# Toronto results



## Erik (Mar 9, 2008)

I just got some inside info that Harris won with 13.75
Momonga got 17/18 multiblind by 3 corners 
more will come


----------



## ccchips296 (Mar 9, 2008)

oh wow, momonga got 17/18 multi?! thats really good. well i know harris could have done much better but oh well =)


----------



## ccchips296 (Mar 9, 2008)

oops, double post. i wish harris broke some records any way


----------



## hait2 (Mar 9, 2008)

i wanted to go but this snowstorm screwed me up
bleh


----------



## Jai (Mar 9, 2008)

Harris won with a 13, but his first round average was 12.27, which would place him 3rd in the world for 3x3 average. He didn't get any sub-10s , though.  I'm surprised he didn't , I had so many amazing solves because of easy X-crosses.
Oh, and Rowe Hessler got 1.17.xx for BLD.
I just got back from the competition, we have a snowstorm going on right now (~20cm of snow), it was murder trying to get back.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Mar 9, 2008)

Aww.. come on Harris, you could've done better.


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 9, 2008)

I did get 12.27 on the first round  
And non lucky 18.31 for OH, but Rowe got 16.xx PLL skipped -.-

Derrick did really well in the finals too, getting 13.80 average! I almost lost!! Lol.

It was pretty fun, a few "mystery events" (fastest scrambler, doing math calculations, finding words)


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Mar 9, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> I did get 12.27 on the first round
> And non lucky 18.31 for OH, but Rowe got 16.xx PLL skipped -.-
> 
> Derrick did really well in the finals too, getting 13.80 average! I almost lost!! Lol.
> ...



Sweet, when the next comp.m your going to Harris?
You need to come to one in the US one time..


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 9, 2008)

There's going to be another comp in Canada, called "Canadian Classic", in April 19th. I heard that there are going to be less events in this one though, more "social activities"


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Mar 9, 2008)

Oh, thats sucky.
You ever gonna go to any US ones?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 9, 2008)

I heard that the candadian open will be on May 17th. Theres a chance of me going


----------



## Dene (Mar 9, 2008)

Well done on the great average Harris!


----------



## ccchips296 (Mar 9, 2008)

oh wow, so harris got a 12.27 average in one of the rounds? thats heaps good, great job


----------



## Lofty (Mar 9, 2008)

whoa Harris!
When did you get so fast at OH, nice time!


----------



## Rama (Mar 9, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> I did get 12.27 on the first round
> And non lucky 18.31 for OH, but Rowe got 16.xx PLL skipped -.-



Am I the only one who did non skipped sub 17!? 

Anyway congratulations to all, but too bad for Momonga.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 9, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Aww.. come on Harris, you could've done better.



So can everyone.  I should have a sub-15 average in comp by now...


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Mar 9, 2008)

oh ryosuke...thats really bad...i am sorry

by the way: what did Derrick do in multi...did he get the 7 cubes???

Greetings...Dennis...


----------



## Jai (Mar 9, 2008)

I think Derrick got 5/7 or 4/7 or something. All I know for sure is that he didn't get them all.



Ethan Rosen said:


> I heard that the candadian open will be on May 17th. Theres a chance of me going


There's no Canadian Open this year, we're gonna have the CanadianCUBING Classic in April instead.


----------



## alexc (Mar 9, 2008)

Wow, 17/18!!!!!! Why did he do so many, he only need to do +10 for WR.


----------



## joey (Mar 9, 2008)

alexc said:


> Wow, 17/18!!!!!! Why did he do so many, he only need to do +10 for WR.



Wait? Isn't 18 including in +10?? Unless I'm mistaken it is


----------



## VooX (Mar 9, 2008)

joey said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, 17/18!!!!!! Why did he do so many, he only need to do +10 for WR.
> ...



The way I understand it, a BLD cuber has to declare how many cubes they will solve and then solve that many cubes. Any unsolved cubes and the competitor gets a DNF. 

Way to go Momonga... even though you missed one cube, you did an amazing thing by solving 17.


----------



## joey (Mar 9, 2008)

VooX said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



Then you understand wrong. In the database it goes down as 17/18, not as a DNF. Momonga could still win with 17/18... I just can't remember right now wether 17/18 or 2/2(for example) wins..


----------



## alexc (Mar 9, 2008)

joey said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, 17/18!!!!!! Why did he do so many, he only need to do +10 for WR.
> ...



Yes it is, but I'm wondering why he didn't just do 12, 13, or maybe 11 instead of jumping way up to 18?


----------



## alexc (Mar 9, 2008)

joey said:


> VooX said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



Sorry for the double post. I think the 2/2 wins. Also, I was looking at the multibld rankings and Tim was ahead of Momonga, even though Tim got 12/16 and Momonga 11/12. Didn't momonga complete a higher percentage of the total cubes, so shouldn't he be ahead of Tim? Or is Tim ahead because his attempt was faster?:confused:


----------



## joey (Mar 9, 2008)

alexc said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



If he only did (11-13), it would have been easy to beat! If he got 18 right, it would have been alot harder to beat!


----------



## alexc (Mar 9, 2008)

joey said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



True. And does anyone know his memo method? I think his execution method is M2/R2 though I may be wrong.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 9, 2008)

We display unsuccessful multibld attempts as solved/attempted instead of DNF, because... well... because we can. And because it's interesting, and this way DNFs can still be compared. For single 3x3, there are so many ways to DNF that we can't easily describe/compare how much was solved.

And I believe the priorities are:
1. Success (yes better than no).
2. Number of solved cubes (more are better).
3. Number of attempted cubes (fewer are better).
4. Time (less is better).


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Mar 9, 2008)

welll...
when you do not do 100% of the cubes, then the number of cubes is what counts, means that:
12 is more than 11, so 12/16 is better than 11/12...
well i also do not understand that?!
on the danish open, there will be a new WR in multi...
Bad to hear, that Derrick didnt do it

Greetings...Dennis...


----------



## joey (Mar 9, 2008)

alexc said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



He uses images. Letter pairs, like chris and daniel.


----------



## Jack (Mar 9, 2008)

Ryosuke attempted 18 cubes twice (the second time I think was 14/18). He ended up third behind 3/3 and 2/2! Rowe also attempted twelve, but I don't know how many he got.


----------



## tim (Mar 9, 2008)

alexc said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



It's quite obvious, which memo method he uses, isn't it?

btw. Wasn't there a time limit for multi bld? He made two attempts, each of them took him more than 2 hours .

And what about the "new rule" (one hour time limit for the whole attempt, counting the solved cubes)? We wouldn't have such close attempts anymore (I feel sorry for Momonga).


----------



## Pedro (Mar 9, 2008)

Rowe got 9/12



> 9f16) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on:
> Highest in the ranking are the competitors who solved all puzzles, among these competitors a larger number means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
> Next in the ranking are the competitors who solved at least one of the puzzles, among these competitors a larger number of solved puzzles means better, and after this a lower number of attempted puzzles means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
> Next in the ranking are the competitors who did not solve at least one puzzle, these competitors all finish at the worst position.


Stefan is right


----------



## Stefan (Mar 9, 2008)

F***. I did search for "multi" in the rules but missed that part. Hmpf, I could've said "Isn't anyone capable of reading the rules?" like I wanted to.


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 9, 2008)

There should be a change in the rule..


----------



## pjk (Mar 9, 2008)

Nice results. Rowe did the 3rd best 3x3 BLD solve yet, as well as the 2nd best OH solve in the world. Mondo, congrats on 17/18.

Good work guys.


----------



## KConny (Mar 10, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> There should be a change in the rule..



No. You don't count number of solved cubies in normal BLD.


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 10, 2008)

KConny said:


> Harris Chan said:
> 
> 
> > There should be a change in the rule..
> ...



So? You're saying that a person who is only attempting to solve an F2L and gets it is better than someone who tries to do the whole cube but only manages up to PLL?

Ok my example was bad xD

Joel suggested that they should count the number of cubes solved, and but only the 100% gets the WR. So 17/18 is better than 12/12, but 12/12 is the WR. (I quoted almost word for word )


----------



## philkt731 (Mar 10, 2008)

whats the point of that?
You can't be "better" than the person with the world record and not have it yourself...


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Mar 10, 2008)

Thanks Dennis  

I was very upset with My MultiBLD because i did so Horrible..... 

Mondo deserves HUGE respect though, he is a great guy, and a GREAT, hard working cuber, and someday he WILL get the World record and i hope he does soon, because he will be very happy and he deserves to get it! Great job with 17 still! Im glad I had a chance to meet him in person too!  and Especially Rowe hessler, he is such a great guy, and the best BLD cuber out there in my opinion.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 10, 2008)

If you can do 17/18, handle the disappointment, decide to try again (and get 14/18) you are a hero!


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> If you can do 17/18, handle the disappointment, decide to try again (and get 14/18) you are a hero!



surely...and there's the mental stress/tiredness...


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 10, 2008)

But then someone could ask for 238428394 cubes and solve 20 of them...


----------



## qqwref (Mar 10, 2008)

You still have to solve 20 of them, no matter how many cubes you say you are going to do.

I heard a suggestion a while ago that was based on the WCA time limit for cubes. Remember how for multiple blindfold you get 15 minutes per cube for each cube up to 6, and 10 minutes for each after that? The idea was that you give a large time penalty, say about 10 or 20 minutes, for each cube that is unsolved at the end, and then check if the competitor is still under the time limit for the number of cubes that ended up solved. Presumably if they are not the attempt would count as a DNF or something.

The way this would work is - suppose you did 20 cubes out of 100. Well you didn't solve 80 of them, so you add on 80*20 minutes = 26 hr 40 minutes penalty. Now no matter what your time is this is well over the time limit for solving 20 cubes, so your attempt wouldn't count as a successful solve. That's why you can't just do a huge number of cubes. But if you look at Momonga's 17/18 in 2:10, that would be turned into a successful solve of 17 cubes, out of 18, in a time of 2:30 including the penalty - although he made an honest mistake he did solve 17 cubes correctly in under the time limit for solving 17 cubes, so in this system of measurement it would count as a record.

I don't do multiple blindfold, but I've done enough statistics to know that, even if someone has a constant rate of success no matter how many cubes they attempt, 17/18 actually represents a higher rate of success than 2/2. If you get a cube right 71% of the time (very low), you can get 2/2 half of the time, but the chances for 17/18 are practically infinitesimal... It seems odd to me to give 2/2 a higher ranking given that it is both more likely for a cuber to get it, and requires less skill.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I don't do multiple blindfold, but I've done enough statistics to know that, even if someone has a constant rate of success no matter how many cubes they attempt, 17/18 actually represents a higher rate of success than 2/2. *If you get a cube right 71% of the time (very low), you can get 2/2 half of the time, but the chances for 17/18 are practically infinitesimal.*.. It seems odd to me to give 2/2 a higher ranking given that it is both more likely for a cuber to get it, and requires less skill.



don't think that idea is good...

if you do X cubes, in almost the time limit, and make a mistake, you'd add 10 mins and go over the limit...so it wouldn't count...and I don't see that as fair

I used (or still do) to agree with you that something like 17/18 is "better" than 2/2, just because it takes much more skill...but...indeed, one who solves 2/2 did no mistake, and one who solves 17/18 did (at least) one mistake...so...

the bolded part...
71% of accuracy is very low? lol...then I really suck...my accuracy is like 50-60%, going for speed...

and...I don't think the chances of getting 17/18 are infinitesimal...people can use stronger/better memory techniques for multiple cubes, so they can remember it better and for a longer time...


----------



## Dene (Mar 10, 2008)

I personally think that if someone could do 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes, then they are amazing, and just as good as the person who does 20/20 cubes in 4 hours.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2008)

I would actually have a chance (an outside chance, but a chance) at succeeding at 20/20 cubes in 4 hours. I'd have no chance at all of doing 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2008)

Dene said:


> I personally think that if someone could do 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes, then they are amazing, and just as good as the person who does 20/20 cubes in 4 hours.



. Multi bld isn't about the time. It's about the amount of cubes, so 20 cubes in 4 hours is muuuuccch better.

Stefan once suggested a rule similar to the hour cards disciplin in memory sports. Every competitor gets one hour and x (x is determined by the competitor) scrambled cubes and has to memorize + solve as much of the cubes as he can within the hour. To avoid the "ask for 1000 cubes and solve the 2 easiest ones" problem, the competitor should solve at least x*50% cubes.
I really like this idea. This will make life easier for judges (just one hour instead of 3 or even 4 hours) and competitors (no need to borrow 40 cubes from other competitors). And really slow people have the chance to solve 2/3 cubes within the hour and don't have to take care of the 15 minutes/cube rule.


----------



## Dene (Mar 10, 2008)

But, I think time is important. You don't think someone doing 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes would be amazing? We all know that you can solve many cubes, so speed is going to be the next factor to aim for, right?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2008)

tim said:


> . Multi bld isn't about the time. It's about the amount of cubes, so 20 cubes in 4 hours is muuuuccch better.



At EPGY a few weeks ago they had a 10 minute time limit on the attempt. There, it WAS about the time. So it depends on the competition. 

I do like Stefan's idea, though. We need to come up with some way to make the event more practical, and that would keep the focus more on the number of cubes than on the time (at least until people get too good at it).


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2008)

Dene said:


> But, I think time is important. You don't think someone doing 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes would be amazing? We all know that you can solve many cubes, so speed is going to be the next factor to aim for, right?



Of course, that's amazing, but again: It's called multi bld, not multi speed bld or anything like that.

btw. i wouldn't call 12 many...


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2008)

tim said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > But, I think time is important. You don't think someone doing 2/2 cubes in 2 and a half minutes would be amazing? We all know that you can solve many cubes, so speed is going to be the next factor to aim for, right?
> ...



hahah...no, 12 is not many...lol


----------

