# WCA Multi-BLD Ranks



## philkt731 (Apr 29, 2008)

If you go to http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...gionId=&years=&show=100+Persons&single=Single
It shows Tim in first with his 24/24 and then Rowe (22/30), then Dennis (10/10), then way down at #45 is Ryosuke Mondo with 17/18. Should'nt he be in second? What's the deal here?


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 29, 2008)

They didn't change the results from before the regulation change. Ryosuke's attempt was done before April 11th, therefore he was scored as the old event. Rowe's attempt was done this past weekend, so his result is a point value of 14, beating Dennis' 10 points.


----------



## joshuali (Apr 29, 2008)

but stil i think ryosuke's attempt should be considered as 16 beating rowe's 14 points...the fact that it was done earlier following the old rules...doesn't relli change how we assess it right...? i duno


----------



## shelley (Apr 29, 2008)

Why can't they rank old results following the new rules? It's not like the new rules made anyone change their solution or strategy. Everyone's still trying to solve as many cubes blindfolded as possible.


----------



## pjk (Apr 29, 2008)

Yeah, I agree with Shelley. That makes absolutely no sense why Ryosuke isn't second.


----------



## Ron (Apr 29, 2008)

Hi,

You obviously missed the discussion on the WCA forum.

Under the old regulations a miss would put you below all people that solved all cubes. Under the new regulations a miss is not considered that bad anymore. I think this also changes the strategy of this event.



> 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.


Therefore we decided to do it this way. It looks a bit ugly now, but I am sure we forget about it in a few months, once everyone has broken their best results.

Thanks,

Ron


----------



## pete (Apr 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> It's not like the new rules made anyone change their solution or strategy.



I think it does change the strategy, mostly for cubers who are solving large number of cubes.
This no longer is an event aimed at perfection, under old rules errors were not tolerated and overestimating your own ability was not tolerated. If you messed up orientation of last 2 corners on your last cube of 20, you would end up behind everyone who completed 2/2.

Under the new rules it's more of a speed/quantity contest, you can take on large number of cubes and can afford to go through the memorization process quicker because you know if you make some memo mistakes then so what, you end up 18/20 or 14/20 or 12/20 - most likely still winning the event.

Also, if you realize you made an error on one of your earlier cubes, you can make a decision to leave that one out if you estimate that finding the error or fixing the error would take way too long (you can instead solve your next 3 cubes rather than risking going over the time limit).

Under the oldes rules you would have to memorize better (that takes more time) and execute 100% thus being forced to fix any errors you are aware of (even if you knew that fixing such error is going to take 10 minutes).


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2008)

Ron said:


> It looks a bit ugly now, but I am sure we forget about it in a few months, once everyone has broken their best results.



I think you severely overestimate the number of competitions most people go to. Ryosuke Mondo has only done multiple blindfolded at three competitions ever; he might not have another chance for a while. Maybe it will settle down after a year or so, but definitely not a few months...


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why can't they rank old results following the new rules? It's not like the new rules made anyone change their solution or strategy. Everyone's still trying to solve as many cubes blindfolded as possible.


 
Others have already told you some reasons why strategies did get changed. Another reason is really important for people like Clement Gallet (and me and Hans van der Zeijden). He solves corner orientations of all cubes first, then all edge orientations, then all corner permutations and finally all edge permutations. That means that if he runs out of time almost none of his cubes will be fully solved, even if he memoed/executed everything perfectly. I don't know if that was why he got 0/11 at German Open, but this strategy now has a clear disadvantage.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 29, 2008)

pete said:


> under old rules errors were not tolerated and overestimating your own ability was not tolerated. If you messed up orientation of last 2 corners on your last cube of 20, you would end up behind everyone who completed 2/2.



What? If two corners are your sole mistake in 20 cubes, that has *nothing* to do with "overestimating your own ability".


----------



## pete (Apr 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> pete said:
> 
> 
> > under old rules errors were not tolerated and overestimating your own ability was not tolerated. If you messed up orientation of last 2 corners on your last cube of 20, you would end up behind everyone who completed 2/2.
> ...



being picky again 
errors not tolerated ==> 2 corners wrong = DNF

i failed to provide example for the other scenario, sorry - here it goes :
overestimating your ability ==> i.e. nominating 22 cubes when your PB is 12

i'm not judging which scoring rule is better, just pointing out the differences.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 29, 2008)

Nothing wrong with overestimating. Tim never got 24/24 before and my PB in a competition was 0 correct (not just 0 out of 2, I never had a single cube correct). At home I had about 1/5 succesrate for single and never tried multiple. But I got 2/2 anyway officialy anyway.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 29, 2008)

pete said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > pete said:
> ...



What about doing 2 when your PB is 1?


----------



## pete (Apr 29, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> What about doing 2 when your PB is 1?




just to clarify this : I'm not criticizing anything (or anyone). Just pointing out the differences between old and new rules and why I think strategies may have changed. And lets not forget time limit has changed too.


----------



## pjk (Apr 29, 2008)

Ron said:


> Hi,
> 
> You obviously missed the discussion on the WCA forum.
> 
> ...


Yes, I did miss the discussion. Why does rule 9i3 exist? Is it due to the fact that BLD regulations changed, and the old records still exist?


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 29, 2008)

Good observation about the time limit Pete. Last year Hans got a NR of 2/2 in about 28 minutes. I broke it with 2/2 in about 27 minutes. Both these NR's would now be disqualifies. Actually, that is what happened to Hans in Germany 2/2 in 21.xx, so 1/2 after 20 minutes, so 0 points, so disqualified.

That is how much multiblind has changed in 1 year (and 4 other Dutchies have done multiple with Joel being the current NR-holder with 4/4)


----------



## tim (Apr 29, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Actually, that is what happened to Hans in Germany 2/2 in 21.xx, so 1/2 after 20 minutes, so 0 points, so disqualified.



0 points don't equal a DNF. Ron changed the rule to "less than 0 points".


----------



## Rune (Apr 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why can't they rank old results following the new rules? It's not like the new rules made anyone change their solution or strategy. Everyone's still trying to solve as many cubes blindfolded as possible.



Who knows? Say, he is sure he made a mistake in his first attempt. By the old law all is gone, he may from now play more relaxed and maybe get a better result than he would have got with the new law.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 29, 2008)

pete said:


> overestimating your ability ==> i.e. nominating 22 cubes when your PB is 12





AvGalen said:


> Nothing wrong with overestimating. Tim never got 24/24 before


I wouldn't call those overestimations, but perfectly valid estimations. Tim had perfectly solved 12 cubes in 44 minutes before and he had enough mental routes for 24. So why shouldn't he be able to do 24? And when I solved a 5x5 blindfolded in competition, I had never before even attempted a 4x4 or 5x5 blindsolve. But I knew I was able to.


----------



## shelley (Apr 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> > It looks a bit ugly now, but I am sure we forget about it in a few months, once everyone has broken their best results.
> ...



Agreed. Not everyone has the opportunity to go to eight competitions a year. And many competitions don't even run a multi-BLD event because it takes so long.


----------



## Rune (Apr 29, 2008)

Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Ron said:
> ...



Some, however, put in multi-BLD in place of 5x5 because many would take longer doing 5x5 than 2 multi, 4x4 BLD, and megaminx combined, apparently... I'm not going to name any upcoming competitions that do this.


----------



## Bryan (Apr 29, 2008)

uweren2000 said:


> Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?



Look at the rules at http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/ and see if you can find the answer for yourself. If you read through them and can't find your answer, repost here and I'll point you to the correct rule number.


----------



## Rune (Apr 29, 2008)

Bryan said:


> uweren2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, what does the rule say; is it an open or hidden bidding (about how many cubes you want to solve)?
> ...



The article is H1a, of course. The question is; How do I "tell" the number; loudly, in someone´s ear or do I have to write it down on a paper.


----------



## Inusagi (Apr 29, 2008)

I think this is very unfair...


----------



## Rune (Apr 29, 2008)

uweren2000 said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > uweren2000 said:
> ...



OK, the article H1a2 gives indirectly the answer to the question.


----------



## alexc (Apr 30, 2008)

I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.


----------



## Harris Chan (Apr 30, 2008)

May be the perfect accuracy is because there is less amount of cubes  Obviously a person that can do 5/8 can certainly do 2/2 (I hope), not like they're going to get 5/8 percentage when they do 2 which is er, 1 and 1/4 cubes correct.

A way to change the rule as Joel put it: Only perfect accuracy gets the WR, but less accurate but more cubes (after the subtraction) gets a higher rank (it might not make sense to most people as they would think WR is the highest rank, but yah...)


----------



## alexc (Apr 30, 2008)

One thing I find about multi bld is, that, more cubes doesn't feel any harder, it just takes longer. I don't find 6 any more difficult than 2, but 6 takes more time to memorize and solve. (Keep in mind that I have a good memo method that works for me. If you try to do 6 cubes w/ visual... good luck.. ) So, the main reason I don't always get perfects on multi is because I miss a two cycle, misoriented piece, etc. So, isn't it really just a test of accuracy if a higher number is really not any harder to memorize/recall? 

My best multi bld is 6/6. So far, I have found what I have stated to be true. However, I really don't know if there is a x number of cubes with a "jump" in difficulty to memorize. Other multi bld'rs: Let me know your opinion on this. (Especially Tim or Dennis.)


----------



## hait2 (Apr 30, 2008)

alexc said:


> I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.



actually in fact, these new rules DO promote striving for greatest accuracy. and it doesn't necessarily mean that the "almost perfect, huge number" multiers are ranked over the perfect-but-less-cube multiers. consider the case of 16/20 losing to 13/13.

obviously i like this new rule, since I recall bringing this idea up on this very forum a while back. props to whoever else (in wca or otherwise) came up with it


----------



## anders (Apr 30, 2008)

alexc said:


> I think these new rules are stupid. I find the point of multi bld is striving for the greatest accuracy, which this system does not promote. Instead this system favors those "almost perfect, huge number" multi bld'rs being ranked OVER the perfect multi bld'rs, who did slightly less cubes, but had perfect accuracy.



I agree. As I stated before, my opinion about multi-blindfolded is that the event is about judging one's ability, and then show it. Thus, in this respect, 2/2 is better than 9999/10000.


----------



## Dene (Apr 30, 2008)

I totally disagree with that. 9999 cubes multi-BLD? That would be insane.

I would only be more impressed by the 2/2 if it was done sub1 and the 9999 cubes took 1 hour each per cube.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 30, 2008)

You guys know that Rowe was going to quit multi but when they changed the rules, he decided to keep at it. I think that the new regs represent more, as Ryosuke would've had a much better result. I definitely think that 17/18 is far superior to 2/2 and even 5/5. The new rules are more representative of a person's ability in relation to another persons. Also, I do think that the old results should be transfered over as the new regulations just allow people to do MORE cubes. If the regs dictated smaller numbers then it would be a different story, but if, for example, ryosuke was to try 18 cubes before, he would definitely try it now, as it would be better for him.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2008)

I agree with Dan - the new regulations actually make it easier for someone to try a given number of cubes. Under the old regulations it would only be useful to try 18 cubes if you believed you had a good chance of getting every one; if you didn't think you did, you should only do two or three, because that would beat your failed 18 attempt if you could get that comparatively trivial task done. But with the new regulations, trying 18 is fine as long as you can get 9 of them. In fact, if you get 11 or more, you are guaranteed to beat anyone who attempts two or three cubes. So this new rule actually encourages people to go a little beyond what they think they can do, because even if they make a few mistakes or forget a cube or two they will still come out with a high number of points, and do better than they would have if they had done an attempt with a small number of cubes. For a more extreme example I don't think Rowe had done a success with 30 cubes before he tried it, but even though he didn't quite finish all the cubes his result of 22/30 was still good enough to place 2nd in the world, well ahead of any 2/2 or 3/3 attempts. Before, he would just place right after all the 2/2s, so it would probably not be worth the four hours.

More concisely - trying large numbers was more risky before the old regulations. Apart from the time limit, any changes in the strategy would be to make people try higher numbers of cubes, not lower, so high-numbered attempts from before the regulation switch are even better. It seems to me that the rule saying that old records should stand after a regulation change was designed so that new regulations stipulating stricter policies of some sort would not simply obsolete old records. Personally I think that all attempts from before which would count as successes in the new regulations should be counted as such (the ones which would not, such as attempts that took too long or 1/3 etc, should be kept grayed out). I'm not sure what to do with national records but perhaps we could keep them as what they are until they are broken (while still giving people who did them high rankings in the database), since it doesn't make much sense to me to retroactively have someone break a record when at the time the attempt was considered low-scoring.


----------



## Ron (Apr 30, 2008)

Hi guys,

I agree with Michael.
Still there is no need to rush. We have had only two new multiblind competitions yet. Plenty of time to see what happens.

I am sure Ryosuke will compete again in the upcoming months and easily finish in top 10 of the ranking. Btw, we informed Ryosuke before he travelled to Canada to compete.

The reason why the regulation is there is quite simple: there is no need (or 'we have no right') to take someone's records away just by changing the regulations. Normally record changes do not have much effect on existing records. This one has. This one would even change the winners of past competitions.

Thanks,

Ron


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 30, 2008)

Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed. I totally agree that if you won the competition, then you won it. However, I don't think that the fact that you won the competition negates the fact that the other person still did more cubes. In the grand scheme of things, the WCA rankings are independent of what happens within a competition (at least in my thoughts).


----------



## Ron (Apr 30, 2008)

> Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed.


Me neither of course.

For the record, there are now 90 persons on the world ranking.
44 of these have a ranking under the new regulations.
Of the other 46 only the following 5 persons would benefit from reevaluating their results:
Mondo	17-18
Louis	7-8
Poinsot	4-6
Kohn	3-4
Sechet	3-5
The other 41 would not benefit (most would have DNF or 0), some could be higher on the ranking, but with the same result.


----------



## Dene (May 1, 2008)

This is a very good point. It would only benefit a few people, most of which will outdo this at least sometime.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2008)

Ron said:


> > Ron, I don't think that the winners should be changed.
> 
> 
> Me neither of course.
> ...



Note that of these 5 people, only Mondo has a time that would be valid under the new rules - the others took too long. (Well, Sechet's time isn't even recorded, so I guess I don't know about that one.) So moving the others up by scoring like the new rules would actually seem a little unfair.

So now this really only affects one person in a significant way, and I'm sure we all hope Mondo will eventually beat his current best. I certainly do!


----------

