# 2 bld in the wca



## Caleb/spooderskewb (Apr 29, 2019)

I’m looking for a following to get 2x2 blindfolded into the wca


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 29, 2019)

That would be fun.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 29, 2019)

The thing is 2BLD (done the fastest) would add basically nothing to the wca event roster as it would essentially just be 2x2.


----------



## leven Williams (Apr 29, 2019)

shadowslice e said:


> The thing is 2BLD (done the fastest) would add basically nothing to the wca event roster as it would essentially just be 2x2.



True. It's really easy to one look a 2x2 using some advanced methods, which is what most of us do. We would easily see very similar times to normal 2x2, so it's kinda pointless...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 30, 2019)

I feel pretty much the same way other people above me have; the one thing I might like to see (just for the data) is what this event would be like if it properly followed the same rules for BLD as 3BLD (as is supposed to happen with our online weekly competition 2BLD event): start the timer, then remove the cover and start inspection. I would love to see if it's actually possible for people to get results like the ones we've often seen in the weekly competition. Somehow I suspect we'd see a lot fewer sub-3 and sub-4 solves in WCA competition than we've been seeing in the online weekly competition. Although I guess with the nod-don that has become so popular, it might be more possible than I think. Anyway it would be nice to run the experiment, even if only as a non-official event, just to see how fast people can really do all of that (inspection, donning the blindfold, solving).


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> I feel pretty much the same way other people above me have; the one thing I might like to see (just for the data) is what this event would be like if it properly followed the same rules for BLD as 3BLD (as is supposed to happen with our online weekly competition 2BLD event): start the timer, then remove the cover and start inspection. I would love to see if it's actually possible for people to get results like the ones we've often seen in the weekly competition. Somehow I suspect we'd see a lot fewer sub-3 and sub-4 solves in WCA competition than we've been seeing in the online weekly competition. Although I guess with the nod-don that has become so popular, it might be more possible than I think. Anyway it would be nice to run the experiment, even if only as a non-official event, just to see how fast people can really do all of that (inspection, donning the blindfold, solving).


 I have to add that I agree with you, a lot more really fast solves that we see in weekly comp would go away.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 30, 2019)

What I'd love to see is 2x2 Multiblind! Seeing just how many 2x2's world-class BLD solvers could do in an hour would be super cool.


----------



## GenTheThief (Apr 30, 2019)

Another thing with nod-donning the blindfold or just pulling the blindfold down in general, it's really hard to make sure that it's all the way down/get the divider between the solver's eyeline and the cube. Cheating would be really quick.
In Jack's recent BLD solve videos, the judge *waits* a second or two before using the divider. A 2x2 solve could be done completely before the blocker is in and, as mentioned above, it would be really hard to make sure that the blindfold was all the way on.


----------



## CarterK (Apr 30, 2019)

GenTheThief said:


> Another thing with nod-donning the blindfold or just pulling the blindfold down in general, it's really hard to make sure that it's all the way down/get the divider between the solver's eyeline and the cube. Cheating would be really quick.
> In Jack's recent BLD solve videos, the judge *waits* a second or two before using the divider. A 2x2 solve could be done completely before the blocker is in and, as mentioned above, it would be really hard to make sure that the blindfold was all the way on.


The judge has to wait until the person starts turning, so yeah, that might be an issue.

Not that this should be an event anyway.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 30, 2019)

GenTheThief said:


> Another thing with nod-donning the blindfold or just pulling the blindfold down in general, it's really hard to make sure that it's all the way down/get the divider between the solver's eyeline and the cube. Cheating would be really quick.
> In Jack's recent BLD solve videos, the judge *waits* a second or two before using the divider. A 2x2 solve could be done completely before the blocker is in and, as mentioned above, it would be really hard to make sure that the blindfold was all the way on.


This is a really good point. This would amount to a situation very similar to that of judging for Magic and Master Magic; if we were to add the event, there's a good chance it would just be discontinued shortly thereafter for similar reasons to the main reason that Magic and Master Magic were dropped: inconsistency in judging. A judge for 2BLD would need to be really excellent at the job in order for the result to be trustworthy.

There are probably ways to solve the problem, using fancier blinding equipment which the competitor has to put in place themselves before starting to make moves, but that would probably make the event cost-prohibitive to hold. While it is an interesting thought experiment, it seems unlikely 2BLD could ever be a practical official competition event.


----------



## leven Williams (Apr 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> This is a really good point. This would amount to a situation very similar to that of judging for Magic and Master Magic; if we were to add the event, there's a good chance it would just be discontinued shortly thereafter for similar reasons to the main reason that Magic and Master Magic were dropped: inconsistency in judging. A judge for 2BLD would need to be really excellent at the job in order for the result to be trustworthy.
> 
> There are probably ways to solve the problem, using fancier blinding equipment which the competitor has to put in place themselves before starting to make moves, but that would probably make the event cost-prohibitive to hold. While it is an interesting thought experiment, it seems unlikely 2BLD could ever be a practical official competition event.



Good point... lol, they would finish the solve before th judge uses the blinding equipment...


----------



## Capcubeing (Apr 30, 2019)

Caleb/spooderskewb said:


> I’m looking for a following to get 2x2 blindfolded into the wca



I think that would be good but the records would be insanely fast from the start


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 30, 2019)

After watching Stanley Chapel's 1:10 4BLD attempt, it becomes quite clear that, for any WR attempt at 2BLD with current rules, it is unlikely that the judge would be able to get the divider in place before the 2BLD solve is already complete. For Stanley's attempt, it took the judge well over 2 seconds to put the divider in place; world-class solves would already be done by then.


----------



## Capcubeing (Apr 30, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> After watching Stanley Chapel's 1:10 4BLD attempt, it becomes quite clear that, for any WR attempt at 2BLD with current rules, it is unlikely that the judge would be able to get the divider in place before the 2BLD solve is already complete. For Stanley's attempt, it took the judge well over 2 seconds to put the divider in place; world-class solves would already be done by then.


you do have a point


----------



## weatherman223 (May 1, 2019)

No. 2BLD is too trivial, and all the world class people would be fast 2x2 solvers who are capable of 1 looking solutions. This would be a terrible idea and the WCA has no intention of adding more bld events ANYTIME soon


----------



## abunickabhi (May 2, 2019)

There is virtually no difference between 2BLD and 2x2 at the highest level.


----------



## mark49152 (May 2, 2019)

abunickabhi said:


> There is virtually no difference between 2BLD and 2x2 at the highest level.


The main difference would be that with 2BLD, memo would be included in the time, whereas in 2x2 it is done during inspection. Plus, the competitor must lift the cover and don the blindfold, which at the highest level will take significant time and lead to more reliance on tricks like nod-don.

I would expect the normal BLD approach to give fast memo and longer execution, whereas 2x2 one-looking would give faster execution but probably longer memo. It would be interesting to see how techniques develop to speed up inspection for one-looking, and whether different or hybrid methods emerge.

Nevertheless, IMHO it wouldn't make a good WCA event, for the various reasons already mentioned in this thread. I also think that if there were genuine interest in developing 2BLD among experienced BLDers, there would have been more discussion of specific methods and techniques, and I don't recall seeing much if any discussion on that. I suspect it will be seen primarily as a "beginner BLD" event, leading to a mixture of very slow and ridiculously fast competitors, and making holding the event officially even more challenging.


----------



## Ronxu (May 2, 2019)

mark49152 said:


> I would expect the normal BLD approach to give fast memo and longer execution, whereas 2x2 one-looking would give faster execution but probably longer memo. It would be interesting to see how techniques develop to speed up inspection for one-looking, and whether different or hybrid methods emerge.


World class 2x2 solvers can 1-look a solution at least as fast as it takes world class blders to memo. Conventional bld methods are objectively garbage for 2bld. They have no advantage over speedsolving methods.


----------



## mark49152 (May 2, 2019)

Ronxu said:


> World class 2x2 solvers can 1-look a solution at least as fast as it takes world class blders to memo.


I'd guess that a world class BLDer could orient and memo 2BLD in 2-3 seconds. I have no idea how many world class 2x2 solvers are capable of pushing their inspection to the 2-3 second range, but with today's 15 second inspection they don't have to, so I would further guess that many of them have not really tried.



Ronxu said:


> Conventional bld methods are objectively garbage for 2bld. They have no advantage over speedsolving methods.


BLD execution would of course be way less efficient so if a 2x2 solver really can memo as fast as a BLDer then obviously they have the advantage.

Anyway, it wasn't my point to speculate which approach would be fastest at the top level, only to contrast the approaches. I think many regular competitors would approach 2BLD with conventional BLD methods, at least initially. OP/OP is objectively worse than 3-style and Ortega/Varasano is objectively worse than CLL/EG, but many competitors still use them.


----------



## Ronxu (May 2, 2019)

mark49152 said:


> I'd guess that a world class BLDer could orient and memo 2BLD in 2-3 seconds. I have no idea how many world class 2x2 solvers are capable of pushing their inspection to the 2-3 second range, but with today's 15 second inspection they don't have to, so I would further guess that many of them have not really tried.


You do know that they spend their inspection looking for the fastest solution instead of checking the first one and going with it, right?


----------



## mark49152 (May 2, 2019)

Ronxu said:


> You do know that they spend their inspection looking for the fastest solution instead of checking the first one and going with it, right?


That's one way 2BLD would differ from one-look 2x2, right there.


----------



## WACWCA (May 2, 2019)

I usually one look 3-10 solutions in inspection. 1-3 seconds memo on 2bld and I average 4/5 maybe.


----------



## tx789 (May 3, 2019)

mark49152 said:


> That's one way 2BLD would differ from one-look 2x2, right there.


It hardly adds anything new those. The solution used is still what would be used if the was the best solution they found. 2BLD is just 2x2 speedsolves plus inspection. You just want to inspect as quickly as possible and that's the only difference.


----------



## mark49152 (May 3, 2019)

tx789 said:


> You just want to inspect as quickly as possible and that's the only difference.


Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for 2BLD to be added to WCA. I think it would be a pointless event that would introduce too many practical difficulties. Somehow I got drawn into a debate about 2x2 inspection because I suggested it's "probably" slower than conventional BLD memo of 6 corners, but I'm happy to concede on that point since it's academic anyway.


----------



## tx789 (May 3, 2019)

mark49152 said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for 2BLD to be added to WCA. I think it would be a pointless event that would introduce too many practical difficulties. Somehow I got drawn into a debate about 2x2 inspection because I suggested it's "probably" slower than conventional BLD memo of 6 corners, but I'm happy to concede on that point since it's academic anyway.


Seems reasonable, but some people might want to use that as justification but with 2BLD the judging is too complicated for it to be consistent. Magics were removed due to difficulties in judging. The judging issues is the first hurdle for 2BLD the second is the question of does it add anything new? Out of all the events suggested as new 2BLD is by far the worst.


----------



## BradyCubes08 (May 3, 2019)

It would be pretty trivial, because if you can one look 2x2, you can do 2bld so it would be just like 2x2 just 1 or 2 seconds more time.
If in 2bld you were only allowed to do OP/3-style/any other bld corners method, it would be less like just solving a 2x2, and you would need to learn a different way of solving the 2x2 other than just one looking with EG.
In 3bld, people who cheat get caught because of the method they are using, because it is near impossible to memorize and solve a 3x3 using CFOP in under 10 minutes. 
But with a 2x2 people could very well get away with using EG (if it was not allowed) during their solves because when solving 2x2 fast it looks as if when they pick it up it turns to a solved cube the they put it down.

So I do not think 2bld should be a WCA event.

-BradyCubes


----------



## SpiFunTastic (May 16, 2019)

Strongly agree, but 1 looking method shouldn't be allowed, only the blind method should.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 16, 2019)

SpiFunTastic said:


> Strongly agree, but 1 looking method shouldn't be allowed, only the blind method should.


But that’s inconsistent. Each event should be able to have unlimited possibilités for what you should do.


----------



## DGCubes (May 16, 2019)

SpiFunTastic said:


> Strongly agree, but 1 looking method shouldn't be allowed, only the blind method should.



This would be impossible to regulate. How do you define "the blind method" and actually check and enforce this for all solves? What about a four-mover? Would that have to be done with two 3-style comms? With the WCA growing as much as it is, we need to avoid such subjective regulations, not add more.


----------



## SpiFunTastic (May 16, 2019)

DGCubes said:


> This would be impossible to regulate. How do you define "the blind method" and actually check and enforce this for all solves? What about a four-mover? Would that have to be done with two 3-style comms? With the WCA growing as much as it is, we need to avoid such subjective regulations, not add more.


That's true DG, and BTW I LOVE UR YOUTUBE CHANNEL!! AND UR MY FAVOURITE PYRAMINX SOLVER.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (May 16, 2019)

SpiFunTastic said:


> Everyone is just thrashing me. I feel like a loser


They're not thrashing you, they're just explaining why your idea doesn't work. You're not a loser.


----------



## SpiFunTastic (May 16, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> There not thrashing you, they're just explaining why your idea doesn't work. You're not a loser.


Haha thanks...


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 16, 2019)

SpiFunTastic said:


> Everyone is just thrashing me. I feel like a loser


That was a bit of an over reaction. What Wombat said is completely true, but everyone else has a fair point. I don't think (and neither do most people) subjective regulations should be a thing (unless practical, such as if you misscramble a 7x7), and even then, this event would add nothing practical. It would be dominated by top 2x2 solvers from the start, and it would just be 2x2+maybe 2 seconds. You shouldn't add this and remove feet (for example). Instead, keep the events that are unique, such as feet imo. 

I guess the general consensus from this thread is that it is a pretty pointless event that would be hard to regulate and would add nothing. So unless anyone has anything revolutionary (I highly doubt that), we should just all leave this thread in the past.


----------

