# 2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

What was the official WCA scramble for these solves?

1)	Erik Akkersdijk	0.96	Netherlands,	Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

2)	Rowe Hessler	1.03	USA,	Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry 

3)	Lucas Garron	1.06	Germany,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

4)	Cameron Almasi	1.15	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

5)	Dan Dzoan	1.33	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

6)	Andy Bridger	1.36	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

7)	Justin Adsuara	1.36	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

8)	Edouard Chambon	1.39	France,	Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

9)	Antoine Piau	1.46	France,	World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] - Antoine Piau (lachose)

10)	Tim Reynolds	1.46	USA,	Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry

11)	David Shi	1.47	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

12)	Eric Limeback	1.52	Canada,	Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

13)	Anthony Searle	1.55	Belize,	Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

14)	John Tamanas	1.55	USA,	Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry 

*15) Michal Robaczyk	1.55	Poland,	Polish Open 2009*

16)	Vicente Albíter Alpízar	1.55	Mexico,	Mexican Open 2008
[Michael Gottlied (derived from youtube video)
- optimal WCA scramble: R' U' F U' solution: z2 U L' U L]

17)	Javier París	1.63	Spain, MurciaOpen2008 
[F' D2 L2 B' D' B R' D' R' U L' B' L2 U' L2 U2 R2 B2 R2 U2 B2 R2 D R2 D2]
can be solved [F2 R2 U' L]

18)	Michal Pleskowicz	1.66	Poland,	Polish Open 2009
[F' U F U2 R'] - Michal Pleskowicz

19)	Arnaud van Galen	1.68	Netherlands,	Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

20)	Jai Gambhir	1.69	Canada,	Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

*21)	Erik Johnson	1.72	USA,	US Nationals 2009*

22)	Justin Jaffray	1.72	Canada,	Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

23) Patrick Jameson	1.72	USA,	Armonk Spring 2008
[probable solution was U R' U R' U2] - Tim Reynolds

24)	Thomas Watiotienne	1.75	France,	World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau 

25)	Anton Rostovikov	1.77	Russia,	World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau 

26) Thompson Clarke	1.77	Canada,	Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

*27)	Jacco Krijnen	1.80	Netherlands,	Dutch Open 2009*

28)	Milán Baticz	1.80	Hungary,	Silesia Open 2009
[R U R' F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L] - was solution, Milan Baticz
[could also be solved by R U' R' U R2 F2 R F2 R2]

29)	Michael Nguyen	1.86	USA,	Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

*30)	Phil Thomas	1.86	USA,	Wisconsin Open 2008*

*31)	Sebastián Pino Castillo	1.86	Chile,	Bahia Summer 2010*

32)	Laetitia Lemoine	1.88	France,	World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau 

33)	Marwin-Peter Kurth	1.96	Germany,	World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau 

*34)	Timothy Sun	1.96	USA,	Xi'an Open 2009*
.


----------



## Sa967St (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What was the official WCA scramble for each of these lucky 2x2x2 solves?


why are you assuming that they were all lucky? :confused:


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 11, 2010)

For all those Brown Cubing Day solves, it was R2 F2 U R'


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What was the official WCA scramble for each of these *lucky* 2x2x2 solves?


Be careful saying lucky. Not all of them are lucky. And for the scrambles, you'll be able to get a few, but many competition organisers didn't bother uploading them anyway. It's a lot of effort, and might please, 1 or 2 people. I would like retrying scrambles from comps, but it's not that important to me. And people using CLL can get sub 2 without luck. I think Rowe did a sub 2 average of 5, (maybe 12) that was sub 2, and there might be others.

Edit: ninja'd by Sarah.


----------



## ianini (Feb 11, 2010)

All the fast stanford fall solves were U' F R2 F' R'


----------



## JustinJ (Feb 11, 2010)

Milan and Erik Johnson's were full step. Me and Rowe (and probably others) have full step sub 2's as well. Those were all pretty much nonlucky. 

I don't really remember the scrambles. I could remake something similar for mine though. One of them was a two move first face and an easy EG case, and the other was a 6 move FL with a forced LL skip (which could be considered lucky)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 11, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> And for the scrambles, you'll be able to get a few, but many competition organisers didn't bother uploading them anyway. It's a lot of effort


False.

Anyhow, Cube-A-Palooza scramble has already been posted here.


----------



## Edward_Lin (Feb 11, 2010)

F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F
for the wr scrramble


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > What was the official WCA scramble for each of these *lucky* 2x2x2 solves?
> ...



Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky". 

"_It's not a crime to get lucky_" - Erik Akkersdijk

I don't see any reason to contradict Erik. Do you?


----------



## Kian (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and* therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky". *



Absolutely false.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Kian said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and* therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky". *
> ...



Absolutely true, unless you can show me who can officially in a WCA competition, _AVERAGE_ times as good as the time for THEIR "_lucky_" solve listed here. 

EDIT: "_fortunate_" or other similar terms may imply something unreasonable. Show me what you think is a more reasonable term than "l_ucky_".


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > And for the scrambles, you'll be able to get a few, but many competition organisers didn't bother uploading them anyway. It's a lot of effort
> ...



I saw a 5-move scramble used for your reconstruction, but wasn't 100% sure if that was the actual scramble applied to the cube for that event. Could you confirm it?


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

LOL thinking that best time should be labelled "lucky".
There is no need for a term, it's just their best time (unless it was lucky).


----------



## Kian (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



A solve that is faster than normal!= lucky scramble. That's ridiculous. What about a solve .01 faster than average? .02? .05? Where is the line. 

Your wording leaves absolutely no room for executing better than you normally do, which obviously happens. When a marksman hits a target he doesn't always hit, is that because he was "lucky"? No, it's because he executed properly. The bullet doesn't have to be lucky.

Also, averages are not the times in which people solve cubes all the time. I have gotten 16.xx averages of 12 without any 16s. Were all the sub 16s lucky?

The obvious point is that getting a time under one's average does not necessarily make a solve lucky. That is exceedingly obvious.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Kian said:


> The obvious point is....



The obvious point is - that you continue to pick fault with the wording, but you have not shown me a more reasonable term to use. Give me a better description if you don't like the obvious one - "_lucky_". I don't think it is a crime to refer to a scramble as "_lucky_"

"_It's not a crime to get lucky_" - Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## plechoss (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What was the official WCA scramble for each of these lucky 2x2x2 solves?
> 18)	Michal Pleskowicz	1.66	Poland	Polish Open 2009


F' U F U2 R' . Michal Robaczyk's 1.55 was done on a different scramble


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Kian said:
> 
> 
> > The obvious point is....
> ...


It isn't a "crime" to use it.. but you're using one word to mean two things.. which is stupid in this situation.
Why use "lucky" to mean a lucky solve.. and a non-lucky fast solve..
YEAH.. I can totally see why that makes sense.. not.

There is no term.. it's just fast solve.


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 11, 2010)

Easy.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

joey said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Kian said:
> ...



Look at the thread title again. "2x2x2 lucky SCRAMBLES". The scramble is RANDOM and therefore introduces an undeniable element of luck into the solve. You seem to be unable to distinguish that the term "_lucky_" is referring directly to the scramble, and is not necessarily implying anything about the solve that was performed on this scramble. Of course the cuber by extension _could_ get the benefit of a lucky scramble, by executing a skillfull, easy or fast solve that would result in a very good, better, or best time. Whether you like it not, luck plays a part in speedcubing, and there is such a thing as a "lucky scramble".

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


You're missing Joey's point. Lucky=/= easy, and some of these solves were* easy* not *lucky.* Sure, they may be luck involved in the easy cases coming up but the solver still had to identify and execute the case. For instance, I really like the J-b perm and would see it as a quite lucky case but somebody else might really like an R perm and find the J-b perm horrible.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Look at the thread title again. "2x2x2 lucky SCRAMBLES". The scramble is RANDOM and therefore introduces an undeniable element of luck into the solve. You seem to be unable to distinguish that the term "_lucky_" is referring directly to the scramble, and is not necessarily implying anything about the solve that was performed on this scramble. Of course the cuber by extension _could_ get the benefit of a lucky scramble, by executing a skillfull, easy or fast solve that would result in a very good, better, or best time. Whether you like it not, luck plays a part in speedcubing, and there is such a thing as a "lucky scramble".



Luck is subjective. Your argument has been nullified.


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

Also, can you stop quoting Erik wrongly.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking: In a cubing context, "lucky" means that a step was skipped. It doesn't just mean someone had some luck, because that's meaningless when you already know the scramble is random. This is what Erik was talking about (and you don't have to put his quote in _every other post_) and this is what everyone means when they say "lucky". You don't seem to know this so I figured someone ought to tell you. To refer to solves that are better than average we would just say "easy" or "fast". Note that few scrambles are inherently good; most lucky solves on 3x3+, and a good portion of them on 2x2, were just done in a way that caused some part of the solve to be skipped.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

Calling the scrambles lucky is even worse than calling the solves lucky. A good portion of these were not optimal solutions, so the "luck" of the scramble isn't the real issue. One person may find a scramble to be easy while another finds it to be difficult.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Musli4brekkies;
You're missing Joey's point. Lucky=/= easy said:


> easy[/B] not *lucky.* Sure, they may be luck involved in the easy cases coming up but the solver still had to identify and execute the case. For instance, I really like the J-b perm and would see it as a quite lucky case but somebody else might really like an R perm and find the J-b perm horrible.





RyanO said:


> ...One person may find a scramble to be easy while another finds it to be difficult.



Sorry - no valid points to miss.  "Lucky" is an appropriate description for these SCRAMBLES. If I called them "Easy" then not all would agree with that either, since by your very own arguments, everyone tends to see even the same case differently (easier/harder). Those scrambles where truly "lucky" relative to the solvers that got them - and were also able to recognize the easy solves that could be used to get those great times.

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

Okay, call them lucky.

BUT don't use Erik's quote, you're not even quoting it properly, which has the word lucky in, when you are using a different meaning of lucky.
If you can't see that ^^ then you are truly as stupid as I thought.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Those scrambles where truly "lucky" relative to the solvers that got them



Prove it.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Easy.





reThinking the Cube said:


> Musli4brekkies;
> You're missing Joey's point. Lucky=/= easy said:
> 
> 
> ...



The scrambles are random, they have nothing to do with the solver. You are making a logical blunder when you claim that a scramble is lucky because one person did it fast.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

qqwref said:


> reThinking: In a cubing context, "lucky" means that a step was skipped. It doesn't just mean someone had some luck, because that's meaningless when you already know the scramble is random.



I know what "lucky" means in a cubing context, and that is exactly why I have carefully chosen that exact word to refer to those SCRAMBLES. 

BTW - the use of the word "lucky" is not nearly as meaningless as your argument that just because the scramble is random, then it is meaningless to consider it lucky! What math school taught you that? Did they also teach you that it is meaningless to consider other random events such as - rolls of the dice, are incapable of generating chance or luck? There is nothing wrong or meaningless about refering to a random scramble as "lucky".


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Those scrambles where truly "lucky" relative to the solvers that got them
> ...



They already have.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 11, 2010)

My god, you are stupid. I thought it might be true earlier but was not sure; now I am. This is not a tricky concept.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



How so?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanO said:


> The scrambles are random, they have nothing to do with the solver. You are making a logical blunder when you claim that a scramble is lucky because one person did it fast.



False. BTW - you did a pretty good job there of combining at least 4 logical errors and false assumptions. Was that easy or lucky?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > The scrambles are random, they have nothing to do with the solver. You are making a logical blunder when you claim that a scramble is lucky because one person did it fast.
> ...



Dude, shut up. You're wrong. Go away.
Kirjava said it best:


Kirjava said:


> Luck is subjective. Your argument has been nullified.



>_>


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

qqwref said:


> This is not a tricky concept.



Then how come you can't get it?


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a tricky concept.
> ...


Don't you think that if most other people are against you on this one, you could be wrong?


----------



## Olivér Perge (Feb 11, 2010)

At least he got the avatar right.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

He's just trying to rile people up to get attention. I say we just ignore him.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

joey said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Good point. The ones against me are wrong.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

*TROLL!*


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

Poor troll. 1/10


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 11, 2010)

Does anyone know the scrambles for my 2.61 and 2.27 solves?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanO said:


> He's just trying to rile people up to get attention. I say we just ignore him.



False. I just want the scrambles. The riling up seems to be coming from those that don't.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

nlCuber22;322712[quote="Kirjava said:


> Luck is subjective. Your argument has been nullified.





If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"? You have been nullified.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Feb 11, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Does anyone know the scrambles for my 2.61 and 2.27 solves?



Dan Harris does.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> nlCuber22;322712[quote="Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Luck is subjective. Your argument has been nullified.
> ...



A scramble is not subjective. You lose.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking The Cube said:


> YOU ARE WRONG WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME USE LUCK WORD I MEAN LOLLLLL RUERP YOR RONG!!!
> EVERY1 ELSE BUT ME RONG BECAUSE THEY DUMB IGNORATHATS AND I NO EVERYTING!1111
> RMEBR IM TROL


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> *TROLL!*



I just want the scrambles. Just because I am smarter than qqwref, doesn't make me a troll.  But it is time to get off this worthless semantic argument.

Post on-topic by providing (2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles) please.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Just because I am smarter than qqwref [...]



No you're not.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Just because I am smarter than qqwref, doesn't make me a troll.



Hilarious.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanO said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > nlCuber22;322712[quote="Kirjava said:
> ...



True - generation of scramble is not subjective because it is random. Roll of-the-dice is random too. Can a roll of dice be considered "lucky"? Sorry - I win again. Just stop arguing with me, it is off-topic, and you are out of your league. You should PostScrambles or SubjectiveTFU.


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

I haven't even read beyond the first few posts and I'm already lol'ing.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> nlCuber22;322712[quote="Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Luck is subjective. Your argument has been nullified.
> ...



The problem with refering to a scramble as lucky is that luck is subjective.


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Can a roll of dice be considered "lucky"?


No.


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

Ok.

I know every conceivable 2x2 method and can see the optimal solution maybe 9/10 times.

Therefore, 90% of scrambles I have are lucky.

Therefore, 90% of scrambles are lucky.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> RyanO said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



You don't solve a die. Your points are completely irrelevant.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

aronpm said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Just because I am smarter than qqwref [...]
> ...



You have given an incorrect answer to an equation even before knowing what half the variables were. BTW - this thread is about scrambles - Do you know any of them?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


Were working out the "variables" as you're replying and so far, qqwref is in the lead.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

joey said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Can a roll of dice be considered "lucky"?
> ...




Ahh. Thank you for spotting the proper distinction. It should be phrased "Can the OUTCOME of a roll of dice be considered "lucky"?. I will edit.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm going to try and explain this to you one more time before you embarrass yourself further. 

Why are you claiming that all of these scrambles are lucky, when you are trying to find out what the scrambles are? You must be assuming that any sub-2 solve is lucky, because it's something you are not capable of, in all likelihood. Is the SCRAMBLE lucky, if Rowe gets a situation that happens just as often as any other situation, and just executes well. By your logic, every single scramble is lucky, and that clearly makes no sense. Using different methods, CLL, EG, Guimond, SS, Ortega, you can potentially get sub-2 solves on any scramble.

So, is every scramble lucky, therefore rendering the term "lucky," meaningless, or are you assuming these are lucky, without knowing the scrambles?


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 11, 2010)

No that's chance.


----------



## RyanO (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



You should relate this to the issue we've been discussing. It's the outcome of the scramble, the solution, that can be lucky NOT the scramble.


----------



## cincyaviation (Feb 11, 2010)

we are getting just a LITTLE off topic here


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> we are getting just a LITTLE off topic here


Gotta do what ya gotta do.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Escher said:


> Ok.
> 
> I know every conceivable 2x2 method and can see the optimal solution maybe 9/10 times.
> 
> ...



Are you on that list? If you had gotten one of the scrambles on that list, in a WCA event, would you now be on it? Or is that just your skill that is keeping you from posting a PB better than those?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > Ok.
> ...



lololololololololol[...]
Do you know who you are talking to?
[...]ololololololololol


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanO said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



But is it not a "lucky" occurrence to have gotten this in a WCA event? Not every event gets these "lucky" ones. Do you think I should refer to the event itself as "lucky"? What is wrong with a little luck?


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Are you on that list? If you had gotten one of the scrambles on that list, in a WCA event, would you now be on it? Or is that just your skill that is keeping you from posting a PB better than those?



I am massively exaggerating in an attempt to show how ridiculous your logic is.
As far as I see it your assumption here is 'these are all sub 2, and therefore lucky', then trying to fit your definition of lucky around this assumption. 

You seem to be saying that 'these scrambles were lucky for someone, therefore they can be called lucky', so you open yourself to obvious problems; what happens when somebody gets solves all the time that can be considered lucky (like forcing LL skips, or one look solves, or optimal solves)? You end up saying that every scramble is lucky, some more than others...
Of course the person in that situation would say that most scrambles aren't lucky unless they are 4 moves or less, but nearly every solve could still be 'considered' lucky by others.

EDIT: btw, there is nothing wrong with something being lucky, people aren't attacking you for that...


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Escher said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Are you on that list? If you had gotten one of the scrambles on that list, in a WCA event, would you now be on it? Or is that just your skill that is keeping you from posting a PB better than those?
> ...



My logic is flawless, and that is why you did not answer the questions. Your PB in comp is 3.50 (correct me if I am mistaken). I will ask you again - If you had gotten one of the scrambles on that list in an official WCA event,(pick the best one for yourself), would you also now have an officially recognized PB <2.0? I just don't see the problem with admitting that luck can play a part in speedcubing.


----------



## moogra (Feb 11, 2010)

The thread started out nicely, but is sadly now epic fail. Rethinking the cube, I don't see where you're trying to go with this discussion.

Yes, the scramble from EPGY is correct.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> My logic is flawless [...] (correct me if I am mistaken)



You're mistaken.


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


Of course luck has something to do with speedcubing, but the scramble is random. I.E; the solve is the lucky thing, not the scramble. There are thousands of ways you could attack a scrambled cube, and it is blind chance as to which one you take. Any one of those approaches could result in a LL skip or an optimal solve.


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> My logic is flawless, and that is why you did not answer the questions. Your PB in comp is 3.50 (correct me if I am mistaken). I will ask you again - If you had gotten one of the scrambles on that list in an official WCA event,(pick the best one for yourself), would you also now have an officially recognized PB <2.0? I just don't see the problem with admitting that luck can play a part in speedcubing.



I didn't answer your questions because they mean nothing. 
Did you not read what I just posted AT ALL?

I'm not ignoring the fact that luck can play a part at all, I welcome it. I practice different techniques on 2x2 specifically to make 'ordinary' scrambles 'lucky'. 

And anyway, yes, I would get an official sub 2 if I had most or any of the scrambles in that list.

You accuse me of avoiding (irrelevant) questions specifically to avoid my criticisms. 
If I'm wrong, at least grace me with an explanation?


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> rowan said:
> 
> 
> > *EDIT: btw, there is nothing wrong with something being lucky, people aren't attacking you for that...*
> ...


Lol.


----------



## dannyz0r (Feb 11, 2010)

If your logic is flawless don't you think you would've won already?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

Musli4brekkies; said:


> Of course luck has something to do with speedcubing, but the scramble is random. I.E; the solve is the lucky thing, not the scramble. There are thousands of ways you could attack a scrambled cube, and it is blind chance as to which one you take. Any one of those approaches could result in a LL skip or an optimal solve.



This is a logical contradiction. You are claiming that the part you have control over (the solve) can be lucky, but the part you don't have control over, and is random chance (the scramble) - cannot be lucky. Just post scrambles or be quiet now. All I care about is seeing the scrambles. 

So, would it make you all happier if I made a new thread for the same request, but used a less "_Luckophobic_" title?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

joey said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > rowan said:
> ...




Thats right. LOL. Are the scrambles not a part of speedcubing?


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


You keep asking to finish the discussion about easy scrambles then perpetuate it yourself! Learn when to stop arguing!


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Thats right. LOL. Are the scrambles not a part of speedcubing?



You are a troll, I am done reading anything from this thread.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 11, 2010)

RyanO said:


> You should relate this to the issue we've been discussing. It's the outcome of the scramble, the solution, that can be lucky NOT the scramble.



Qqwref hit the nail on the head earlier when he pointed out that a 'lucky' solve is clearly defined as one in which a stage is skipped. Scrambles per se are not lucky or unlucky until the solver tries to solve them. Without any context a scramble is just a scramble. If a scramble was designed to look pretty, then a scramble such as M2 E2 S2 would be considered 'lucky'. Its the context that's important. Here the context is solving, and a scramble is only 'lucky' for the solver if their particular solution skips a stage.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> If your logic is flawless don't you think you would've won already?



No. Logic does not have to bow down to popular opinion. I perceive that this really has more to do with those that cringe emotionally at the sight of "lucky" and "scramble" being used in the same sentence. I don't think that any amount of logic will be sufficient for them.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

DNFTT, he's clearly not going to admit that he's wrong.


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I just want the scrambles.



Use the freaking search function. Do you honestly think you are the only person who has wanted these scrambles?



reThinking the Cube said:


> If luck is subjective, then what is wrong with me refering to a SCRAMBLE as being "lucky"?



By your logic, ALL scrambles are lucky. An LL skip is possible on every 3x3 scramble. Getting a 3x3 skip after reduction is possible on every big cube scramble. So saying a SCRAMBLE is lucky is stupid. Solves are lucky, not scrambles.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> DNFTT, he's clearly not going to admit that he's wrong.



I will admit that popular opinion on this forum is sometimes wrong. I will admit that.

BTW - is fixed now with new thread.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > I just want the scrambles.
> ...



False.


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I will admit that popular opinion on this forum is sometimes wrong.



I'm quite sure that with abstract ideas such as "lucky" that can't really be tested or proven, that the popular opinion is ALWAYS right.



reThinking the Cube said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



Thanks for giving such an in depth explanation.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > DNFTT, he's clearly not going to admit that he's wrong.
> ...



You're clearly just looking for attention. You're clearly not intelligent in any way nor are you right all the time. In fact, it seems that you are almost _never_ right. 

_BTW_ - Making a new thread doesn't fix anything, and it just shows that you admit defeat and that you are wrong. It's already been closed anyway.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 11, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > My logic is flawless [...] (correct me *if *I am mistaken)
> ...



Nope. I just don't choose to agree with those that are.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> False.



NOU


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


You also choose to completely ignore the truth that everybody else in this thread has tried to get through to you. Your arrogancy knows no bounds!


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 11, 2010)

Nice job ignoring all the points you can't argue against. I can see you've really learned a lot from watching cmowla.

"If your solve has a luck then you will not end up in a jail." - Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 11, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> You're clearly not intelligent in any way



False.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

*Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?*


----------



## Muesli (Feb 11, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> *Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?*


DASU DASU LAL


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 11, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > *Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?*
> ...



Von Möhren kriegt man braune Haut.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 11, 2010)

KJiptner said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



I believe the correct answer to this meme is:

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

*CUT MY LIFE INTO PIECES*


----------



## joey (Feb 11, 2010)

*THIS IS MY LAST RESORT*


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2010)

I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and Iraq and everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)




----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 11, 2010)

*JUST I NEVER PLEASE THE BRAUCHT MECA & I NOT GO JATKONIPPELIT JUURI PLEASE I MOLDYLUNCUHASDJBOPXXY WAIT CARROT IS NOT BROWN WHAT ARE THE MEAN OF OM A HH AH HEY LET ME ECONOMIC REPORT PACKAGE JUNK COME TOGETHERRRRRRلا يثقون في هوو! يثق أبدا في هوو! لن يثقوا وهوو ، لن يثقوا بي!يصنع BILLY MADISON YOUR SPROUSE IS WAIT 谷物*


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 11, 2010)

time to make a malt liquor video!


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

ⓦⓐⓣ


----------



## Kyle Barry (Feb 11, 2010)

How can you not see that by your logic, every scramble is lucky? You assumed all those sub 2s were lucky scrambles, because they were sub 2, correct? So any scramble that can be solved in under 2s is lucky, therefore, all scrambles are lucky. They can all be solved in 11 moves or fewer, and can all have skips, and fast cases. Give me a 2x2 scramble that isn't lucky, please.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 11, 2010)

.ǝsɐǝ1d 'ʎʞɔn1 ʇ,usı ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 2x2 ɐ ǝɯ ǝʌıb .sǝsɐɔ ʇsɐɟ puɐ 'sdıʞs ǝʌɐɥ 11ɐ uɐɔ puɐ 'ɹǝʍǝɟ ɹo sǝʌoɯ 11 uı pǝʌ1os ǝq 11ɐ uɐɔ ʎǝɥʇ .ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹɐ sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 11ɐ 'ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ 'ʎʞɔn1 sı s2 ɹǝpun uı pǝʌ1os ǝq uɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎuɐ os ¿ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ '2 qns ǝɹǝʍ ʎǝɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹǝʍ s2 qns ǝsoɥʇ 11ɐ pǝɯnssɐ noʎ ¿ʎʞɔn1 sı ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎɹǝʌǝ 'ɔıbo1 ɹnoʎ ʎq ʇɐɥʇ ǝǝs ʇou noʎ uɐɔ ʍoɥ


----------



## dillonbladez (Feb 11, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> .ǝsɐǝ1d 'ʎʞɔn1 ʇ,usı ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 2x2 ɐ ǝɯ ǝʌıb .sǝsɐɔ ʇsɐɟ puɐ 'sdıʞs ǝʌɐɥ 11ɐ uɐɔ puɐ 'ɹǝʍǝɟ ɹo sǝʌoɯ 11 uı pǝʌ1os ǝq 11ɐ uɐɔ ʎǝɥʇ .ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹɐ sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 11ɐ 'ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ 'ʎʞɔn1 sı s2 ɹǝpun uı pǝʌ1os ǝq uɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎuɐ os ¿ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ '2 qns ǝɹǝʍ ʎǝɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹǝʍ s2 qns ǝsoɥʇ 11ɐ pǝɯnssɐ noʎ ¿ʎʞɔn1 sı ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎɹǝʌǝ 'ɔıbo1 ɹnoʎ ʎq ʇɐɥʇ ǝǝs ʇou noʎ uɐɔ ʍoɥ



...
pro-ness, right there.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 11, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> "_It's not a crime to get lucky_" - Erik Akkersdijk


If you're going to quote him, be accurate like you insist everywhere else. His quote can be seen in his sig.



reThinking the Cube said:


> I saw a 5-move scramble used for your reconstruction, but wasn't 100% sure if that was the actual scramble applied to the cube for that event. Could you confirm it?


Check the scrambles on the competition site.



reThinking the Cube said:


> EDIT: "_fortunate_" or other similar terms may imply something unreasonable. Show me what you think is a more reasonable term than "l_ucky_".


I've tried using "fortunate" in the past, but it's a bit too silly.

The overwhelming convention:

Lucky := skipped a step while solving
Easy := Easy but not (necessarily) lucky.

Solves can be easy or lucky. Scrambles can only be easy.

Faz also has lots of nice, fast solves that are neither easy nor lucky, just nice.


----------



## Anthony (Feb 12, 2010)

I just read through the thread and all I really got out of it was that reThinking the Cube really needs to rethink for once.

I found it pretty hilarious that he was trying to assert that he's "smarter" than qq and that Rowan sucks at 2x2. lol.

To add my two cents, not all sub 2 solves in competition have been lucky. I know for a fact that Rowe and Justin both got a sub 2 on the same scramble at MIT a few months ago. No one else got a solve nearly as fast simply because they didn't know EG. Easy/Nice and lucky are two very different things.


----------



## Faz (Feb 12, 2010)

...thread

Lucky = skip stepped

You assume all sub 2 solves are lucky. You say scrambles can be lucky.
Do you know that Rowe Hessler, the holder of the 2x2 average world record, has had sub 2 averages of 12 solves? Iirc, there were no solves with skipped steps at all, but I may be wrong (Maybe 1 or 2)

He gets sub 2 averages because he knows lots of methods, and algorithms for 2x2, and because his turning speed is ridiculous. Not because he gets lucky.
Yes, some solves are lucky, but scrambles are not. People will always solve scrambles in different ways, and on a rare occasion, someone may skip a step.

I took the liberty of doing 50 solves on 2x2, for you, and for some practice. Take into account, I did use a keyboard.

Here are a couple of sub 2 solves I did during my average.

1. 1.62 U F U R' U2 F U' R U2 
Solution: z y R' U R U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R
15 moves, far from optimal. non lucky solve.

8. 1.77 U' F2 R' F U' R U2 R U
Solution: x' y' R U' R' U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R' F2 R2
17 moves, far from optimal. I had a really good exe on this one. This wasn't even a very good solution, and there is an easy to see 11 move solve.

29. 1.38 F' U R F' U2 F' R2 F2 U' 
Solution: y' x2 D R2' F2 R U2 R U' R' F
Optimal solution - yes. Lucky? No. There were no skips stepped. However, It was "easy"

Now, I will show you an example of a lucky solve:

12. 1.26 F U R F2 U' R F R' 
Solution: x R U' R' F R2 U' R' U'
Pll skipped - lucky solve.

Do you understand the cubing term "lucky" yet?

Also, rethinking, feel free to attack my post as much as you want.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> My logic is flawless



lol


----------



## Olivér Perge (Feb 12, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> 28)	Milán Baticz	1.80	Hungary	Silesia Open 2009



It was non lucky, however it was a very easy first layer with CLL. His solution was: R U R' F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L. I personally doubt that it was optimal.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKthrWWRrhE


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 12, 2010)

I think rethinking's problem is unwillingness to accept cubing terminology. As faz and many others pointed out, a 'lucky' solve/scramble (in cubing) means that a stage was skipped. Is it 'lucky' to have a 4-move scramble? According to the English dictionary definition yes, but not according to cubing terminology. By calling it lucky you are implying that a step was skipped which is not necessarily true.

@ Rethinking, the reason specific terminology is adopted is to allow members of a community to communicate easily. If you refuse to use words in the same way, then you simply create misunderstanding. What is wrong with using the word 'fortunate' for a 4-move scramble?


----------



## Escher (Feb 12, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> I think rethinking's problem is unwillingness to accept cubing terminology. As faz and many others pointed out, a 'lucky' solve/scramble (in cubing) means that a stage was skipped. Is it 'lucky' to have a 4-move scramble? According to the English dictionary definition yes, but not according to cubing terminology. By calling it lucky you are implying that a step was skipped which is not necessarily true.
> 
> @ Rethinking, the reason specific terminology is adopted is to allow members of a community to communicate easily. If you refuse to use words in the same way, then you simply create misunderstanding. What is wrong with using the word 'fortunate' for a 4-move scramble?



Isn't it kind of obvious why he has all of these problems?

His username is 'reThinking the cube'. What kind of maniacal egotism does it take to think that a hobby that attracts some of the most academic and intelligent people requires 'reThinking'? 

He'll go through, learning about cubing, until he finds something he thinks he can pick a hole in, and once he's been proven wrong he'll ignore everything against him and just tell people that they are wrong and that they are being illogical. Throughout this thread (and the last re: parity algs) he has picked and chosen parts of peoples posts he can argue with and ignored others he can't.



reThinking the Cube said:


> it is time to get off this worthless semantic argument.


is ironic since he has started exactly that.


----------



## ribonzz (Feb 12, 2010)

It it real luck?


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 12, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> ...thread
> 
> Lucky = *skip stepped*
> 
> ...



Fail


----------



## Pedro (Feb 12, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Fail


What?


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Feb 12, 2010)

Lol.


----------



## amostay2004 (Feb 12, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Fail


Fail :fp


----------



## nlCuber22 (Feb 12, 2010)

Pedro doesn't know.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 12, 2010)

Pedro said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > Fail
> ...



:fp


----------



## mmMarco17 (Feb 12, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Fail



Hah, Nice catch. I didn't see it until you pointed it out.

Pedro, read the stuff Ben bolded very carefully.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Feb 12, 2010)

Lol. "There was no step skipped" just looks stupid. No need to attack him for that. Also, by attacking faz you're stepping to the side of reThinker. Which is bad.


----------



## Pedro (Feb 13, 2010)

LOL
I just read again...haha

(and it's 1:30 in the morning...I wonder why I didn't get it earlier...)


----------



## guitardude7241 (Feb 13, 2010)

wait.. isn't there already a scramble thread?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 15, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What was the official WCA scramble for these solves?
> 
> 1)	Erik Akkersdijk	0.96	Netherlands,	Geneva Open 2008
> [F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
> ...



Much thanks to those that have contributed already)), but I am still looking for the bolded scrambles above. Searches are NOT coming up with the scrambles, only the results. One scramble that I am particularly interested in, is the World Championship 2009, 2x2x2, First round, 3rd scramble. Doesn't the WCA keep an archived record of all of the scrambles used for these official events?


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Feb 16, 2010)

There was a France World Championship?


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 16, 2010)

It goes Name Time Country Comp, so "France" and "World Championship" are separate items.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 16, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> It goes Name Time Country Comp, so "France" and "World Championship" are separate items.



Careless - my mistake. Thanks for spotting it. Fixed now.


----------



## Erik (Feb 16, 2010)

Why is it ranked by the list of fastest persons and not fastest solves? I did 3 sub-2 solves in competition so far..
Anyway this thread is stupid, there is no way to define what is lucky and what is not.

Even if you get lucky... now I'll quote myself (and this time it's correct)
"getting lucky is not a crime..."


----------



## Anthony (Feb 16, 2010)

Erik said:


> Even if you get lucky... now I'll quote myself (and this time it's correct)
> "getting lucky is not a crime..."



I'm just being picky, but technically that's not right.  You forgot the fourth "." lol.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 16, 2010)

Erik said:


> Why is it ranked by the list of fastest persons and not fastest solves? I did 3 sub-2 solves in competition so far..
> Anyway this thread is stupid, *there is no way to define what is lucky and what is not.*
> Even if you get lucky... now I'll quote myself (and this time it's correct)
> "getting lucky is not a crime..."



This list is coming straight off the WCA 2x2x2 rankings page. The ranking is according to best single solve time. The purpose of the thread is to get the scrambles that were used for those events, and not to define or redefine what is lucky and what is not. Sorry about the misquotes that were used to impart a little tongue-in-cheek humor. Anyway, you have made yourself quite clear concerning this issue, and now I can at least be quoting you knowing that I am doing so, with 100% accuracy.

*"there is no way to define what is lucky and what is not" - Erik Akkersdijk*


----------



## TMOY (Feb 17, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> This list is coming straight off the WCA 2x2x2 records page.


Are you aware that there also exists a page with all fastest solves on the WCA site ? Just choose the "100 results" option...


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 17, 2010)

TMOY said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > This list is coming straight off the WCA 2x2x2 records page.
> ...



Yeah, that is where they came from. Thanks. Are you also aware of a page with the scrambles that were used for those events, or the contact person in the WCA for these types of requests?


----------



## RyanO (Feb 17, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



"100 results" and "100 persons" are not the same. This is the "100 persons" list.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 17, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


In case you haven't gotten the idea yet, they are _not available_. I upload all my competition scrambles, but there is no standard for that. Ron once told me that they have already tossed out the scrambles for Worlds '09.

See this.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 18, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > TMOY said:
> ...



Thanks. I wasn't aware of that recent WCA forum thread where you, Stefan, Jim, and (Ron) had discussed making scrambles available. I really like what Stefan did with those WCA pages. Is this going to be implemented any time soon? And if so, shouldn't there be a request to save all known scrambles before they are tossed out too?


----------



## rubiknerd11 (Feb 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



well every WR solve on a 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, etc. is not going to be the same as that persons average solve


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 18, 2010)

rubiknerd11 said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > ZB_FTW!!! said:
> ...



LOOK, this thread was not started for the purpose of defining or redefining what "lucky" can or cannot mean. Please get back on-topic now, by generously posting one or more of those requested scrambles. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Is this going to be implemented any time soon? And if so, shouldn't there be a request to save all known scrambles before they are tossed out too?


The WCA is only the WCA, and you should get used to that idea. It's not a formally registered entity, but is run on a volunteer basis, and does not owe anyone anything. Yes, they set rules, and try to stay accountable, but they are still operating in practice.
If you want to change something, though, suggest it. That's how the rules get codified and updated.

That said, I've always been a proponent of saving all the scrambles. Not hard if you do it right, and have someone competent with a PDF creator.


----------



## onionhoney (Feb 18, 2010)

Getting easy is not a crime...


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 19, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to be implemented any time soon? And if so, shouldn't there be a request to save all known scrambles before they are tossed out too?
> ...



After looking at the post you linked, I formed the impression that you and Stefan _had already suggested it_. That is why I asked you, "if it was going to be implemented any time soon." I liked what Stefan did with those WCA pages, but if you and Stefan cannot get this changed, then what "luck" will I have by myself?

Kudos to you, Lucas, for being a proponent of saving all the scrambles. I was also thinking that you of all people would have been intensely interested in at least one of the scrambles that I was requesting. That one was mentioned earlier, and is the 3rd scramble of the 2x2x2 World Championship 2009 Oct.9-11, held in Dusseldorf, Germany. I found it interesting that the very same scramble, that your fellow countryman Marwin-Peter Kurth got the German NR with, gave you a rather abismal time of 11.43s. How can you not be wondering - "how could I have done that solve differently?" How will you ever know, without seeing the scramble? Maybe you just don't care now that you shortly thereafter, reclaimed the German NR for yourself, getting the Stanford scramble that has already been posted in this thread. But since you are claiming to be a proponent of saving all the scrambles, I feel you should then also be supporting my efforts to obtain this scramble, and the others on the list as well. Not hard, if you do it right.


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 19, 2010)

If you weren't aware, there are different groups in competitions. At worlds, there were 5 different groups for the first round of 2x2. The easy scramble had a 4 move solution (iirc) and it was for the first group. Lucas was part of a later group, and had a completely different scramble. If everyone had that easy scramble, there would've been a big change in the rankings.

Also, Lucas previously mentioned in this thread that he was informed that the scrambles from Worlds have been thrown away, so finding the actual scramble will be quite hard.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 19, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> If you weren't aware, there are different groups in competitions. At worlds, there were 5 different groups for the first round of 2x2. The easy scramble had a 4 move solution (iirc) and it was for the first group. Lucas was part of a later group, and had a completely different scramble. If everyone had that easy scramble, there would've been a big change in the rankings.



Thanks for sharing that. I thought he was in the same group, and therefore had gotten the same scramble. So how can I too, get official group info for previous competitions? 



masterofthebass said:


> Also, Lucas previously mentioned in this thread that he was informed that the scrambles from Worlds have been thrown away, so finding the actual scramble will be quite hard.



In answer, you have provided me with a useful clue - "had a 4 move solution (iirc)", and I might just get "lucky" on this one.


----------



## (R) (Feb 19, 2010)

U'
Suck It


----------



## Anthony (Feb 19, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> So how can I too, get official group info for previous competitions?



That would be extremely hard to do for all competitions, if possible at all. Especially considering that groups are sometimes chosen randomly, or based on who can scramble for a certain event, or who volunteers to go first, etc. Also, sometimes people miss their group and subsequently end up competing in a different one... and missing out.. Rowe.


----------



## TMOY (Feb 19, 2010)

At Worlds, the groups were chosen based on WCA average rankings; the group who got the eay scramble was the group of the slowest competitors. that's the irony of the situation: most competitors (including me) didn't get a good official single because they were not slow enough


----------



## bamilan (Feb 20, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKthrWWRrhE


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 23, 2010)

bamilan said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKthrWWRrhE



Thanks for posting that Milan. Very nice solve BTW. I did notice that 3 corners were already solved, and the UFR completed the bottom layer with obviouis R U' R'. Regardless, that is a very nice recognition and execution of that LL case. It looked like you grabbed it about 5 seconds into the inspection. How many of those 1 look LL cases do you know?


----------



## Anthony (Feb 23, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> bamilan said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKthrWWRrhE
> ...



Afaik, he knows CLL and EG1, as do I. As long as the layer is relatively short, it's very easy to figure out the entire solution (minus AUF sometimes) during inspection time.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 23, 2010)

Anthony said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > bamilan said:
> ...



Totally agree. I was just curious as to whether or not he wanted to admit mastering all or just some of the algs of the full EG set.

Do you remember your solution for this one?

13) Anthony Searle 1.55 Belize, Toronto Open Summer 2009


----------



## JustinJ (Feb 24, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



My solution to the same scramble was U2 R U R.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 24, 2010)

JustinJ said:


> My solution to the same scramble was U2 R U R.



Thanks for sharing that. I have been editing the #1 post to include important information like this. There are only 8 bolded scrambles left now, out of the original 34, that are still total unknowns.
.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Feb 27, 2010)

I think the solution to the Armonk one was U R' U R' U2. I don't think I still have the scramble sheets though.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Feb 28, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> I think the solution to the Armonk one was U R' U R' U2. I don't think I still have the scramble sheets though.



Thanks. I will update the #1 post. 

Moderator(s): previous post #154 by Khartaras, has been totally deprived, of the proper honor and attention, that it rightfully deserves. Shouldn't UBERVALUE posts like that, have their very own thread?
.


----------



## Weston (Feb 28, 2010)

Im sad that my solve doenst get to be added to this post. 
I got a 2.00 today


----------



## Crystl (Mar 1, 2010)

I had seen my friend scramble his 2x2, he did a lot of moves, but solve only in 6 moves :|


----------



## lachose (May 5, 2011)

Sorry for bumping this topic but I just found it and wanted to add a scramble/solution. For the World Championship 2009, the solution was something like U R U2 R' U' (not sure about the last U')


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 6, 2011)

lachose said:


> Sorry for bumping this topic but I just found it and wanted to add a scramble/solution. For the World Championship 2009, the solution was something like U R U2 R' U' (not sure about the last U')



Thanks Antoine, I updated the first post (top 34 list) to include this.


----------



## qqwref (May 6, 2011)

Got this one from the youtube vid.

16) Vicente Albíter Alpízar 1.55 Mexico, Mexican Open 2008
optimal WCA scramble: R' U' F U'
solution: z2 U L' U L


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Got this one from the youtube vid.
> 
> 16) Vicente Albíter Alpízar 1.55 Mexico, Mexican Open 2008
> optimal WCA scramble: R' U' F U'
> solution: z2 U L' U L


 
Nice find, Michael. I will update. Thank you.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 7, 2011)

solution: some rotations probably R' U2 R' U


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 7, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> solution: some rotations probably R' U2 R' U


 
Not one of 34 originals, but one of the luckiest looking performances ever. lol.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (May 7, 2011)

Javier Paris 1.63 Murcia Open 2008 a lucky scramble too


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (May 7, 2011)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky".
> 
> "_It's not a crime to get lucky_" - Erik Akkersdijk
> 
> I don't see any reason to contradict Erik. Do you?



Erik a raison . La faute va à la wca. Il est facile de donner un mélange impossible à résoudre en bas de 7 mouvements. Un record n'est pas une loterie. 
GG


----------



## ben1996123 (May 7, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Javier Paris 1.63 Murcia Open 2008 a lucky scramble too



hurrrrrrr you got the 163st post with a 1.63 video hurrrrrr


----------



## qqwref (May 7, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Erik a raison . La faute va à la wca. Il est facile de donner un mélange impossible à résoudre en bas de 7 mouvements. Un record n'est pas une loterie.
> GG


A lot of people have said something like this before, but in the end, we cannot eliminate the problem. We don't want luck to come into play, but the only way to remove luck is to either guarantee lucky scrambles or remove them. I think few people would like guaranteed easy scrambles. And if we make sure there are no more easy scrambles, we must remove all top results which are lucky, because otherwise they are unbeatable by future cubers.

Here's one idea: we could force every average of 5 to contain one 4-move scramble, and no other "easy" scrambles, defined somehow. (For instance: no solutions under 7 htm, no scrambles with one face solved or two opposite faces oriented, no scrambles which can be solved 2gen in under 9ish qtm.) The easy scramble would be in a random position and all scrambles would be long enough to hide the easy one. Thus a potential sub-2 scramble is available to everyone who does an average of 5, without luck involved. Of course, getting a *counting* sub-2 would be quite difficult. I don't think this would affect averages substantially because you would have to be quite skilled to get a very fast counting time.


----------



## Tim Major (May 8, 2011)

I was scrambling at Kubaroo Open. Not from the list but;
Cameron got 1.63 on F2 R' F U R' F.
x2 y' R' y' U R' U' R U2 (6 moves).


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (May 8, 2011)

*good comment*



qqwref said:


> A lot of people have said something like this before, but in the end, we cannot eliminate the problem. We don't want luck to come into play, but the only way to remove luck is to either guarantee lucky scrambles or remove them. I think few people would like guaranteed easy scrambles. And if we make sure there are no more easy scrambles, we must remove all top results which are lucky, because otherwise they are unbeatable by future cubers.
> 
> Here's one idea: we could force every average of 5 to contain one 4-move scramble, and no other "easy" scrambles, defined somehow. (For instance: no solutions under 7 htm, no scrambles with one face solved or two opposite faces oriented, no scrambles which can be solved 2gen in under 9ish qtm.) The easy scramble would be in a random position and all scrambles would be long enough to hide the easy one. Thus a potential sub-2 scramble is available to everyone who does an average of 5, without luck involved. Of course, getting a *counting* sub-2 would be quite difficult. I don't think this would affect averages substantially because you would have to be quite skilled to get a very fast counting time.



I like your comment and it is virtually impossible to go back.
Average Feliks isn't a luck anyway  

The rule is the same for each cube, but we realize that it is difficult to be really just. The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte. The average is much important than the single. Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.

GG


----------



## JustinJ (May 8, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte.


 
Yes, I agree.


----------



## Forte (May 8, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> I like your comment and it is virtually impossible to go back.
> Average Feliks isn't a luck anyway
> 
> The rule is the same for each cube, but we realize that it is difficult to be really just. The 2x2 can very well see it to neophyte. The average is much important than the single. Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.
> ...


 
Wait, are you Man of Slice?!?!


----------



## Vincents (May 8, 2011)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Not one of 34 originals, but one of the luckiest looking performances ever. lol.


 
This also happens to be my 0.96.

Scramble: R' U F2 U


----------



## uberCuber (May 10, 2011)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> Just my opinion but the fewest move challenge too should have an average not a single only.


 
I would love to agree with this; the only problem it creates is how to manage the time? A single fewest move solve takes a full hour already, so to do an average without changing the time rules would really make time management difficult


----------

