[HN Gopher] The Problem with Speed Cubing [video]
___________________________________________________________________
The Problem with Speed Cubing [video]
Author : Blendtherules
Score : 88 points
Date : 2022-07-23 16:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| rootusrootus wrote:
| With so many people tying for spots in the top 100, maybe it's
| time to stop focusing so much on 3x3x3 cubes.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| Not a (speed) cuber, just a guy that uses the memorized
| algorithms to do it slowly when my mind wants something to
| distract it.
|
| What makes me curious is the variance in how the cubes are
| initially scrambled. Surely some cubes are easier to solve than
| others? So I have to believe there's an intersection between
| skill AND luck of the draw?
|
| As a tournament watcher, these things go so fast, there's no real
| build for the spectator either.
|
| Why don't they do "here's a paper bag with 10 scrambled cubes--
| solve em all!" This would reduce the outset variance and allow
| for some excitement to build in the room. At the rate these guys
| go, it would still be over in 2 minutes.
|
| Those looking for a slower pace could still watch a chess
| tournament if need be.
| Blendtherules wrote:
| Trying to change the way tournaments are run, my friend told me
| you guys might be interested. Please delete if irrelevant. Thanks
| MauranKilom wrote:
| I closed the video about 4 minutes in because the presentation,
| while great, was incredibly redundant. The video could be
| condensed to two sentences. (Note that I'm not claiming to be
| the target audience, just giving my two cents).
|
| Also, retroactively judging competitors based on a completely
| different objective does not make sense for determining world
| records. Maybe the current fastest solver would still be the
| fastest (inspection+solve)er, but they have had no incentive to
| demonstrate it so far.
| dvh wrote:
| It's stupid. They didn't know someone would retroactively try
| to change the rules. Maybe someone was chatting with referee in
| their inspection time. Maybe someone just look at the cube for
| a second and then spend 10s with breathing exercise or
| relaxing.
|
| They didn't and couldn't possibly know you will change the
| rules and judge them retroactively.
|
| What if you try to count time to sit on chair next, should they
| preemptively start to sit really fast in competitions in case
| you decide in the future to change the rules?
|
| The time they made were made with current rules, you cannot
| deduce absolutely anything from them. Maybe the fastest total
| guy is just really stressed and to be done with it. Maybe the
| slow total guy is just enjoying the show, maybe he's watching
| his friend doing his best time on next table. Or maybe he's
| checking if his camera is recording. It's just totally unfair
| and meaningless.
|
| Also if you count inspection time, referee can now deliberately
| slowly reveal the cube to slow down someone's inspection.
| tomcam wrote:
| Your video was easily the most polished first effort on YouTube
| I have ever seen. Hugely impressed.
| bschne wrote:
| Aside: The way this was soundtracked with the perfectly timed
| drum hits was really cool!
| d3finitelym4ybe wrote:
| Interesting, thanks for sharing
| m348e912 wrote:
| This has to be one of the best produced videos I've ever seen
| regarding a data driven subject. The visualization, explanations,
| pace, and approach was outstanding.
|
| While I agree its worth changing the competition approach to
| count inspection time into the overall result, the fact that
| inspection time DOESN'T count in addition to solve time taints
| the results in the data. We don't know how any of the top 100
| would have performed if they knew inspection time counted towards
| their overall record time.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| > The visualization, explanations, pace, and approach was
| outstanding.
|
| It was, but it was extremely enhanced by the background drum
| track being keyed to visual changes in the data. That really
| emphasizes focus on the key data points.
| munchler wrote:
| I noticed the same thing and was impressed by how well it was
| done.
| spencerchubb wrote:
| I am a speedcuber, and the video missed this point. Inspection is
| needed to make the measurements precise.
|
| Imagine how a no-inspection event would occur. A judge would
| remove the cover from the cube, and the timer would start
| simultaneously. Your solve would be partially dependent on how
| quickly the judge removes the cover, which is unacceptable in a
| race that can be decided by milliseconds. It would be like in a
| 100 meter race if a human whispered in your ear when you're
| allowed to start. Human variance should be avoided at all costs
| in a race that needs precision.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| It would be like blindfold solving. Competitor starts with
| their hands on the timer and they remove the cover themselves.
| walnutclosefarm wrote:
| It wouldn't be at all difficult to remove the variable
| "uncover" time. Place the cube behind a small fence or curtain
| that disappears mechanically and starts the time, e.g.
| Ultimately the "sport" can be whatever its players want it to
| be, but as an observer, the time used to prepare the solution
| seems way more important than the current scoring method
| permits it to be.
| bschne wrote:
| Can you get lucky with the initial configuration of the cube in
| some way, or is is shuffled in a way that ensures roughly equally
| hard solves? What's the protocol here?
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| Luck can and does play a role. The official regulations for
| scrambling do require an optimum solution of >x moves. It
| doesn't take into account solving technique though as that's
| not really feasible. A scramble might be considered really
| lucky for a roux solver and unlucky for a cfop solver. It may
| even be lucky for a cfop solver that builds a white cross but
| not one that builds a green cross. There are far too many
| variables to take into account. Especially since one of the
| biggest sources of luck when using cfop is OLL skips (1/216
| chance) and PLL skips (1/72 chance). An OLL+PLL skip would be
| insane but far too rare for competition. OLL and PLL are the O
| and P in cfop so occur at the end of the solve so they are
| pretty much impossible to predict since there are so many
| possible ways to do the cf (cross and f2l) portions of the
| solve.
|
| Even if you don't get a skip, some OLLs and PLLs are faster
| than others. A "u perm" is way better than a "g perm" for PLL.
| In the OLL step a sune is really fast.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >The official regulations for scrambling do require an
| optimum solution of >x moves
|
| It says it has to be more than 1 move away from being solved.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| Nitpicking a little here. The minimum is 2 moves, with
| exceptions for 2x2, Skewb, Square-1, and Pyraminx.
| https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#4b3
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| Oh, and luck is why I think it's more interesting to see the
| average of 5 record. Currently 5.08 seconds set by Max Park.
| sonofhans wrote:
| It is possible to get lucky with the original scramble. There
| are a couple ways to think about it. First, some pieces you
| care about in the early solve may be in place already (e.g.,
| for a CFOP solve, some cross pieces may be in place), or nearly
| so. This will save you a move or two.
|
| Secondly, sometimes the combination of the scramble and your
| early path through the solve creates future opportunities.
| Sometimes you're lucky that a later step in the solve can be
| skipped. With a 10-second inspection time, no one can look this
| far ahead. With a world record hovering around 3 second,
| skipping one step that requires a 5-10 moves is a big deal.
|
| The world record for the 2x2 is currently an eye-watering 0.49
| seconds. 2x2 solvers use inspection time to plan the entire
| solve, something not possible with 3x3 and above. So that
| record 2x2 scramble was solvable in under a dozen moves; that's
| good luck.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| I'm a speedcuber. Inspection time makes for a more interesting
| competition because it raises the skill ceiling. The top solvers
| can plan out a dozen moves in advance, find solutions that are
| more efficient, or skip steps entirely. Removing inspection time
| means there's no reason to practice this skill. Furthermore,
| removing inspection time hurts some solving methods more than
| others. ZZ requires edge orientation, which involves scanning all
| 12 edge pieces and classifying them as good or bad. Not being
| able to do this in inspection time would mean it cuts into the
| solve time, making the entire method unviable. Inspection time
| adds more diversity and complexity to the hobby.
|
| Also, the video references feet solving. It was removed as an
| event at the start of 2020. Furthermore, they talk about Red Bull
| events as if they're another competitor to WCA events. Red Bull
| events are primarily designed to be broadcast to an audience. WCA
| events are designed so that everyone from young children to the
| elderly can compete. These two offbase points by the video
| creator make me think they aren't actually an active member of
| the speed solving community, just a random pedantic passerby.
|
| For what it's worth, I think a no-inspection event would be an
| interesting addition to the competition, but the WCA probably
| doesn't like it because it would not be substantially
| distinguished from normal 3x3. I'll look into seeing if there are
| any discussions anywhere.
|
| Edit: 3x3 No Inspection actually was an official WCA event from
| January 2006 to July 2006. Not sure why it was removed, though.
| Blendtherules wrote:
| Good points about inspection time making it more interesting, I
| think a lot of people agree with you, and I find it very
| interesting personally. The RedBull thing was shown to me by a
| speedcuber who just wanted to point out that there are no
| inspection events out there, even though they aren't aimed
| solely at the speed cubing community.
|
| Here's my issue. The statement "the world record for solving a
| rubiks cube is 3.47 seconds" is false. It took him longer than
| 3.47 seconds, we just don't count the extra time because of the
| rules of the game (which is a great game by the way).
| nsilvestri wrote:
| There's a lot of lines you can draw about what technically
| counts as the world record time. It's also incorrect to say
| that the world record is 3.47, because there are many on-
| camera examples of faster solves. They simply weren't done in
| the course of an official WCA event. The goal of the WCA
| isn't to most accurately determine what the world record is,
| it's to determine who can solve a cube the fastest in the
| context of an accessible and enjoyable competition. Trying to
| change WCA regulations to better match your personal
| definition of what counts as the world record is against the
| goals of the WCA.
| djmips wrote:
| A world record should also have a consistent course - but
| then it's just down to mechanics at that point.
| WheatM wrote:
| hougaard wrote:
| Showed the video to my speedcubing Son, and he agreed 100% with
| you.
| eastdakota wrote:
| I really thought this was going to be about something else which
| I am curious about. It seems as a complete layman to Speed Cubing
| that some ways the cube can be mixed (shuffled? randomized?) will
| be harder to solve than others. For experts in Speed Cubing, is
| that accurate? And, if so, among elite speed cubers how much are
| the records just a matter of the luck of the draw (mix)?
| nsilvestri wrote:
| Luck is a pervasive factor in speedcubing. Much of the time it
| manifests in a way that allows the solver to skip one or more
| steps of the solve. This is why most events take the average of
| 5 to rank people (throw out the fastest and slowest solves from
| a round of 5, average the middle 3 solves), because it's much
| more representative of a person's skill. But if you're looking
| to break the world record single solve for 3x3, you need to be
| pretty lucky on top of being world-class. When taking into
| account the luckiest situations we've ever seen in cubing
| comps, only the top 50 or so fastest solvers in the world even
| have a statistically significant chance at breaking the world
| record single. I'd feel comfortable placing money on it being
| someone who's already in the top 15, because there's still a
| big gap in skill between them and the top 50.
|
| However, the better a solver gets, the more they are able to
| manifest lucky situations. For example, I do most of my solves
| oriented around the white side. If there's something lucky in
| the initial state that would make using the blue side better, I
| still might opt to not take advantage of it, because the
| downside of reorienting myself to the blue side is greater than
| the advantage from that lucky situation. However, someone who
| has practiced their recognition on all sides and is color-
| neutral might be able to take advantage of that situation in a
| way I could not.
| slampig wrote:
| This is pretty dumb actually.
|
| The inspection phase is not really about "solving" the cube, but
| more about checking what is the best route to start solving the
| cube. In the most commonly used solving method that means that
| they are checking which color to create the initial cross to and
| what corners to place in first. If you take out the inspection
| phase, they will more or less just have to choose that at random,
| which will only cause more random variation to the final times
| which is already a huge problem with single solves.
|
| Also comparing current record times by including the inspection
| time is absolutely useless, as the optimal way has been to use as
| much of the 15s you have to make sure that you are choosing the
| right approach and the time used for the inspection has no
| correlation to the time they have actually needed to inspect the
| cube.
| growt wrote:
| I can barely solve a cube, so I may be wrong, but if I see
| these insanely fast movements in the solving phase I think not
| much decision making is taking place there and every move was
| planned in advance. If that is the case then I think it makes
| sense to include the planning in the total time.
| sonofhans wrote:
| You're not correct. Inspection time for a 3x3 solve allows
| you to plan the early moves, but no farther. It is possible
| to solve the entire cube in your head (i.e., blindfold
| solving), but not in 10 seconds. Progress through a solve
| goes in several stages, depending on your method. Each stage
| may require several sub-stages.
|
| E.g., for the CFOP method the second stage is pairing middle
| edge pieces with bottom corner pieces, and putting them in
| place. There are 4 of these middle edge pieces, so that stage
| has 4 steps. Each step may require from zero to ~8 moves.
|
| Speed solvers typically scan the cube for the next step, and
| then while their fingers execute the moves they scan the
| cube, looking to setup the next step. Sometimes this allows
| them to anticipate the next _next_ step.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| The fastest blindfold solvers in the world have their
| memorization under 10s. It encodes all the information they
| need to solve the cube, so arguably they are able to solve
| the entire cube in their head in under 10s. Execution takes
| longer, though, because blindfold methods at that level are
| still less efficient than traditional methods. However, one
| of the best BLD solvers, Jack Cai, has used blind solving
| during a normal 3x3 event, by doing his memorization during
| inspection (inspection time is included in the total time
| for the actual blindfold event). Then, with a blindfold on,
| executes the solve. He had a sub-12s average, IIRC.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| >but if I see these insanely fast movements in the solving
| phase
|
| As an old fart who was a kid when the Rubik's Cube was
| introduced to America, I'd like these young whippersnappers
| to solve on the original Cubes, not these Ferrari cubes that
| never stick or get filled with hand salsa and backpack
| detritus.
| slampig wrote:
| There's not really any decision making in solving the cube
| when you have learned the method, you just see the pattern
| and execute the algorithm. That doesn't really change at all
| with the inspection time.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| There is still plenty of decision making. For any scramble,
| there are usually a few dozen ways that make sense to make
| a cross. A top cuber may choose a slightly slower way to do
| the cross to make the first f2l pair easier (or even solve
| the first pair at the same time as the cross). They may
| choose an unusual way to insert the second f2l pair to make
| the third pair easier. There are a handful of videos out
| there of cubers breaking down their solves and explaining
| their decisions.
|
| The last layer doesn't really have any decision making
| though.
| Rastonbury wrote:
| Interesting to see the arguments against this by people familiar
| with cubing. Seems like the main one is that the cube is not
| fully solved during inspection phase, so they are also solving on
| the fly during the 2nd phase.
|
| As a layperson, I think new category would be interesting,
| because they would require different approaches. It reminds me of
| that Tetris post on HN the other day where teenagers innovated
| new techniques of manipulating the controller to defeat the old
| guard, or speedrunners coming up with new techniques.
|
| Also I'm curious as to why people don't use all the inspection
| time in something that's so competitively min-maxed. Spending
| more time to reduce one or two moves seems like something that
| could make or break it when you get ties measuring to 0.01s
| charcircuit wrote:
| >because they would require different approaches
|
| No, but that would be true in the reverse situation if we were
| going the other way and no longer counting inspection since it
| adds the ability for new strategies and tricks to be
| integrated. By counting the inspection time the event devolves
| into just immediately doing what you see first and makes some
| strategies unviable.
|
| >Also I'm curious as to why people don't use all the inspection
| time in something that's so competitively min-maxed
|
| As the other reply mentioned the more moves you plan the harder
| it is to know the current state of the cube at the end of what
| you planned. There's also a difference between knowing the
| general position a piece will be in and knowing the exact
| position and orientation of pieces which is necessary for
| adding more moves for your plan.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| One reason people don't use all the time is because it gets
| exponentially more difficult to track more and more pieces as
| the solutions also get longer. An intermediate cuber can easily
| 4 pieces in inspection and plan out where they go within 15
| seconds, but an additional 2 pieces might require them to spend
| an additional 45 seconds or more. At some point you recognize
| your limits and you can't do any better with the additional
| time and you just go.
| spark3k wrote:
| To make this event type completely reproducible and measurable to
| the millisecond there could be a new cube product which uses LEDs
| to show the colors of a randomly scrambled cube and start the
| clock at the same moment too, while the solver is holding it.
| Clock stops the moment the cube is solved.
| dusted wrote:
| I do agree that inspection should be merged into the time. It
| might mean that people have to start optimizing diffrently, but..
| the time it takes to solve a cube, should be the time from you
| first cast eye on it and to it lies solved on the table..
|
| Reminds me of old road racing, where they probably went a bit too
| far, when the start went, the drivers had to run onto the track,
| and start their motorcycles and go! None of this sitting there
| with the engine turned on and waiting for the lights.. :P
| Kiro wrote:
| Pretty strange to compare inspection times when the players know
| it's not counted, so they don't care whether they inspect fast or
| slow. It's like suddenly measuring the time it takes to walk up
| to the table.
| mgsk wrote:
| Don't have anything on-topic to say. Instead, I will say: great
| presentation. The animations etc. kept my attention for something
| I'm not all that interested in.
| tomerv wrote:
| The music is top-notch, especially the timing of the drums with
| the presentation!
| raynr wrote:
| Meh. If tournament organisers want, they can run tournaments
| where inspections count in the total time, get enough steam and
| I'm sure it will be exciting enough.
|
| Competition is based on the details in the format, which
| competitors will optimise for.
|
| Counter example from the examples given in the video. Olympic
| swimmers race, with heats and rules deciding who takes the less
| draggy centre lanes. But if we're truly looking for the fastest
| swimmers, we would conduct individual time trials in temperature
| controlled single lane pools at sea level, with times measured
| starting when the competitors' legs leave the diving board and
| when the competitors' fingers touch the wall at the end of the
| measured distance. Why should reaction time and inconsistent
| water drag count for the competition?
| falcolas wrote:
| Ex competitive swimmer: having other people in the pool
| matters. It's a race, and people do swim (run, climb, etc)
| faster with competition than without.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're attempting to disagree with the parent
| comment, but you're just adding to their (well stated) point.
| spencerchubb wrote:
| In theory, anyone can host a competition under their own brand.
| By far, the World Cube Association is the most-recognized
| institution. It is even officially recognized by guinness world
| records
| nsilvestri wrote:
| People can host their own competitions with different rules,
| and do: Red Bull has their own format of competitions where
| inspection time is not included. However, under the regulations
| outlined by the World Cube Association, inspection time is
| required (except in blindfolded formats).
| Someone wrote:
| If there's sufficient demand, the World Cube Organization
| could (and probably should) organize two events, or one event
| with two championships.
|
| You see that in many other sports. Basketball has 3x3
| championships, road cycling had the road race and the
| individual time trial, cricket has at least 3 different game
| formats (tests, one-day, and T20), soccer has indoor and
| outdoor forms, sailing has many different boat types,
| swimming has separate events for 25m and 50m pools and for
| open water swimming, etc.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| The WCA already does have multiple events for different
| puzzles and styles of solving, such as 7x7 cubes and
| solving a 3x3 with the fewest moves. All but the biggest
| competitions choose from a subset of those 17 events to
| include because there's too much demand. There's no
| technical reason why no-inspection can't be an event, too.
| No-inspection was an event for 6 months over 15 years ago,
| but I can't find any information on why it was removed.
| That being said, it's still possible for a event organizer
| to have an unofficial event as part of the WCA sanctioned
| competition. I've recently been seeing Face Turning
| Octahedron appear as unofficial competition events.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > cricket has at least 3 different game formats (tests,
| one-day, and T20)
|
| 4 if you include The Hundred[1] (although I don't think
| it's been exported out of England yet...)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hundred_(cricket)
| cyphar wrote:
| Interesting video.
|
| As an ex-cuber, I disagree that including inspection time would
| make the event more fair or would reduce the number of ties.
|
| The reason there's so much variance in inspection time (usually
| over 8 seconds since that's when you get the warning from the
| timekeeper) is because nobody has previously cared about
| inspection time. If it started being included, people would spend
| far less time inspecting (maybe just looking for the first cross
| pieces at most) and you'd end up with similar competitive levels.
|
| I'm also not sure I agree with the statement that they're
| "already solving the cube". It's not _wrong_ but it gives the
| wrong impression -- given enough inspection time you couldn 't
| solve the whole cube in your head using traditional methods like
| CFOP (obviously you do this in blindfolded solves but that's much
| slower than CFOP). Cross planning is a thing but I doubt that the
| variance in times is actually because Felix is slower than other
| cubers at doing cross planning -- he just takes his time _because
| he knows inspection times are not counted_.
|
| That being said, I'm not against having it as a new format. It
| would be interesting to see how the meta would evolve (though I
| suspect it would just result in cross-only inspections, if that
| -- but it would be interesting if CFOP fell out of favour because
| there are better techniques that don't need as much inspection to
| get off to a running start). I also get the viewpoint that "it
| makes more sense" but I've also never had issues when solving
| cubes for laypeople when I say "hang on, lemme take a look before
| I start" so I'm not sure it's that big of a deal (not that many
| laypeople care about speedcubing minutiae anyway).
|
| I also wonder whether this would disproportionately affect
| vision-impaired cubers (though I don't personally know any so I
| can't ask them if they typically have longer inspection times or
| if they're doing anything special during inspection).
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I also wonder whether this would disproportionately affect
| vision-impaired cubers
|
| I'm sure it would, but you could say the same thing for
| biathletes.
| GoldenRacer wrote:
| I've heard of colorblind cubers using alternative color schemes
| that have more contrast for helping them distinguish colors.
| WCA also allows textured cubes for blind solvers (obviously
| these aren't allowed in the blindfold event)
|
| I agree, it would be interesting to see what techniques evolve.
| We can get some hint by looking at unofficial multicube records
| (most solves in 24 hours, most solves while holding breath
| underwater, etc). It would definitely wreck zz. Not sure which
| method would come out on top though. I've always been biased
| towards petrus so am enjoying coming up with reasons why that
| would potentially see a boost (although I doubt it would
| actually come out on top). I doubt we'd see many x-cross starts
| among CFOP solvers which I think is sad. I'm also wondering how
| this would effect color neutral solvers compared to solvers
| that stick to a specific color cross. I spent a month switching
| to be color neutral before my average times got back down to
| pre switch average.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> I 'm also not sure I agree with the statement that they're
| "already solving the cube"._
|
| I think it depends on whether you think the record ought to
| represent a _chess-style intellectual feat_ or a _physical
| dexterity_ feat.
|
| In the inspection time they've clearly started the
| _intellectual_ feat - just not the dexterity one.
| cyphar wrote:
| You don't plan out the entire solve in your head during
| inspection. At most you plan out the cross and maybe the
| first F2L pair, the rest is dealing with what you see when
| you see it (so for the majority of the solve it is a question
| of dexterity, pattern recognition, and look-ahead ability).
|
| My issue with saying "they're already solving the cube" is
| the implication that more inspection time would let you get
| even shorter solve times and I don't think that's the case
| (unless you went really ridiculous and gave everyone an hour
| to do a smallest-moves solve on paper).
|
| (There are also practical issues with this kind of format
| that nsilvestri pointed out that I hadn't originally
| considered.)
| hyperhopper wrote:
| Also, due to muscle memory, etc, a smallest move solve
| might not even necessarily be the fastest solve by time.
| spadros wrote:
| But to imply that the inspection time doesn't affect the
| solve time at all seems totally disingenuous. I agree
| with the thesis of the video. "Time to solve a cube"
| should mean exactly that; how long, from first seeing the
| cube in front of you, it takes you to solve it.
| Blendtherules wrote:
| I don't think I implied that the inspection time doesn't
| affect the solve time, but I'm learning a lot about how
| people interpret the words you say in a monologue. For
| example, I totally misspoke when I said "they're solving
| it in their head", they are... but not completely, and
| that's what many people took my words to mean which was
| not my intention, lessons learned.
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| What about the variation of initial conditions?
|
| When we race for 100m stride, everyone has the same initial
| conditions. Same starting line.
|
| What are the probabilities of getting an easier scramble than a
| difficult one?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Nice presentation, but I feel the underlying absurdity of world
| records starts undermining the point once you go this deep.
|
| How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he
| ran his 100 meter record winning run.
|
| How much of the time is a factor of the cubes randomisation, or
| the speed at which you pick up and drop the cube.
|
| For the world's shortest river, how do you define river?
|
| I think lay people would be surprised by the effectively
| arbitrary legal minutiae of most sports and competitions.
| jVinc wrote:
| > How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before
| he ran his 100 meter record winning run.
|
| That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is
| more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to
| run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.
|
| The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time
| spent solving the cube.
| cyphar wrote:
| A better analogy would be to ask whether we should count the
| time Bolt spent stretching before the gun was fired. If Bolt
| hadn't stretched, he would've been slower but he still
| would've been pretty fast.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is such a good analogy that it sounds like an
| interesting event in itself.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Its a broader point that the limits are arbitrary, like high
| tech clothes or bike designs getting created and banned (or
| not), but there are actual sports with rolling starts or
| maximums and minimums defined but no bonus for using less
| than the max.
|
| The long jump is measured from the board, not from where you
| jump. Getting close to, but not over the edge is part of the
| arbitrary rules of the sport.
| gus_massa wrote:
| > _The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge
| where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual
| 100m to get up to speed._
|
| It looks like an interesting idea. The long jump competitions
| have something like that. Can someone organize it? Do you
| have to go slowly the first 40 meters and increase the speed
| just in the last 10 meters before the start line? Can the
| data from the 200m run be used to estimate this?
| jameshart wrote:
| 200m split times are routinely tracked - see e.g.
| https://world-track.org/2022/07/what-are-noah-lyles-
| splits-f... (it turns out the US national 200m record was
| broken a couple days ago)
|
| And it is absolutely the case that the times for world
| class second-100m of a 200m sprint are generally lower than
| even world record 100m sprints (in that report above, out
| of the field of 8, 6 runners beat the 100m world record
| over their second 100m)
|
| Usain Bolt's world record 100m from a stationary start is
| 9.58s. His world record 200m splits were 9.92s and 9.27s.
|
| Over the _middle_ 100m, his time was 8.84s.
|
| (see https://speedendurance.com/2009/08/21/usain-
| bolt-200-meter-s...)
|
| So yes, a flying start makes a massive difference. 200m
| runners are generally _slowing down_ in their second half
| (Bolt 's last 50m took 4.75s, while he covered 100-150m in
| 4.52s, and 50-100m in 4.32s), but their average speed over
| the final 100m is still faster than a 100m runner. In a
| 100m sprint the runner may still be accelerating by the
| time they reach the line.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I just remembered that all (some?) boat races start like
| this. You must cross the starting line after the initial
| time, but you can already have speed.
| rcxdude wrote:
| Yes, though this is for the practical purpose that having
| a bunch of sailboats trying to stay completely still is a
| recipe for chaos.
| kuboble wrote:
| - the World Cubing Association speed cubing rules are designed to
| make competitions more interesting and fair for speedcubers and
| NOT for general public.
|
| - the 3x3x3 without inspection used to be an official WCA event
| but was removed as it was considered a worse way to fairly judge
| competitor's skill.
|
| - it isn't the fault of speedcubers that people interpret WCA
| records as something they aren't and then claim it's lying when
| they find out what they actually are
|
| And the whole analysis of who is fastest with inspection by
| looking at the data from solves with inspection is kind of
| meaningless.
|
| Max park has solved 434 cubes in one hour solving cubes with an
| average 8.2s per cube inspection included. I guess you'll find a
| 5 seconds solve somewhere in the video.
| rjmunro wrote:
| I don't know why inspection time is limited to 15 seconds. It
| would be interesting to allow unlimited inspection (or maybe like
| 30 minutes) and see how fast people could solve it then.
| BossingAround wrote:
| A gentle reminder that "speed" is relative :)
| jeremysalwen wrote:
| I thought he was going to discuss the randomization of the cube
| as a factor for the speed of the solving.
| cyphar wrote:
| All cubes in each round are scrambled the exact same way (a
| computer generates a 40-move scramble that is scrambled by
| volunteers before the cubes are returned to the tables).
| nsilvestri wrote:
| Scrambles are not 40 moves, they're generally around 25
| because they're somewhat optimized scrambles to reach a
| randomly generated state. Simply using a sufficiently long
| sequence of moves still provides some bias to certain cube
| states, which is why they don't do that.
| cyphar wrote:
| Clearly it's been too long since I've been to a
| competition.
| mediumcat wrote:
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'm just a beginner level cuber but my impression is that
| starting condition of the cubes is likely controlled for. It is
| common to share the set of moves used to 'randomize' the cube.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| As an old school cuber, I kinda wish we always did no inspection
| solves, at least as one event. It always seemed like the "real"
| way to do it.
|
| There are logistical problems though. Keeping people from seeing
| the mix before it's their turn to solve becomes essential. Or you
| could go with just giving each competitor a unique mix.
| nsilvestri wrote:
| The logistical problems are already solved. WCA competitions
| have a strict set of policies designed to minimize people's
| abilities to cheat. When No Inspection was an official event,
| it operated similarly to how blindfold solving does today: the
| competitor removes the covering of the cube themselves after
| starting the timer.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Sounds good. I like it!
| jVinc wrote:
| It would be interesting to see how such a challenge evolves,
| because if you do include inspection, then you really just have a
| no-inspection solve time. And the question becomes how often does
| it help to do inspections and when do you start doing solves with
| look ahead along the way.
| drcode wrote:
| This is equivalent to people who argue "President X didn't REALLY
| win because they didn't win the popular vote"
|
| Such an argument ignores the fact that president X would likely
| have changed their strategy if the determinant for winning the
| election was changed to winning the popular vote
| willis936 wrote:
| I'm not sure this makes sense since X is a populist.
| gruez wrote:
| Except according to wikipedia "populist" doesn't refer to
| "popular vote", it refers to the idea of "the people vs the
| elites".
|
| >Populism refers to a range of political stances that
| emphasize the idea of the people and often juxtapose this
| group against the elite.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| What you're saying might be true (I'd take a bet against Rs
| suddenly winning the popular vote if the game changed, though)
| but it could also true that we're playing the wrong game.
| drcode wrote:
| Oh don't get me wrong, the system we've settled on isn't
| great
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-24 23:01 UTC)