# Should +2s count as world records?



## MentosCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

I don't see this ever happening in the near future, but whatever.
Okay, so the current 3x3 world record is 4.73, right? What if someone gets a 2.71, but it's a +2, so it makes 4.71? Should that count as a world record, because according to the WCA regulations, that was technically his time? Or should that not count, because the WCA is not always going to be the deciding factor, and he didn't technically solve the cube according to the standards of most non-cubers? I can only see this happening on bigger cubes and maybe megaminx, but I just used 3x3 as my example because I could think of the WR time off the top of my head. Tell me what you think!


----------



## sqAree (Jan 16, 2017)

It actually happened already, precisely with Megaminx. Juan Pablo's most recent WR single was a +2.

I don't really see why this should be discussed. Even non-cubers can easily see that it doesn't take longer than 2 seconds to do one move.


----------



## MentosCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

I honestly think that it should not count, except maybe for 7x7 because that doesn't make that much of a difference and it took a ton of effort to get there, so I should give it to them. I just think that since the cube is not completely solved, that should not be thought og as a world record time (but if this does happen on 3x3, congratulations on solving a cube in what would have been about 2.72 seconds, had it not been for the +2! I think you might deserve the title just for that, but no one else deserves to lose it to something like that and it shouldn't technically count - just like many of you deserve more YouTube subscribers but you don't get them because logic.)



sqAree said:


> It actually happened already, precisely with Megaminx. Juan Pablo's most recent WR single was a +2.
> 
> I don't really see why this should be discussed. Even non-cubers can easily see that it doesn't take longer than 2 seconds to do one move.


There's no way to know that for sure, but that's aside the point.
I think this is open to discussion because they didn't actually fully earn the title of WR holder. Even though it doesn't take two seconds to do a single move, the WCA decided that a two-second penalty is what you should get for not completely solving the cube, and I agree. Since they did not actually solve the cube, they can't say they solved a 3x3 in 2.7 seconds.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 16, 2017)

Why wouldn't it be?
As far as I know, the WCA doesn't record whether or not a solve was a +2. Thus, any knowledge of +2s are unofficial.
After a solve has been entered into the database, that is the time it is. If that time is the world record, then it is the world record. Also consider that there are other reasons to +2 aside from 90 degrees off. Over inspection, and placing the cube on the timer also result in a +2.

What you are really asking (as far as I understand) is should the WCA records count as records?
My answer, is yes.


----------



## MentosCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm just referring to the classic my-cube-has-one-move-left-but-I-already-stopped-the-timer +2 that would actually get you a +5 in You Can Do The Cube competitions organized by Rubik's.
Yes, I'm aware that you say that obviously could have been a 2.71 solve, in my hypothetical situation above. But it wasn't. So should it count? I'm still not entirely convinced.


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 16, 2017)

Yes, they definitely should count, and they already have counted many times. The current MBLD WR also had a +2, although that is sort of a strange case. Imagine if Feliks got a 4.71+, and the WCA is like, "Yeah, see, that counts as a 4.71, but it doesn't count as a world record because you were unable to solve the cube with no penalties in that time." It just doesn't seem right at all. Would he still be ranked #1 in the world, but it wouldn't be considered a record on the Records page? Or would his solve be practically equivalent to a DNF? If that's the case, it would have been beneficial for him to wait 0.03 more seconds so the solve wouldn't ever be considered a WR.



MentosCubing said:


> Iexcept maybe for 7x7 because that doesn't make that much of a difference



Exceptions like these are too event-biased and should never be used in my opinion. If a rule isn't strong enough to apply to every event, it's not a good rule.


----------



## MentosCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

I guess that makes sense, but I think I'm looking at it the wrong way. Honestly I see nothing wrong with the situation you described above that you said didn't seem right, because in other competitive things like cubing, that would make complete sense. If you went to a competition for something completely different (suppose it was speed stacking, but I can't verify the regulations for this because I can't find them), then an attempt that was not entirely complete but close enough to just get a time penalty would probably not count as a WR because they didn't technically finish. I think the reason you are looking at cubing any differently is because every solve has a different scramble and there are a lot of ways to go about solving the cube, and such variety makes us think of it differently than things that are exactly the same every time, like track and field or swimming.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 16, 2017)

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeees.

(Spinoff of a classic post)


----------



## Cale S (Jan 16, 2017)

If you think solves that are WR even after a +2 should not be counted, a better argument would be for removing the arbitrary +2 penalty entirely


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

I thought the entire point of the +2 penalty was so that if you're really close and you messed up, it would still count
I agree with Cale that if +2s shouldn't count was WR, they shouldn't count at all


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 16, 2017)

Cale is right. WR shouldn't be treated differently than any other result. This is just a re-run of the age-old argument about whether one move away should be +2 or DNF.


----------



## Ollie (Jan 16, 2017)

Cale S said:


> If you think solves that are WR even after a +2 should not be counted, a better argument would be for removing the arbitrary +2 penalty entirely


Exactly my thoughts. Same old +2 argument with a different skin.


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 16, 2017)

Yeah, if some solves with +2s count and some don't, that seems like an illogical argument to me. If you're arguing to eliminate +2 alignment penalties entirely because the cube technically isn't solved, then that argument has some merit to it (although I'm still personally not for it).

All in all though, I think a WR with a +2 is even more impressive than one without, to be honest.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 16, 2017)

Should solves with +2's count in general? No, of course not. But we are too far along now to fix it. Look back at the video of the 1982 WC - when cubes were not perfectly aligned, they consulted Erno Rubik himself to validate the solve.

A lot of these numbers are just arbitrary: +2 penalties for everything (even though not all pentalities are equal), 15 second (+2) inspection. Why not have +Pi penalties? Or +9 halves? What about +10%? Or +e*Pi% of the mean of the other solves in the average? I think the best way to eliminate this arbitrariness would be to remove inspection time and all misalignment penalties completely. But nobody wants that.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 16, 2017)

Yes.


It would create soooo many questions if they didn't count, like:
is it still a CR/NR?
is it still ranked #1?
does it still count as that time?
do we do the same for CRs/NRs that are +2?


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 16, 2017)

too much internet for today


----------



## DhruvA (Jan 16, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> Why wouldn't it be?
> As far as I know, the WCA doesn't record whether or not a solve was a +2. Thus, any knowledge of +2s are unofficial.
> After a solve has been entered into the database, that is the time it is. If that time is the world record, then it is the world record.



I completely agree. +2s are penalties that are just added, so if the final result is a record, it should be considered one. After all, WCA made it on their own and the person getting the solve also deserves it.


----------



## EmperorZant (Jan 16, 2017)

This post is basically asking if we should consider a +2 a DNF, which is pretty silly


----------



## Xtremecubing (Jan 16, 2017)

If your solve is a +2 and still faster than the existing WR, it's a new WR, which is obvious


----------



## MentosCubing (Jan 17, 2017)

Okay. I guess most people disagree with me, and that's fine. You missed my point a little bit, and generalized my question a bit further than I intended, but for entirely different reasons (that sounds so mature) I have come to a realization that you are right, but not necessarily for these reasons.
I have been thinking about this more, and not getting emails whenever someone posted to this thread for some reason, and I have realized that if the WCA can decide how much inspection you can get and how you and the cube must be positioned to start and what timers you can use and everyone totally accepted that because those are genuinely good regulations, then they can decide that +2s should count just as much as a normal solve, even if that should make or break a world record.
This is not to say that your reasoning has not helped me come to this conclusion. In fact, as I wrote that, I realized that you are entirely correct (well, most of you). Yes, if that is their solve time, and it is below the world record, it is a world record. I feel so stupid now, but that's okay because I know I'm actually not stupid because I had to look at the problem at a different angle before I realized that I was incorrect. Even so, looking back at my original posts above, now I do feel stupid because I wrote those less than two days ago and they would be great "Reacting To My Old Posts" content if that was a thing.
Just a lesson to people out there, it's okay to be incorrect. (Not very fun that way though.)

Even so, if any of you have compelling evidence that agrees with my original claim, I would be happy to hear it.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 17, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Should solves with +2's count in general? No, of course not. But we are too far along now to fix it.


I don't think it's too late. 

In any case, official results are calculated per the Regulations, and the best official result is the world record.

If you feel that +2 for misalignments should not count as a valid result, then you should argue to DNF all such solves. ;-)


----------



## DhruvA (Jan 17, 2017)

MentosCubing said:


> Okay. I guess most people disagree with me, and that's fine. You missed my point a little bit, and generalized my question a bit further than I intended, but for entirely different reasons (that sounds so mature) I have come to a realization that you are right, but not necessarily for these reasons.
> I have been thinking about this more, and not getting emails whenever someone posted to this thread for some reason, and I have realized that if the WCA can decide how much inspection you can get and how you and the cube must be positioned to start and what timers you can use and everyone totally accepted that because those are genuinely good regulations, then they can decide that +2s should count just as much as a normal solve, even if that should make or break a world record.
> This is not to say that your reasoning has not helped me come to this conclusion. In fact, as I wrote that, I realized that you are entirely correct (well, most of you). Yes, if that is their solve time, and it is below the world record, it is a world record. I feel so stupid now, but that's okay because I know I'm actually not stupid because I had to look at the problem at a different angle before I realized that I was incorrect. Even so, looking back at my original posts above, now I do feel stupid because I wrote those less than two days ago and they would be great "Reacting To My Old Posts" content if that was a thing.
> Just a lesson to people out there, it's okay to be incorrect. (Not very fun that way though.)



Don't feel bad, you were correct in your way of seeing it but in reality it's really that wca just gets the final result with penalties or without. I found your thread to think differently at penalties and records and it seemed pretty interesting too.


----------



## A1d3n.f0rd (Jan 25, 2017)

The ethereal clearly a problem with +2s because it's not going to take 2 seconds to turn a layer once there should be different penalties for different cubes like for a 7x7 you should get like a +8 or something and for 2x2 you should get like a +1


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 26, 2017)

A1d3n.f0rd said:


> The ethereal clearly a problem with +2s because it's not going to take 2 seconds to turn a layer once there should be different penalties for different cubes like for a 7x7 you should get like a +8 or something and for 2x2 you should get like a +1


Yes, the +2 seconds is completely arbitrary. But if you pick different arbitrary numbers then they are not any better.


----------



## A1d3n.f0rd (Jan 26, 2017)

But it would clearly be better then having a +2 for literally every single event


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 26, 2017)

A1d3n.f0rd said:


> But it would clearly be better then having a +2 for literally every single event


I don't think it's clearly better. How would you choose the penalties? You can't base it on TPS, because top 7x7 solvers are only around 30% or so slower for TPS than on 3x3. You can't base it on average move count because that is very highly dependent on method. You can't base it on the proportion of the total solve time because there's usually a massive variance in 2x2 solves, but 7x7 times are usually way more consistent. 

Basically, there's no fair way to come up with a penalty that's not just making it up. And if you're just going to make it up anyway, why not keep it consistent and easy for judges to apply. 

Personally, like many others in this thread, I feel any discussion about changing the way we apply +2s just lands up being a bunch of good reasons for scrapping them altogether.


----------



## A1d3n.f0rd (Jan 26, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> I don't think it's clearly better. How would you choose the penalties? You can't base it on TPS, because top 7x7 solvers are only around 30% or so slower for TPS than on 3x3. You can't base it on average move count because that is very highly dependent on method. You can't base it on the proportion of the total solve time because there's usually a massive variance in 2x2 solves, but 7x7 times are usually way more consistent.
> 
> Basically, there's no fair way to come up with a penalty that's not just making it up. And if you're just going to make it up anyway, why not keep it consistent and easy for judges to apply.
> 
> Personally, like many others in this thread, I feel any discussion about changing the way we apply +2s just lands up being a bunch of good reasons for scrapping them altogether.


That's fair but then let's say ur doing a u perm and you don't do the R2 at the end and that could cut like .25 off ur time so there should be some sort of penalty that's why I belive that there should be different time penalties for different cubes and it shouldn't be based on tps


----------



## mjm (Jan 26, 2017)

Am I the only one that's fond of the +2 rule?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 26, 2017)

A1d3n.f0rd said:


> That's fair but then let's say ur doing a u perm and you don't do the R2 at the end and that could cut like .25 off ur time so there should be some sort of penalty that's why I belive that there should be different time penalties for different cubes and it shouldn't be based on tps


Or you could just DNF it.


----------



## sqAree (Jan 26, 2017)

mjm said:


> Am I the only one that's fond of the +2 rule?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk



I'm pretty sure most people like the +2 rule. The reason the rule is made and stays is that it makes sense.


----------



## A1d3n.f0rd (Jan 26, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Or you could just DNF it.


Yeah but I don't think that's a fair penalty for being one move off and I think a lot of the community would agree with me


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 26, 2017)

A1d3n.f0rd said:


> Yeah but I don't think that's a fair penalty for being one move off and I think a lot of the community would agree with me


...which is why we have +2.


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 30, 2017)

A1d3n.f0rd said:


> Yeah but I don't think that's a fair penalty for being one move off and I think a lot of the community would agree with me



I believe it's fair to DNF it for being one move off. You should have to consistently solve it completely, not nearly solve it.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 30, 2017)

CubingGenius said:


> I believe it's fair to DNF it for being one move off. You should have to consistently solve it completely, not nearly solve it.


Agreed. You either solved it completely, or you did not finish (DNF).


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 30, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Agreed. You either solved it completely, or you did not finish (DNF).



Another thing that should be mentioned is the appearance of the cube not being solved for people like non-cubers.

Say someone gets a 4.61 with a +2 to make it 6.61 which ends up counting to help get WR average. This would get viewed by a lot of non-cubers and they would become extremely confused why the time is still allowed. I personally don't believe having the +2 rule will help promote speedcubing to a wider audience.


----------



## Ollie (Jan 30, 2017)

CubingGenius said:


> Another thing that should be mentioned is the appearance of the cube not being solved for people like non-cubers.
> 
> Say someone gets a 4.61 with a +2 to make it 6.61 which ends up counting to help get WR average. This would get viewed by a lot of non-cubers and they would become extremely confused why the time is still allowed. I personally don't believe having the +2 rule will help promote speedcubing to a wider audience.



The idea that we should get rid of the +2 rule based on the opinions of non-cubers annoys me. It's almost like we think as a community that they are incapable of understanding.

When those who I have brought to competitions, or those who have asked me questions by watching cubing videos, have asked about the +2 rule I have always been able to explain in two lines what it is there for and everyone has understood. In some cases, they have even made their own comparisons, for example considering the solve as technically not being finished. But they are completely capable of understanding that a +2 penalty is a fair replacement for DNF, considering it doesn't take long to do the final move.

Also, there's no basis that a +2 would put off potential new members anyway. They are excited by the colours, dexterity, the community aspect, the chance to improve personal bests and gain a sense of accomplishment by learning new puzzles and learning new methods.


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 30, 2017)

Ollie said:


> The idea that we should get rid of the +2 rule based on the opinions of non-cubers annoys me. It's almost like we think as a community that they are incapable of understanding.
> 
> When those who I have brought to competitions, or those who have asked me questions by watching cubing videos, have asked about the +2 rule I have always been able to explain in two lines what it is there for and everyone has understood. In some cases, they have even made their own comparisons, for example considering the solve as technically not being finished. But they are completely capable of understanding that a +2 penalty is a fair replacement for DNF, considering it doesn't take long to do the final move.
> 
> Also, there's no basis that a +2 would put off potential new members anyway. They are excited by the colours, dexterity, the community aspect, the chance to improve personal bests and gain a sense of accomplishment by learning new puzzles and learning new methods.



But that's not the main reason. That's only a small add-on. My main argument is that +2 doesn't make any sense because you should be showing your ability to consistently solve the cube *COMPLETELY*. I do agree that my last point was not that good, but it was more of an add-on to a very good argument.


----------



## Ollie (Jan 30, 2017)

CubingGenius said:


> But that's not the main reason. That's only a small add-on. My main argument is that +2 doesn't make any sense because you should be showing your ability to consistently solve the cube *COMPLETELY*. I do agree that my last point was not that good, but it was more of an add-on to a very good argument.



I can't think of any changes or implementations to the WCA rules that were influenced predominantly by non-cubers' attitudes. I could be wrong - feel free to point me to something that was. 

And while I agree that +2s should probably become DNFs one day, your "very good argument" is subjective. There isn't really much solid evidence that either side can bring to this debate without carrying out a large scale poll of competitors. We tend to rely on analogies from other sports (i.e. running 100m can't be considered complete if someone runs 99m +2s) but these don't necessarily transfer - it's up to us how we govern our own sport.

We actually need a proper survey of the community to see the difference in opinion and then build some solid cases for keeping/replacing +2s. I doubt much has changed since this initial discussion:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=922

Or this:

https://github.com/thewca/wca-regulations/issues/145

Or this (the most in depth discussion I can find that does not contain a poll):

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-remove-2-penalty-for-misaligned-sides.34096/


----------

