As posted Macky on the yahoo forum, the rules to decide the winner of a competition need to be changed. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/spe ... sage/38365 I think, and to make it more fair, we should give an important place to the rounds before the final... So they would not be only useless qualification rounds for some cubers. I have not found a perfect solution for solving this problem... I thought : add a coefficient to determine the average of a cuber on the whole competition : 1/4 (avg first round) + 1/4 (avg second round) + 1/2 (avg of the final) = avg of the competition. People told me it was complicated and that's a bit true... But now cubers are so close, that I think we need to have something more fair. Another solution is to make the final an average of 10 or 12. That's now possible because of the short time it takes. If you have a better idea, tell us... But I think this could not go on like it is now.

Hi Edouard, [quote:doy9k5i1]the rules to decide the winner of a competition need to be changed.[/quote:doy9k5i1] I personally do not think that we have a problem (especially not if you compare it to other sports). Here are some examples: [list:doy9k5i1] 1) You cannot decide who is the best of the world in one competition. 2) The winner of a competition is the winner of the final (so you know it, it is the winner of the final, not the winner of first round or semi final or of all rounds). 3) The best competitor won, so what is the problem? 4) There is an average of 5, this is much better than in most sports. (example: in the 2006 Winter Olympics some speedskaters fell and lost the race, best of 1 attempt...) 5) Anyone can compete, there is not (yet) something like you have to beat all your countrymen to be in the competition at all (much better than in most sports. Just imagine which athletes at the US athletics 2007 trials missed WC 2007 but could have become world champion...) [/list:u:doy9k5i1] A final should have a special atmosphere, exciting for finalists and audience. About your proposal. Suppose all competitors would be in the same shape of the day. Then indeed a bit of luck could help a slower competitor to beat a faster competitor. The fairest way to solve this would be to have more attempts, so that luck would have less influence (although some people can have a lot of luck). Now what would be a good number of attempts? Average of 7, Average of 10? In percentages how much would this improve the chance that the best competitor will win a competition? I am not against having more attempts in a round. But, why only for final? [b:doy9k5i1][i:doy9k5i1]WCA is there for all competitors, not only for the best competitors.[/i:doy9k5i1][/b:doy9k5i1] I feel very strong about that. The best competitors already have more attempts (more rounds) than the other competitors. I would not mind to switch to 'average of 7' some day, for all rounds. Not now, because differences are still large enough to give the best competitor the biggest chance to win. I am definitely against calculations of several rounds to decide the winner. It is complex, it takes the excitement away and it does not improve the chance that the best competitor will win. And btw. why only for finals? Why wouldn't the results of the first round count in the second round? To conclude: Having more attempts in a round is the best way to go. Not now, maybe in 2009. Thanks, Ron

So... don't change anything. Now... Winning is just a question of luck. When there are about 10 people who have the level to win, the luckiest will win. And not the best one, or the one in the best shape. For me that's a problem. Maybe not for you or the WCA. Why don't each competitor choose a number and the WCA does a random program to choose a number ? The man with the good number won. I don't say that specially for WC, that's the same in all competitions. And I began to talk about that something like 8 months ago.

I think 5 is still a good number. The low is dropped, so that eliminates one "instance" of luck. No matter what number you change it to, you're always going to have people who have "off days". Also, it would be bad to try and take into account earlier rounds. I know at the US Open, many of the people there did their first round without too much warmup, etc. They knew they would meet the criteria to go to the next round, but didn't have to worry about how it would affect them in the final. I'm still unsure how you say winning is just a question of luck. If you are truly faster than me, you will win. If you're about the same level as me, or even slightly better, but we both have variation, then I might have a chance of winning.

1) We are not talking about off-days, and i agree that the man who wins a competition is not always the best but i want to find a better rule, which gives the victory to the man who is fast and in a good shape this day. 2) [quote="BryanLogan":pacui28z]Also, it would be bad to try and take into account earlier rounds. I know at the US Open, many of the people there did their first round without too much warmup, etc."[/quote:pacui28z] Do you find it positive ? For the competitor, for the audiance, i find it bad. I think that during a competition you have to do your best on every cube. Not only on 5 cubes. So semi final has only an interest for the people which will finish between 12 and 20 (if 16 proceed to final). I don't find it good with my point of view of competitor, but also for the audience. That's the problem of the actual rules. If you want to win a competition, you have to concentrate only on 5 cubes, because the fastests cubers are actually sure to go to the final (except if they pop twice...). I find it bad, and with people with levels close to each other, the luckiest will win. I don't want that the rounds before count in the final average... But I think these could give an advantage before the round. If you are 1st in the semi final, you don't begin the final as the 16th. You have an advantage. It could be a small advantage.... (like in most of sports : running, ski, swimming...) but I think there must be something. What ? That is the question.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":22qa59rk]1) We are not talking about off-days[/quote:22qa59rk] Why not? If someone has an off-day, even if they are the best cuber, could lose. You're talking about always ensuring the "best" cuber will win. Like any sport, people are going to have off-days. Do you think all the competitors who flew around the world to Hungary were in their best condition? You're arguing about having the best person winning, but you focus just on "luck". [quote="Edouard Chambon":22qa59rk] Do you find it positive ? For the competitor, for the audiance, i find it bad. [/quote:22qa59rk] No. In an ideal world, we would have a full slate of judges/scramblers who didn't need to compete first right away in order to help with the rest of the competition. But I don't see that happening soon. The audience is always going to focus more on the final round. The first round is always going to have noise and people chatting, but in the final round, the audience and competitors are quiet, so that gives the cubers competing another "advantage" that may not be there in earlier rounds.

Hi Edouard, [quote:xdbkf0x8]the fastests cubers are actually sure to go to the final[/quote:xdbkf0x8] There is a contradiction in what you are saying. First you say it is a lottery. Then you say you were sure to go to the final. I think many competitors were fighting hard to reach the final. Even Mitsuki Gunji was struggling to reach the final. Thanks, Ron

I meant this is a lottery for people with the same level. And as I already said, i'm not doing that only for world's champs. I also think to the opens... When the limit to go to the final is 30 I can say iam sure to go there.

[quote:3funks9h]I meant this is a lottery for people with the same level. [/quote:3funks9h] [quote:3funks9h] Now... Winning is just a question of luck. When there are about 10 people who have the level to win, the luckiest will win. And not the best one, or the one in the best shape. [/quote:3funks9h] Hi Edouard, If you really want to order cubers with the same level, there's no way to do. What is your definition of luckiness? Selecting the best cuber during the whole day is just your preference. Competition must include not only fast hands but mental toughness, health, luckiness, and everything. THAT IS COMPETITION. Competitors are just requested to do their best at final not at semi-final nor 1st round nor whole day under the regulation but they have to good enough to survive until the final at least. I personally think current competition style is so far good enough. Evenif Fridrich method is the one everybody uses, color may be different each other. Evenif color is same, favorite LL can be different. Competitors have to pay their own risk to lube and loosen their cube not to pop during competition. In regard to golf, there are several different competition styles. One solution may be head-to-head tornament. 1st (and 2nd) round can be done under current method. From top qualfiers, they can choose their spots for tornament. Competitors scramble each other in 15 sec, then cover the cubes, and start without inspection (after timer starts competitor removes the cover), for example. ( I thought inspection time can be issue. ) Three mathces. Two win goes next round. Final and semi-final match can be average of 5. Since we don't need scramblers, the competition must be smooth. Of course, the average time may be slower than current competition style. And competitors can cheat each other to achieve fastest time. With this style, single solving time is not important. To win the rival each time is important. I think you guys do race at restaurant or somewhere. In that case you scramble each other. Why we don't do that way at competition. Macky pointed some lucky solvings in his post. At least, we can avoid the unfairness of computer based scrambles. Everyone is responsible for the scramble of his rival. May be, judge need to check no rotation pop during scrambling. You may urgue luckiness of draw. But top qualifiers can have some advantage to choose their spots. Since Roger Federer always wins the tennis tornaments and match play golf championship is reconginzed as one of valuable competitions, head-to head style tornament may be alternative choice as competition in future. I suggested one option of competition styles but I like current format. Masayuki

[quote="Masayuki":29tjo1h9]Competitors scramble each other[/quote:29tjo1h9] In my opinion, speedcubing is about being the best solver rathern than the best scrambler.

So why is the winner of a competition always based on the 3x3x3? Why not base it off of all events? For each event, give the first place person 100 points and then give the others (up to some limit), a fraction of 100 based on their time in comparision with the first place person. So if 1st place is 10 seconds, and 2nd place is 15, and 3rd is 20, they would get 100, 67, and 50 points each for that event. Do that for all events and then just sum the point totals. I've seen people suggesting something like this before, but they always do it by the last place person, which leads to problems, because if the last place person has a very high time, then small differences won't matter much (image a Magic with 1s, 2s, and 10minutes). Also, the scrambling your competitors's cube could have potential for abuse. If you have two friends, one could give the other a pre-determined scramble. Also, when a scrambler is scrambler, they might be able to twist a corner, which would cause some delay. Anyways, it would be nice to have some common way of ranking competitors for the whole competition. For a small competition, it's easier to purchase medals for 1st through 8th, rather than 1st through 3rd for all events.

Time does not allow complete fairness in competitions. It's as easy as that. Current practices do secure enough fairness IMHO - Per

I would like to state my humble opinion on the current competition format. I speak of the 3x3 mainly as there is the highest number of competitors and rounds involved in that competition. The current format is probably the best way to run the competition. With the exception of making it best-of-7 not best-of-5 as it is now. This would provide a better picture of a competitor's average solve time as it has a larger sample base (sorry for the statistics jargon). In regards to the argument that it is unfair to call someone a World Champion based upon the result of one competition... This is exactly how most athletic meets work (like the Olympics). For example, a track athlete may compete in 10-15 meets per year, yet only once every four years is there a chance to race and become Olympic champion. A sprinter/hurdler/etc. can dominate for a year or more at all those track competitions, but trip and fall at the Olympic final race costing them the gold they were expected to win (this is a true story of a Canadian female hurdler). This is the nature of competition, whenever called upon, one must perform. It is how we handle pressure, adversity, and sickness that determines how good a competitor we are. Every athlete faces problems and pain, those that are champions use the pain as motivation to work harder, while others succumb to the same pain and are never winners. It playing through such circumstances that we strengthen our character and learn to perform well under pressure. Next time you go and have only 5 solves to prove how good you are, think of the field goal kicker who is called in to try and win the game in the dying seconds. Although the kicker has sat on the bench almost the entire game, maybe never even playing one play, he is now called upon to win the big game with only one chance to get it right... With the crowd, the nerves, and the adrenaline taking over a champion must be in control and perform when called upon.

I partially agree with Edouard (maybe something to do with French people). In my opinion, the results of the first round and the semi-final should not count in the final result (so this is not the point I agree on). They are there to determine who is going to compete in the final and that is all (like any other qualification rounds in other sports). Edouard, you cannot expect sprinters to do their best in qualification rounds of 100m either for example. On the other hand, it is true that people are closer and closer in the final and I think an average of 7 instead of 5 would be a bit better. Ron, when you say "WCA is there for all competitors, not only for the best competitors. ", I really appreciate, especially because I am not among the best competitors. But making an average of 7 for the final is not something bad for other people, it is the same as today, when the first round is determined with a best of 3 format (then, if I follow your thoughts, the final should also be determined with best of 3 ?!).

[quote="adragast":ppznnw8y]I think an average of 7 instead of 5 would be a bit better.[/quote:ppznnw8y] Others would say they don't want to stay focused for 7 cubes. But even if people agree that an average of 7 would be better for finals, I think we don't need a new standard. 3x3x3 average of 5 is the most precious record we have, and people want to break it.

[quote="Edouard Chambon":pewywlow] I don't want that the rounds before count in the final average... But I think these could give an advantage before the round. If you are 1st in the semi final, you don't begin the final as the 16th. You have an advantage. It could be a small advantage.... (like in most of sports : running, ski, swimming...) but I think there must be something. What ? That is the question.[/quote:pewywlow] Maybe optional seeding for a certain time, for example, if you have an average of x in the first round of the competition, you get to skip the second round. That may be good because you can skip a round where you may have two POPs, or your cube stalls, but you also skip a chance to improve your official best time, or break records. Another option would be to give the top competitor in the semi-final a choice of when to go, then the second best gets choice, etc. That could affect how they solve, the pressure to beat the 12.21 average or whatever the time was that was set before them, etc. -Edwardb

Oh, I just saw an older thread talking about the idea of seeding, so here's the link if you would like to check it out. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=101

[quote="edwardb":1cijams4]if you have an average of x in the first round of the competition, you get to skip the second round. That may be good because you can skip a round where you may have two POPs, or your cube stalls, but you also skip a chance to improve your official best time, or break records. [/quote:1cijams4] People who are achieving really good times will probably not have POPs. And I think most everyone wants to have as many solves as possible. [quote="edwardb":1cijams4] Another option would be to give the top competitor in the semi-final a choice of when to go, then the second best gets choice, etc. That could affect how they solve, the pressure to beat the 12.21 average or whatever the time was that was set before them, etc.[/quote:1cijams4] This is a organizational nightmare for people running the competition.