2009: 6x6 and/or 7x7 as an official event

[Tyson]

Can you justify this objectively? You say 6x6x6 is different than 4x4x4 and 7x7x7 is different from 5x5x5, but I feel that you're making this statement simply due to the line-up of puzzles that are available on the market. What's to stop someone from saying an 11x11x11 is different from a 9x9x9?

If you can't actually say anything objectively, then why should we really go beyond the 5x5x5? Don't people solve the 5x5x5, 6x6x6, and 7x7x7 in mostly similar ways?

You could go ahead and argue that 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 BLD are not very different, and I might agree there. But that doesn't really have much bearing on this discussion. If you want to argue to eliminate 5x5x5 BLD, then that would be more appropriate for another thread.

[blade740]

The 6x6 and 7x7, from a puzzle standpoint, DO contain different elements than the 4 and 5. They are the lowest-ordered puzzles to have oblique centers, which are in 2 distinct orbitals. They are the smallest to require (during a normal reduction solution) commutators to finish the last 2 centers.

Not that I think it matters much, but it's answering your question objectively.

[Dene]

Tyson: My view is this: from a reduction sense blade740 basically said what I was thinking. While 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 reduce centers immediately around the center point, the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 have the extra element of a second level around that. Edges have the same quality. While additionally large cubes will add further layers, the general idea remains the same (I think, again someone correct me if I'm missing something). It's kind of like:

2x2x2/3x3x3: no reduction
4x4x4/5x5x5: reduction
Above: second stage reduction (and further).

I believe that these are three fundamentally different levels. I'm sure others disagree.

[DanCohen]

Ok, so where do we draw the line?

I don't think that ANYONE really would want to see anything >7x7 official (ok.. maybe Michal). After 7x7 the general consensus is that the puzzles are basically the same. The addition of 6x6 and 7x7 have been on the backburner since before the cubes were even readily available. They add a new challenge and should definitely be official.

As to comparing ability on 6x6 and 7x7:
I do think there's a difference between the two. Personally, I am horrible at 4x4 compared to what I am at 5x5. I sort of feel the opposite about 6x6 and 7x7. My 7x7 times are far behind the top couple of guys, where my 6x6 times are much closer. Also, not that this really makes a difference, the 6x6 and 7x7 do have different shapes . There's obviously enough demand for these puzzles, and I think it will be a somewhat popular event... so why not add it?

[Tyson]

Okay, so that's what I was a looking for: an objective difference between nxnxn cubes for n = 4,5 and n = 6, 7.

Do people generally agree that, looking at how it was put down by Dene, we have no stage reduction, 1 stage reduction, 2 stage reduction, and things beyond 7x7x7 are redundant?

What if there was high demand for 8x8x8? and 9x9x9? and nxnxn for n = 10, 11, 12 through 15?

Where do we draw the line? When the time comes, can you objectively justify that 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 are redundant?

[Dene]

Personally, I haven't put any though into 8x8x8 and over, but the idea I think, for them, will be the same as 6x6x6 and 7x7x7. They could all be included in the "higher stage reduction" group. Of course, if these cubes ever exist I would love for them to be official events, but I also think there will be little or no demand for it.

[Clement Gallet]

They are the smallest to require (during a normal reduction solution) commutators to finish the last 2 centers.

Sorry, but you can solve the last 2 centers of a 7x7 without any commutator. Except for the last 2 centers, I solve 6x6 and 7x7 the exact way I solve the 5x5.

[Tyson]

The IAAF recognizes the 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, 400 meter dash, etc. There isn't a 420 meter dash, a 450 meter dash, a 600 meter dash, and a 613 meter run.

Just because one person is better at a 7x7x7 and another person is better at a 6x6x6, I don't really know that it means that the puzzle is testing a new skill.

I like pointing back to the IAAF, because I feel there are very good comparisons. Let's look at the difference between the mile and the 1500 meter run. Essentially, they are the same race. There isn't one person who's definitely better in one event over the other. Pretty much, your 1500 meter runner is going to be at the same skill level in a mile run.

The IAAF counts a record for the mile run, but it is rarely run. And it is not contested in the Olympics. What about that idea?

But really, I hate to do this, but it is a bit of a slippery slope argument. When the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 and 10x10x10 and 11x11x11 come out, and the nxnxn comes out for everything n up to 20, are we going to make all of those official? And if your answer to this is no, then why the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7?

I really want to see this justified in such a way that comes to the following conclusion:

A. No, 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are not accepted as events.
B. Yes, 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are accepted as events, but nothing larger.
C. All cubes nxnxn are accepted as events.

I want to see objective analysis to support one of these, because right now, I haven't seen anything objective reason that 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are something new, and not just redundant to the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5.

[chevy]

In my opinion, not letting the two puzzles official would be very sad. But we're not ready.

Since 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are the two bigger puzzles finally appear to the world after the invention of the rubik's professor.It's been like , almost 30 years? We as cubers are more excited than ever to try the amazing cubes after long waits. And as long as we do speedcubing, we wanna do it fast. Than ? Of course we do want to compete! For the long history of speed-competing , and the excitement of the V-miracles, It's very natural that people are eager making it official and create records.

Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting.

But being one of the competition holders , I can imagine that doing it in competitions could be a nightmare. Scrambling a 5x5x5 is already very hard for "volunteering scramblers "to do them all correct in a competition, not to mention bigger cubes . I personally never follow the scrambles from the timers while solving 7x7x7. If we do these two event , the whole competition would be prolonged and difficult to handle.Maybe in bigger competitions which holds for two days , they can manage that well, but most of the competitions don't.

However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option. We still do the combined rounds for the first solve, you can even make it under a stackmat time, for top players , 7x7x7 under 6 minutes even 5 minutes is possible, and I bet most 3x3x3 blind cubers take longer time than that.In that case , I would be very glad to hold it in a competition.

As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely .

Chevy Li - Taiwan

[BryanLogan]

Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting.

But when the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 comes out, are people going to say, "Well, I can do double-pairing of obliques on the 9x9x9", or "I have a method where I pair up the entire cross in a single algorithm". I'm not arguing about the merits, I'm just saying that you can always have a new solving technique for larger puzzles.

If we do these two event , the whole competition would be prolonged and difficult to handle.Maybe in bigger competitions which holds for two days , they can manage that well, but most of the competitions don't.

Yeah, but the organizers make the decisions. Even with the events we have today, no one is force to hold them.

However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option.

Mean of 2 would be ugly. Just have a restrictive cut-off. If you can't make it to an average, then you don't get an average. 9f13 should be modified so that you go by average first, and then "best of" if people don't have an average. That way, we can still rank the competitors.

As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely .

So why not add the quicker cubes, like Skewb or Rainbow cube? Besides, I'm guessing people all the time are saying, "Wow....I don't think we'll ever see that broken." and they get broken.

[chevy]

Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting.

But when the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 comes out, are people going to say, "Well, I can do double-pairing of obliques on the 9x9x9", or "I have a method where I pair up the entire cross in a single algorithm". I'm not arguing about the merits, I'm just saying that you can always have a new solving technique for larger puzzles.

Yes it comes back to the question for future bigger cubes, but they are not in the market now, and when they show up , they won't be any more impressive than 6 and 7 , also, the size of them may not be suitable of speedcubing for normal people, that means it's not hard to decide whether making them officials or not. Maybe yes maybe no, but it will definitily not as a controversy than the 6 and 7.

However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option.

Mean of 2 would be ugly. Just have a restrictive cut-off. If you can't make it to an average, then you don't get an average.

As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely .

So why not add the quicker cubes, like Skewb or Rainbow cube? Besides, I'm guessing people all the time are saying, "Wow....I don't think we'll ever see that broken." and they get broken.

I never mention not adding those puzzles , my considerations are for 6 and 7.
And for the records ,I say very hard now, but how about in the future ? Does anyone really thinK 3x3x3 would approach
5 secs? 3 secs? One day there will be a limit.

[Dene]

The IAAF recognizes the 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, 400 meter dash, etc. There isn't a 420 meter dash, a 450 meter dash, a 600 meter dash, and a 613 meter run.

Just because one person is better at a 7x7x7 and another person is better at a 6x6x6, I don't really know that it means that the puzzle is testing a new skill.

I like pointing back to the IAAF, because I feel there are very good comparisons. Let's look at the difference between the mile and the 1500 meter run. Essentially, they are the same race. There isn't one person who's definitely better in one event over the other. Pretty much, your 1500 meter runner is going to be at the same skill level in a mile run.

I ignored this comparison for a while, but seeing as you seem to like it, I'm going to strongly disagree with the validity of it.

With running, they could create any length run, as you suggest: 117m, 289m, 364m, 11453m, and so on. We cannot do this with cubes.
There are physical limitations and practical limitations to the size that cubes can be.
Also, we cannot have cubes that are "6.5 x 6.5 x 6.5" or "9.1 x 9.1 x 9.1" or whatever, which basically means that anything "in between" is impossible, whereas for running, if we take every 100m to be like a whole number in cubes, then anything between the 100's in running, such as 165m, would be like comparing to a "5.7 x 5.7 x 5.7".

[qqwref]

One does have to ask the question, why doesn't anyone run 300 meter dash? Or 500 meter dash? On the other side of the spectrum, it's true that people don't run every possible track event (because of course there is not enough time to do everything), but they do keep getting bigger. Sure, people run 800s and miles, but they also do two mile runs, five mile runs, half-marathons, marathons, ultramarathons... So that's probably not a very good comparison. The only time the distances actually stop being competitive are when there are only a handful of people in the world who will try the distance, although even the completely ridiculous Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race attracts some 15 participants every year. You would almost certainly see similar results if you ran a 20x20 competition.

I think the big cubes actually do stop changing at the 7x7. The 4x4 and 5x5 introduce new types of pieces: wings, x-centers, and t-centers. The 6x6 and 7x7 introduce oblique centers. But after that, there really are no more pieces. If you're solving the 10x10x10, you are solving the same types of pieces as the 6x6x6, just more of them. So I think I would say that you really do have to learn new tricks for 6x6 and 7x7 if you want to be very fast at them, but for the larger cubes you don't because you are already used to manipulating all possible types of pieces. Note that even though all pieces have been introduced by the 6x6 or smaller cubes, the 7x7 is the first cube where they are all found together, so it is still a distinct challenge.

[cubetalk]

there should not be a limit to NxNxN cubes

if you have a problem during anything, scrambling, solving, time,

then don't have it!




but of course, for big competitions, get experienced scramblers...

[Ron]

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback.

For WCA Regulations 2009 draft 1 we will add 6x6x6 Cube and 7x7x7 Cube as official events.
Some remarks:

Scramble length will be 80 resp. 100 moves, based on the calculation at the bottom of this message.
We will start with a clean sheet, so we will not accept results from past competitions.
We will use the current <sub> notation, with the double and triple slice moves as used in the WCA Scramble program.
Format will be 'Best of x' and/or 'Mean of 3'.

Thanks,

Ron

===========

Calculation of number of moves for nxnxn sized cube puzzles. Thanks Jaap!

nxnxn cube
There are ns = 3(n-1) slice cuts, n-1 along each axis.
Each slice cut has np = 4(n-1) piece pairs along its outside.
There are ns*np pairs of adjacent pieces at the start.
Each move disturbs everything along one cut, i.e. leaves fraction (ns-1)/ns of all pairs alone
Assuming constant mixing, approx ns*np * [(ns-1)/ns]^m adjacent pairs remain after m moves
Want this to be <1, so we have
ns * np * [(ns-1)/ns]^m < 1
[1 - 1/ns]^m < 1 / (ns*np)
m*log(1 - 1/ns) < log ( 1 / (ns*np) )
m > log ( 1 / (ns*np) ) / log(1 - 1/ns)

This gives:
n ns np m
2 3 4 6,1
3 6 8 21,2
4 9 12 39,7
5 12 16 60,4
6 15 20 82,6
7 18 24 106,1
8 21 28 130,6
9 24 32 156,1

[qqwref]

Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect?

However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.

[Bob]

Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect?

However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.

Why not? It happened in every other event, right?

[TMOY]

Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect?

However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.

Where's the problem ? As a relatively slow cuber who has already attended some 6^3 and 7^3 competitions I know very well how faster than me some other cubers are, if I got such a ridiculous WR it would only give me a good laugh. And it wouldn't last very long anyway.

[Edouard Chambon]

When does this go into effect?

Ron must be busy... So I will answer :

As soon as the new regulations are official. (probably February)

I am not really happy with the fact that are old results are not kept. I think that at least, current best times and avg should be kept, in order to prevent a slow cuber to have 4 WRs.

[BryanLogan]

I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.

In fact I would say that EVERY time a WR is set it is expected to be eventually broken as people get faster. But that is not a reason to not give a WR in the first place.

So what do you want? This is why I suggested some waiting period. Give a few people around the world a shot first, and then determine the winner. I choose 1 year since some competitions only occur once a year, so by then every organizer would've had a chance to hold it if they wanted to.

I'm just curious why this is being announced official at this point when the poll hasn't even occurred. Yes, I expect V-Cubes would probably win, but it would be good to conduct it. Besides, it would help us to determine any voting issues (ballot stuffing, voting eligibility, etc) for future votes.