# MultiBLD Regulations.



## CarterK (Oct 19, 2017)

Regulation 9f12c is about how multiBLD is ranked. Summarizing it, it says that it is ranked by points, then if tied, time, then if tied, number of cubes unsolved, where less is better. 

I don't think this is the right way to go. At the very least, I think it should be ranked by points, then cubes solved, then time. I'll give an example of why this is better:

Looking at the multi podium from Wisconsin Winter 2017, Stanley got 3rd with 11/20 in 46:06, which is 2 points. I was at that competition and I attempted 2 (and DNFed both). If I got 2/2 that day, that would have beat Stanley's 11/20, because they are the same amount of points and the 2/2 has to be under 20 minutes. This shouldn't happen.

If we were going to go extreme with this, we could make the solved cubes have more weight than the unsolved cubes, making the formula 2*solved - unsolved. This would make it so that things like a 3/5 would be worth more than a 2/2.

Thoughts?


----------



## Ollie (Oct 19, 2017)

CarterK said:


> Regulation 9f12c is about how multiBLD is ranked. Summarizing it, it says that it is ranked by points, then if tied, time, then if tied, number of cubes unsolved, where less is better.
> 
> I don't think this is the right way to go. At the very least, I think it should be ranked by points, then cubes solved, then time. I'll give an example of why this is better:
> 
> ...


It's all relative, really. And pretty subjective, surely open to some debate.

Currently it rewards:

1. Overall accuracy
2. Speed
3. In a very unlikely scenario where you are tied, the fewest mistakes wins.

My two cents:

When you attempt MultiBLD (and 3BLD in a way), you are making a claim that you can complete a certain number of cubes blindfolded with *accuracy first and foremost.* When you get 2/2, it may only be 2 points and a small number of cubes, but you completed the attempt perfectly with 100% accuracy. You achieved exactly what you set out to achieve in competition conditions.

Attempting 20 cubes is definitely more bold than attempting 2, and it used to be that 19/20 would lose to 2/2 in old rules MultiBLD - thankfully things have changed. But 11/20 means you have made, at the very least, *9 mistakes*. It's just a different way of looking at it.

In competition, where resources are limited and 20/20 takes significantly longer to attempt than 2/2, the points system works out nicely. 12/20 = 4/4, 13/20 = 6/6, 14/20 = 8/8.

*TL;DR: The more competition resources you take up, the more accurate you are expected to be*.

EDIT: Your formula works ok for smaller numbers. Some examples to think about with your proposed system:

4/5 = 7pts
9/20 = 7pts

Who wins? The measure that is weighted towards solving more cubes gives the guy/girl with less than 50% accuracy a chance to win.

With this system, you get strange scenarios where the solver doesn't even need to know how to solve parity, or can simply just memorized less than half of the total cubes and still get a score.

Although it's badass, it isn't exactly fair, and wastes a lot of time. It's the reason why 1/2 is no longer considered a valid score - *people were just memorizing one cube to get an official time.
*
EDIT 2: Grammar.


----------



## CarterK (Oct 19, 2017)

Ollie said:


> My two cents:
> 
> When you attempt MultiBLD (and 3BLD in a way), you are making a claim that you can complete a certain number of cubes blindfolded with *accuracy first and foremost.* When you get 2/2, it may only be 2 points and a small number of cubes, but you complete the attempt perfectly with 100% accuracy. You achieve exactly what you set out to achieve in competition conditions.
> 
> ...



I can see the viewpoint of this, and it makes sense, but I feel like 11/20 should beat a 2/2 because you have to be somewhat skilled to get 11/20 but 2/2 just takes more memo where you wouldn't use rooms.


----------



## Ollie (Oct 19, 2017)

CarterK said:


> I can see the viewpoint of this, and it makes sense, but I feel like 11/20 should beat a 2/2 because you have to be somewhat skilled to get 11/20 but 2/2 just takes more memo where you wouldn't use rooms.



I edited my original post with some examples for you to think about. The 1/2 case in particular is bad - with your system, I could memorize one cube, not bother with the other one, and get an official MultiBLD time on my profile.

EDIT: My point is that weighting solved cubes over less mistakes gives you weird results too.


----------



## CarterK (Oct 19, 2017)

Ollie said:


> EDIT: Your formula works ok for smaller numbers. Some examples to think about with your proposed system:
> 
> 4/5 = 7pts
> 9/20 = 7pts
> ...



You would keep the same rules, maybe change the wording a little bit - if less than half the cubes are solved, or only one cube is solved, then the competitor receives a DNF for that attempt.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 19, 2017)

People getting bad results is not a reason to change the system. People know how it works and will work towards getting the best result at it they know if they get 50% a 2/2 can beat them. The order things go in to break ties makes some sort of sense you have for example two 20 points results. Since multi is based on points it makes sense to go to time first. Even if one is a 20/20 and the other is 30/40.


----------



## Ollie (Oct 19, 2017)

I recalculated the WCA MultiBLD positions based on the points=2*solved-missed formula. If anyone is interested in the full data set then message me, otherwise here is the R code:


```
library(data.table)

# 0. Get the filtered data. ----
results <- fread(
  input = "WCA_export_Results.tsv",
  sep = "\t",
  select = c("competitionId", "eventId", "pos", "best", "personId", "roundTypeId")
)

mbld <- results[eventId == "333mbf" & best > 0]

# Clean up.
rm(results)

# 1. Create a function. ---------------------------------------------------
ufnPointsFunction <- function(solved, missed, seconds, weighting = 1){

  if(solved < missed || (solved == 1 & missed == 2)) {
    return(-1)
  } else {
    new_value = solved * weighting - missed
    new_dd = 99 - new_value
    new_mm = ifelse(missed < 10, paste0("0", missed), as.character(missed))
    new_format = paste0(new_dd, seconds, new_mm)
    return(as.numeric(new_format))
  }
}

# 2. Extract the key info from the "best" column, ignoring old style MBLD. ----
# Make an ID based on the competitionId and round:
mbld$group <- paste(mbld$competitionId, mbld$roundTypeId, sep = "_")

mbld$competitionId <- NULL
mbld$roundTypeId <- NULL

# Use the README in the WCA Export to find out what to do.
# Use substring functions to get the points:
mbld$points <- 99 - as.numeric(substr(mbld$best, 1,2))

# Get the number of missed cubes from the end:
mbld$cubesMissed <- as.numeric(substr(mbld$best, nchar(mbld$best)-1,nchar(mbld$best)))

# Finish off cube numbers.
mbld$cubesAttempted <- mbld$points + mbld$cubesMissed*2
mbld$cubesSolved <- mbld$points + mbld$cubesMissed

# Get the time in seconds.
mbld$seconds <- substr(mbld$best, 3,7)

# 2. Try combinations of our function. ------------------------------------
# Calculate the new points and the new position in the comp with that new score.
mbld$solved_x2 <- ufnPointsFunction(mbld$cubesSolved, mbld$cubesMissed, mbld$seconds, 2)
mbld[,pos_x2:=rank(solved_x2),by="group"]

# 3. Compare who's positions have changed. --------------------------------
output <- data.frame(

  PersonId = mbld$personId,
  Comp_Round = mbld$group,
  Result = sprintf("%s/%s", mbld$cubesSolved, mbld$cubesAttempted),

  Points_x1 = mbld$points,
  Pos_x1 = mbld$pos,

  Value_x2 = mbld$solved_x2,
  Points_x2 = mbld$cubesSolved * 2 - mbld$cubesMissed,
  Pos_x2 = mbld$pos_x2,
  Change_x2 = ifelse(mbld$pos == mbld$pos_x2, "no", "yes")

)

final = output[!(output$Change_x2 == "no"),]
```

Some interesting findings:

Maskow wins WC2017, not Shivam.
Not counting the DNFs (as the data wasn't available) the formula change affects the positions of 2324/6332 MultiBLD results in the latest import (19/Oct/2017)
Of the 2324 results, 1299 results improved in their positions in that competition/round, 1025 got worse.
Those with these kinds of results were the most likely to see their positions downgraded in competition:



Spoiler



Score Count
1: 2/4 62
2: 3/4 61
3: 3/5 57
4: 3/6 55
5: 4/6 53
6: 4/7 41
7: 4/5 39
8: 5/8 38
9: 6/10 36
10: 1/2 33
11: 5/7 31
12: 4/8 27
13: 5/10 25
14: 6/9 21
15: 5/9 20
16: 7/10 19
17: 5/6 17
18: 7/12 15
19: 6/11 13
20: 8/12 13



These kinds of results were likely to get better positions at comp:



Spoiler



Score Count
1: 1/2 228
2: 2/2 218
3: 2/3 163
4: 3/3 127
5: 3/4 52
6: 4/4 51
7: 5/5 47
8: 2/4 42
9: 4/5 36
10: 6/6 27
11: 6/7 27
12: 5/6 25
13: 3/5 21
14: 7/8 21
15: 7/7 17
16: 9/10 17
17: 4/6 16
18: 5/7 13
19: 8/8 13
20: 10/10 12



By the looks of things, I think results with greater accuracy are still being rewarded with a system based on a higher reward for more solved cubes. Lots of small results are affected, but they can go either way.

The biggest winner is:
*Gianfranco Huanqui*

Who would have seen his 16/30 jump from 73rd position to 39th at WC2017.

EDIT: Wrong figures. Please report any bugs you see.


----------



## CarterK (Oct 20, 2017)

Ollie said:


> Maskow wins WC2017, not Shivam.



Wasn't expecting this.


----------



## 1973486 (Oct 20, 2017)

Ollie said:


> It used to be that 19/20 would lose to 2/2 in old rules MultiBLD - thankfully things have changed



I'm sure this is a misconception


----------



## CarterK (Oct 20, 2017)

1973486 said:


> I'm sure this is a misconception



Multi used to be based on percent.


----------



## Roman (Oct 20, 2017)

A side opinion from a bad MBLD solver.
I think in case of equal scores, more solved cubes should be more valueable than the exact time, considering that both competitors had a full hour for completing their attempts. 11/20 will then be better than the 2/2 (but not better than the 3/3). Here is how the ranking would change (not so much):

```
01) 41/41 54:14  Marcin Kowalczyk      vs.  41/41 54:14  Marcin Kowalczyk    
02) 38/40 59:15  Shivam Bansal         vs.  38/40 59:15  Shivam Bansal      
03) 37/39 58:06  Yucheng Chen          vs.  37/39 58:06  Yucheng Chen        
04) 35/37 57:19  Kamil Przybylski      vs.  35/37 57:19  Kamil Przybylski    
05) 37/42 60:00  Mark Boyanowski       vs.  37/42 60:00  Mark Boyanowski    
06) 31/31 59:08  Witali Bułatow        vs.  31/31 59:08  Witali Bułatow      
07) 30/30 54:11  Kaijun Lin            vs.  30/30 54:11  Kaijun Lin          
08) 29/30 57:47  Gianfranco Huanqui    vs.  29/30 57:47  Gianfranco Huanqui  
09) 27/28 48:35  Preeda Hongpimolmas   vs.  28/30 57:50  Grzegorz Jałocha    
10) 28/30 57:50  Grzegorz Jałocha      vs.  27/28 48:35  Preeda Hongpimolmas 
11) 25/26 58:16  Marcell Endrey        vs.  25/26 58:16  Marcell Endrey      
12) 25/27 58:53  Oliver Frost          vs.  26/29 60:00  Xin Shi            
13) 23/23 59:11  Berta García          vs.  25/27 58:53  Oliver Frost        
14) 23/23 59:31  Hongbin Chang         vs.  23/23 59:11  Berta García        
15) 26/29 60:00  Xin Shi               vs.  23/23 59:31  Hongbin Chang      
16) 24/26 53:40  Cale Schoon           vs.  25/28 57:45  Tom Nelson          
17) 23/24 55:45  Tomas Kristiansson    vs.  24/26 53:40  Cale Schoon        
18) 25/28 57:45  Tom Nelson            vs.  23/24 55:45  Tomas Kristiansson  
19) 22/23 53:13  Ainesh Sevellaraja    vs.  27/33 60:00  Ramses Amaya        
20) 21/21 53:49  Fernando Israel       vs.  23/25 56:53  Tim Wong            
21) 21/21 54:41  Tianyu Zhao           vs.  23/25 57:29  Yuki Yamamoto      
22) 23/25 56:53  Tim Wong              vs.  23/25 57:48  Zane Carney        
23) 23/25 57:29  Yuki Yamamoto         vs.  22/23 53:13  Ainesh Sevellaraja  
24) 23/25 57:48  Zane Carney           vs.  21/21 53:49  Fernando Israel    
25) 21/21 58:28  Roman Strakhov        vs.  21/21 54:41  Tianyu Zhao        
26) 27/33 60:00  Ramses Amaya          vs.  21/21 58:28  Roman Strakhov      
27) 22/24 55:57  Josh Weimer           vs.  22/24 55:57  Josh Weimer        
28) 21/22 56:01  Tomoyuki Hiraide      vs.  21/22 56:01  Tomoyuki Hiraide    
29) 20/20 58:18  Yuxin Wang            vs.  21/22 59:29  Naoto Shinagawa    
30) 21/22 59:29  Naoto Shinagawa       vs.  20/20 58:18  Yuxin Wang          
31) 20/21 54:02  Oleg Gritsenko        vs.  21/23 56:09  Sukant Koul        
32) 20/21 55:09  Kabyanil Talukdar     vs.  20/21 54:02  Oleg Gritsenko      
33) 21/23 56:09  Sukant Koul           vs.  20/21 55:09  Kabyanil Talukdar  
34) 20/21 57:28  Rustam Valeev         vs.  20/21 57:28  Rustam Valeev      
35) 19/20 54:55  Kevin Matthews        vs.  19/20 54:55  Kevin Matthews      
36) 18/18 55:18  Riley Woo             vs.  19/20 58:21  Eric Limeback      
37) 19/20 58:21  Eric Limeback         vs.  19/20 59:04  Dennis Strehlau    
38) 19/20 59:04  Dennis Strehlau       vs.  18/18 55:18  Riley Woo          
39) 17/17 43:36  Jeff Park             vs.  21/25 60:00  Janne Lehtimäki    
40) 18/19 51:54  Gabriel Dechichi      vs.  19/21 54:22  Abhijeet Ghodgaonkar
41) 17/17 53:09  Chester Lian          vs.  19/21 54:40  Daniel Sheppard    
42) 19/21 54:22  Abhijeet Ghodgaonkar  vs.  19/21 55:41  Shenghai Fang      
43) 19/21 54:40  Daniel Sheppard       vs.  18/19 51:54  Gabriel Dechichi    
44) 19/21 55:41  Shenghai Fang         vs.  18/19 59:01  Gabriel Alejandro  
45) 18/19 59:01  Gabriel Alejandro     vs.  18/19 59:47  Noah Arthurs        
46) 18/19 59:47  Noah Arthurs          vs.  17/17 43:36  Jeff Park          
47) 21/25 60:00  Janne Lehtimäki       vs.  17/17 53:09  Chester Lian        
48) 17/18 51:42  Ádám Barta            vs.  21/26 59:22  Jakob Kogler        
49) 17/18 52:30  Tim Habermaas         vs.  18/20 53:18  Shiori Sato        
50) 18/20 53:18  Shiori Sato           vs.  17/18 51:42  Ádám Barta          
51) 16/16 53:49  Arthur Garcin         vs.  17/18 52:30  Tim Habermaas      
52) 17/18 54:07  Diego Bojunga         vs.  17/18 54:07  Diego Bojunga      
53) 17/18 56:43  Matteo Chancerel      vs.  17/18 56:43  Matteo Chancerel    
54) 16/16 56:54  Muhammad Iril         vs.  17/18 58:50  Maxime Clapié      
55) 17/18 58:50  Maxime Clapié         vs.  16/16 53:49  Arthur Garcin      
56) 21/26 59:22  Jakob Kogler          vs.  16/16 56:54  Muhammad Iril      
57) 16/17 46:19  Daniel Chudecki       vs.  20/25 59:56  Wenxuan Yue        
58) 15/15 50:34  Chuang Zhou           vs.  19/23 56:45  Graham Siggins      
59) 15/15 51:57  Jan Bentlage          vs.  18/21 59:54  Ishaan Agrawal      
60) 15/15 52:01  Tong Jiang            vs.  16/17 46:19  Daniel Chudecki    
61) 16/17 53:23  Sebastian Werb        vs.  16/17 53:23  Sebastian Werb      
62) 16/17 54:22  Didiet Aditya         vs.  16/17 54:22  Didiet Aditya      
63) 15/15 56:06  Lorenzo Vigani        vs.  16/17 56:07  Roberto Antonio    
64) 16/17 56:07  Roberto Antonio       vs.  15/15 50:34  Chuang Zhou        
65) 19/23 56:45  Graham Siggins        vs.  15/15 51:57  Jan Bentlage        
66) 15/15 56:51  István Kocza          vs.  15/15 52:01  Tong Jiang          
67) 18/21 59:54  Ishaan Agrawal        vs.  15/15 56:06  Lorenzo Vigani      
68) 20/25 59:56  Wenxuan Yue           vs.  15/15 56:51  István Kocza        
69) 14/14 50:33  Kai Jiptner           vs.  17/20 54:43  Shantanu Modak      
70) 15/16 52:19  David Andersson       vs.  17/20 55:49  Roberto Bentivoglio 
71) 17/20 54:43  Shantanu Modak        vs.  16/18 55:59  Matěj Mužátko      
72) 14/14 55:05  Fabrizio Cirnigliaro  vs.  15/16 52:19  David Andersson    
73) 17/20 55:49  Roberto Bentivoglio   vs.  15/16 55:49  Marco Edoardo      
74) 15/16 55:49  Marco Edoardo         vs.  15/16 59:38  Callum Hales-Jepp  
75) 16/18 55:59  Matěj Mužátko         vs.  14/14 50:33  Kai Jiptner        
76) 14/14 57:16  Vojtěch Dvořák        vs.  14/14 55:05  Fabrizio Cirnigliaro
77) 14/14 57:32  Brandon Mikel         vs.  14/14 57:16  Vojtěch Dvořák      
78) 14/14 58:51  Mark Rivers           vs.  14/14 57:32  Brandon Mikel      
79) 15/16 59:38  Callum Hales-Jepp     vs.  14/14 58:51  Mark Rivers        
80) 13/13 45:08  Jayden McNeill        vs.  19/25 60:00  Liping Jia          
81) 13/13 47:08  Neel Gore             vs.  16/19 58:50  Marcin Zalewski    
82) 14/15 48:16  Ben Ridley            vs.  15/17 56:24  Ahsanul Insan      
83) 13/13 49:58  Raymond Goslow        vs.  14/15 48:16  Ben Ridley          
84) 13/13 50:09  Olli Vikstedt         vs.  14/15 51:58  José Antonio        
85) 14/15 51:58  José Antonio          vs.  13/13 45:08  Jayden McNeill      
86) 13/13 52:16  Rodson Lingad         vs.  13/13 47:08  Neel Gore          
87) 13/13 53:47  Henrik Olsson         vs.  13/13 49:58  Raymond Goslow      
88) 13/13 55:47  Gregor Billing        vs.  13/13 50:09  Olli Vikstedt      
89) 15/17 56:24  Ahsanul Insan         vs.  13/13 52:16  Rodson Lingad      
90) 13/13 57:00  Nikhil Mande          vs.  13/13 53:47  Henrik Olsson      
91) 13/13 57:03  Mauricio Ademar       vs.  13/13 55:47  Gregor Billing      
92) 13/13 57:19  Rami Sbahi            vs.  13/13 57:00  Nikhil Mande        
93) 16/19 58:50  Marcin Zalewski       vs.  13/13 57:03  Mauricio Ademar    
94) 13/13 59:39  Simon Lim             vs.  13/13 57:19  Rami Sbahi          
95) 13/13 59:54  Brandon Satterstrom   vs.  13/13 59:39  Simon Lim          
96) 19/25 60:00  Liping Jia            vs.  13/13 59:54  Brandon Satterstrom 
97) 17/22 50:38  Patryk Zawieja        vs.  17/22 50:38  Patryk Zawieja      
98) 12/12 51:32  Chun-Lin Ho           vs.  16/20 52:46  Linus Frész        
99) 16/20 52:46  Linus Frész           vs.  13/14 53:04  Bertie Longden      
100) 13/14 53:04  Bertie Longden        vs.  12/12 51:32  Chun-Lin Ho
```


----------



## CarterK (Oct 20, 2017)

Roman said:


> I think in case of equal scores, more solved cubes should be more valueable than the exact time




This is definitely true. The more cubes you have, the less time per cube you have, and if you have the same time per cube, but one competitor has more cubes, than the time would be longer. This is where this whole idea started from. In the 2/2 vs 11/20, the 2/2 will almost always win unless you have less than 1 minute per cube, which is crazy.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 20, 2017)

Roman said:


> A side opinion from a bad MBLD solver.
> I think in case of equal scores, more solved cubes should be more valueable than the exact time, considering that both competitors had a full hour for completing their attempts. 11/20 will then be better than the 2/2 (but not better than the 3/3). Here is how the ranking would change (not so much):
> 
> ```
> ...


I really like this system. At the top level, I'm quite sure most people just try to solve as many cubes as they can fit into an hour, so time does feel less important than number of cubes.

I also think this direct comparison of rankings using each system is the best way of evaluating a scoring system. It's not really how badly different results are ranked that tells you how good the system is, but also how very similar scores are affected. 



CarterK said:


> This is definitely true. The more cubes you have, the less time per cube you have, and if you have the same time per cube, but one competitor has more cubes, than the time would be longer. This is where this whole idea started from. In the 2/2 vs 11/20, the 2/2 will almost always win unless you have less than 1 minute per cube, which is crazy.



The thing to consider is this scenario: say it takes me about 2 minutes per cube. I can handle 30 cubes in the hour, but Maskow level 40+ cubes is far out of my reach. I submit 60 cubes anyway, quickly scan for the 30 easiest, memo only them and solve them for a 30/60 result. The big question is, should that 30/60 beat the current 41/41 world record?


----------



## Ollie (Oct 20, 2017)

1973486 said:


> I'm sure this is a misconception


Proof https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/TorontoOpenWinter2008/results/all#e333mbo


----------



## CarterK (Oct 20, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> The thing to consider is this scenario: say it takes me about 2 minutes per cube. I can handle 30 cubes in the hour, but Maskow level 40+ cubes is far out of my reach. I submit 60 cubes anyway, quickly scan for the 30 easiest, memo only them and solve them for a 30/60 result. The big question is, should that 30/60 beat the current 41/41 world record?



41*2-0=82
30*2-30=30

In this case, Maskow wins. I'm not quite sure where you're getting this from though.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 20, 2017)

CarterK said:


> 41*2-0=82
> 30*2-30=30
> 
> In this case, Maskow wins. I'm not quite sure where you're getting this from though.


Sorry, I was being stupid. I read solved in your post as attempted.


----------



## Ollie (Oct 20, 2017)

42/43 would beat it.

So should 100% on 41 cubes lose to one mistake on 43? A part of me thinks yes, to be fair, since the next person who solves 42/42 will anyway win.


----------



## CarterK (Oct 20, 2017)

Ollie said:


> 42/43 would beat it.
> 
> So should 100% on 41 cubes lose to one mistake on 43? A part of me thinks yes, to be fa



I talked to mark about this and there were 2 main points about this. On one hand, It's harder to get perfect than to make a mistake on one, but on the other hand, If you only have time for 41 cubes, then 42/43 isn't going to be possible while 41/41 is.


----------



## Ollie (Oct 20, 2017)

CarterK said:


> I talked to mark about this and there were 2 main points about this. On one hand, It's harder to get perfect than to make a mistake on one, but on the other hand, If you only have time for 41 cubes, then 42/43 isn't going to be possible while 41/41 is.


The greater the number of cubes attempted, making one mistake becomes more and more forgivable, but then that's subjective.

A more extreme approach is to weight time to solve more heavily with points scored. 19/20 in 30:00 requires more ability than 20/20 in 60:00 and could be rewarded as such. If scoring 40/40 in 60:00 while 39/39 in 55:00 could be recognized in a fair and objective way then that would be amazing.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 20, 2017)

There are some good arguments here, but it would be contentious to change the rules after several years of competition, especially when the superiority of proposed new rules is mostly subjective.

I know the rules were changed before, but there were good objective reasons for that.


----------



## cubeshepherd (May 23, 2018)

First off sorry for the bump, but I had a quick question regarding MBLD namely: Why do the scrambles cubes have to be in a square of 8 or something akin to that? 
I ask because I do not see how it changes anything, but I do not know if I am missing something or not. I am also asking because I am going to be competing this weekend in MBLD for the first time this weekend and I just wanted to see why the regulations are as they are, because when I attempt 10 cubes I like to have 2 groups of 4 cubes and one of 2, but I do not think that, that is allowed. (Or am I wrong on that). Thanks in advance for you help.


----------



## GenTheThief (May 23, 2018)

cubeshepherd said:


> First off sorry for the bump, but I had a quick question regarding MBLD namely: Why do the scrambles cubes have to be in a square of 8 or something akin to that?
> I ask because I do not see how it changes anything, but I do not know if I am missing something or not. I am also asking because I am going to be competing this weekend in MBLD for the first time this weekend and I just wanted to see why the regulations are as they are, because when I attempt 10 cubes I like to have 2 groups of 4 cubes and one of 2, but I do not think that, that is allowed. (Or am I wrong on that). Thanks in advance for you help.


So, once you start your attempt, you can re-arrange your cubes in any shape you want. If you feel like it, you can even make a cube tower (though it is unadvised and you may get dirty looks from your delegate).

Those regs are for setting up the cubes before they are uncovered. This was clarified (I believe) because shivam bansal was getting his mbld attempts with his cubes already organized into his preferred shape, while Kamil Przybylski was getting his cubes in a big heap.
The reg change was to make sure that no elite cubers got an advantage over another.

E:Also, maybe the oqoa blind thread would be a slightly better place to ask this? but here is totally fine


----------



## cubeshepherd (May 23, 2018)

GenTheThief said:


> So, once you start your attempt, you can re-arrange your cubes in any shape you want. If you feel like it, you can even make a cube tower (though it is unadvised and you may get dirty looks from your delegate).
> 
> Those regs are for setting up the cubes before they are uncovered. This was clarified (I believe) because shivam bansal was getting his mbld attempts with his cubes already organized into his preferred shape, while Kamil Przybylski was getting his cubes in a big heap.
> The reg change was to make sure that no elite cubers got an advantage over another.


O' I see. Thank you very much for the clarification on that. That makes me a little happier now that I can have my shapes that I like. Thank you once again for you help.


----------



## CarterK (May 23, 2018)

Also just a tip to save time, don't rearange at the beginning. Put them in the back and then put them into your shape as you memo them.


----------



## cubeshepherd (May 23, 2018)

CarterK said:


> Also just a tip to save time, don't rearange at the beginning. Put them in the back and then put them into your shape as you memo them.


That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that tip.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 21, 2018)

Ollie said:


> I recalculated the WCA MultiBLD positions based on the points=2*solved-missed formula. If anyone is interested in the full data set then message me, otherwise here is the R code:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Thats one heck of an analysis, a new a partly different way of looking at MBLD rankings, but since it doesn't change rankings that much , except for a few cases like ,*Gianfranco Huanqui, the system overall for evaluating points should remain unchanged.*


----------

