# Andrea Santambrogio Square-1 single WR 7.41



## cubedude7 (Nov 2, 2013)

So I just saw this on fb:

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=307&cat=12&rnd=1

Quite interesting, considering he got a 28.50 avg..

Any thoughts?


----------



## Faz (Nov 2, 2013)

Surely a mis-scramble?


----------



## porkynator (Nov 2, 2013)

They said that the scramble was checked and it was correct. Probably an easy one, though.


----------



## mycube (Nov 2, 2013)

well it's known that there are very lucky square-1 scrambles so i think it's good possible to have such a time with an 28ish average.


----------



## scottishcuber (Nov 2, 2013)

fazrulz said:


> Surely a mis-scramble?



It's pretty hard to mis-scramble a square-1, you probably wouldn't be able to finish the scramble.

Still possible though.


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Nov 2, 2013)

porkynator said:


> They said that the scramble was checked and it was correct. Probably an easy one, though.



It's good to see that record broken.
It was the longest held WCA record.
And by quite a bit too.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Nov 2, 2013)

What!? That can't be! And if it is, the WR is probably not deserved . . .

But, anyway, congratulations


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

Yellowsnow98 said:


> He could be square-1's Telesfóro?


It's something .41 again!


Yellowsnow98 said:


> It's good to see that record broken.
> It was the longest held WCA record.
> And by quite a bit too.


Imagine how long this one's going to be held for.


----------



## ottozing (Nov 2, 2013)

porkynator said:


> They said that the scramble was checked and it was correct. Probably an easy one, though.



I'm interested in seeing a reconstruction from him. It'd have to be pretty lucky if he average something fairly close to 28 (I average like 25 and on easy scrambles I can get like 14-16).


----------



## kunparekh18 (Nov 2, 2013)

With Square-1 it's surely possible I guess, I'm barely sub-1:00 but my single best is some 34.xy, because of an easy scramble. So yeah, congratulations, Andrea.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2013)

AmazingCuber said:


> What!? That can't be! And if it is, the WR is probably not deserved . . .
> 
> But, anyway, congratulations



"You don't deserve it but congratulations"


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Nov 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> Imagine how long this one's going to be held for.



My first square-1 arrives on Monday...
Don't worry about it 

Congrats to Andrea.


----------



## KongShou (Nov 2, 2013)

damn im kind of sad to that record go, how lucky

but congrats


----------



## PranavCubes (Nov 2, 2013)

Finally after 1126 days


----------



## angham (Nov 2, 2013)

I seem to remember another slow guy getting world record on sq-1 and then refusing to accept it because the scramble was too easy.
Unfortunately, not everyone is this considerate to people who worked really hard to get fast times


----------



## Iggy (Nov 2, 2013)

Wow okay. Congrats!


----------



## Prin (Nov 2, 2013)

His PB in WCA avg. 23.20 and single 15 
So ... Congrats


----------



## Mr Cubism (Nov 2, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> "You don't deserve it but congratulations"



Lol!  Congratzz!


----------



## ottozing (Nov 2, 2013)

angham said:


> I seem to remember another slow guy getting world record on sq-1 and then refusing to accept it because the scramble was too easy.
> Unfortunately, not everyone is this considerate to people who worked really hard to get fast times



That incident was a mis scramble though. This solve apparently wasn't.


----------



## Kevin Chau (Nov 2, 2013)

is the record confirmed...? Can't believe it Lol!!


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 2, 2013)

But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.


Maybe he did cubeshape differently (possibly by accident)?


----------



## BoBoGuy (Nov 2, 2013)

Probably like Gregorz Prusak's scramble...


----------



## stoic (Nov 2, 2013)

angham said:


> I seem to remember another slow guy getting world record on sq-1 and then refusing to accept it because the scramble was too easy.
> Unfortunately, not everyone is this considerate to people who worked really hard to get fast times



Luck is an inherent part of cubing, especially singles. 
If it's a legitimate solve of a legitimate scramble, everyone else at the comp had the same chance.


----------



## kcl (Nov 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> It's something .41 again!
> 
> Imagine how long this one's going to be held for.



Not long at the rate Nathan Dwyer is progressing.. Good job!


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> But how come nobody else got a good solve on it? Normally easy sq-1 scrambles are easy for everyone.



This can't really be said for the slower people. Had there been more people in the ballpark of 30s (or even just more people) it wouldn't look as out of place.

Congratulations! Can't wait for the reconstruction.


----------



## Lin Chen (Nov 2, 2013)

I want to know...the WCA delegate's view 
You can imagine a record keeping 1,126 days after being broken is unbelievable... And...His average is 20+


----------



## cubizh (Nov 2, 2013)

Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?
You can sometimes see things like this happen, but are cleared upon review.
Specially when no one that attended the competition has talked about it or shown any sort of proof that this actually happened.
Also, any official WR/CR/NR/PB is only confirmed when it is shown in the official WCA webpage, until then it's all speculation.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Nov 2, 2013)

cubizh said:


> Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?
> You can sometimes see things like this happen, but are cleared upon review.
> Specially when no one that attended the competition has talked about it or shown any sort of proof that this actually happened.
> Also, any official WR/CR/NR/PB is only confirmed when it is shown in the official WCA webpage, until then it's all speculation.



I totally agree. There have been many instances of times inputted badly into Cubecomps, and although its usually noticed pretty quickly, it sometimes doesn't get fixed for a while. I'll wait for the official results to come out before being excited over this.


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

cubizh said:


> Am I the only one to think that this is just a forgotten '2' in the time inserted in cubecomps?


I did, but porky said they had checked the scramble, so I don't think it's an error typing the results. If it was they wouldn't have had to check it.


----------



## blade740 (Nov 2, 2013)

WTF............

Does anyone have the scramble?


----------



## Mako (Nov 2, 2013)

I was there and I had the same scramble and it didn't seem very simple to me.



TDM said:


> Maybe he did cubeshape differently (possibly by accident)?


That's exactly what happened
Then he solved the first layer in a few moves and skipped the last.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2013)

Mako said:


> I was there and I had the same scramble and it didn't seem very simple to me.



inb4 wrong scramble

post scramble and solution plz


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2013)

Given the average times, and everyone else's times on that scramble, I think it's very likely this is just a data entry problem. However, I'd still like to see the scramble if anyone is willing to post it. We could, for instance, run it through an optimal solver and see if a very easy solve is even possible.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Nov 2, 2013)

I am pretty sure this is the new perry open


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 2, 2013)

I got a 15 on a scramble that people 10s faster than me got 17+. I did a different cubeshape or EO alg which gave a lucky solve. I'm not saying I believe the 7, especially considering that would be roughly 15 slice turns, but I won't call BS quite yet.

The longer cubing stays around, the more likely lucky world records would happen. A top 100 3x3 silver could get an LL skip on a good solve and break 5.55.

For now, Congrats Andrea.


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 2, 2013)

I want to know if there is a video of the solve.
inb4 Typo.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> I got a 15 on a scramble that people 10s faster than me got 17+.


Yeah, it happens. But I don't see any other times on that scramble that were out of the ordinary.



Tim Major said:


> The longer cubing stays around, the more likely lucky world records would happen. A top 100 3x3 silver could get an LL skip on a good solve and break 5.55.


She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2013)

qqwref said:


> She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.


Averaging about twice the WR _is_ equivalent to a top 100 solver in square-1: the 100th person's average is 1.994 times Bingliang Li's WR average. But you're right about someone from the top 100 getting sub-5.55 with a LL skip - it's very unlikely for someone averaging 10 seconds to have a 5.5 second F2L. I don't know much about square-1 singles (or anything about square-1), but if it's like 3x3 then it's very unlikely this could've happened. But if it's like 2x2 (i.e. there are some really easy scrambles that anyone decently fast can get good times on), then this is a possibility. But as I said, I don't know much about this event, so you don't have to listen to me.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 2, 2013)

qqwref said:


> She averages about twice the WR, though. So it's not the equivalent of a top 100 solver, but rather someone who averages 15ish or a little higher. Even with a LL skip, I'd be pretty surprised to see a WR single from someone with times like that.



Who are you talking about?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2013)

Andrea? Oh, I guess that's a guy. But yeah, his official best average is 23.20, which is 2.05 times the WR avg.

@TDM: time ratios are a much better measure of how hard a given time is to get. The quality of the "top 100" time depends greatly on how competitive the event is. The 100th best 3x3x3er in the world has a far, far better chance of beating the official 3x3x3 single WR than the 100th best 5x5x5BLDer in the world has of beating the official 5x5x5 BLD WR.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 2, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Andrea? Oh, I guess that's a guy. But yeah, his official best average is 23.20, which is 2.05 times the WR avg.



Ah, ok, *best* average. I was confused both because of the gender and because his average in this competition was only 28.50 (and that's despite the 7.41).


----------



## Coolster01 (Nov 3, 2013)

It's official. It is the new WR!


----------



## kcl (Nov 3, 2013)

Coolster01 said:


> It's official. It is the new WR!



Wow. Congrats!


----------



## qqwref (Nov 3, 2013)

Coolster01 said:


> It's official. It is the new WR!


_REALLY?_
Cmon, WCA. This is just silly.


----------



## kcl (Nov 3, 2013)

qqwref said:


> _REALLY?_
> Cmon, WCA. This is just silly.



It's true though.. Getting lucky is not a crime.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 3, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> It's true though.. Getting lucky is not a crime.




The scrambler saw a picture of food on Instagram and got distracted. (Maybe?)

And also, look at the solves. Very consistent then BAM good time. Very very large difference....

Is this a reverse-Telesforo?


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 3, 2013)

It could still be removed, remember the typo that was "official" for a few days a few years ago?


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 3, 2013)

Not sure why Italy has 3 WRs


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 3, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> It could still be removed, remember the typo that was "official" for a few days a few years ago?



Which typo?


----------



## Julian (Nov 3, 2013)

I had several subWR singles when averaging like 28, including a low 5, so eh...

Ricostruzione would be fantastico


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 3, 2013)

strakerak said:


> Which typo?



I can't find it at the moment, I think it was in 2009/2010, a one minute solver and a . instead of : if my memory serves me correctly.


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 3, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> I can't find it at the moment, I think it was in 2009/2010, a one minute solver and a . instead of : if my memory serves me correctly.


was it the 3x3 single? i remember it was when feliks had the record at 6.77


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 3, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> was it the 3x3 single? i remember it was when feliks had the record at 6.77



It was a 3x3 single but I was 95% sure it was beating 7.08. Maybe you're right.


----------



## Evan Liu (Nov 3, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> It was a 3x3 single but I was 95% sure it was beating 7.08. Maybe you're right.


You're right


----------



## Cubo largo (Nov 3, 2013)

I was here. No cheat, no wrong scrambles, no "italian style" open, as someone think. He had a simple case in restore the cube shape and he make a little mistake, so he had to turn the cube and then go on, with a skip. Ricostruzione is difficult for this, but I think he's working on his memory to remember better
It's not silly, it's a WR. 
Bye


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 3, 2013)

Cubo largo said:


> I was here. No cheat, no wrong scrambles, no "italian style" open, as someone think. He had a simple case in restore the cube shape and he make a little mistake, so he had to turn the cube and then go on, with a skip. Ricostruzione is difficult for this, but I think he's working on his memory to remember better
> It's not silly, it's a WR.
> Bye



If he can't give a reasonable reconstruction, I'm assuming it would get deleted. Isn't that what the WCA asked telesforo to do?


----------



## hcfong (Nov 3, 2013)

Unlike most of you, I do think this one is legit.

1. It's not unheard of that in square-1 someone can have a much quicker single than his average. For example, see Cachan Open 2011 where several people in one group who averaged in the 50 seconds, suddenly had a sub-15 single on the same solve, due to a very easy but valid scramble.
2. Andrea may just have got a very easy but legitimate scramble, while the other two may have been in another group and got a different scramble. Square-1 scrambling has to been done in at least 2 groups because non square-1 solvers are unlikely to know how to scramble one so you need other square-1 solvers to scramble. Also, even more than with other puzzles, each group will need a unique set of scrambles, because it would be really easy for a scrambler to inspect the puzzle during scrambling and use that knowledge in his own solve later on.

So, I think this WR could very well be legitimate. I'd love to see the scramble though.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 3, 2013)

Just mentioning wasn't there a 7.xx second wr for square 1 removed back on 2007 or so. Due to a mis-scramble. 

Still seeing the scramble may help. My square 1 pb single is 27.99 and I average a minute or so. So if this is legit it could of been a pb single for him or a very fast one.


----------



## Faz (Nov 3, 2013)

telosforo said:


> in my solve I made a mistake at the execution and then I decided to improvise some turns





> He had a simple case in restore the cube shape and he make a little mistake, so he had to turn the cube and then go on



It's hilarious how similar these two statements sound  (No judgement, just an observation)


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 3, 2013)

Why hasn't the scramble been posted yet then?


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 3, 2013)

He can't win really. Either his WR gets deleted, or it will be always regarded with scepticism. Sad situation if it's genuine.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 3, 2013)

if there's a video better judgement could be made.

also it could be like what happened with square 1 single back in 2008 but the scramble was correct
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=453
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?4579-Polish-Open-Grzegorz-Prusak-7.58-Square-1-WR


----------



## Kev43 (Nov 3, 2013)

MTGjumper said:


> Why hasn't the scramble been posted yet then?


Probably because the competition was just yesterday...


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 3, 2013)

I really want to see the scramble.


----------



## blade740 (Nov 3, 2013)

I believe it. Square-1 is definitely like that. I don't even keep track of my single PB because it's so ridiculous. I have several sub3 singles because when a sq1 scramble is easy, it's very easy. This record is a bit disappointing to me, but getting lucky is not a crime. Congratulations, Andrea!


----------



## porkynator (Nov 3, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> Not sure why Italy has 3 WRs


Easy scramble.
Fast cuber got lucky.
Easy scramble.

Already approved by WCA = NOT "Square-1 Telesfòro".
The scramble should be available soon, for what it matters.


----------



## AjayRulz (Nov 3, 2013)

Congo !!


----------



## KongShou (Nov 3, 2013)

Cant say that im overjoyed

but if its legitimate then he deserved it i guess


----------



## CubeRoots (Nov 3, 2013)

surely legitimate.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Nov 3, 2013)

pretty sure this is not legit sorry for posting so many negatief stuff bet yeah these are my thoughts


----------



## kinch2002 (Nov 3, 2013)

The scramble is not yet released as the board and delegates are discussing stuff. This is a fairly standard procedure for unexpected records and I'm sure everyone would appreciate questions being asked.


----------



## hcfong (Nov 3, 2013)

If the board and delegates are still discussing stuff, surely the results including the announcement of the WR should not have been posted on the WCA website yet.


----------



## szalejot (Nov 3, 2013)

Any video? Anyone?


----------



## notfeliks (Nov 3, 2013)

szalejot said:


> Any video? Anyone?



If it's an unexpected WR then I doubt it. Awesome if there is though.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 3, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> It was a 3x3 single but I was 95% sure it was beating 7.08. Maybe you're right.



I also remember someone getting a 1:05 5x5 solve which went official and counted as AsR until they realized it was actually a 1:50.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 3, 2013)

hcfong said:


> Andrea may just have got a very easy but legitimate scramble, while the other two may have been in another group and got a different scramble. *Square-1 scrambling has to been done in at least 2 group*s because non square-1 solvers are unlikely to know how to scramble one so you need other square-1 solvers to scramble.



*Not true.* And in this case, only three competitors were in that "round". I doubt they were split into separate groups. Partly because I know Andrea's scrambler was one of the guys who had only gotten two solves.

*Edit: * Oops, while I was right that Andrea's scrambler was none of the other two (and that was the point), actually his scrambler didn't compete at all (I confused a name, argh).


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 3, 2013)

Sorry if this is redundant/repeated information, but Andrea suggests it was both an easy and lucky solution.

They rechecked the scramble with the delegate right after the solve (not a mis-scramble). And he apparently was the first cuber to attempt that scramble, thus he could not have peeked at the state beforehand. There is nothing to suggest cheating.

I trust the validity of the solve, but we'll see what the WCA has to say.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 3, 2013)

strakerak said:


> I looked up this guy on YouTube. He only has an OH solve from two or three years ago. Probably a television program.. But if we can't find a video, then something is up.
> 
> EASY Scramble, yes. But if he is the only one that says it was easy. Would it be a prepared solve as well?



Everyone, please refrain from making unfounded statements or propositions like these, it is not fair to the competitor or how the WCA operates in general. Give Andrea a chance to reconstruct the solve, and even if this doesn't occur, trust the delegate's final decision.


----------



## hcfong (Nov 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> *Not true.* And in this case, only three competitors were in that "round". I doubt they were split into separate groups. Partly because I know Andrea's scrambler was one of the guys who had only gotten two solves.
> 
> *Edit: * Oops, while I was right that Andrea's scrambler was none of the other two (and that was the point), actually his scrambler didn't compete at all (I confused a name, argh).



1. How do you know this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just interested in how you know who the scrambler was. Your name isn't on the competitor's list so you must have got your information from somewhere else.
2. Can you tell me how you can run a round of Square-1 with a single group, without having to rely on competitors who are not competing for scrambling? I mean, in this case there was a scrambler available who wasn't competing, but that will not always be the case.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 3, 2013)

blade740 said:


> I believe it. Square-1 is definitely like that.


Even with random-state scrambles? Surely with a better scrambling method each step should be about as likely to be skipped as each other step. Common "super-scramble"s where many steps get skipped all at once should really only occur with the old scrambler.


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Nov 3, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> Everyone, please refrain from making unfounded statements or propositions like these, it is not fair to the competitor or how the WCA operates in general. Give Andrea a chance to reconstruct the solve, and even if this doesn't occur, trust the delegate's final decision.



Exactly. Couldn't have put it any better myself.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 3, 2013)

strakerak said:


> I looked up this guy on YouTube. He only has an OH solve from two or three years ago. Probably a television program.. But if we can't find a video, then something is up.


http://www.youtube.com/user/skrew86/videos I think this is his YouTube actually. I got it from his forum profile on the Italian forums 
(http://speedcubing.it/forum/User-Kilney) He has more videos than that.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Nov 3, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> Everyone, please refrain from making unfounded statements or propositions like these, it is not fair to the competitor or how the WCA operates in general. Give Andrea a chance to reconstruct the solve, and even if this doesn't occur, trust the delegate's final decision.



Ok, Kit.


----------



## Michael Womack (Nov 3, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh-JXhwfxZ8


----------



## AmazingCuber (Nov 3, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh-JXhwfxZ8



that's not his WR solve?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 3, 2013)

hcfong said:


> 1. How do you know this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just interested in how you know who the scrambler was. Your name isn't on the competitor's list so you must have got your information from somewhere else.



From the delegates and results team mailing lists.



hcfong said:


> 2. Can you tell me how you can run a round of Square-1 with a single group, without having to rely on competitors who are not competing for scrambling? I mean, in this case there was a scrambler available who wasn't competing, but that will not always be the case.



I didn't say it can always be done, but you said it can never be done. And that's wrong.



Kit Clement said:


> trust the delegate's final decision



Never!

Mostly kidding. Though really, _"just trust the delegate"_ is unsatisfactory. Which is why the delegate is going to tell the story.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Never!
> 
> Mostly kidding. Though really, _"just trust the delegate"_ is unsatisfactory. Which is why the delegate is going to tell the story.



Haha, fair enough! I suppose I should have said to trust the delegate's final decision _for now_.


----------



## LVP (Nov 3, 2013)

Hello everyone. I'm one of the two delegates who attended the Legnano Open yesterday. I'll try to clarify all the doubts that emerged in the last day.




hcfong said:


> 1. How do you know this? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just interested in how you know who the scrambler was. Your name isn't on the competitor's list so you must have got your information from somewhere else.
> 2. Can you tell me how you can run a round of Square-1 with a single group, without having to rely on competitors who are not competing for scrambling? I mean, in this case there was a scrambler available who wasn't competing, but that will not always be the case.



Stefan got this informations from me. I was the scrambler in the square-1 final. As you can see from my official profile, I have some experience with the square-1. I decided not to compete yesterday for mainly two reasons: 
1) I was the only one able to scramble this puzzle fast except for the other competitors and it was just a single round, so I thought the best thing was not to divide the competitors in two groups;
2) I haven't been practicing this puzzle for months, so my solves would have been a waste of time from the organizing point of view.

I'm not a newbie when it's about square-1. I know a bit about it, as you can see from my profile on the WCA database. I don't find this result so strange because I have a personal best at home of 8.xx seconds, made when my average was about 28-30 seconds. Sometimes scrambles are very lucky and you can skip almost everything after getting back to the cube shape, as mostly of you surely well know.

I can assure everybody that the scramble was correct. I checked it, of course, before letting the judge taking the puzzle. It matched with the scrambling sheet. At that point of the competition, just three competitors were still solving, and Andrea was also the first one getting the puzzle for the 5th attempt. All happened very quickly, I gave the puzzle to the judge, who brought it immediately to Andrea. He was still the fastest solver in the event, so there were a lot of witnesses to the solve. 

After the solve, me and the other delegate (Matteo Colombo) checked again the scramble. I remembered it and it also matched with the sheet and with the other two square-1 that were waiting for a judge at the scrambling table. We also asked the judge of the WR solve if he remembered the scramble and it was it. 

Unfortunately, there's no video of the solve. That happened because Andrea started his average badly and decided not to film himself after the second attempt. Still, he has an official average of 23.20 seconds and his previous best single in competition was 15.91. This was a NR at the time (2011), and he averaged 37 seconds in that round. I think that yesterday he was a bit rusty at the beginning of the event, but I know that he has a lot of sub20 averages at home. So, I think that his abilities with this puzzle are doubt-proof.

After the solve, I obviously talked to the competitor. He just told me he got really lucky, that he placed the cube in a wrong orientation on the table (confirmed by the judge), he skipped a whole layer after reducing the square-1 to the cube shape and that he then had just one single algo left to complete the puzzle.
Then I asked him for a reconstruction (Matteo was there too), but Andrea was really upset and couldn't find it again. So we thought that he could've got lucky because of the initial mistake he made (placing the puzzle in the wrong orientation after the inspection). We valuated his behaviour as genuine, he was sincerely shocked about what he just did. 

I have no doubt that everything was done following the rules. 

Cheers,

Lorenzo


----------



## Schmidt (Nov 3, 2013)

Colombo investigated it! Case closed I guess.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 3, 2013)

Schmidt said:


> Colombo investigated it! Case closed I guess.


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 3, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Even with random-state scrambles? Surely with a better scrambling method each step should be about as likely to be skipped as each other step. Common "super-scramble"s where many steps get skipped all at once should really only occur with the old scrambler.



I agree, with random twists I have many sub 7s, but with random state I have only had a few sub 9s


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 3, 2013)

Assuming this is legit;

Something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. 

The same thing happens with 2x2x2 single but is so frequent that it kind of normalises the single. This is the same thing but sq1's super easy scramble distribution makes this freak occurace much more anomalous. 

I guess that if you're annoyed about this for whatever reason you can take solice in the fact that the time isn't so crazy that it cannot be beaten with more regular scrambles. WR times are getting to the point for many puzzles where it requires a combination of luck and skill. Besides, it's not like any event has been absolutely broken yet.

Cool stuff, congratulations. Looking forward to seeing how mad square 1 single can get in the future due to this special variance in scramble distribution.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm still not convinced for probability reasons (basically, much more likely there was some kind of cheating/scrambling mistake/other shenanigans than that there was actually a ridiculously lucky scramble, given the random scramble style we use).

Honestly, because Square-1 is a much longer event than 2x2x2 with a lot of difference between people's times, it would be really nice if we could prevent this kind of thing from happening, and having very fast people have to compete with a crazy single achieved primarily by luck. I'd like something to not allow any singles less than, say, 0.5 of someone's best average. I'm sure a couple people would be unhappy with this, and I agree it's pretty arbitrary, and the edge cases would be problematic, but I think it would help reduce the "undeserved" single records and make Square-1 a bit more interesting.


----------



## CubeRoots (Nov 4, 2013)

what about new competitors or people who improved a lot etc what would the rule for them be? i see that suggestion as very problematic. I disagree with you on this. my view: who gives a **** about sq1 single and whether it was lucky. Singles dont matter much and this person legitimately got this time!


----------



## cubecraze1 (Nov 4, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'm still not convinced for probability reasons (basically, much more likely there was some kind of cheating/scrambling mistake/other shenanigans than that there was actually a ridiculously lucky scramble, given the random scramble style we use).
> 
> Honestly, because Square-1 is a much longer event than 2x2x2 with a lot of difference between people's times, it would be really nice if we could prevent this kind of thing from happening, and having very fast people have to compete with a crazy single achieved primarily by luck. I'd like something to not allow any singles less than, say, 0.5 of someone's best average. I'm sure a couple people would be unhappy with this, and I agree it's pretty arbitrary, and the edge cases would be problematic, but I think it would help reduce the "undeserved" single records and make Square-1 a bit more interesting.



So getting lucky is a crime?


----------



## Akash Rupela (Nov 4, 2013)

Even if he cant reconstruct, At least we can have the scramble and someone can figure out optimal solution from cube explorer and see if it is possible at all do be that efficient?
I m pretty sure the solver would remember what edge case he got regardless of how he solved cubeshape.


----------



## hubingjushi (Nov 4, 2013)

LVP said:


> Hello everyone. I'm one of the two delegates who attended the Legnano Open yesterday. I'll try to clarify all the doubts that emerged in the last day.



thanks for your description. And...could you provide us with that WR scramble please? I think perhaps somone would reconstruct it 'with the mistake he made'.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 4, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I'm still not convinced for probability reasons (basically, much more likely there was some kind of cheating/scrambling mistake/other shenanigans than that there was actually a ridiculously lucky scramble, given the random scramble style we use).
> 
> Honestly, because Square-1 is a much longer event than 2x2x2 with a lot of difference between people's times, it would be really nice if we could prevent this kind of thing from happening, and having very fast people have to compete with a crazy single achieved primarily by luck. I'd like something to not allow any singles less than, say, 0.5 of someone's best average. I'm sure a couple people would be unhappy with this, and I agree it's pretty arbitrary, and the edge cases would be problematic, but I think it would help reduce the "undeserved" single records and make Square-1 a bit more interesting.



And do what? DNF them? That's not fair, they had no choice about getting a lucky scramble, so them getting a lucky scramble can make their average worse? Anyway, quite a few people wouldn't have their current singles. How about you just realise that single WRs, whilst cool, can be ignored. What's stopping you from thinking "Bingliang Li is the best Sq1 solver in the world"?


----------



## blade740 (Nov 4, 2013)

Square-1 single is more variable than 2x2, to be honest. Even with random-state scrambles, an easy scramble can have a ridiculously short solution. If you have a solve with an EO skip and an EP skip, that's basically a 2x2 ortega solve. An easy cubeshape on top of that can be very fast. He supposedly got a LL skip, which makes me think he probably got an easy blockbuild F2L to produce a time this fast. 

I'm still very curious to see the scrambles, have they been posted anywhere yet?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Nov 4, 2013)

Only thing that makes me suspicious is:

He managed to put it in the wrong orientation and do cube shape weirdly in sub 4/5, recognize the skip, and then do the last layer alg all in 7.41?


----------



## kcl (Nov 4, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> Only thing that makes me suspicious is:
> 
> He managed to put it in the wrong orientation and do cube shape weirdly in sub 4/5, recognize the skip, and then do the last layer alg all in 7.41?



If it's a fast alg, it could happen..


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 4, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> Only thing that makes me suspicious is:
> 
> He managed to put it in the wrong orientation and do cube shape weirdly in sub 4/5, recognize the skip, and then do the last layer alg all in 7.41?



I average 35 and I could do easy cube shape and an EP alg sub 7 lol. He isn't necessarily 25~ due to TPS, it's likely he just doesn't know many algs and has decent TPS.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Nov 4, 2013)

Hmm...I guess. I averaged 24 a little earlier this year and couldn't do cube shape sub 5. Maybe I'm just weird.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 4, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> Hmm...I guess. I averaged 24 a little earlier this year and couldn't do cube shape sub 5. Maybe I'm just weird.



I can do cubeshape in roughly 6-7, but they said _easy_ cube shape. Even with a small screw up (like turning fist fist into fist fist before solving into cube) it's possible. I still want the scramble though.


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 4, 2013)

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


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 4, 2013)

Do we have an official word yet? Is it just legit now?

EDIT: 

here are the optimal solutions (probably not useful)

(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (6,9) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (6,3) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (9,6) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (3,6) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (4,6) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (4,6) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (6,4) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (6,4) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (9,6) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (3,6) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (6,9) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (6,3) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 4, 2013)

I guess you read Lorenzo's post, didn't you? We have absolutely no reason to belive that the result is not legit for now.


----------



## Lin Chen (Nov 4, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)



What' this?


----------



## Sebastien (Nov 4, 2013)

the scramble.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 4, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> I guess you read Lorenzo's post, didn't you? We have absolutely no reason to belive that the result is not legit for now.



Awesome! 

Also, I found some more optimal solutions


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 4, 2013)

Am I being dumb or do none of your solutions work, Thom?


----------



## TMOY (Nov 4, 2013)

Thom's "solutions" are in fact sequences equivalent to the scramble, just invert them to get working solutions.


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 4, 2013)

One thing I think that the competitor needs to be asked: how would you normally solve that cubeshape? It's a nontrivial one, that's for sure, with optimal solution taking six twists.


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 4, 2013)

MTGjumper said:


> One thing I think that the competitor needs to be asked: how would you normally solve that cubeshape? It's a nontrivial one, that's for sure, with optimal solution taking six twists.



What? Isn't it just R2 U' R2? Or am I scrambling wrong?


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 4, 2013)

youre scrambling wrong, i did the same thing, its fist barrel i think. your doing the second 0/-2 wrong (near the end)


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 4, 2013)

MTGjumper said:


> One thing I think that the competitor needs to be asked: how would you normally solve that cubeshape? It's a nontrivial one, that's for sure, with optimal solution taking six twists.



Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.

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

Solution:

(-5,0) / (2,0) / (0,2) / (-2,-1) / (0,2) / (-1, 4) / (0, -3) / // Cubeshape
(-5, 0) / // CO, CP skip, fix middle
(0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (6, 4) // EO, EP skip

Essentially, the solution is undoing the cubeshape done in the scramble at the beginning, which results in a lucky case. You can see how lucky it is if you do only the first few moves of the scramble, right up to the point where cubeshape is lost in the scramble. At that point it is one turn away from CO/CP being done. 

It doesn't exactly fit the bill of being a layer skip, but it should be pretty clear that there exist plausible lucky solutions for this scramble.

EDIT: Turns out this is solution is the inverse of the last optimal case given by Thom a few posts back.


----------



## kcl (Nov 4, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.
> 
> Scramble: (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)
> 
> ...



I can see this happening.. You may be on to something.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 5, 2013)

I got 9.3 on my 5th try, didn't really have the cube shape down as I solve it less efficiently. I think it's definitely plausible. The only reason it isn't plausible is he screwed up cubeshape, which would normally then have a pause. But, it seems definitely possible for someone of his speed (he's decent at Square-1 if we assume he averages similar to his comp PB average) so... congratulations Andrea.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 5, 2013)

Kit Clement said:


> Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.
> 
> Scramble: (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)
> 
> ...



4.32 with that solution after a few tries. That cubeshape solution is so uncomfortable for me :/


----------

