# Proposal: method neutral regulations (request for STM as the official WCA metric)



## lerenard (Feb 18, 2015)

So I remember when there was a proposal about fixed orientation for blind and people rejected it in part because it wasn't method neutral. This got me thinkng more about the WCA's stand on slice moves; namely that they don't exist as independent manipulations of a single layer containing four edges and four edges, but rather two moves of opposite faces combined with a cube rotation. Because of this they count as two moves rather than one. This is a disadvantage to users of Roux not only in FMC but also in speedsolving. When a CFOPer fails to AUF properly there is a +2 penalty. However, if a Rouxer is off by an M2 the solve if DNF'd.
Overall I think this standpoint is a remnant of when cubes were so stiff you really couldn't independently turn an inner slice, but the change is now long overdue, not only because it logically makes sense but also because it is a disadvantage to Rouxers and a violation of method neutral regulations.

tl;dr: WCA should use STM as their official metric.

EDIT: after hearing the opinions of various people, I have reached the following conclusions:
I no longer support +2 for being off by an M slice, because I originally misunderstood the reasoning behind the regulation, and apparently most people disapprove of the existing regulation.
While I still believe STM is the most natural and logical metric, for whatever reason other people don't. Therefore this must be a matter of opinion, as reasoning has failed to convince people and I trust that a good portion of you at least are marginally open-minded.
My argument was based off the assumption that STM was the most logical metric, but if people don't agree with my assumption I can't hope to convince them of my conclusions.
I now understand why HTM is used, even if I still believe it's inferior.
As people were introducing things about handicaps for LBL and other things, let me say this:
Those "pseudo-arguments" were like this:
LBL is not effective (given)
It should be more effective in the interest of method neutrality
It should be given a handicap (conclusion)
My argument was as follows:
STM is more logical than HTM (given)
Some methods (mostly Roux) are hindered by the use of HTM rather than STM
This is unfair, because if logic were followed, the handicap would be gone and there would be more method neutrality
STM should be used (conclusion)

BUT, as I said since arguing that STM is more logical is a hopeless cause, I have given up the desire to convince others of my point of view.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Feb 18, 2015)

CFOP users also have this issue if they use MU PLLs  

I highly doubt the WCA will convert to STM for one method.


----------



## Ollie (Feb 18, 2015)

The blind orientation argument wasn't an argument about method neutrality, more that orientation shouldn't be consider as part of the solve because it adds nothing to the 'solving' aspect.

Some nice pre-reading before this escalates.


----------



## obelisk477 (Feb 18, 2015)

Let me sum up all of the arguments that will follow right here:

The supporters: The +2 is meant for people who drop their *solved* cubes, which can then land in such a way that a layer becomes misaligned by more than 45 degrees. They believe that the fairness of this outweighs the advantage gained by those who simply fail to execute the final turn of their solve (which, not considering the +2 penalty, would be a DNF) and stop the timer still having not executed the final turn.

The opposition: Because CFOP users sometimes 'abuse' the +2 penalty by simply not finishing their solves, other users (Roux, mainly) want the ability to have failed to execute the final turn of the solve as well (which is more likely to be an M or M'), and still only be penalized +2 instead of DNF. If CFOP users can benefit from this, why can't Roux users do so more easily?



The reason the regs haven't changed: While it may be unfortunate that some people just fail to execute the final turn and stop the timer anyway, there should still be a way to keep people from DNF'ing simply from the way they drop their cube on the table, and it is simply too problematic to determine whether the layer was misaligned by the drop, or whether the competitor was off by a single turn. Because it is nearly impossible to drop a cube on a flat stackmat in such a way that causes an M layer to be misaligned, any instance of M moves being unsolved must (almost) necessarily be caused by a competitor failing to execute a final turn, which is in principle a DNF without the +2 penalty


----------



## lerenard (Feb 18, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> CFOP users also have this issue if they use MU PLLs
> 
> I highly doubt the WCA will convert to STM for one method.


Whether or not they will, they definitely should. Maybe this isn't as widespread a sentiment as I thought, but I feel that the WCA should not give an advantage to any one method, and by extension they shouldn't discourage the use of any one method simply because it's tradition and they don't feel like changing.


Ollie said:


> The blind orientation argument wasn't an argument about method neutrality, more that orientation shouldn't be consider as part of the solve because it adds nothing to the 'solving' aspect.
> 
> Some nice pre-reading before this escalates.


That was one argument. It was not the only argument. There were people who argued for method neutral regulations.


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 18, 2015)

Ollie said:


> The blind orientation argument wasn't an argument about method neutrality, more that orientation shouldn't be consider as part of the solve because it adds nothing to the 'solving' aspect.
> 
> Some nice pre-reading before this escalates.



Listening to Noah's CubeCast, they did focus on method neutrality as a big reason why fixed orientation shouldn't be implemented, so method neutrality was an argument against changing blind orientation.

As for changing to STM for FMC, it completely changes the "M". Current methods are intended to work with the current definition of "moves" and get that as low as possible. Changing to STM wouldn't assist method neutrality, it would change how every serious FMCer would solve the cube.

It would be nice for me, as a Rouxer, but only because I'm too lazy to learn a decent FMC method.

I'm fine with how it is now, however, I'd say that if now it were QTM or STM. How it is is fine. The definition of "move" dictates the method. Sure it "hinders" some methods, but only because they don't fit well into the current definition. If it were shifted to QTM or STM, it would shift the hindrance rather than creating equality.

EDIT:

As for the +2 or DNF thing for M slices, that's a totally different bag of worms that I'm not even ready to delve into.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 18, 2015)

lerenard said:


> WCA should use STM as their official metric.



That would kind of ruin FMC...

Edge insertions would become too effective IMO...

Also why should we choose STM as "method neutral metric"?

Why not choose something else like ATM or SQTM?

I think HTM makes most sense to be the "as neutral as possible metric". 
It only uses outer layer turns that are the turns that most (if not all) people consider to be one move. I mean if you do an R move and give a cube to anyone and ask how many moves it takes to solve it they would instinctively say 1. BUT if you do M instead some would probably say 1 move but many (probably most) would say 2 moves. 

If we start using more "artificial" and not so intuitive metric we could as well choose something like ATM to be the chosen metric and that doesn't make sense to me at least...


----------



## Dene (Feb 18, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> The reason the regs haven't changed: While it may be unfortunate that some people just fail to execute the final turn and stop the timer anyway, there should still be a way to keep people from DNF'ing simply from the way they drop their cube on the table, and it is simply too problematic to determine whether the layer was misaligned by the drop, or whether the competitor was off by a single turn. Because it is nearly impossible to drop a cube on a flat stackmat in such a way that causes an M layer to be misaligned, any instance of M moves being unsolved must (almost) necessarily be caused by a competitor failing to execute a final turn, which is in principle a DNF without the +2 penalty



Actually the real reason the regs haven't changed is because too many people will whinge about it. Almost everyone that has influence over changing the regulations wants to remove +2 for misalignment.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 18, 2015)

Dene said:


> Actually the real reason the regs haven't changed is because too many people will whinge about it. Almost everyone that has influence over changing the regulations wants to remove +2 for misalignment.



Yeah I agree that removing +2 altogether would be OK or even good.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 18, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> That would kind of ruin FMC...
> 
> Edge insertions would become too effective IMO...
> 
> ...


It would definitely make some methods more viable, but whereas you see those methods as inherently inferior, I see them as merely stifled by unfair regulations. Why are corner insertions inherently better than edge insertions?
You say M moves are intuitively two, but I couldn't disagree more. Do an M move with your ring finger in front of your family/non-cubing friends and ask them how many moves you did. They will almost all say "one." 
As for ATM and SQTM, ATM would count R L as one move, which doesn't make sense. Again, non-cubers would obviously see this as two moves, and so it is counted. SQTM would be more fair than QTM, but most people (myself included) already agree that face turns of 180 degrees are one move, so why change that now?
You say HTM is more intuitive, I say STM is the most intuitive metric. It would benefit some methods, but it would simply be restoring them to the viability they should already have rather than artificially creating some.

As for the +2 issue, I was unaware of the reasoning behind it. I would say either get rid of +2's altogether or extend them to M slices, although it would not be a huge deal if they were to remain as they are.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 18, 2015)

yeah, i've always been fond of ATM or whatever that snyder metric is with regards to +2s and movecounts.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Feb 18, 2015)

*Proposal: method neutral regulations*

Get rid of the +2 rule for misaligned layers altogether and make them DNFs since it isn't solved.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 18, 2015)

lerenard said:


> You say M moves are intuitively two, but I couldn't disagree more. Do an M move with your ring finger in front of your family/non-cubing friends and ask them how many moves you did. They will almost all say "one."



When I do FMC, I do it as two moves. Colors of the centers determine the letter of the face I am turning, so I need to track that.

Sure, we could change it so that we can track M moves for FMC, but as others have said, that completely changes the event. I mean, the world record itself should technically change!

Okayama's 20: L2 U2 L F' U' F2 (U D') B' R2 F2 D B2 (D' U) F D F' U' F 
Now an 18: L2 U2 L F' U' F2 E L' B2 R2 D L2 E B D B' U' B

The game clearly changes for FMC -- edge insertions are significantly more powerful. This is definitely not "method neutral" in the sense that that methods after this change would be significantly different.

As for whether we should consider M-slice misalignments for penalties, I'm indifferent. However, logistically, we'd have to define multiple metrics in the regulations, which adds complexity, and makes it more difficult to have consistent interpretations and translations. In reality, if we were to make any changes, I feel like we'd rather remove misalignment penalties than expand them.


----------



## TMOY (Feb 18, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> As for changing to STM for FMC, it completely changes the "M". Current methods are intended to work with the current definition of "moves" and get that as low as possible. Changing to STM wouldn't assist method neutrality, it would change how every serious FMCer would solve the cube.



So what ?



Kit Clement said:


> Sure, we could change it so that we can track M moves for FMC, but as others have said, that completely changes the event. I mean, the world record itself should technically change!



So what ?

I have already seen this argument (it would change the event) being given countless times and I still don't see why t would be a bad move (no pun intended).

And for current results, that's simple, just don't change them. After all, L2 counts as 1 move but L L counts as 2 even though they are equivalent, you can apply the same rule to E' (not E) and U D' for example.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 18, 2015)

lerenard said:


> It would definitely make some methods more viable, but whereas you see those methods as inherently inferior, I see them as merely stifled by unfair regulations. Why are corner insertions inherently better than edge insertions?


I think that if BOTH edge insertions AND corner insertions are too efficient in FMC the end part of the solve is too often solved quite optimally by just doing efficient F2L-1 and then inserting all the rest of the cycles somewhere in the skeleton.
That would be bad IMO since now FMC (and especially the end phase) requires deep understanding of how cube works and various more or less abstract concepts. I feel that changing metric to STM (or ATM or something like that) would make FMC more luck based (lucky cancellations with insertions) and less skill based (1 method is most of the time very effective compared to others so you don't need that complex and wide understanding of the cube anymore that FMC is and IMO should be all about).



> You say M moves are intuitively two, but I couldn't disagree more. Do an M move with your ring finger in front of your family/non-cubing friends and ask them how many moves you did. They will almost all say "one."


How about we do it fairly and don't show them how we "scramble" the cube but instead just give them a cube that is already scrambled with R and then a cube that is already scrambled with M. I can guarantee that literally ALL of them will say that R is only a 1-move away from solved. And some of them will probably say that M is 1-move away also, BUT I'm quite sure that ALL of them will NOT say 1 but some will also say 2.



> As for ATM and SQTM, ATM would count R L as one move, which doesn't make sense. Again, non-cubers would obviously see this as two moves, and so it is counted. SQTM would be more fair than QTM, but most people (myself included) already agree that face turns of 180 degrees are one move, so why change that now?
> You say HTM is more intuitive, I say STM is the most intuitive metric. It would benefit some methods, but it would simply be restoring them to the viability they should already have rather than artificially creating some.


So you say that R L' counted as 1 move will make perfect sense but R L counted as 1-move doesn't make any sense at all? Non-cubers will definitely say that R L is 2-moves yes, but many of them will say that R L' is also 2 moves so that is not so good point for your case...
As for (S)QTM you say that most people will agree that 180 degree turns are only a single turn (I actually agree with this. I just mentioned (S)QTM because I wanted to show you that there are other as "legit" metrics as STM). Just like I say that most people will agree that R L' is 2 moves (myself included).
Also you say it would benefit some methods, but it would only restoring them to viability they should already have. Restore to what exactly? Something they never ever used to have? Also another question is: Why isn't using HTM as metric "keeping those methods at viability they should have rather than artificially giving them more viability"? That's essentially the same argument that you used but in the other direction...



> As for the +2 issue, I was unaware of the reasoning behind it. I would say either get rid of +2's altogether or extend them to M slices, although it would not be a huge deal if they were to remain as they are.



Looks like we agree with something at least 
I think that +2 is quite OK how it is, but removing it all together would be good decision also. However allowing M to be +2 wouldn't be good IMO


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 18, 2015)

I would also tend to go for removal of the +2 for misalignment and just go for DNF.


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 18, 2015)

TMOY said:


> I have already seen this argument (it would change the event) being given countless times and I still don't see why t would be a bad move (no pun intended).
> 
> And for current results, that's simple, just don't change them. After all, L2 counts as 1 move but L L counts as 2 even though they are equivalent, you can apply the same rule to E' (not E) and U D' for example.



Of course, I wouldn't suggest changing the results to match this change, that wouldn't even be possible. I feel like I did give a great reason though -- allowing slices to count as one move would significantly change the event and how people would practice for it, and would thus make new results inconsistent with old ones. It would be like changing inspection on 2x2 to 10 seconds, as it significantly affects how competitors would practice and what scope of methods would be useful. I'm not too knowledgeable on 2x2, but I think it would devalue learning extra methods as there would be less time to check for them -- but if not, it would definitely change the event greatly and make results inconsistent.

I realize that nothing is ever perfectly consistent, given that we change the regulations frequently, but I don't think that making a fairly arbitrary change would be worth the inconsistency it creates.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 18, 2015)

TMOY said:


> So what ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I already told my opinion in my previous post just below yours but short version: It would make FMC more luck based and less skill based because you wouldn't need to know so many tricks/methods/concepts to be good at it anymore and luck with insertion cancellations gets a bigger role also.

And as for the last part (E' = U D' part): We could as well just start using ATM (or some other stupid artificial metric) and just say that A equals "clockwise axis turn around E-layer" so A would be same as U D but counted only as 1 move (similarly A' = U' D' and some other letters mean axis moves around M and S-layers...)

HTM is as little artificial to me as any metric can ever be and that is good


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 18, 2015)

ATM/STM FMC and HTM FMC are two different events that should not be compared in this way.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 18, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> When I do FMC, I do it as two moves. Colors of the centers determine the letter of the face I am turning, so I need to track that.



Just do M x instead of R L'.



tseitsei said:


> I think that if BOTH edge insertions AND corner insertions are too efficient in FMC the end part of the solve is too often solved quite optimally by just doing efficient F2L-1 and then inserting all the rest of the cycles somewhere in the skeleton.
> That would be bad IMO since now FMC (and especially the end phase) requires deep understanding of how cube works and various more or less abstract concepts. I feel that changing metric to STM (or ATM or something like that) would make FMC more luck based (lucky cancellations with insertions) and less skill based (1 method is most of the time very effective compared to others so you don't need that complex and wide understanding of the cube anymore that FMC is and IMO should be all about).
> 
> 
> ...




I'm honestly curious as to what methods you're referring to as I've searched and all I can find is "just make skeletons" and "do insertions" so I actually have just been trying the same thing with NISS and different blocks and waiting to get lucky. Could you direct me to a source of information? I asked a similar question in the fmc thread but no one responded.

Back to the matter at hand: essentially this a question of which metric makes more sense. You say HTM, I say STM. You say moving one layer should sometimes be considered two moves, I say a layer is a layer and anything you can do in one movement (don't bother saying M2 is two movements because it uses two consecutive movements, because that's the same thing with U2) is one move. You're trying to clutter the discussion by playing devil's advocate with other metrics, but no one wants those. I stand by my position that the only reason HTM was adopted was because at the time stiff cubes couldn't do M moves in one movement, and so that's how people viewed them. Now that we have better cubes we can see that logically slice moves are actually just moving the inner slice... We're still stuck with dated rules that people don't change simply because they don't want change. They don't want to have to relearn something they're already good at, and it just seems stupid that some methods will never be as viable as they logically should be (based on what a move logically is) because of tradition. 



Kirjava said:


> ATM/STM FMC and HTM FMC are two different events that should not be compared in this way.


And yet only one is official. One option would be to make STM FMC and Classic FMC, but people always say "there's no time" when people want to add a new event, so I'm not seriously lobbying for that. If only one can be official, people will obviously want HTM because they're already good at it, but I still say it's the less logical option and hinders some methods that are only being held back by tradition in spite of logic.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 18, 2015)

lerenard said:


> it's the less logical option



I agree with you otherwise, but I think that statement is subjective.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 18, 2015)

Beginner LBL method has pretty much no chance to win FMC. No fair! Not method neutral! We should introduce method handicaps. So that people aren't disadvantaged just because they use beginner LBL.



lerenard said:


> Overall I think this standpoint is a remnant of when cubes were so stiff you really couldn't independently turn an inner slice



When was that? I'm pretty sure slice moves have been possible since the 1970s.

Btw, good time to re-post one of my favorite quotes from a cube book:


----------



## ender9994 (Feb 18, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> The opposition: Because CFOP users sometimes 'abuse' the +2 penalty by simply not finishing their solves, other users (Roux, mainly) want the ability to have failed to execute the final turn of the solve as well (which is more likely to be an M or M'), and still only be penalized +2 instead of DNF. If CFOP users can benefit from this, why can't Roux users do so more easily?



Abusing the regulations by simply not finishing their solves and getting a +2 instead of simply finishing the last turn... How long exactly does a single turn take?



lerenard said:


> It would definitely make some methods more viable, but whereas you see those methods as inherently inferior, I see them as merely stifled by unfair regulations. Why are corner insertions inherently better than edge insertions?



I fail to see how this legitimately makes any method more viable. I don't honestly believe that any method has been "Stifled by unfair regulations towards them". Well actually, now that I think about it, lots of slower methods have be unfairly stifled because they are slower than others. I suggest we give a 10 second handicap to anyone who decides to use a beginner LBL method in competition.


----------



## tx789 (Feb 19, 2015)

My thoughts are that adding M turns in FMC would change the event completely. But having a M off by 90 degrees being a +2would mean changing it for FMC as well for the sake of consistency.


Edit: also if they were to add M as one move. In FMC you'd have to treat it like a new event. Since having M turn count as one is an advantage.


----------



## cashis (Feb 19, 2015)

Okay? So? FMC is changed FOR THE BETTER so people can get better results. This is a bad thing, how? Because old results are less efficient? So...? If someone can get a 20 with HTM, then I'm sure they can get better than that with STM. It really isnt that big of a deal to change something. 
I also support removing of +2s altogether.


----------



## Musicalboy2 (Feb 19, 2015)

cashis said:


> FMC is changed FOR THE BETTER so people can get better results.



For the better according to whom?

By analogy, suppose you allowed an inspection time of 1 minute in 2x2 or 3x3 to allow people to make better use of their inspection to get better times. Does it necessarily change it for the better?


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 19, 2015)

lerenard said:


> And yet only one is official. One option would be to make STM FMC and Classic FMC, but people always say "there's no time" when people want to add a new event, so I'm not seriously lobbying for that. If only one can be official, people will obviously want HTM because they're already good at it, but I still say it's the less logical option and hinders some methods that are only being held back by tradition *in spite of logic.*



What logic?

I think you're still missing the idea that the M is completely arbitrary. It doesn't really matter what M is. People built the methods based on the M. If the method works better with HTM than STM, than it's a better method for the current definition of M. If it were changed to HTM, the methods would change. If people are using a method that takes advantage of STM rather than HTM, than they are studying a method that won't help them with the current definition of FMC. Changing the definition only helps people that are using currently inferior methods. It's like saying measuring speed solving in seconds hinders people that use slow methods. It doesn't really make any sense.




cashis said:


> Okay? So? FMC is changed FOR THE BETTER so people can get better results. This is a bad thing, how? Because old results are less efficient? So...? If someone can get a 20 with HTM, then I'm sure they can get better than that with STM. It really isnt that big of a deal to change something.
> I also support removing of +2s altogether.



Changing HTM to STM will lower the number, but a lower number doesn't mean "better". The "M" in FMC is similar to the seconds in speed solving. The lower the M the better, the lower the seconds the better. Changing the definition of M in order to allow people to get lower scores would be the equivalent of changing the definition of seconds to allow people to get lower scores. If we measured times in minutes instead of seconds, Mats Valk's 5.55 solve would instantly drop to .0925, but it's not really better, you've just changed the definition.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 19, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> Changing HTM to STM will lower the number, but a lower number doesn't mean "better". The "M" in FMC is similar to the seconds in speed solving. The lower the M the better, the lower the seconds the better. Changing the definition of M in order to allow people to get lower scores would be the equivalent of changing the definition of seconds to allow people to get lower scores. If we measured times in minutes instead of seconds, Mats Valk's 5.55 solve would instantly drop to .0925, but it's not really better, you've just changed the definition.



one reason it's not fair to just change the definition of "M" is because all the old FMC solutions are written for HTM. I'm sure a bunch of people have solves with " U D' " somewhere in the middle of their solutions. But there's no way to go back and subtract a move from all these solves at this point. and it's unfair to rank new solves against the old ones if the regulations are changed.

there is no good way to change the regulations without changing the event (like how they changed from the old multi-blind format to the new one). 

the WCA was just dumb when they wrote the rules in the first place. no surprise there.



Spoiler


----------



## Coolster01 (Feb 19, 2015)

Notes for when I hold a comp one day:
Unofficial events:
- SQTM FMC 
- Ball in a cup
- Team BLD


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 19, 2015)

The choice of metric is really just an arbitrary choice -- any arguments people have had for one metric over another are completely subjective.. HTM was commonly known and understood. STM is also a valid metric. But why make an arbitrary change to STM that would both completely change how people approach the event and make previous records inconsistent? 



mDiPalma said:


> the WCA was just dumb when they wrote the rules in the first place. no surprise there.



Do you only post things to bait people into dumb arguments?


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 19, 2015)

Kit Clement said:


> Do you only post things to bait people into dumb arguments?



no. but it's been a decade since they arbitrarily chose that metric.

i thought by now you'd come up with some justification besides "HTM was a commonly understood metric." personally, i can't think of a dumber reason that doesn't involve extraterrestrials or dowsing rods.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 19, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> no. but it's been a decade since they arbitrarily chose that metric.
> 
> i thought by now you'd come up with some justification besides "HTM was a commonly understood metric." personally, i can't think of a dumber reason that doesn't involve extraterrestrials or dowsing rods.


Do you have a better (not subjective) reason to suggest some other metric then? If you do I will gladly listen. Btw "byhyy rouxers can get more dnfs" or "I think M is 1 move" are not good reasons. I can just as well think that U D is 1 move or that U2 is 2 moves as discussed earlier at this topic


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 19, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Do you have a better (not subjective) reason to suggest some other metric then? If you do I will gladly listen. Btw "byhyy rouxers can get more dnfs" or "I think M is 1 move" are not good reasons. I can just as well think that U D is 1 move or that U2 is 2 moves as discussed earlier at this topic



yes.

the reason you can count moves in a speedsolve or efficiency solve is because they occur one after another.

for example, sune has 7 moves because the moves must be executed in this order: " R U R' U' R U2 R' ." you can't combine or switch around any of these moves. the order is defined because the axes involved intersect at every move

however, when executing slice moves, or other moves about the same axis, the moves can occur at the same time. because of the way the FMC solve-sheet is set up, we have to arbitrarily assign an order to these moves, "U D2" or "D2 U," when in reality an optimal solver, or a cuber, or a cubing robot would execute these moves in the same moment, and the state of the cube can be immediately changed from "F2 B" to "F' b' B2" without any defined intermediate position. (edit: IN OTHER WORDS. R U R' must pass through 4 different states [initial, and the 3 following moves], and each state should require a representative move, but L2 M R only requires 2 states to represent it completely [initial and final])

therefore, in my opinion ATM is the best metric for measuring "efficiency." you can read Snyder's justification here.

you could apply a similar argument to QTM, arguing that every possible, intermediate position must be directly passed through (IE. U2=U U passes through U state of the cube before moving to the U U state), which only requires QTM to satisfy 100% of the time.


however, i cant justify HTM, FTM, or OBTM, or what have you. any ideas?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 21, 2015)

I believe three things:

1) There is no truly method-neutral metric.
2) The choice of official metric is arbitrary, and the best is just to pick one and stick with it.

The efficiency of each method depends a bit on the metric – and even then, it depends on your specific approach and your algs.
You want Roux to be given a boost, but I don't think you've made (or can make) the argument that moving to STM is truly neutral over all possible methods.

FMC has always used OBTM (even when it was described as HTM, which is less specific).
Alignment penalties have been restricted to at most a single misaligned slice, since 2008 (read the change for 10e here).

This has been clear to competitors, and they had the choice to take it into account any time they learned new techniques.
By now, competitors have also presumably optimized their techniques for OBTM, and it would be unfair to change it on them without a really good reason.



lerenard said:


> So I remember when there was a proposal about fixed orientation for blind and people rejected it in part because it wasn't method neutral.



This thread?
It wasn't really about method neutrality. Practical fairness is a much bigger issue.



lerenard said:


> Back to the matter at hand: essentially this a question of which metric makes more sense. You say HTM, I say STM.



And someone says QTM and someone says ATM.



lerenard said:


> because it logically makes sense



Here, I made up an explanation that OBTM is logical: You have two hands. Take one hand, and hold one section of the puzzle. Take the other hand and use it to move the other section as one piece. That counts as a move, and anything else has to be broken down into these moves.

Several metrics are "logical" and "natural", and we really just have to pick one. I think that the general consensus in this thread is that OBTM is at least as logical as any other choice.

(I personally think OBTM is a bit more natural. But I think that's less important than a consistent choice, and OBTM has worked well enough.)



lerenard said:


> SWhen a CFOPer fails to AUF properly there is a +2 penalty. However, if a Rouxer is off by an M2 the solve if DNF'



I said I had three beliefs. The last one is actually an opinion, and the controversial one:

3) All misalignments that are currently +2 penalties should be DNFs.

Allowing one plane of misalignment is already confusing enough.

If you allow two or more, it gets confusing: more confusing to write clear Regulations, more confusing to understand, more confusing to judge. Try to come up with a definition, push it to the edge, and see if 1) everyone is still able to apply it unambiguously, and 2) is still comfortable with the resulting judgments.



lerenard said:


> We're still stuck with dated rules that people don't change simply because they don't want change. They don't want to have to relearn something they're already good at, and it just seems stupid that some methods will never be as viable as they logically should be (based on what a move logically is) because of tradition.



Please don't call us stuck in the past or stupid just because you don't like a policy.

We do make big changes sometimes. Whenever someone wants to propose a change like this one, I want to separate the issue into parts:

1) Is the proposal better than what we currently have?
2) Is it worth the trouble of switching?

In this case, 1) is "not really" (about equally good), and 2) is "not really".


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 21, 2015)

Lucas Garron said:


> Here, I made up an explanation that OBTM is logical: You have two hands. Take one hand, and *hold one section* of the puzzle. Take the other hand and use it to move the other section as one piece. That counts as a move, and anything else has to be broken down into these moves.



[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeUtFwNsqYI[/video]


----------



## lerenard (Feb 21, 2015)

I have changed my point of view and updated the OP, please check it out.


----------



## DeeDubb (Feb 21, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> yes.
> 
> the reason you can count moves in a speedsolve or efficiency solve is because they occur one after another.
> 
> ...



This is an amazing post, and convinced me of the value of ATM/QTM as opposed to STM/HTM. I wish you could post this stuff without...



mDiPalma said:


> personally, i can't think of a dumber reason that doesn't involve extraterrestrials or dowsing rods.



...this stuff.

You are very smart and articulate. I don't know why you have to resort to insults and hyperbole so much. It puts people's defenses up and takes a lot away from the good stuff you offer.


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 21, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> you could apply a similar argument to QTM, arguing that every possible, intermediate position must be directly passed through (IE. U2=U U passes through U state of the cube before moving to the U U state), which only requires QTM to satisfy 100% of the time.



nice explanations, i never really understood why ATM was ever even considered but now i do. for M2 moves in QTM, how many moves would/should it be considered. because there are so many ways to do M2, it can go through many different cube states. M'M',MM,RRLL,R'R'L'L',etc.


----------



## Dene (Feb 21, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> This is an amazing post, and convinced me of the value of ATM/QTM as opposed to STM/HTM. I wish you could post this stuff without...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't say that! That was the only part worth reading imo.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 21, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> nice explanations, i never really understood why ATM was ever even considered but now i do. for M2 moves in QTM, how many moves would/should it be considered. because there are so many ways to do M2, it can go through many different cube states. M'M',MM,RRLL,R'R'L'L',etc.



In QTM M2 is 4moves (RR LL) In SQTM 2moves (MM) in HTMandOBTM 2moves (R2L2) in STMandATM 1move


----------

