# Should 2x2 BLD be an offical event?



## cubenut99 (Jun 8, 2012)

I have always wounderd why 2x2 BLD is not a offical event when cubes up to a 5x5 are. Not hating on other events just woundering. What do you think?


----------



## sa11297 (Jun 8, 2012)

I think its not, because most people would be using a 3x3 bld method for it while faster cubers would just use their 2x2 speed method, like eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjICnoihsFo


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jun 8, 2012)

I think it'd be kinda cool, but at the same time I don't think it would be very impressive to people. And eventually you would get a lolscramble and it would be like normal 2x2 single.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 8, 2012)

It would be too dependent on the scramble. You would have one solve of 20 seconds, followed by an easy one of 2.99 seconds.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 8, 2012)

no


----------



## Ickenicke (Jun 8, 2012)

applemobile said:


> It would be too dependent on the scramble. You would have one solve of 20 seconds, followed by an easy one of 2.99 seconds.


2.99 with inspection?


----------



## HelpCube (Jun 8, 2012)

applemobile said:


> It would be too dependent on the scramble. You would have one solve of 20 seconds, followed by an easy one of 2.99 seconds.



Then let's just get rid of 2x2.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of 2x2 BLD, it might be good.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 8, 2012)

Good idea. May as well get rid of Magic whilst your there.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 8, 2012)

2x2 takes a lot more skill than magic.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 8, 2012)

It would be nice. Ao5 may be a little too much, so maybe 'Mean of Best 3' would be suffice.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jun 8, 2012)

I think it would be an interesting event.
While lots of advanced cubers could just use their normal speedsolving method, the fact that the inspection time is included in the solve makes it much more interesting. I think even the top 2x2x2 solvers sometimes struggle to 1-look their solution during the 15-second inspection time, meaning that a more traditional bld approach to the solve may actually benefit them more in this event.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 8, 2012)

Single records would be in the realm of 4 to 5 seconds or so, and would only be that high because of time required to start and stop the timer and don the blindfold. As for averages, sub-10 would be the norm for the top people. Someone like me doing standard BLD approach would be able to consistently get sub-25 successful averages, but only speedBLD would be capable of top 100 worldwide, after the event is around for a while.

I think it wouldn't be a terrible event, but we'd definitely want to choose winners based on averages of 5 or means of 3 as opposed to singles. I'd prefer averages of 5; I think mean of 3 would be too luck-based, and besides, it's not like this event should take much time. I think a best-of-x approach would be just silly for 2x2x2 BLD (even though that's what we do with the weekly competition).

What Zarxrax says is all true; I would imagine I could consistently win the event in smaller local competitions (especially if it's based on average and not single), but I would consistently wind up out of the top 3 at bigger events (like US Nationals). If based on single instead of average, I'd never be on a podium, probably.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 8, 2012)

Mean of best 3 is not allowed at WCA (yet).
I think the most preferable format is Ao5. Because there really are lucky scrambles here and there.
And if +2 penalty is replaced by DNF for blind events, speed-blind approach will be a fiasco


----------



## brunovervoort (Jun 8, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Ao5 may be a little too much, so maybe 'Mean of Best 3' would be suffice.


Personally, I think average of 5 would be perfect, because 2x2 blind doesn't ask a lot of time.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 8, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think it wouldn't be a terrible event, but we'd definitely want to choose winners based on averages of 5 or means of 3 as opposed to singles. I'd prefer averages of 5; I think mean of 3 would be too luck-based, and besides, it's not like this event should take much time. I think a best-of-x approach would be just silly for 2x2x2 BLD (even though that's what we do with the weekly competition).



For an average of 5, you would need an 80% success rate. Could the majority of cubers acheive that?



brunovervoort said:


> Personally, I think average of 5 would be perfect, because 2x2 blind doesn't ask a lot of time.



Again, the success rate could be a little difficult for some.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 8, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> And if +2 penalty is replaced by DNF for blind events, speed-blind approach will be a fiasco


I actually doubt that. It's harder, but there are people who can get it right even including the last U adjustment. It is true that changing +2 to DNF would decrease the number of people doing this speedBLD, though - you'd have to really practice it to get good enough to do it that way.

Edit: Keep in mind that it's already true according to regulations that in event of a tie on averages, the best single wins. So it would be no big deal to judge winner based on average of 5 and then let the best single win for those who don't get averages of 5.

And I'd rather have average of 5 than mean of 3, since mean of 3 allows no mistakes, whereas average of 5 allows one.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 8, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> And I'd rather have average of 5 than mean of 3, since mean of 3 allows no mistakes, whereas average of 5 allows one.



But all other BLD events (discounting multi-BLD) allow 2 mistakes. You could say that 2x2BLD is easier than 3x3BLD, but 3x3BLD is easier than 5x5BLD, and they both allow 2 mistakes. Mean of Best 3 would be better suited for this I feel, but whether the rest of the community do is another matter.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 8, 2012)

Of course, the biggest problem with this is that there are many in the community who feel that we already have too many BLD events. I must admit that I seriously doubt this will ever happen, for that reason. I'd love it, but I doubt it will happen. (Much like square-1 BLD or really big cubes BLD, which I would also love to have.)


----------



## cubersmith (Jun 8, 2012)

HelpCube said:


> Then let's just get rid of 2x2.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with the idea of 2x2 BLD, it might be good.



Contradiction?


----------



## stoic (Jun 8, 2012)

I think it's a decent idea. It might be a good "gateway" for people who otherwise wouldn't consider BLD. (Like me ).


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 8, 2012)

ellwd said:


> I think it's a decent idea. It might be a good "gateway" for people who otherwise wouldn't consider BLD. (Like me ).



The problem with that logic is that the winners of 2BLD would likely be people who can one look it with EG.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 8, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> The problem with that logic is that the winners of 2BLD would likely be people who can one look it with EG.



Is that a problem at all? Usually the winners of 2x2 in any competition use EG or CLL of some sort.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 8, 2012)

AustinReed said:


> Is that a problem at all? Usually the winners of 2x2 in any competition use EG or CLL of some sort.



I was talking about what he said about people learning to blindsolve and starting on the 2x2.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 8, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> I was talking about what he said about people learning to blindsolve and starting on the 2x2.



They don't have to win. Using a BLD method on 2x2 is fine. Just the fastest are going to win. Like every other event (except FMC).


----------



## Cheese11 (Jun 8, 2012)

HelpCube said:


> Then let's just get rid of 2x2.



I'm in.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Jun 8, 2012)

but if you think about it,
when you get rid of 2x2 that leaves so many people who have been practicing 2x2 for so many years (like Cameron).
You just leave them with years of practice for nothing.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 9, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> but if you think about it,
> when you get rid of 2x2 that leaves so many people who have been practicing 2x2 for so many years (like Cameron).
> You just leave them with years of practice for nothing.



Saem argument can be applied to magics and feet solving, yet some people want them to be removed.
Let's get to the topic.


----------



## RNewms27 (Jun 9, 2012)

Team BLD has more potential than this IMO, even though Cameron's 2x2 BLD averages were interesting.


----------



## onlyleftname (Jun 12, 2012)

cubersmith said:


> Contradiction?


Sarcasm?


----------



## Sa967St (Jun 12, 2012)

No, because judging for people who only take a couple of seconds to memorize would be difficult.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 12, 2012)

It's interesting but there is way too much luck involved, especially at low levels (people getting <5 sec solves with >1 min averages). The single solve ranking would be like the one on 2x2 except even worse. I think it should stay unofficial, with more people posting results on the forums


----------



## Stefan (Jun 12, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> No, because judging for people who only take a couple of seconds to memorize would be difficult.



Why, because of the paper? That could be held there from the start and then it's the solver's job to move the cube behind it before turning.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 12, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Why, because of the paper? That could be held there from the start and then it's the solver's job to move the cube behind it before turning.



You would have to make sure that they actually are in front of the paper rather than manipulating an angle where they can still see it. It's different for 3bld because the judge can just put it in front of their face once they don the blindfold.


----------



## Damien Porter (Jun 12, 2012)

I am a fan of the idea but Mabby their needs to be a a few tweaks to standard rules.

Eg a scramble is only legitimate if there is no possible way to solve the cube within 5 moves.

Ao5 format, and a 'limited average' for those than dnf 2 cubes. Just an average of the 3 cubes solved but will always lose to a proper average. And as in multi blind 2/5 or less is a dnf.


----------



## TMOY (Jun 12, 2012)

It would IMHO be too easy to cheat for someone reasonably fast at 2^3. Just wait for a moment when your judge doesn't really pay attention (or distract hm in some way), start your solve, don you blindfild in Kuti style and execute a sighted solve. With a little luck you will be done before he has the time to react and put the sheet of paper between your eyes and the cube.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 12, 2012)

How about if one was to uncover the cube themselves after starting the timer, then cover it up before stopping it. Then don the blindfold and start timing again before solving. Adding the times at the end.


----------



## TheAwesomeAlex (Jun 12, 2012)

how about 2x2 multi bld or 6x6 bld or 4x4 multi bld


----------



## Cubo largo (Jun 3, 2013)

No because it's too simple to use a normal method or simply a 3BLD method only for corners.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 3, 2013)

Cubo largo said:


> No because it's too simple to use a normal method or simply a 3BLD method only for corners.



omgbump

no it shunnant


----------

