That's more than 2hr30min, the current "official" regulation, but I can do it anyway.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



Umm official means at a sanctioned competition if im not correct? and seeing as how this LIMIT will apply at numerous (maybe not all) competitions now, well sorry but thats my view of OFFICIAL if u ask me. is it not?


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...


.

To clearify: Official means (in this case) that it's part of the wca rules.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

then how come if we follow exact competition regulations at home its counted as unnoficial? if what u say is true and offical means as part of wca rules. they are besides im not the one who first said it was official anyway, just going by what people said, because Dennis said that Ron said it was official.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick, the solution for this is simple - organize your own competition, focus on multiBLD, and set the time limit to something you're happy with. Until and unless they change the rules, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a 10 hour attempt, if that's what you want to do.

I figure the best format for someone who wants to do this is to set it up something like this, for a one-day event. Tentative schedule:

4:00 AM: Pre-registration, start of multiBLD attempt, best of 1, 10 hour limit
2:00 PM: Official registration begins
3:00 PM: 3x3x3 first round, avg of 5
4:00 PM: 3x3x3 BLD combined final
5:00 PM: Feature event: 4x4x4 BLD and 5x5x5 BLD (best of 2, best of 1)
6:00 PM: 3x3x3 final round
6:30 PM: Awards ceremony
7:00 PM: Afterparty

That gets all the most important events in,  and you won't even have to have all your judges around - just your main judge plus maybe one or two others to make sure the stopwatches are manned adequately. And of course you'll need at least 2 competitors for the multiBLD (as well as the very important big cubes BLD, which you'll notice I put as the featured event before the final 3x3x3 ).

Probably the trickiest part of all this is finding a delegate willing to come for this. But surely if you try, you can find someone who will - there are quite a few delegates out there, surely one of them can be cajoled into coming (if you offer them something they like).

Sorry, had to put in my plug for big cubes BLD.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> then how come if we follow exact competition regulations at home its counted as unnoficial? if what u say is true and offical means as part of wca rules. they are besides im not the one who first said it was official anyway, just going by what people said, because Dennis said that Ron said it was official.



Read the wca rules and you'll notice that you can't follow all rules at home.

btw.: one of my friends says, that Elvis Presley is still alive. So it has to be true.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Derrick, the solution for this is simple - organize your own competition, focus on multiBLD, and set the time limit to something you're happy with. Until and unless they change the rules, there's nothing stopping you from setting up a 10 hour attempt, if that's what you want to do.
> 
> I figure the best format for someone who wants to do this is to set it up something like this, for a one-day event. Tentative schedule:
> 
> ...





tim said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > then how come if we follow exact competition regulations at home its counted as unnoficial? if what u say is true and offical means as part of wca rules. they are besides im not the one who first said it was official anyway, just going by what people said, because Dennis said that Ron said it was official.
> ...



@mike: Lol i could never have a competition where i am, no cuber would even come, and I am Dirt Poor. but i just hope others have their own competitions so we can have people do more then just the same amount of cubes MultiBLD over and over and over and over and over and over again.

@Tim: Um its not a matter of if its true or not, Ron said it was official, Tyson said it was official and Rowe only had 2:30 at Nationals and that to me = Official.


----------



## tim (Jun 14, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> @Tim: Um its not a matter of if its true or not, Ron said it was official, *Tyson said it was official* and Rowe only had 2:30 at Nationals and that to me = Official.



Did you talk to Tyson?

Anyway: i think i'm talking against a wall. I won't waste any more time arguing with you.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 14, 2008)

tim said:


> It's great, since i always saw multi bld as the "hour cards" for speedcubing.
> 
> *Dennis: The only reason i'm faster than you is, that you didn't practice as much as i did.*



SO you know this for a FACT THEN? and u LIVED with Dennis every single night and day and witnessed how much less he practiced then you did? see we all dont know things for sure but mention them too...

Plus when i hear from people like Dennis, Rowe etc i believe them cause i dont expect the whole speedcubing community to be a bunch of liars, and i expect them to know what they are talking about.


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

Wait, you're know calling tim a liar?


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 15, 2008)

NO never would i really call any cuber i liar. He just kept saying how i should'nt believe all these things that i hear from other cubers, so im just saying i dont expect All these cubers in the community to be just LIEING to me.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> NO never would i really call any cuber i liar. He just kept saying how i should'nt believe all these things that i hear from other cubers, so im just saying i dont expect All these cubers in the community to be just LIEING to me.



Didn't you call Mátyás several times a liar? Sorry, i couldn't resist .


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 15, 2008)

Lol funny how were back to matyas xD hes like a curse.

anyway i don't think i called him a liar, but okay even if i did, look i was right lol. he still has'nt even admitted to it btw.. but yeah this isnt the topic for it anyway lol i don't wanna start a whole nother arguement about THAT


----------



## Dene (Jun 15, 2008)

Oh nice one Tim. But then this makes you a liar:



> Anyway: i think i'm talking against a wall. I won't waste any more time arguing with you.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2008)

Dene said:


> Oh nice one Tim. But then this makes you a liar:
> 
> 
> 
> > Anyway: i think i'm talking against a wall. I won't waste any more time arguing with you.



I wouldn't call that arguing. It was just too off-topic .


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 15, 2008)

Screw it.. lets just all make up and kiss. lol


Edit: people reading this are probably gonna think im gay or something now..... DAMNIT lol.


----------



## andrewvo1324 (Jun 15, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> Screw it.. lets just all make up and kiss. lol
> 
> 
> Edit: people reading this are probably gonna think im gay or something now..... DAMNIT lol.



Is that offer still up derrick =]


"make up and kiss"

i mean if it is.....pm me.


----------



## mrbiggs (Jun 15, 2008)

Come on now, guys. It's obvious that there are fairness issues if there are irregular time limits at competitions for events where the maximum time limit obviously and immediately affects your ability to do well in the competition.

What if there was a multi blind limit of 30 seconds? No one would be able to solve any. What if there was a limit of a week? There would be a guaranteed world record.

There's no question in my mind that the WCA absolutely needs to set guidelines on the maximum time for multiblind because it's unique in that the time spent for it directly affects the results. (FMC has that property too, but it's already standardized). At the very least they should set a fairly limited range, 2:30-4:30 or something like that. This would allow organizers some flexibility to create feasible tournament schedules while making sure that competitors have similar chances at doing well no matter what tournament they go to.


----------



## Faz (Jun 15, 2008)

Maybe you could say, if you compete in multibld, you can take all day but you're not allowed to compete in other events.

OR

I like this suggestion:

Get a WCA delegate and hold an event devoted entirely to multibld.

Let the cubers who want to get a WR be allowed to take as long as they like.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 15, 2008)

andrewvo1324 said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > Screw it.. lets just all make up and kiss. lol
> ...



umm... umm..... ummmm no comment


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 15, 2008)

so there is still something i dont understand.
*IF SOMEONE WANTS TO ORGANIZE MULTI-BLD IN COMPETITION HE CAN CHOOSE ANY TIME LIMIT (AS LONG AS YOU ONLY HAVE 10 MIN PER CUBE OF COURSE)?????*
Then it wouldnt be a problem at all cause i am pretty sure, that you will find some competitions from time to time, where a time limit is, that is more than 2:30 h.
So is that true, that its up to the organizer of the competition?!

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 15, 2008)

mrbiggs said:


> Come on now, guys. It's obvious that there are fairness issues if there are irregular time limits at competitions for events where the maximum time limit obviously and immediately affects your ability to do well in the competition.
> 
> What if there was a multi blind limit of 30 seconds? No one would be able to solve any. What if there was a limit of a week? There would be a guaranteed world record.



According to something Lucas Garron indicated, it appears that at EPGY California Open 2008, they had a time limit of 10 minutes for multiBLD. Which is maybe not quite as bad as 30 seconds, but pretty limiting. (Lucas went for 3 and took 12 minutes, I think.)

I don't have a problem with it; those who want to set world records can either organize their own competitions with long time limits, or have friends who do, or they can travel however far they need to in order to get their records. Derrick says it's important that if someone is willing to work hard at it, they can get it. Well, one way you can work hard for it is organize a competition. And Derrick, even you could do it. Just teach 12 people nearby to solve a 3x3x3, and get at least one other person who can try multiBLD, and you're set. I've taught my 7-year-old daughter, and now she's solved a 4x4x4 in competition, so I think you can teach just about anyone to do 3x3x3.

In the meantime, competitions like EPGY are cool anyway, since it's a whole different event, but fits in the same category. I think it's almost as fun to try to solve 2 as fast as possible as it is to solve 10. I'm not as good at it, but it's still fun.

Oh, and a time limit of a week would NOT guarantee a world record at all. Practically, it probably would be no different from a 10 hour limit. Don't forget we still have the 10 minute per cube rule. A week currently wouldn't help anyone.

Dennis, according to the published rules right now, yes you are absolutely right. It's up to the organizer of the competition.


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Oh, and a time limit of a week would NOT guarantee a world record at all. Practically, it probably would be no different from a 10 hour limit. Don't forget we still have the 10 minute per cube rule. A week currently wouldn't help anyone.


Actually, you're wrong there. I just put in a cube4you order of 1008 type D DIYs.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 15, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> mrbiggs said:
> 
> 
> > Dennis, according to the published rules right now, yes you are absolutely right. It's up to the organizer of the competition.
> ...


----------



## shelley (Jun 15, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> Umm official means at a sanctioned competition if im not correct? and seeing as how this LIMIT will apply at numerous (maybe not all) competitions now, well sorry but thats my view of OFFICIAL if u ask me. is it not?



At a lot of competitions in California we don't let people complete their 4x4 averages if they go over 2 minutes in their first one or two solves. This is done for time reasons. Does that mean there is an OFFICIAL time limit of 2 minutes on the 4x4?

At the most recent San Diego tournament, only Michael Gottlieb was allowed to do an average for the 5x5, because he was the only competitor who could solve a 5x5 in the 3 minute time limit. Does that mean Michael Gottlieb is OFFICIALLY the only person who can compete in 5x5?


----------



## mrbiggs (Jun 15, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> I don't have a problem with it; those who want to set world records can either organize their own competitions with long time limits, or have friends who do, or they can travel however far they need to in order to get their records.



I think that gives a huge advantage to cubers who happen to live near other people who care about multibld. I think it would be silly if every single WR came from a very small number of competitions each year which cared about the event.



I think the analogy to limiting big cube times is innacurate. A limiting big cube time simply means that you require a certain amount of skill to complete the event. A more apt analogy would be requiring a certain minimum number of cubes to complete, such as "if you can't do five cubes you can't do multibld".


----------



## shelley (Jun 15, 2008)

It's done for the same reasons: time constraints. And just because a time limit is imposed at an official WCA competition doesn't mean the time limit is now an official regulation and will be imposed at every competition, as Derrick seems to believe.

And to a certain extent, time limits on multi-BLD also requires a certain level of skill. Who knows? Maybe someone is good enough to do 40 cubes in 2:30.


----------



## tim (Jun 15, 2008)

shelley said:


> Maybe someone is good enough to do 40 cubes in 2:30.



I work on it . Seriously: It's not as hard as it might sound.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 15, 2008)

shelley said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > Umm official means at a sanctioned competition if im not correct? and seeing as how this LIMIT will apply at numerous (maybe not all) competitions now, well sorry but thats my view of OFFICIAL if u ask me. is it not?
> ...





shelley said:


> It's done for the same reasons: time constraints. And just because a time limit is imposed at an official WCA competition doesn't mean the time limit is now an official regulation and will be imposed at every competition, as Derrick seems to believe.
> 
> And to a certain extent, time limits on multi-BLD also requires a certain level of skill. Who knows? Maybe someone is good enough to do 40 cubes in 2:30.





tim said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe someone is good enough to do 40 cubes in 2:30.
> ...


----------



## qqwref (Jun 16, 2008)

It's an important distinction to make between official and "effectively official", that is, a regulation that you have to follow at any competitions you could go to. If all competitions in North America have a 2:30 multi limit, and Derrick is unable to go to any competitions outside of North America, it's effectively an official time limit for him, even if it might not be in the rules. So maybe there should be some way to take longer, perhaps (as I've said before) outside of competition.

About the goal of multibld - even if we change it in the future, the goal right now is to do as many cubes as possible, regardless of time. This is the only possible interpretation of the scoring system: time doesn't even factor in unless you're comparing equal results. The talk of changing regulations is interesting but as of now if you want a WR in multi you have to do at least 25 cubes, and that is very difficult if there is a hard limit of 2:30. Of course setting a WR ought to be difficult, but having to do more than 24 cubes, faster per cube than the current WR, without messing up, is probably harder than it should be.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jun 16, 2008)

qqwref said:


> It's an important distinction to make between official and "effectively official", that is, a regulation that you have to follow at any competitions you could go to.


It's also an important distinction to make between official and "effectively unofficial", that is, an official regulation that you don't need to follow at any competitions you could go to.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 16, 2008)

That's true, even if it might not be entirely relevant. I might be willing to write up an errata for the WCA regulations to describe things like that that aren't really written down explicitly, if other people would support this idea...


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Jun 16, 2008)

qqwref said:


> It's an important distinction to make between official and "effectively official", that is, a regulation that you have to follow at any competitions you could go to. If all competitions in North America have a 2:30 multi limit, and Derrick is unable to go to any competitions outside of North America, it's effectively an official time limit for him, even if it might not be in the rules. So maybe there should be some way to take longer, perhaps (as I've said before) outside of competition.
> 
> About the goal of multibld - even if we change it in the future, the goal right now is to do as many cubes as possible, regardless of time. This is the only possible interpretation of the scoring system: time doesn't even factor in unless you're comparing equal results. The talk of changing regulations is interesting but as of now if you want a WR in multi you have to do at least 25 cubes, and that is very difficult if there is a hard limit of 2:30. Of course setting a WR ought to be difficult, but having to do more than 24 cubes, faster per cube than the current WR, without messing up, is probably harder than it should be.



Thats also a very good point man. Maybe its really to hard. 
But in fact, the time limit is bad BUT i dont care THAT much anymore...because there is STRESSLER...dont ask what it is, but it helps to get the WR easily.

Greetings...Dennis


----------



## joey (Jun 16, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> because there is STRESSLER...dont ask what it is, but it helps to get the WR easily.


One can guess


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 16, 2008)

um... A stressed out Toddler?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 16, 2008)

DennisStrehlau said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Almost 100 posts about a rumor? The creator of this thread ought to be banned.
> ...



You caused me to waste an hour or so of my life for absolutely no good reason. And probably the same for others. And no, I'm not serious about the ban, although I *am* seriously ****ed.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 16, 2008)

Stefans always ****ed


----------



## Tyson (Jun 18, 2008)

Well, of course he's upset. He's Stefan Pochmann. The hardest working cuber, and... actually... he's gotten exactly what he deserves.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 18, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Well, of course he's upset. He's Stefan Pochmann. The hardest working cuber, and... actually... *he's gotten exactly what he deserves.*



what is it?  i hope its candy!


----------



## joey (Jun 18, 2008)

nothing


----------



## Tyson (Jun 18, 2008)

Is that what you feel you deserve for your hard work? Candy? Because you're the hardest working cuber in the world?

Derrick Eide: I'm the hardest working cuber in the world!
Group of Nubile Women: YOU'RE THE HARDEST WORKING CUBER IN THE WORLD!
Derrick Eide (matter of factly): I'm the hardest working cuber in the world.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 18, 2008)

If you're the hardest working one, then why don't you have any WRs or NARs like Dan Cohen does?

Besides, those that contribute to the community get a lot more respect than someone who says he's hard working...


----------



## joey (Jun 18, 2008)

Hard working != WR, I thought we had already been through that!


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 18, 2008)

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS? its a sig, its my opinion who cares anymore? i didnt do it for attention or anything so are u trying to insult me or something Tyson? its like:

Hey! lets bring up Derrick's sig and his sig alone in a topic thats totally not related to his sig at all!?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 19, 2008)

Tyson explained that quote to me, and it's the best reference ever! No joke. Insanely, insanely funny.

Pirate hunter!


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 19, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Tyson explained that quote to me, and it's the best reference ever! No joke. Insanely, insanely funny.
> 
> Pirate hunter!



Huh?  lol


----------



## Tyson (Jun 19, 2008)

Yup. Your sig, your opinion. My post, my opinion.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jun 19, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Yup. Your sig, your opinion. My post, my opinion.



yeah but your opinion was related to something totally different, why mention in a topic about Multi BLD? :S


----------

