# Throwing out scrambles in competitions?



## StachuK1992 (Nov 14, 2011)

It's been noted a few times now that scrambles have been thrown out in competitions because they were 'unfair' in various ways.

I'd like to move the main discussion here.

-What's 'unfair'?
-Should we continue doing this? If so, shouldn't we have an official rule stating this?

-A list of previous deletions would be neat.


On a personal note, deleting 'unfair' scrambles is silly; if they happen, they happen.
Different judges throwing out scrambles at different takes of the idea of 'unfair' in itself is quite unfair.


----------



## Vincents (Nov 14, 2011)

I don't believe scrambles should ever be thrown out, except in cases where there is a violation of WCA regulations. E.g. this week at Stanford Fall 2011, Jeremy threw out all the 3x3 scrambles because they were all the same thing.

If you start throwing scrambles out, you have to have some definable standard by which you are basing your judgement on. Such a standard does not exist. Every single scramble can be easy or difficult, depending on what method, event, or puzzle is being scrambled. I believe WCA scramble generators generate random states. Cutting off certain scrambles because of perceived ease-of-solution basically makes this a nonrandom state; instead of solving cubes from random places, we would be solving "challenges."


----------



## kinch2002 (Nov 14, 2011)

I was actually thinking of making this myself so thanks 

One thing I am sure of: A clear ruling needs to be made one way or the other.

Clearly there is some confusion about whether scrambles should be thrown out or not. Today I thought about it, and have decided that nothing should be thrown out. It's too difficult to draw a line somewhere, so we'd better not draw one anywhere. Most people realise that 2x2 singles (and pyra single to some extent) mean very little so I don't think it's really a problem at all to let some people get insanely lucky and set crazy times.

One problem I can think of is this: What happens if a cube is already solved (and I mean actually solved, not +2)?


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 14, 2011)

I am not in favor of delegates "manually" sorting out scrambles.

I suppose scramble programs can be set up so the scrambles are rejected (and thus a new one generated) when the scramble length is below a certain threshold value.

2x2x2: 5 moves (yep, you will still have lucky cases like Sunes and other OLL's)
3x3x3: 13 moves
etc etc
The treshold values would have to be set by the WCA.

edit for clarification:
the programs should offcourse not even show the scrambles below the treshold length.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 14, 2011)

I think that for random state generators (which we should use as much as possible - we really need to go to one as soon as possible for square-1, for instance), a minimum distance from solved would be acceptable. I personally don't care what that minimum distance is, as long as it's:
1. greater than zero (so as not to allow Daniel's case of a cube already solved), and
2. less than or equal to the smallest minimum distance that we know to have already existed in a competition - if this is done, then it's reasonable to maintain the current records as they are reasonably.

That means that, for instance, with 2x2x2 I'd be fine with minimum distance being set anywhere from 1 to 4 moves. (That was a 4 move WR, wasn't it?)

And I agree that the scramblers simply shouldn't generate any scrambles with shorter distances from solved than the minimum - if they do, they can always silently generate another until an acceptable one is found. So the person generating the scrambles is never even aware such a decision was made.


----------



## asportking (Nov 14, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think that for random state generators (which we should use as much as possible - we really need to go to one as soon as possible for square-1, for instance), a minimum distance from solved would be acceptable. I personally don't care what that minimum distance is, as long as it's:
> 1. greater than zero (so as not to allow Daniel's case of a cube already solved), and
> 2. less than or equal to the smallest minimum distance that we know to have already existed in a competition - if this is done, then it's reasonable to maintain the current records as they are reasonably.
> 
> ...


This would work for smaller sized cubes, but what about, say, a 7x7? It could have an entire center solved and the minimum distance would still be pretty close to the minimum distance of a totally scrambled 7x7.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 14, 2011)

asportking said:


> This would work for smaller sized cubes, but what about, say, a 7x7? It could have an entire center solved and the minimum distance would still be pretty close to the minimum distance of a totally scrambled 7x7.



I think that in the extremely unlikely case that such a thing happened, the appropriate thing to do would be to simply allow the scramble. Honestly, I don't expect this to even apply to something as big as a 7x7x7 (or even a 5x5x5), since random state scramblers are not likely to become practical anytime soon (if ever). For puzzles too big for a random state scrambler, we should simply allow any scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 14, 2011)

Say no to scramble filtering

This seems like a nice solution. However, I'm not against allowing 1 move scrambles either.

I see these as the only valid solutions to this 'problem'.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2011)

See also: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=954



Vincents said:


> I don't believe scrambles should ever be thrown out, except in cases where there is a violation of WCA regulations. E.g. this week at Stanford Fall 2011, Jeremy threw out all the 3x3 scrambles because they were all the same thing.



How did that violate the WCA regulations?



Kirjava said:


> Say no to scramble filtering


 
Why? Why do you want to keep easy/short scrambles?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Why? Why do you want to keep easy/short scrambles?



It's too hard to draw a line and say how easy is too easy and how short is too short. I would prefer to be given a solve from a pool of all states, not a subset of them. I don't like it because David Salvia suggested it.

None of this is important.

I don't see why we should be trying to avoid having anomalous results in the first place. You can get lucky - that's speedcubing.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I don't see why we should be trying to avoid having anomalous results in the first place.


 
More than avoiding easy scrambles or anomalous results, I'd like to avoid the outrage that comes with them.

Let's say we prevent 2x2 scrambles shorter than four moves with the scramble programs.

Advantages:
- We prevent the ugly discussions that would certainly follow a let's say two moves scramble. Especially from people who already had similarly easy scrambles removed ("WTF why was he allowed to get it when I wasn't? UNFAIR!!!").
- We prevent different organizers/delegates making inconsistent decisions (by preventing them from making decisions in the first place).

Disadvantages:
- You can't get scrambles shorter than four moves (which you probably wouldn't get anyway). Boo hoo.

Any other (dis)advantages? The way it looks to me now, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 14, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I'd like to avoid the outrage that comes with them.



We shouldn't compromise the event to keep *****s happy.



Stefan said:


> We prevent the ugly discussions that would certainly follow a let's say two moves scramble.



Some people are upset. Boo hoo?



Stefan said:


> We don't risk different organizers/delegates making inconsistent decisions.



This would be the same if we didn't filter scrambles, so it isn't an advantage over it.



Stefan said:


> You can't get scrambles shorter than four moves (which you probably wouldn't get anyway). Boo hoo.



Arbitrary lameness.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 14, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> We shouldn't compromise the event to keep *****s happy.



I don't think it would get compromised. Who would really mind if we threw out a few very easy scramble possibilities?

And why is someone a(n?) ***** if he finds it unfair that someone else got a scramble he wasn't allowed to get (thrown out by his particular delegate)? I'd find that criticism rather valid.



Kirjava said:


> Some people are upset. Boo hoo?



Yes, boo hoo. I don't like our community fighting, and if we can prevent it at the cost of pretty much nothing, I'd like to.



Kirjava said:


> This would be the same if we didn't filter scrambles, so it isn't an advantage over it.



*If* we didn't filter scrambles. Which some delegates have already done, and might do again. And even if we wrote that clearly in the regulations, there's still the possibility that some delegate overlooks/forgets it and throws out a two-mover. If we prevent such scrambles, unaware delegates wouldn't get into that situation. It's preventing a kind of human error. That's an advantage.



Kirjava said:


> Arbitrary lameness.



Not that arbitrary, I chose four because that's the shortest that was done (as far as I know). A lower bound might conflict with previous decisions of already thrown-out scrambles, and a larger bound would conflict with existing records.

Also, I wouldn't mind arbitrariness here. Why would you?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I don't think it would get compromised. Who would really mind if we threw out a few very easy scramble possibilities?



I don't know, I don't have any statistics. Neither do you - you don't know which side of the argument is more popular within the community.



Stefan said:


> And why is someone an ***** if he finds it unfair that someone else got a scramble he wasn't allowed to get (thrown out by his particular delegate)? I'd find that criticism rather valid.



My intention was to call them *****s for being angry that someone got a short scramble. They are.



Stefan said:


> Yes, *if* we didn't filter scrambles. Which some delegates have already done.



They didn't have to. They shouldn't've. I made a complaint to the delegate at the competition this weekend when a scramble was removed for being too easy. The delegate has reconsidered and appears to share my viewpoint on the matter now.



Stefan said:


> And even if we wrote that clearly in the regulations, there's still the possibility that some delegate overlooks/forgets it and throws out a two-mover. If we prevent such scrambles, unaware delegates wouldn't get into that situation. It's preventing a kind of human error.



You can say the same of delegates overlooking the rules and throwing out scrambles with cross skips absent mindedly.



Stefan said:


> Not that arbitrary, I chose four because that's the shortest that was done (as far as I know). Also, I wouldn't mind the arbitrariness here. Why would you?


 
Hasn't a (nonWR) 3 move scramble happened? Maybe it was removed. I seem to remember hearing about it.

The move limit could've easily been something else had world records played out differently. Seems weird to me.

I don't yet see valid reasons for not allowing 2 move scrambles.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You can say the same of delegates overlooking the rules and throwing out scrambles with cross skips absent mindedly.



I could if cross skips were the suggestion. But that's method-specific and I don't see it suggested. On the contrary, Tim mentioned method-neutrality in his WCA forum thread when he suggested minimum scramble lengths.

We're not going to find a perfect filter, where nobody wants to filter more or less. I'm thinking of it as at least doing *something*, filtering something that everybody agrees is easy.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 15, 2011)

_Why_ should 'easy' (short) scrambles be filtered? Nobody has given any (good) reasons.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm with Thom. Anything that isn't already solved (solved or +2) should be viable. I didn't like it in the other thread when someone said that Rowe would most likely have had the 2x2 WR if he hadn't thrown out a R2 F2 scramble. 2x2 singles will always be about luck, we don't need people arbitrarily choosing how much luck competitors are allowed.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> I could if cross skips were the suggestion. But that's method-specific and I don't see it suggested. On the contrary, Tim mentioned method-neutrality in his WCA forum thread when he suggested minimum scramble lengths.


 
I really could've said anything. The point is that delegates shouldn't be overlooking rules anyway.

Thanks for reiterating for me, Aron. I think that is the main point I'm trying to put forward here.


----------



## Escher (Nov 15, 2011)

'Nobody should ever get a royal flush because I/we don't like them and people get upset' is the argument I'm seeing here.

Of course it's a little more subtle than that, but even in the current competition meta/format I don't think filtering is necessary.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

aronpm said:


> _Why_ should 'easy' (short) scrambles be filtered? *Nobody has given any (good) reasons.*


 
Why the parentheses? I did provide two reasons.

And what's your reason for keeping them? What would you lose if they were forbidden?


----------



## Vincents (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> See also: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=954
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stefan, basically what happened was that there were identical scrambles for different 3x3 rounds and events, due to unknown reason (glitch or human error - not sure).


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Why the parentheses? I did provide two reasons.


 
One of the reasons doesn't count because the same thing will be achieved by not filtering.

The other is simply not a good reason.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Vincents said:


> Stefan, basically what happened was that there were identical scrambles for different 3x3 rounds and events, due to unknown reason (glitch or human error - not sure).


 
But which regulation was violated? Closest I found is _"1h2) Groups must have different scramble sequences"_, but if you don't divide into groups...


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> What would you lose if they were forbidden?


 
2 move scrambles.


----------



## Vincents (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> But which regulation was violated? Closest I found is _"1h2) Groups must have different scramble sequences"_, but if you don't divide into groups...


 
4b)	Puzzles must be scrambled using a computer-generated random scramble sequence or scrambled position, that must be kept secret for all but the scramblers.

They weren't a secret, because they'd already been used for a prior round. If this logic doesn't hold, 1h2 did, as there were 2 groups for OH Round 1 and 3x3 Round 1.


----------



## Muesli (Nov 15, 2011)

I think too much emphasis is placed on single solves. The only people who are really naive enough to get away with caring about them are non-cubers. There's a reason we take averages. 

Who's to say what's easy or not anyway? Perhaps the delegate doesn't spot the easy Xcross or 4 move roux block?
The only way I can see to remove all the outliers is to get everyone at the comp to try the scrambles first, throw some statistical maths at the results and remove the scrambles that consistently produce faster or slower solves. Obviously that is ridiculous.

I completely disagree with scramble filtering. Its unnecessary and, forward to Rowan's point about the poker comparison, why can't luck be a factor in cubing?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> One of the reasons doesn't count because *the same thing will be achieved by not filtering*.



Again: only if we actually don't filter. You're talking about the theoretic ideal case, in reality it's more like _"the same thing might be achieved by forbidding filtering"._

Consistency is more likely be ensured by one computer program than by dozens of humans, so it's not quite the same.



Kirjava said:


> Stefan said:
> 
> 
> > What would you lose if they were forbidden?
> ...


 
Yeah, but why would you care?



Vincents said:


> They weren't a secret, because they'd already been used for a prior round.



Unless people knew they'd be given these scrambles again, I'd still call that secret. But ok, that's just opinion.



Muesli said:


> Who's to say what's easy or not anyway? *Perhaps the delegate doesn't spot the easy Xcross or 4 move roux block?*



Um... that's why we're talking about *not* the delegate making the decision (the computer program doing it instead) and *not* about Xcross/RouxBlock/otherMethodSpecific filtering (only about short scrambles)?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Again: only if we actually don't filter. You're talking about the theoretic ideal case, in reality it's more like _"the same thing might be achieved by forbidding filtering"._


 
We're talking about changing this from the judge's discretion to something else. There are two options for this - filtering and non-filtering. Both have the advantages of just being able to be produced by scramble programs with no intervention required by the delegate. This is why I don't think it's worth mentioning.

I would like to hear a good reason for filtering, I really would. Then I would be more open to considering it.



Stefan said:


> Yeah, but why would you care?


 
Because I would like people to be able to compete and have the possibility of getting those scrambles. If the scrambles are removed, this is not possible.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> We're talking about changing this from the judge's discretion to something else. There are two options for this - filtering and non-filtering. Both have the advantages of just being able to be produced by scramble programs with *no intervention required* by the delegate. This is why I don't think it's worth mentioning.



Do you mean that as _"doesn't have to intervene"_ or as _"must not intervene"_? It sounds like the former but should be the latter, and the latter I do find worth mentioning.



Kirjava said:


> Because I would like people to be able to compete and have the possibility of getting those scrambles. If the scrambles are removed, this is not possible.


 
But what would they lose if they couldn't get those scrambles? You're not really answering the question, you're just making us go in circles. Let me rephrase, maybe this works better: What harm would be done?



Kirjava said:


> I would like to hear a good reason for filtering, I really would.



I would like to hear a good reason for *not* filtering, I really would.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Nov 15, 2011)

If an average-of-5 round has a 2-move scramble, practically all competitors would get their fastest time on that scramble. Therefore the time on that scramble would be moot except as far as records are concerned. If a round were best of two or best of three, then that really easy scramble would be pretty much the only factor affecting who advances to the next round. I think it would be really silly to base who advances to the next round on a 2-move scramble. I've made this point on the WCA forum before, but the WCA ignored it.


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2011)

I believe there should be a minimum scramble length in which scrambles shorter than that are automatically NOT generated by the software. Ideally, 2x2 scrambles would be a minimum of AT LEAST 3 or 4 moves, for example.


----------



## asportking (Nov 15, 2011)

This problem really only applies to the 2x2 and maybe the 3x3 (possibly pyraminx as well, I don't know much about that). The easiest way I can see is to just accept anything that isn't solved or 1 move away. If we started throwing away lucky scrambles, would the 2x2 WR be invalid? Because I don't see how anyone would be able to beat .69 seconds with a non-lucky scramble.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

asportking said:


> This problem really only applies to the 2x2 and maybe the 3x3 (possibly pyraminx as well, I don't know much about that).



Oh really?



asportking said:


> If we started throwing away lucky scrambles, would the 2x2 WR be invalid?



Depends on what you throw away. If we only throw away scrambles luckier than the WR, then certainly not.


----------



## jskyler91 (Nov 15, 2011)

asportking said:


> This problem really only applies to the 2x2 and maybe the 3x3 (possibly pyraminx as well, I don't know much about that). The easiest way I can see is to just accept anything that isn't solved or 1 move away. If we started throwing away lucky scrambles, would the 2x2 WR be invalid? Because I don't see how anyone would be able to beat .69 seconds with a non-lucky scramble.


 
This is an important point. Nothing that has happend before should be unachievable now. Also, we need to consider how harshly we want to limit speeds of our competitors. By this I mean: do we think that a 2 second solve for the 3x3 should be achievable or considered legitimate? Personally, I say not if we don't filter and yes if we do: Without some form of filters one could have a 5 or 6 moves solve which would be almost impossible to beat if say FAZ performed it at full speed. If, however, we filter the solves such that no 13 or less move solve is legitimate then I feel any speed achieved should be accepted because the scrambled state is so great that it would require some skill to solve it, not just luck. Just some food for thought...


----------



## Bob (Nov 15, 2011)

There is of course the alternative I have suggested in the past: ignoring the 2x2 single (ie - no WR for 2x2 single). There is too much variation in scrambling to make the 2x2 WR meaningful.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2011)

We'd also have to ignore Pyraminx single, Clock single, Square-1 single, Skewb single, and potentially 3x3x3 single if someone gets lucky enough. I don't like the idea of just throwing out records for part of an event just because we don't have an appropriate way to deal with exceedingly lucky cases.

I stand by my previous proposal - when doable, we should ignore positions that are "too close" to solved. We can choose something like the closest 1/million or 1/thousand scrambles in order to provide as little effect to normal competition as possible. IMO there is definitely such a thing as a scramble that is so easy that people will get times they could never achieve due simply to getting an easy scramble (e.g. sune on 2x2) or having the luck to choose a very fast speed-solution.


----------



## masterofthebass (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Oh really?



to be honest... I don't think a scramble like that should be thrown out. That solve was 22 moves in the same metric that the 25 move scrambler uses (I think. Each face+slice = 1 move) It just happened to be easy if you did it a certain way. If I had gotten that in competition, I would have gotten an Aperm on top and solved on D, which isn't the amazing solve that Arnaud and the others happened to get. I do agree that lots of square-1 scrambles shouldn't be allowed in competition, but that particular one doesn't fit.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Do you mean that as _"doesn't have to intervene"_ or as _"must not intervene"_? It sounds like the former but should be the latter, and the latter I do find worth mentioning.



Must not.



Stefan said:


> But what would they lose if they couldn't get those scrambles? You're not really answering the question, you're just making us go in circles. Let me rephrase, maybe this works better: What harm would be done?



The difficulty level is artificially increased.



Stefan said:


> I would like to hear a good reason for *not* filtering, I really would.



You didn't reply to these - maybe you didn't see them?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

Wasn't it the case in the old days that people had to say what colour they started with, so the scrambler would make sure they didn't have an easy start... which lead to competitors lying about their starting colour so that they weren't being deliberately given difficult scrambles. I'm sure everyone would agree that the current 3x3 rules are much better for removing this. Is it valid to apply this reasoning to the 2x2? I think so, but it may not be a direct comparison.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> The difficulty level is artificially increased.


On average: yes.
But no "more difficult" scrambles will be created by filtering.

I think also the effect on average would be minimal. I'm sure Bruce could calculate by how much the average optimal solve/scramble length would increase by eliminating scrambles up to a certain treshold. (assume 4 on 2x2 and 13 on 3x3).

And what about a more emotional argument:
What "value" would you attach to a 0.78s 3x3x3 solve where only 4 moves are needed?
And what would the general non-cuber public think of a 4 move WR solve?
As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...

And even with a threshold of 13 moves people can get lucky: PLL...


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...


 
This isn't even a remotely valid comparison.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> And what about a more emotional argument:
> What "value" would you attach to a 0.78s 3x3x3 solve where only 4 moves are needed?


Not important


> And what would the general non-cuber public think of a 4 move WR solve?


Not relevant


> As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...


Not an applicable comparison


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> As if a darts player would just walk upto the board and stick his darts into the triple 20...



That would actually be cheating, you need to think of something that would statistcally be unfeasably improbably, like all three of his throws missing the board then bouncing off something and hitting the treble-20.


----------



## Erik (Nov 15, 2011)

The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:

*Is speedcubing:*
*'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?*
*or...*
*'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?*


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 15, 2011)

I know the darts comparison is flawed but I'm more referring to the general idea of " in that way, I can do it too" 

I think that public or non-cuber perception does matter (yeah, I know; personal opinion)

I'm sure that quite some people would call "solving a cube that is almost solved before you even start" cheating


----------



## aronpm (Nov 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> I'm sure that quite some people would call "solving a cube that is almost solved before you even start" cheating


There's also people who say that inspecting the cube is cheating and that knowing algorithms is cheating. That doesn't mean we should change for them


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> " in that way, I can do it too"


 
I seriously doubt that a non-cuber could get 0.69 with a 4 move scramble.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 15, 2011)

aronpm said:


> There's also people who say that inspecting the cube is cheating and that knowing algorithms is cheating. That doesn't mean we should change for them



I originally had a reference to inspection time 
Anyway: I do think we should consider (to a certain extent) how we want cubing to be perceived by non-cubers.

I shared my views so I'm out untill new arguments come up.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 15, 2011)

Erik said:


> The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:
> 
> *Is speedcubing:*
> *'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?*
> ...



Well speedcubing is solving a *scrambled* puzzle as fast as possible. The argument is how scrambled must a scramble be?


----------



## Erik (Nov 15, 2011)

Pointing out the obvious, we cant solve a solved cube... so you just rephrased what I said, but called it 2 different things. Scrambled = not solved.

Certain people like Thom want the cube to be in a random state, other people like to filter states so that 'easy' ones dont get through. People are arguing, but from 2 different points of view. This discussion is not new, people pro random state have their reasons and people who like filtering have their arguments. There is no possibility to compromise between the 2.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Godmil said:


> The argument is how scrambled must a scramble be?


 
This still comes down to random vs difficult.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 15, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> That solve was 22 moves in the same metric that the 25 move scrambler uses


That is not a good reason to doubt that it was unnecessarily lucky, though. Our current scrambler has a tendency to produce long scrambles that are also easy.


----------



## tim (Nov 15, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Today I thought about it, and have decided that nothing should be thrown out. It's too difficult to draw a line somewhere, so we'd better not draw one anywhere. Most people realise that 2x2 singles (and pyra single to some extent) mean very little so I don't think it's really a problem at all to let some people get insanely lucky and set crazy times.


 
I also thought about it and came to the same conclusion as you. Especially for 3x3 BLD I can think of "many" easy scrambles which would lead to "unbeatable" times (all edges solved, all corners solved, superflip + scrambled corners, ...). So, my point is: We don't gain much by limiting the scrambles to specific lengths. To make it reasonably fair, we should also remove valid, but still incredibly lucky scrambles. And that's way too difficult or even impossible (there might be this guy with his secret method who benefits greatly from Scramble #4).


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> That solve was 22 moves in the same metric that the 25 move scrambler uses (I think. Each face+slice = 1 move)



Where are the 22 and 25 from? Here's the scramble that Arnaud posted and the solution that Simon posted:

Scramble: (3,0) / (-3,6) / (0,1) / (0,3) / (3,0) / (0,3) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (0,3) / (6,4) / (6,5) / (5,1) / (0,3) / (4,2) / (6,4) / (0,2) / (-4,4)
Solution: (1,2) / (-3,-3) / (-2,3) / (3,0) / (2,0) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) / (-3,-3)

If that solution is where the 22 came from, then the scramble is 40 (which is the length used by WCA). And the optimal solution is just 18:
(0,6) / (0,3) / (1,0) / (-3,0) / (2,0) / (0,3) / (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-2)



Kirjava said:


> You didn't reply to these - maybe you didn't see them?



I did see them, I just agree with your own evaluation that "None of this is important" . But ok, I'll reply:

- _"It's too hard to draw a line and say how easy is too easy and how short is too short."_
Again, I find it reasonable to throw out scrambles of 3 moves or less, because I believe everybody agrees these are very easy and because that matches with what has happened so far as far as I know (<=3 scrambles having been thrown out, no >3 scrambles having been thrown out, 4-movers having set records). And... because I think that's about the limit where scrambles are not just "easy" but so "trivial" that even non-cubers can solve them.

- _"I would prefer to be given a solve from a pool of all states, not a subset of them."_
Pretty much the same importance as saying the opposite, that one prefers to not get some trivial states.

- _"I don't like it because David Salvia suggested it."_
Um, ok...



Erik said:


> *Is speedcubing:*
> *'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?*
> *or...*
> *'solving a puzzle from a DIFFICULT (or any other than random) state, as fast as possible'?*



I'd say replace "DIFFICULT" with "NON-TRIVIAL" there. When we're talking about whether removing 2-move scrambles... those are so trivial that even non-cubers can solve them.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't think they are important. They were pointed out because you requested them.

4 move scrambles can be just as trivial as 3 move ones.

Your complaint is against triviality and non-cubers being able to perform those solutions. Rubik's Magic?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2011)

Erik said:


> The real question we should ask before discussing this thread is:
> 
> *Is speedcubing:*
> *'solving a puzzle from a RANDOM state, as fast as possible'?*
> ...


Neither... speedcubing is "solving a puzzle from a SCRAMBLED state, as fast as possible"  The most important thing is that the puzzle subjectively looks scrambled before it is solved, and to an experienced cuber, I think a 4qtm 2x2 solution definitely doesn't look scrambled. I don't think the randomness is totally necessary; we've just started using it because it's more fair and can't result in scramble memorization/pre-knowledge.


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 15, 2011)

If there were to be restrictions enforced on scramble positions, I feel as if they should be based on the number of pieces solved, rather than the moves needed get to solved state. Obviously this will produce fairer scrambles for BLD, but that's not my point.

To me, it just doesn't seem right to call a scramble a 'scramble' if a large proportion of the pieces are already solved. Since the purpose of a scramble is to jumble the pieces. 

However, this might mean a 2x2x2 off by a J-perm isn't 'scrambled' enough, where as a 2x2x2 off by a U2 is fine. 
But because this is only 2x2x2 single, I don't think this issue would have much significance.

Of course, puzzles up from 2x2x2 are less and less likely to experience a situation similar to the example above. 
So I don't believe a 3x3x3 scramble off by a D2 R2 U2 should be considered as a threat.


----------



## Erik (Nov 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Neither... speedcubing is "solving a puzzle from a SCRAMBLED state, as fast as possible"  The most important thing is that the puzzle subjectively looks scrambled before it is solved, and to an experienced cuber, I think a 4qtm 2x2 solution definitely doesn't look scrambled. I don't think the randomness is totally necessary; we've just started using it because it's more fair and can't result in scramble memorization/pre-knowledge.


 
As often happens people nag about details. Replace 'state' with scramble if you like, a scramble is a non-solved cube. Have fun defining 'well scrambled' or 'scrambled enough', to me cubing is solving a cube from a random state (scramble for qq), as fast as possible. You will find that it is not possible to define an easy or hard scramble. My 0.96 was 7 moves, so do me a favor and filter out every scramble solvable in 6 or less moves...
Filtering out the best and worst solve of an average already deals with the 'problem' that you are trying to get rid of. It is not for no reason competitions are won on *averages*. (besides in 1982)


----------



## cuBerBruce (Nov 15, 2011)

People keep using the argument that winner is decided by an average are forgetting that who advances from a round is not always decided by an average. A "best of" format may be used in a round or a combined round. I don't think we would want a "best of" round decided by a 2-move scramble.

I would also argue that 2-move scrambles are basically a waste of time. A waste of scramblers' time, a waste of judges' time, a waste of venue time, etc. If it is in a "best of" round, the other scrambles in the round won't matter at all (for all practical purposes), and in an "average" round, the 2-move scramble will be discarded for everybody, so what's the point in wasting everyone's time with the 2-move scramble (other than giving people a great opportunity for setting records)?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> what's the point in wasting everyone's time



I do not see it as a waste of time. They are valid scrambles.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I do not see it as a waste of time. They are valid scrambles.


 
In a round where average matters, the time on that scramble will be thrown out when computing the average. Therefore, it will essentially have no bearing on the outcome of the competition. Hence, a waste of time. In a "best of" round, it's the non-trivial scrambles that will be a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> In a round where average matters, the time on that scramble will be thrown out when computing the average. Therefore, it will essentially have no bearing on the outcome of the competition. Hence, a waste of time.



Same goes for any round with an easy (and 4 or more moves) scramble.



cuBerBruce said:


> In a "best of" round, it's the non-trivial scrambles that will be a waste of everyone's time.


 
Same goes for any round with an easy (and 4 or more moves) scramble.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Your complaint is against triviality and non-cubers being able to perform those solutions. Rubik's Magic?



No, I wouldn't say "perform". Sure they can *learn* and then perform a Rubik's Magic solution easily, but how easily can they solve it on their own?

2-move or perhaps 3-move scrambles on the other hand can even be solved by non-cubers with no previous knowledge. That's also one reason why I think the opposite of Zane - I'd remove 2-movers but not 2-swappers (Jperm). The latter are still very hard for non-cubers.



Erik said:


> You will find that it is not possible to define an easy or hard scramble. My 0.96 was 7 moves, so do me a favor and filter out every scramble solvable in 6 or less moves...



Like I said before:

_"We're not going to find a perfect filter, *where nobody wants to filter more or less*. I'm thinking of it as at least doing *something*, filtering something that everybody agrees is easy."_

My suggestion of removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles does not attempt to be perfect distinction of what's easy and what's hard. It just says that 3-moves-or-less *is* easy, not that everything else isn't. Do you disagree that 3-moves-or-less is easy? Do you think anyone else does? What about 2-moves-or-less?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 15, 2011)

I would like to say that, although I lean towards agreeing with Stefan as opposed to Thom on believing that it's reasonable to choose a minimum number of moves from solved arbitrarily, I do think that until we have a rules change, delegates should absolutely be barred from removing any scramble. The rules don't provide for it, and it seems quite unreasonable to make something like that a judgement call on the part of individual delegates.

What this means is, if we do decide we want to allow choosing a minimum number of moves from solved on an arbitrary basis (and I agree that it certainly would be arbitrary - I just see nothing wrong with being arbitrary in this case), we should do so as soon as possible, and codify that in the rules and include it in the scramblers. If next weekend someone gets a 2-move 2x2x2 scramble, then we will be reduced to either throwing out the 2x2x2 single WR or agreeing to Thom's perspective and just going with any random scramble. So I can imagine Thom is probably rooting for just such a scramble. If that were to happen, I would then agree with Thom (although perhaps for different reasons).


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> It just says that 3-moves-or-less *is* easy, not that everything else isn't. Do you disagree that 3-moves-or-less is easy? Do you think anyone else does?


 
I think we all agree that it's easy. We're trying to say that it doesn't matter.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I think we all agree that it's easy. We're trying to say that it doesn't matter.


 
I was just countering the argument that we shouldn't do it because we can't find a reasonable definition. If a definition says "these are easy" and everybody agrees that those are easy, then that definition is reasonable.



Mike Hughey said:


> I do think that until we have a rules change, delegates should absolutely be barred from removing any scramble. The rules don't provide for it



Yes, I agree (just in case that wasn't clear). At least when the delegate competes and thus doesn't scramble, the rules don't just not provide for it but explicitly forbid it ("must be kept secret for all but the scramblers").



Mike Hughey said:


> If next weekend someone gets a 2-move 2x2x2 scramble, then we will be reduced to either throwing out the 2x2x2 single WR or agreeing to Thom's perspective and just going with any random scramble. So I can imagine Thom is probably rooting for just such a scramble.


 
Yeah, and I'm rooting against it. Right now we still have the chance to set the limit a little higher without introducing inconsistency.


----------



## Erik (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Like I said before:
> 
> _"We're not going to find a perfect filter, *where nobody wants to filter more or less*. I'm thinking of it as at least doing *something*, filtering something that everybody agrees is easy."_
> 
> My suggestion of removing 3-moves-or-less scrambles does not attempt to be perfect distinction of what's easy and what's hard. It just says that 3-moves-or-less *is* easy, not that everything else isn't. Do you disagree that 3-moves-or-less is easy? Do you think anyone else does? What about 2-moves-or-less?


 
I dont think we can even agree on *something*. Like I said before there are people who are in favor of *any* scramble to be valid and there are some that think there should be filtering. The attempt of filtering *anything* is already a bridge too far on the 'agreeing ladder'.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Erik said:


> I dont think we can even agree on *something*.



You really think someone would disagree that 2-moves-or-less is easy?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

Stefan said:


> You really think someone would disagree that 2-moves-or-less is easy?


 
I think he meant we can't agree on what to do about 2 and 3 move scrambles.

I'm not really rooting for a 2 move scramble or anything. It'll likely get removed anyway.


----------



## Erik (Nov 15, 2011)

The fact that its easy doesnt mean it should be forbidden. In my opinion cubing is still solving from a random state.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2011)

Erik said:


> The fact that its easy doesnt mean it should be forbidden.



Like I said, I just complained about your _"it is not possible to define an easy or hard scramble"_.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

It is not possible to draw a line between easy and not easy.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> It'll likely get removed anyway.


And therein lies the problem. It'll LIKELY get removed. The most important reason to draw some arbitrary line is fairness. We don't want a situation where one delegate sees a 3-move 2x2x2 solution and accepts it, and another sees the same solution and gets new scrambles. Whatever you personally believe about whether it's appropriate to give arbitrarily easy non-solved positions, we definitely do need to have an official ruling so it isn't up to the delegate's opinion of how easy is too easy.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> The most important reason to draw some arbitrary line is fairness.


 
You create the same fairness by not filtering scrambles. It's just right to decide either way, it's not a advantage that only filtering has.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2011)

Yes, that's an option too, _as long as we can get every delegate to do exactly that_. I just thought it was necessary to remind people of why we want to make *some* choice - it's not just some pedantic discussion about whose arbitrary cutoff better matches reality.


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 15, 2011)

I still wonder why there is no official WCA statement about delegates removing easy scrambles. I fortunately didn't have to deal with such occurances so far, but as long as there is no official guideline I would surely allow every kind of scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> it's not just some pedantic discussion about whose arbitrary cutoff better matches reality.


 
I don't consider my cutoff arbitrary.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 17, 2011)

Based on discussion in both threads I think that the best options so far are (as I read it these were made by Erik&Godmil and Stefan respectively):

1) A "scramble" is defined as a "DNF" state (or a state that is not solved).
2) A "scramble" is defined as an "non-trivial" state (a state "difficult" to solve by a non-cuber. For argument's sake, this limit is set as any scramble greater than 3 turns in length).

I feel that if a change is to be made, it should be one of these two. That is only my personal opinion.

I think allowing "+2" states should not be allowable, as that is allowing a "solved" state to be possible scramble. For the same reason the solved state of the puzzle should not be an allowable "scramble" for that puzzle.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I think allowing "+2" states should not be allowable, as that is allowing a "solved" state to be possible scramble. For the same reason the solved state of the puzzle should not be an allowable "scramble" for that puzzle.


 Agreed.
There's no reason to make this overly complicated - surely there are going to be some people whose idea of a 'legal scramble' are a bit different than others.

At this point, it's just up to the board to address the issue.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Based on discussion in both threads I think that the best options so far are (as I read it these were made by Erik&Godmil and Stefan respectively):
> 
> 1) A "scramble" is defined as a "DNF" state (or a state that is not solved).
> 2) A "scramble" is defined as an "non-trivial" state (a state "difficult" to solve by a non-cuber. For argument's sake, this limit is set as any scramble greater than 3 turns in length).



Meh, I already suggested both of these three years ago:

_"new suggestion: Discard scrambles that would count as solved or solved with penalty."_

_"I think I'd vote for either no discardings or only trivial ones, let's say "scrambles solvable in three moves or less", which even non-cubers could solve."_

I was only looking for the first of those two, I had completely forgotten about the second one and I was like "holy ****!" when I read that again 

Anyway, so that's an older thread if someone's interested in previous discussion about this...


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 29, 2012)

So I hear that scramble filtering is gaining some steam again.

Can we reopen the debate before something like this ends up happening again without community input?

I still see no good reason for filtering.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> So I hear that scramble filtering is gaining some steam again.



Where?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 29, 2012)

IRC told me that people are planning on implementing it


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> IRC told me that people are planning on implementing it



"people" as in Ron, Tyson & co or as in cubegod0815, anonymousmoron123 & co?


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 29, 2012)

Stefan said:


> "people" as in Ron, Tyson & co or as in cubegod0815, anonymousmoron123 & co?



As in Ron mentioning it during N8W8 competition last week.

I personally heard him say it.


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 29, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> As in Ron mentioning it during N8W8 competition last week.
> 
> I personally heard him say it.



Indeed. We were doing 2x2 and I jokingly asked Lars if he'd generated a 1 move 2x2 scramble and then Ron told Daniel, Rob and I that scramble filtering would be brought in. No 2x2 scrambles shorter than 4 moves, clock shorter than 9, 3x3 shorter than 16 (If I remember correctly), but also for pyraminx and square-1 as well but I can't remember the amounts on those.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Ron seems to be dictating this as if it's going to happen.

I hope he has good justification for doing so.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 30, 2012)

These numbers seem so arbitrary. For 2x2, I can execute (with official start/stop) R U' R' U R faster than R2 U2 R2. 
For 3x3, how would a 15-move scramble have a significant impact over a 16-move one? It's not like speedsolving methods come anywhere close to optimal. Honestly, I just did some 10-move scrambles, and don't notice any difference in the quick inspection I would use in a competition; my CFOP solutions were largely the same level of difficulty as any regular scrambles I've used.


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 30, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> These numbers seem so arbitrary. For 2x2, I can execute (with official start/stop) R U' R' U R faster than R2 U2 R2.
> For 3x3, how would a 15-move scramble have a significant impact over a 16-move one? It's not like speedsolving methods come anywhere close to optimal. Honestly, I just did some 10-move scrambles, and don't notice any difference in the quick inspection I would use in a competition; my CFOP solutions were largely the same level of difficulty as any regular scrambles I've used.



3x3 scrambles I would presume would be done for FMC primarily.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 30, 2012)

I would like to think that if there is a minimum scramble length, there will be a somewhat sensible mathematical justification for the minimum scramble sizes which makes sense of the lengths chosen for each puzzle. I would be disappointed if this was not done.

I think a 4-move 2x2x2 limit seems inconsistent with a 16-move 3x3x3 limit. 16 moves seems quite reasonable for 3x3x3, since that eliminates a very small percentage of the possible scrambles, but if we do that, you'd think we'd want to go with a larger number of moves for 2x2x2, so that we eliminate an equally small percentage of the scrambles for that puzzle.


----------



## Bob (Aug 30, 2012)

There is justification for a 4 move limit on 2x2 and it does not seem arbitrary to me. It could be that 4 moves is the least number of moves we have used for a 2x2 scramble to date (AFAIK). The Board has thrown out a 2-move scramble, so I would expect the lower bound to be either 3 or 4 moves. Since 3 moves has never occurred so far, we're not being unfair to anybody if 3 move scrambles are not allowed. If the lower bound were more than 4 moves, this would create a situation in which the current records become harder to break because the circumstances in which they were set cannot be replicated (ie - a 4 move scramble).

I am speculating only and do not have any justification for any of the other move counts on the other puzzles.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Bob said:


> The Board has thrown out a 2-move scramble, so I would expect the lower bound to be either 3 or 4 moves.



Why can't we just treat this as a mistake? We don't have to filter forever just because we did it once based on a poor decision.


----------



## Bob (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Why can't we just treat this as a mistake? We don't have to filter forever just because we did it once based on a poor decision.



I don't view it as a mistake. I agree that a two-move scramble is too "easy."

Now before you argue with me about what an "easy" scramble is, I'll admit I have no good definition for this. Obviously a scramble can be "easy" without having a low move count, such as Sune or something, but I have no good definition for easy other than <4 moves to solve, and that's kind of a crappy definition.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Bob said:


> I don't view it as a mistake. I agree that a two-move scramble is too "easy."



I fully agree that a 2 move scramble is easy. 

However, I don't see why this means it has to be removed.


----------



## Bob (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I fully agree that a 2 move scramble is easy.
> 
> However, I don't see why this means it has to be removed.



Not just easy, but TOO easy. You're right--it doesn't HAVE to be removed. But I think it *should *be.

It's scrambles like those that make the single records/rankings meaningless. I would not mind filtering if rankings were not kept for certain categories (2x2 single & pyraminx single, for example).

By throwing out scrambles less than 4 moves on 2x2, we're only eliminating 384 scrambles out of ~3.7 million. I don't think as a community we lose anything my disallowing those scrambles. The odds of those scrambles occurring anyway are very low, but I don't like the idea of them coming up at all. Where would you draw the line? If the scramble was only 1 move, would that be okay? What about a pyraminx solve in which only the tips are scrambled. What about a scramble that brings the cube back to the solved state?


----------



## Erik (Aug 30, 2012)

Bob said:


> Not just easy, but TOO easy. You're right--it doesn't HAVE to be removed. But I think it *should *be.
> 
> It's scrambles like those that make the single records/rankings meaningless. I would not mind filtering if rankings were not kept for certain categories (2x2 single & pyraminx single, for example).
> 
> By throwing out scrambles less than 4 moves on 2x2, we're only eliminating 384 scrambles out of ~3.7 million. I don't think as a community we lose anything my disallowing those scrambles. The odds of those scrambles occurring anyway are very low, but I don't like the idea of them coming up at all. Where would you draw the line? If the scramble was only 1 move, would that be okay? What about a pyraminx solve in which only the tips are scrambled. What about a scramble that brings the cube back to the solved state?



Then why do we even keep track of fastest single for 2x2 and pyraminx? The records nowadays are already impossible to break on a normal scramble, they don't mean anything.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Bob said:


> You're right--it doesn't HAVE to be removed. But I think it *should *be.



I still don't see a good reason why.



Bob said:


> It's scrambles like those that make the single records/rankings meaningless.



So what? Single records are already meaningless compared to average results for this event - I don't see how filtering would suddenly make them meaningful.

How will allowing 4 move scrambles but removing 2 move scrambles suddenly make the event a pinnacle of integrity?

You're just changing the 2x2x2 single WR from "who can do 2 moves the fastest" to "who can do 4 moves the fastest". How does this fix *anything*?!



Bob said:


> Where would you draw the line? If the scramble was only 1 move, would that be okay? What about a pyraminx solve in which only the tips are scrambled. What about a scramble that brings the cube back to the solved state?



Any non-solved state is a scramble.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You're just changing the 2x2x2 single WR from "who can do 2 moves the fastest" to "who can do 4 moves the fastest". How does this fix *anything*?!



- it lowers the amount of easy scrambles
- 4 move solutions take longer to perform and it requires more puzzle insight to find the solution during inspection.

And for those who do not want filtering because it might rob them of an awesome single: You could still get a Sune or corner cycle...

But why the focus on 2x2 and pyraminx?
Imagine a 3x3 off by just three corners…


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> - it lowers the amount of easy scrambles



This is a /bad/ thing.



Cubenovice said:


> - 4 move solutions take longer to perform and it requires more puzzle insight to find the solution during inspection.



You can't possibly say that 3 moves is trivial yet 4 moves is not.



Cubenovice said:


> And for those who do not want filtering because it might rob them of an awesome single:



This is not why we do not want filtering.



Cubenovice said:


> But why the focus on 2x2 and pyraminx?
> Imagine a 3x3 off by just three corners…



So what? If we filter to 16 moves, cases where the entire F2L is solved are still valid.


----------



## TimMc (Aug 30, 2012)

It seems like a massive waste of time to get people filter scrambles on the day. Why not apply a filter to the scramble programs instead?

_Who_ is filtering the scrambles on the day? Is it _another competitor_ from the first group who's scrambling for the second group? (i.e. they're crying about an a easy cross that they missed out on)

I throw out scrambles all the time; after they've been used and the sheet is no longer needed (PDF backup). 

Tim.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> This is a /bad/ thing.
> 
> You can't possibly say that 3 moves is trivial yet 4 moves is not.
> 
> ...



I don't think it is a bad thing to reduce the easy scrambles

I can say that triviality decreases with increasing movecount.

Where to draw the line will always be a point for argument.

This is not why "I" do not want filtering?
On a side note: I thought you are in favor of it.
Are there any optimal LL solutions that take 16 moves? (serious question)
Just yesterday I argued that you could still get PLL's but I was thinking speedsolve movecount, not optimal...

In any case; filtering to a certain amount of moves from optimal solution would reduce the amount of freak occurences.
Wether these are trivial, too short, or common alg solutions.
And I think that is a good thing.

I made my point, now I'm gonna go back to work.







TimMc said:


> It seems like a massive waste of time to get people filter scrambles on the day. Why not apply a filter to the scramble programs instead?



Obviously we would need a filter integrated into the scrambler (Thread title does not really fit the current discussion).


----------



## Godmil (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Any non-solved state is a scramble.



I'd actually allow one move scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Any non-solved state is a scramble.



That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.

Magics are getting removed (and iirc you're happy with that) partly because they don't require thinking. Solving a cube (especially larger than 2x2) that just needs one or two moves also doesn't require thinking.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 30, 2012)

Stefan said:


> That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.



That could be a good reason not to let random non-cubers define the rules we use.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 30, 2012)

Godmil said:


> That could be a good reason not to let random non-cubers define the rules we use.



No, I think they get that right. It's the natural view. One or two moves simply doesn't make it look scrambled. And I didn't say random non-cubers, I said random people. That includes cubers. Ask cubers to scramble your cube and unless they're trying to be a smartass, they'll do more than two moves.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, I get your point, but there has to be a more specific definition of 'scrambled' than just 'it seems scrambled' - unless we're going by the old definition of what constitutes pornography ('I know it when I see it')


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> I don't think it is a bad thing to reduce the easy scrambles



Why?! You're artificially increasing the overall difficulty. 

This is mentality is along the lines of removing easy crosses etc., only you're proposing a method neutral version of it.



Cubenovice said:


> I can say that triviality decreases with increasing movecount.



The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.



Cubenovice said:


> Where to draw the line will always be a point for argument.



Where you draw the line doesn't make a difference to me. Drawing any kind of line is the wrong way to go about this in my opinion.



Cubenovice said:


> Are there any optimal LL solutions that take 16 moves? (serious question)



God's alg for LL is 16.



Cubenovice said:


> In any case; filtering to a certain amount of moves from optimal solution would reduce the amount of freak occurences.
> Wether these are trivial, too short, or common alg solutions.
> And I think that is a good thing.



So what if we have freak occurances? This is ****ing cubing, not the 100m sprint. it's in the nature of the event.

We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?

"Common alg solutions" is a dangerous proposal that may discredit your ideas. 



Godmil said:


> I'd actually allow one move scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.



Hey, if we start filtering scrambles can I get a +2 for 3 moves away because it's trivially solved?



Stefan said:


> That's a rather technical view. Realistically, go out and ask random people to scramble your cube and they will *not* be content with scrambling it just one or two moves.



Ask them how many moves they think M is and they'll often be wrong. They're not the authority because they have no context.



Stefan said:


> Magics are getting removed (and iirc you're happy with that) partly because they don't require thinking. Solving a cube (especially larger than 2x2) that just needs one or two moves also doesn't require thinking.



Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.



Stefan said:


> Ask cubers to scramble your cube and unless they're trying to be a smartass, they'll do more than two moves.



Humans are really bad at random state scrambling.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Aug 30, 2012)

I'm leaning more towards Kir's view. Filtering scrambles does very little to prevent extremely easy cases to come up during a competition, and there's really only one major reason behind this: different methods have different definitions of what is easy. 

While filtering scrambles this way would prevent silly scrambles that are 4 moves away or so, there's nothing stopping a solve from having the corners solved, the F2L mostly solved, an LL + M slice skip, centers already solved on a 4x4, etc. All of these, given to the correct person, has the potential to absolutely destroy a current record.

So what can we do to stop this? Nothing really. While I agree that a 1-4 move scramble would be dumb on any cube, a 16 move limit has nothing to do with how easy a solve will be.

Also, 2x2 is a dumb event anyway. Less dumb than magic, but still dumb.


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?



Sub 0.4 solves with 3 move solutions.



Kirjava said:


> Hey, if we start filtering scrambles can I get a +2 for *3 moves away* because it's trivially solved?



Let's look at the post you were replying to:



Godmil said:


> I'd actually allow *one move* scrambles to be removed, because they are still kinda classified as solved in the regulations.



Last time I checked, three was two more than one.



Kirjava said:


> Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking?



Every time a 4 move scramble comes up.



Kirjava said:


> So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.



Single case of what?



Kirjava said:


> Humans are really bad at random state scrambling.



They'll still do more than two moves.


----------



## Escher (Aug 30, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Sub 0.4 solves with 3 move solutions.



*wooooosh*



ThomasJE said:


> Last time I checked, three was two more than one.



He was arguing vs the general support for filtering, not a specific limit Godmil said



ThomasJE said:


> Every time a 4 move scramble comes up.



He was more comparing it to the millions of positions where it does require thinking



ThomasJE said:


> Single case of what?



3 moves or less.



ThomasJE said:


> They'll still do more than two moves.



*wooooosh*


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Why?! You're artificially increasing the overall difficulty.
> 
> This is mentality is along the lines of removing easy crosses etc., only you're proposing a method neutral version of it.
> 
> ...




Not at all along the lines of removing easy crosses etc.
I never mentioned filtering for specific states but I am indeed in favor of method neutral filtering: Min X moves to solve optimally.


The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 6 and 7 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 7 and 8 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 8 and 9 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 9 and 10 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 10 and 11 move scrambles is negligible.
The difference in triviality between 11 and 12 move scrambles is negligible.

In 100m sprint they do not count records above a certain wind speed  Even though wind is in the nature of outdoor sports.

"Common alg solutions" is just an example of an easy state; I did not imply specific states to be filtered.
X *moves*...


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 30, 2012)

TimMc said:


> It seems like a massive waste of time to get people filter scrambles on the day. Why not apply a filter to the scramble programs instead?



Ron said that the scramble filter will be in the program. If a "filtered" scramble comes up in the program, it will just generate a different scramble for it.

I honestly don't mind either way whether or not scramble filtering is introduced, but arguments on this thread are swaying me to not having scramble filtering at all.


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 30, 2012)

I'm not 100% sure but I thought that Ron said 14 moves for 3x3. I might be mistaken


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 30, 2012)

I reckon it whould be 3 moves for 2x2, and 15 moves for 3x3. And one minus the moves in the 1.61 Pyraminx single WR discarding tips (I think it was 1.61). And maybe require one tip to be scrambled. I have no idea about other puzzles (maybe non-cube shape scramble for Square-1).


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 30, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> I reckon it whould be 3 moves for 2x2, and 15 moves for 3x3. And one minus the moves in the 1.61 Pyraminx single WR discarding tips (I think it was 1.61). And maybe require one tip to be scrambled. I have no idea about other puzzles (maybe non-cube shape scramble for Square-1).



Read the thread back before posting, it does state such in the rules for the forum.



Mollerz said:


> Indeed. We were doing 2x2 and I jokingly asked Lars if he'd generated a 1 move 2x2 scramble and then Ron told Daniel, Rob and I that scramble filtering would be brought in. No 2x2 scrambles shorter than 4 moves, clock shorter than 9, 3x3 shorter than 16 (If I remember correctly), but also for pyraminx and square-1 as well but I can't remember the amounts on those.


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 30, 2012)

Mollerz said:


> Read the thread back before posting, it does state such in the rules for the forum.



I forgot about that post. What a coincidence... (I hope I spelt that right)

Anyway, I think we need to actually discuss the numbers right now. Short scrambles are usually thrown out, so it's almost certain this will happen.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 30, 2012)

Escher said:


> He was more comparing it to the millions of positions where it does require thinking



Which is why *those* aren't suggested to be removed. But *2-movers* don't require thinking just like *magic* doesn't require thinking, so let's remove *2-movers* just like we remove *magic*. I don't think the analogy is that hard to see.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 30, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> They'll still do more than two moves.



This is _exactly_ the point (well, part of it at least). Random-State scrambling has the ability to result in any state. If a human will _always_ do more than two moves, they are obviously not doing random-state scrambling, as Kirjava said.


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> We will see sub 0.5 solves with 4 move solutions. What exactly are you protecting us from here?



So what? That would be absolutely awesome and I'd say the person setting this WR is very skilled...

...in contrast to the scenario where 30 people at one competition beat the former WR just because they had the incredibly (unfair) luck getting a 2 move scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 6 and 7 move scrambles is negligible.
> ...



Not sure if all those statements are true.

However! If they were, that doesn't mean that the difference in triviality between 4 and 12 move scrambles is negligible.



Stefan said:


> Which is why *those* aren't suggested to be removed. But *2-movers* don't require thinking just like *magic* doesn't require thinking, so let's remove *2-movers* just like we remove *magic*. I don't think the analogy is that hard to see.



Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.



Sebastien said:


> So what? That would be absolutely awesome and I'd say the person setting this WR is very skilled...



I agree. You seem to have missed the point. The same behaviour can happen with 2 moves but with a lower time.



Sebastien said:


> ...in contrast to the scenario where 30 people at one competition beat the former WR just because they had the incredibly (unfair) luck getting a 2 move scramble.



The same thing has basically already happened, and you know that 30 is a huge exaggeration. 

I don't see how this luck is unfair. Getting lucky is not a crime.

Also, this would only happen once ever, then the playing field would be level.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 31, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.


If 2x2 scrambles that can optimally solved in at most two moves are considered trivial, such cases statistically occur 0.0017% of the time.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 31, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Magic never requires thinking. How often would 2x2x2 not require thinking? So far there has been a single case out of every single round of every single event that has ever been held.


Yes, it's very uncommon. But it clearly does happen, and since it's unfair, it should be prevented. It's about fairness and having good rules, not about trying to spend our time only dealing with the most common cases.




Kirjava said:


> I don't see how this luck is unfair. Getting lucky is not a crime.
> 
> Also, this would only happen once ever, then the playing field would be level.


Getting lucky isn't wrong because it isn't your fault. But if a delegate sees a 2-move 2x2x2 scramble and makes the decision to let everyone in that group/round get an official time on it, that is certainly their fault - and they should be penalized, even if they don't personally get a WR out of it (cough clock cough).

And in what sense would having a 2-move scramble "level" the playing field? Everyone at that competition would have times that are almost unbeatable by everyone not at that competition, and almost unimprovable too. I would not consider entering a competition run by any organization that considers that a "level" playing field.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 31, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Yes, it's very uncommon. But it clearly does happen, and since it's unfair, it should be prevented. It's about fairness and having good rules, not about trying to spend our time only dealing with the most common cases.



I do not believe it is unfair. People keep saying it is. I still don't see how.




qqwref said:


> Getting lucky isn't wrong because it isn't your fault. But if a delegate sees a 2-move 2x2x2 scramble and makes the decision to let everyone in that group/round get an official time on it, that is certainly their fault - and they should be penalized, even if they don't personally get a WR out of it (cough clock cough).



Getting lucky isn't wrong because luck is an aspect of cubing.



qqwref said:


> And in what sense would having a 2-move scramble "level" the playing field? Everyone at that competition would have times that are almost unbeatable by everyone not at that competition, and almost unimprovable too. I would not consider entering a competition run by any organization that considers that a "level" playing field.



2x2x2 single would then remain a combination of luck and skill. The scenario you're describing is essentially the one we have right now.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 31, 2012)

If the WCA is looking to yield an accurate representation of the skill levels of competitors for the 2x2 event, 2x2 single should be omitted from the records sheet. It is undoubtedly evident that luck significantly overpowers skill when it comes to 2x2 single.


----------



## Zarxrax (Aug 31, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Getting lucky isn't wrong because luck is an aspect of cubing.



Luck is certainly an aspect of cubing and there is no removing it completely from the equation. However, I don't see what's wrong with trying to at least reduce the influence of luck, so that there is at least some amount of skill involved in the outcome.
Going to a competition shouldn't be like going to Vegas and hoping to hit the jackpot. It should be about proving yourself based on the hundreds or thousands of hours that you have dedicated towards becoming skilled at something.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 31, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Originally Posted by Cubenovice
> The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
> ...



That is exactly my point, adding up negligible differences will eventually result in a significant difference with the starting state.
But at what number of repetitions?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I do not believe it is unfair. People keep saying it is. I still don't see how.


It's unfair because someone who doesn't happen to go to one of the few competitions with the 2-move scramble (or whatever) will be behind someone who did go to one of those competitions in the rankings, no matter how skilled they are. That problem already exists, but 4-move scrambles are relatively common, so many competitions have had them; 3- and 2-move scrambles are even rarer but have even more potential to create unreasonably good times. I think that rather than accept this unfairness we should try to minimize it.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 1, 2012)

qqwref said:


> It's unfair because someone who doesn't happen to go to one of the few competitions with the 2-move scramble (or whatever) will be behind someone who did go to one of those competitions in the rankings, no matter how skilled they are. That problem already exists, but 4-move scrambles are relatively common, so many competitions have had them



Did some calculations out of curiosity, not necessarily to make a point:

4-movers are indeed "relatively common" to appear in all competitions overall, but for a particular cuber, they're still quite hard to get. Happens once in 1989 scrambles. Nobody has had nearly that many attempts yet. François has had the most with 685, far more than anybody else, which gives even him only a 29.1% chance to have gotten one (or more).
1 - ((1 - (1847 / 3 674 160))^685) = 0.291380125

There have been 1744 rounds of 2x2, almost all with five attempts. Assuming the average round has two groups, that's about 1744*5*2/1989 = 8.77 occurences, I would call that "a couple" rather than "many" competitions.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2012)

Maybe not "many", but there are certainly more individual cases than I can recall off the top of my head. An active cuber would still have a reasonable chance of getting a 4-move scramble - it's not like winning the lottery or anything. But a 2-move scramble might pop up once somewhere in the world every decade or more (assuming perfect randomness). So if someone gets a scramble like that you can't just expect others to wait for their turn, because they almost certainly won't have one.


----------



## Escher (Sep 1, 2012)

Zarxrax said:


> Luck is certainly an aspect of cubing and there is no removing it completely from the equation. However, I don't see what's wrong with trying to at least reduce the influence of luck, so that there is at least some amount of skill involved in the outcome.
> Going to a competition shouldn't be like going to Vegas and hoping to hit the jackpot. It should be about proving yourself based on the hundreds or thousands of hours that you have dedicated towards becoming skilled at something.



Actually, cubing is quite a bit like no-limit hold'em...

If you follow my comparison, I honestly believe that removing certain scrambles is basically the same as banning pocket Aces, and similarly as pointless.


----------



## Bob (Sep 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> Actually, cubing is quite a bit like no-limit hold'em...
> 
> If you follow my comparison, I honestly believe that removing certain scrambles is basically the same as banning pocket Aces, and similarly as pointless.



Nowhere near.

P(Pocket aces) ~ 1/221
P(2 move scramble) ~ 1/68,000

This makes pocket aces more than 300 times more likely than a 2 move scramble.

Pocket aces still only gives you about an 80% chance to win a hand. What do you think the odds are that the WR can be broken on a 2-move scramble? What about the odds that it will (or even can) ever be broken again afterwards?


----------



## Escher (Sep 2, 2012)

Bob said:


> Nowhere near.
> 
> P(Pocket aces) ~ 1/221
> P(2 move scramble) ~ 1/68,000
> ...



Yes, I'm well aware of the odds of receiving pocket aces and their chances to win, and obviously, it would be stupid to compare numbers directly (that said, there are also situations in Pot-Limit Omaha where almost every card in the deck is an out to improve and presumably win the hand).

I meant more to say that both disciplines have starting positions with differing relative strengths, that are out of a players control, and thus a sample size of 1 in each is equally as meaningless... So we shouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Bob (Sep 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> Yes, I'm well aware of the odds of receiving pocket aces and their chances to win, and obviously, it would be stupid to compare numbers directly (that said, there are also situations in Pot-Limit Omaha where almost every card in the deck is an out to improve and presumably win the hand).
> 
> I meant more to say that both disciplines have starting positions with differing relative strengths, that are out of a players control, and thus a sample size of 1 in each is equally as meaningless... So we shouldn't worry about it.



There's a major difference that you're overlooking. It would be fairer to compare a 2-move scramble to a straight flush, which I believe has a probability of like 1/72,000 or so.

In cubing, we have competitions, just like poker has tournaments. Let's say that WSOP is equivalent to our WC. Within a tournament, somebody might get a straight flush and it might even happen in the same hand to a couple people at a table. In a cube competition, the 2-move scramble will be given to an entire group of competitors, ALL of whom will get the ridiculously easy scramble and get a good time. Will it affect the standings in the competition? Probably not. Since everybody got the scramble in that group, they'll all get a good time on it and that will be the dropped (best) time for each of them. In the competition, it doesn't really make a difference. However, we keep track of something that they don't in poker: world records. In a poker tournament, the benefits of that royal flush don't really extend much beyond that particular game. It might not even extend much past that hand. However, in cubing, that 2 move scramble creates a record that is *virtually unbeatable. *Regardless of the skill level of competitors, many people will never have the opportunity to break that record. Even the best 2x2 solver in the world will probably never even come close to breaking it. By filtering these scrambles out, we reduce the impact of luck and increase the amount of skill required to break the record.

Let's assume that every competition held from now on has 3 rounds of 2x2 with 5 solves each. Last year, there were 265 competitions with 2x2. Assuming the same number of competitions each year, that's 3,975 scrambles per year. That gives about a 5% chance per year that a 2 move scramble will even occur. Assuming about 4,000 scrambles per year, that also means it would take 12 years for a 50% chance that a scramble like that will be given in a competition. Yes, the likeliness that it will even occur at all is really low, but if it does occur, it makes the single record that much more meaningless. At least a 4 move solve requires *some* skill. I don't think that we should make things worse by allowing these scrambles.

What about a 1 move scramble? If one of these ever occurred, it would be such a joke.

I feel this is one of those topics that people already have their opinions about. There's not much that somebody can say to me that would sway my opinion on it and I don't expect that there is much to be said that will change somebody's mind that already thinks we should not filter scrambles. Therefore, all discussion in this thread is about as useful as tits on a bull.


----------



## Zarxrax (Sep 2, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> The difference in triviality between 3 and 4 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 4 and 5 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 5 and 6 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 6 and 7 move scrambles is negligible.
> The difference in triviality between 7 and 8 move scrambles is negligible.



I would actually disagree with this statement that the 1 move difference is negligible. I think it actually gets more and more difficult each time (up to about 5 moves). Maybe not exponentially more difficult, but its definitely not linear either.

Let's say there is a 1 move scramble. Any random drunk guy could solve it.
Now take a 2 move scramble. Any experienced cuber could do this no problem, but a person who has never touched a cube before might have difficulty getting it during the 15 second inspection.
With a 3 move scramble, most cubers will still be able to get this, but we are getting to the realm where a normal person wont be able to.
For 4 move scrambles, I think we are reaching the point where a lot of cubers simply can not recognize the situation in the time frame required. I mean seriously, do a random 4 move scramble that's not something like RUR'U'. Does it really look easy enough that you could recognize that its 4 moves and work out the solution in the inspection time? I think only really experienced cubers could do this for most scrambles.
Now moving on to a 5 move scramble, at this point, just about anyone is just going to go with their normal solving method, because its scrambled enough that someone just isn't going to be able to work out an optimal solution.

So, yes, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between a 3 move scramble and a 4 move scramble, and then there is another significant difference between a 4 and 5 move scramble.


----------



## Escher (Sep 2, 2012)

Bob said:


> There's a major difference that you're overlooking...



Not going to quote/dissect/disagree with all of this individually, but...

- I don't see why 12 years of tests raises the probability of hitting a 1/68k to 50%? I'm no statistician but it sounds a lot like the Gambler's Fallacy.

- We keep track of the best 2x2 single time, but I don't see why keeping track of it suddenly makes it more important than the outcome of one hand of poker? I don't see any benefits arise for the competitor who gets the 2x2 single WR apart from that the WCA lists it on the website along with other records for different puzzles (of which the benefit is that everybody thinks they are awesome).

- The best 2x2er in the world is probably the one who is most aware that 2x2 is a game with a large amount of luck involved, especially when it comes to single times.

- Filtering scrambles would just create a different set of states that 2x2ers would consider lucky (a variety of 4-7 move states are almost as good as 3 moves, and I'm sure plenty are more common), and after a certain amount of time, we would inevitably reach the 'best state possible without being 3 moves or less' and the WR single would be equally as unbeatable as before you filtered scrambles - all you do is delay the 'problem'.

I actually don't think that 2x2 single should be recorded as any kind of record (even PR, let alone NR/CR), and that 2x2 format should at least be changed to avg7 

The only reason discussion ITT is useful is to show the 'higher-ups' that the community is pretty divided on the matter, with pretty reasonable arguments from both sides, and therefore it probably isn't a great idea to implement it any time soon. 

Not that the status quo helps my agenda or anything.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> - We keep track of the best 2x2 single time, but I don't see why keeping track of it suddenly makes it more important than the outcome of one hand of poker?


The difference is that the one hand of poker becomes irrelevant as soon as the next hand is dealt (the only lasting effects are a bit of redistributed money), but the 0.4x time some random noob inevitably gets will stay near the top of the rankings for many years.



Escher said:


> - The best 2x2er in the world is probably the one who is most aware that 2x2 is a game with a large amount of luck involved, especially when it comes to single times.


Defeatist, no? You're saying that, if some luck is inevitable, we might as well give up trying to minimize the luck.



Escher said:


> - Filtering scrambles would just create a different set of states that 2x2ers would consider lucky


So? Obviously there will always be some Best State. The problem with 2-move scrambles is that that state is significantly easier, to every solver, than the relatively much more common 4-move scrambles. By contrast the best 4-move scramble isn't really all that much better than a bad 4-move scramble (or an awesome 7-move scramble, see Erik). A bad time by an unskilled solver on the best 4-move scramble is still beatable with a more common type of scramble. But a bad time by an unskilled solver on a 2-move scramble may not be.


----------



## Escher (Sep 2, 2012)

qqwref said:


> The difference is that the one hand of poker becomes irrelevant as soon as the next hand is dealt (the only lasting effects are a bit of redistributed money), but the 0.4x time some random noob inevitably gets will stay near the top of the rankings for many years.



So what? Keeping track of it still doesn't give it any meaning, I think the community as a whole is pretty decided that 2x2 single rests almost entirely on luck. All it does is give the random noob some bragging rights to his friends. 



qqwref said:


> Defeatist, no? You're saying that, if some luck is inevitable, we might as well give up trying to minimize the luck.



More that 2x2ers should work on maximising the luck they are given (practising optimally solving 4-6 move scrambles, learning multiple methods), rather than the community minimising the variance between puzzle states.



qqwref said:


> So? Obviously there will always be some Best State. The problem with 2-move scrambles is that that state is significantly easier, to every solver, than the relatively much more common 4-move scrambles. By contrast the best 4-move scramble isn't really all that much better than a bad 4-move scramble (or an awesome 7-move scramble, see Erik). A bad time by an unskilled solver on the best 4-move scramble is still beatable with a more common type of scramble. But a bad time by an unskilled solver on a 2-move scramble may not be.



Even in the case that an 'unskilled' solver receives a 2 move scramble, in order to break even the current WR one would have to be pretty experienced at using a stackmat. Everybody in that round would receive the same scramble, so the best person in that round would presumably get the lowest time, and thus could be said to be somewhat 'skilled', even if they aren't the best in the world - not that 2x2 single often reflects skill in any case.

All of this arguing seems to be based on the idea that the 2x2 single is valuable in some way, which I thought we all grew out of years ago. If the community has the problems it seems to with 2x2 single, then the solution that resolves it the best would probably be to simply stop awarding a rank to single 2x2 results, rather than use an 'official subset of states', with its own particular Best State.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> - I don't see why 12 years of tests raises the probability of hitting a 1/68k to 50%? I'm no statistician but it sounds a lot like the Gambler's Fallacy.



You're just misinterpreting what he said. If with one attempt (year) you have a 5% chance, then with 12 attempts (years) you have about 50%:

1 - (1-0.05)^12 = 0.459639912
or
log(0.5) / log(1-0.05) = 13.5
(obviously he didn't use exactly 5% in his calculation)



Escher said:


> I don't see any benefits arise for the competitor who gets the 2x2 single WR apart from that the WCA lists it on the website along with other records for different puzzles (of which the benefit is that everybody thinks they are awesome).



1. That benefit is not good.
2. It takes the benefit from a more skilled/deserving person.
3. Cubing looks less respectable if we have to admit that the WR was set on a "scramble" that everybody can solve easily.



Escher said:


> Filtering scrambles would just create a different set of states that 2x2ers would consider lucky (a variety of 4-7 move states are almost as good as 3 moves, and I'm sure plenty are more common)



As said before, two moves is not just lucky, it's trivial. To the point that even non-cubers can easily see the solution. Not the case with 4-movers or even 7-movers.



Escher said:


> Not that the status quo helps my agenda or anything.



Yup, the status quo *opposes* your agenda, as the status quo is that all scrambles less than four moves *have* been filtered out.


----------



## Erik (Sep 2, 2012)

Stefan said:


> 3. Cubing looks less respectable if we have to admit that the WR was set on a "scramble" that everybody can solve easily.



Which isn't the case now? With all due respect for the top 3 in 2x2 single, but they aren't really world-top. All 3 of them have a best average of 3,50+ (3,64, 3,97 and 3,82). They all did it on the same scramble.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2012)

Erik said:


> Which isn't the case now?



No, I don't think that's the case now. Give the current WR scramble (apparently U'F'R'U) or a harder 4-mover (including half turns) to non-cubers and I'm convinced they'll have trouble with it that they won't have with a 2-mover. Don't you think so?



Erik said:


> With all due respect for the top 3 in 2x2 single, but they aren't really world-top. All 3 of them have a best average of 3,50+ (3,64, 3,97 and 3,82). They all did it on the same scramble.



Indeed. But I don't see what that has to do with my point? They're not representative of everybody, not even representative of cubers (since their averages are already pretty good) but just representative of already pretty good cubers.


----------



## Erik (Sep 2, 2012)

Stefan said:


> No, I don't think that's the case now. Give the current WR scramble (apparently U'F'R'U) or a harder 4-mover (including half turns) to non-cubers and I'm convinced they'll have trouble with it that they won't have with a 2-mover. Don't you think so?



Lol that depends on who you give it to (semi-seriously). The argumentation that 2 move scrambles would completely put 2x2 single into the 'meaningless record' area and 4 move scrambles doesn't, is flawing imho. 2x2 single is already meaningless, filtering doesn't change that. There is a reason we select winners of events based on their average...


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2012)

Erik said:


> Lol that depends on who you give it to (semi-seriously).



Well, to the representative, i.e., average, person out there.

I think 2-movers are very easy for the average person and 4-movers are decently hard for the average person. The 2-movers leave four corner-pair blocks and all you have to do to solve it is to keep the blocks intact. Trivial. With the current WR scramble (or the harder 4-movers) you don't have such nice blocks and at least for the WR scramble, you do have to break a block. Not trivial.


----------



## ThomasJE (Sep 2, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Well, to the representative, i.e., average, person out there.
> 
> I think 2-movers are very easy for the average person and 4-movers are decently hard for the average person. The 2-movers leave four corner-pair blocks and all you have to do to solve it is to keep the blocks intact. Trivial. With the current WR scramble (or the harder 4-movers) you don't have such nice blocks and at least for the WR scramble, you do have to break a block. Not trivial.



But what about 3 movers?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> But what about 3 movers?



Don't know, that's another debate. I'm just trying to argue that there does exist a difference between trivial "not-really-scrambles" and non-trivial "actual" scrambles and that the line is somewhere between 2 and 4 moves.

Btw, would be so awesome if this were the case. And I'll actually stop here now until the WCA board or someone with similar authority posts suggesting the introduction of filtering. The magic-removal at least had a discussion in the WCA delegates group before it was decided. New scramble filtering on the other hand, as far as I can tell, is just a rumor.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Sep 2, 2012)

Scramble filtering has been discussed between the board and the WRC, and Ron's statement is consistent with what some of us want. Right now I think it's safe to say that we will not be introducing any filtering at least until it's implemented in TNoodle. In general we're not at a consensus, so I don't think this will be happening right now.


----------



## Escher (Sep 2, 2012)

Stefan said:


> You're just misinterpreting what he said.



Not purposefully!
I'd had about an hours sleep previous to posting/replying before setting off for work, hence:



Stefan said:


> If with one attempt (year) you have a 5% chance, then with 12 attempts (years) you have about 50%:
> 
> 1 - (1-0.05)^12 = 0.459639912
> or
> ...



I understand now 



Stefan said:


> 1. That benefit is not good.
> 2. It takes the benefit from a more skilled/deserving person.
> 3. Cubing looks less respectable if we have to admit that the WR was set on a "scramble" that everybody can solve easily.



Regarding point 1, apologies that my original sentence was very unclear - the only benefit is that it is listed next to WRs that actually have meaning, as opposed to it having almost no meaning. 

As for 2, since it has such little meaning, it's like asking who is more deserving of a straight flush (if I'm allowed to continue that analogy). Anybody who is skilled or deserving is aware the record is inherently BS (unless we filter scrambles to something dumb like 7+ moves).

I think your 3rd point is pretty empty, firstly because appealing to the public understanding of cubing as an argument is pretty useless, and secondly, all it takes is a little explanation, and if explanation of the game doesn't increase respect then I couldn't suggest what would.



Stefan said:


> As said before, two moves is not just lucky, it's trivial. To the point that even non-cubers can easily see the solution. Not the case with 4-movers or even 7-movers.



I know plenty of non-cubers who couldn't see the solution to a 2 move case (it's happened in front of my eyes plenty of times), and several others who would happily play 'undo x number of moves to solve' with me, and solve 5 or 6 move positions.

The 'triviality' argument is fairly arbitrary if the definition of a 'trivial' state changes from person to person, surely?



Stefan said:


> Yup, the status quo *opposes* your agenda, as the status quo is that all scrambles less than four moves *have* been filtered out.



Well, yes, I am wrong here.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2012)

Escher said:


> unless we filter scrambles to something dumb like 7+ moves



Calling something "dumb" is a really good argument. And friendly, too.



Escher said:


> several others who would happily play 'undo x number of moves to solve' with me, and solve 5 or 6 move positions.



On a 2x2? Then those non-cubers are better than me 



Escher said:


> The 'triviality' argument is fairly arbitrary if the definition of a 'trivial' state changes from person to person, surely?



There is just one average person.


----------



## Escher (Sep 2, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Calling something "dumb" is a really good argument. And friendly, too.



Just hyperbole, nothing mean. I think it's pretty self-evident that having 7+ moves would be a little crazy, I do admit the difference between no filtering and filtering 2-3 is only marginal.

I had a couple of friends who were comfy with 5 and did the occasional 6 on a 3x3, 4ish was more usual on a 2x2.

I just find it a little odd that were the general public more interested in cubing, our ceiling for triviality would have to be lifted, although that way of arriving at triviality would seem to fit the word.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2012)

qqwref said:


> the 0.4x time some random noob inevitably gets will stay near the top of the rankings for many years.



So what? This is basically what we have already.



qqwref said:


> Defeatist, no? You're saying that, if some luck is inevitable, we might as well give up trying to minimize the luck.



Yes please.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Aug 15, 2016)

I know this is an old thread, but honesty, anyone has the potential to get lucky, so technically there is an equal chance for everyone to get lucky. And scramble filtering is bull to me


----------



## turtwig (Aug 15, 2016)

Yeah. I think that we should allow anything more than or equal to 3 moves, the shortest DNF state. 3 moves is arguably trivial, but ask a non-cuber to solve R U2 F and they probably won't be able to see through the solution like they would a 2 mover. But I'm okay with minimum 4 moves, it's better than what we have now: 7 moves for Skewb, 11 for Square-1, 13 for 3x3, I think it's kind of arbitrary. People are bound to get lucky either way - try getting a sub-1.10 solve on any normal Skewb scramble or a sub-1.32 solve on a normal Pyraminx scramble.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 15, 2016)

turtwig said:


> Yeah. I think that we should allow anything more than or equal to 3 moves, the shortest DNF state. 3 moves is arguably trivial, but ask a non-cuber to solve R U2 F and they probably won't be able to see through the solution like they would a 2 mover. But I'm okay with minimum 4 moves, it's better than what we have now: 7 moves for Skewb, 11 for Square-1, 13 for 3x3, I think it's kind of arbitrary. People are bound to get lucky either way - try getting a sub-1.10 solve on any normal Skewb scramble or a sub-1.32 solve on a normal Pyraminx scramble.


3x3 is set at 2 moves minimum by the way


----------



## biscuit (Aug 15, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> 3x3 is set at 2 moves minimum by the way



Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 15, 2016)

biscuit said:


> Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)


Lucas Garron said its 2 moves some time ago. IIRC the regs for that have not been changed yet




Lucas Garron said:


> Indeed, 13 is incorrect. If you run TNoodle-WCA-0.10.0.jar and click on the question mark in, you can see:
> 
> 
> 
> 13 would also be against the Regulations (specifically, 4b3), which are quite unambiguous about everything except big cubes and Megaminx.




EDIT: just curious, where did this misconception come from anyway?


----------



## biscuit (Aug 15, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Lucas Garron said its 2 moves some time ago. IIRC the regs for that have not been changed yet
> 
> EDIT: just curious, where did this misconception come from anyway?



Really... Hmm. Good to know!


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 15, 2016)

GenesiX said:


> I know this is an old thread, but honesty, anyone has the potential to get lucky, so technically there is an equal chance for everyone to get lucky.



But only some people *will* get extremely lucky.



biscuit said:


> Yeah but TNoodle filters scrambles <13 (which I think is how it should be)


If you run TNoodle, http://localhost:2014/readme/scramble will report the current filtering limits:



> 2x2x2: ≥ 4 moves away from solved
> 3x3x3: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
> 3x3x3 Fewest Moves: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
> 3x3x3 no inspection: ≥ 2 moves away from solved
> ...



If these don't agree with Regulation 4b3, then that's a problem, and needs to be fixed immediately. So if you ever want to know the actual scramble filtering limits, check the Regs.


----------

