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

[Mario]

I think it's not a problem to have more official events, if you don't like 6x6x6 and 7x7x7, like me, you can simply not participate when you go to a competition and use that LOT of free time to visit the city. And when you organize an open you simply don't put 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 (and 5x5x5, and megaminx) in the list of events.
It's good for all of us.

[StefanPochmann]

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?

current best times and avg should be kept, in order to prevent a slow cuber to have 4 WRs.

Why do you want to prevent that?

[qqwref]

I was actually thinking more towards Edouard's idea. (Oh, and a year is WAY too long. I'm sorry.) Just keep only the current semi-official best times for 6x6 and 7x7 single/avg. Erik won't mind the extra WRs, and that will also prevent slow people from getting a WR which doesn't represent the fastest times people are getting.

Stefan: It's because I think a WR should represent fast times. Relatively fast times have been gotten in competition (and REALLY fast times if you count the unofficial V-cube one), and if you call a 7 minute 7x7 time a "world record" it just wouldn't make sense.

[Dene]

I have a feeling qq, that either you or Dan will be the first to have a shot at the WR, so there shouldn't be a problem.

[Bob]

I was actually thinking more towards Edouard's idea. (Oh, and a year is WAY too long. I'm sorry.) Just keep only the current semi-official best times for 6x6 and 7x7 single/avg. Erik won't mind the extra WRs, and that will also prevent slow people from getting a WR which doesn't represent the fastest times people are getting.

I highly disagree with this. Those are not semi-official best times. They are unofficial best times. This is in clear violation of regulation 9b).

9b) Official speed solving events and formats of WCA are: [List that does not include 6x6 or 7x7].

I can't believe this could even be discussed as a possibility.

Stefan: It's because I think a WR should represent fast times. Relatively fast times have been gotten in competition (and REALLY fast times if you count the unofficial V-cube one), and if you call a 7 minute 7x7 time a "world record" it just wouldn't make sense.

This has happened many times in speedcubing:
20.00 average for 3x3 (589 people have broken that "WR")
22.95 single for 3x3 (1373 people have broken that "WR")
1:20 single and 1:30 average were WR for 4x4
2:19 single and 2:50 average were WR for 5x5
8.44 single and 10.87 average were WR for 2x2
3:56 was WR for 3x3 bld
44.98 single and 47.78 average were WR for 3x3 oh
3.06 single and 2.92 average were WR for magic
8.22 single and 3.54 average were WR for master magic
2:12 single and 1:33 average were WR for megaminx
14.09 single and 16.55 average were WR for pyraminx
41.80 single and 33.21 average were WR for square-1
38.97 single and 11.61 average were WR for clock
22:35 was WR for 4x4 bld
2:34:36 was WR for 5x5 bld (This is now under 16 minutes!)

Would you also suggest that we do not recognize these times as WR anymore because they are "too slow" ?

[anders]

I am happy to see that 6x and 7x become official events.

We will start with a clean sheet, so we will not accept results from past competitions.

However, I do not like this. The results in the "unofficial data base" (www.speedcubing.com/results/) are achieved under WCA-competition standards. Furthermore, the unofficial 2x speedcubing results were promoted to official results. Acknowledging the unofficial results makes it more relaxed to retire events from, and to promote events to, the list of official ones.

Format will be 'Best of x' and/or 'Mean of 3'.

I do not like this, either. I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x".

/Anders

[Ron]

Hi Anders,

I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x".

I am not a fan of 'Mean of 3' either. But keeping it 'Best of' makes it a very different event!
With 'Mean of 3' you have to take every solve seriously.
With 'Best of 3' you could take all risks and just hope one of the solves is great.
Therefore I prefer 'Mean of 3'.

Ron

[qqwref]

I have a feeling qq, that either you or Dan will be the first to have a shot at the WR, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Maybe, or maybe not. It would be nice if it worked out (just by luck) that the inaugural WR was a fast time, but I'd like to guarantee this.

I highly disagree with this. Those are not semi-official best times. They are unofficial best times.
...
I can't believe this could even be discussed as a possibility.

They're not just random unofficial PBs, though. I am talking about the records on speedcubing.com/results, which were (a) achieved in a competition setting, and (b) the best of a very limited number of attempts, just like in any other WCA event. When I say they were achieved in a competition setting, I mean that the only difference between those times and all other official times is that, at the time, the WCA regulations did not consider those events to be official events. That is why I say "semi-official". There is much more of a difference (in terms of validity) between those times and the times on the UWR page, than between those times and the official 5x5 rankings.

At the very least, we should wait to award WRs until these times have been beaten, which they will be as soon as a world-class 6x6 or 7x7 solver gets an official attempt.

This has happened many times in speedcubing:
...[random stuff that I don't care about]...
Would you also suggest that we do not recognize these times as WR anymore because they are "too slow" ?

You don't understand at all. All of those records were perfectly fast at the time. Take the first 5x5 WR as an example. It is, by current standards, very slow - but if you look back at the comments from the 2003 WC, people found that VERY impressive. So it was clearly fast for the time. On the other hand, if I see a 6:xx WR single on 7x7, there is no way I would say that is impressive. It's not. I can get under 5 minutes easily and I know several other people who can as well (Michal, Matyas, Dan, Erik, Breandan, etc.). A world record isn't deserved if there are people at the time who have demonstrated that they can beat it by a large margin with a terrible solve.

[BryanLogan]

Hi Anders,

I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x".

I am not a fan of 'Mean of 3' either. But keeping it 'Best of' makes it a very different event!
With 'Mean of 3' you have to take every solve seriously.
With 'Best of 3' you could take all risks and just hope one of the solves is great.
Therefore I prefer 'Mean of 3'.

Ron

Is "Mean of 3" the preferred format for the final round? Or will "Best of" also be "allowed"?

[Ron]

Is "Mean of 3" the preferred format for the final round? Or will "Best of" also be "allowed"?

I prefer a Combined Round "Best of 1", "Mean of 3".
"Mean of 3" is preferred, "Best of x" is ALWAYS possible.

[StefanPochmann]

qqwref & Co, I have two questions for you:

1) Who gets hurt if some slow solver gets a world record (compared to noone getting one for a while)?
2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.

[qqwref]

1) Who gets hurt if some slow solver gets a world record (compared to noone getting one for a while)?

Nobody gets hurt, but I think it undermines the high amount of skill we expect from a world record. For me the world record seems like a time that should represent the best times the community can get in competitions: that is, a goal that the top cubers have to practice for, not something that the top cubers will certainly beat as soon as they get to a competition. For me, if someone claims a WR with a very slow solve, it's not a difficult goal to work towards, but basically a joke. I want the WR to be a proper representation of how fast the fastest people are.

2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.

It is the fastest WCA-official time achieved (in a particular event and format) up to a certain point in time. But there are different gradations of a time being valid, from 100% (it is in the WCA database) down to 0% (a time someone claims they did, but with no proof or record of it). And I think a time achieved in an unofficial event which was held at an official competition has a higher 'validity score' than basically every other non-official solve.

[StefanPochmann]

2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.

It is the fastest WCA-official time achieved (in a particular event and format) up to a certain point in time.

Yep, I agree. So once it becomes official, and a slow solver "achieves the fastest WCA-official time", this should be the official world record, right?