[quote="Ron":2j3gr6vu]1) inspection time down to 10 seconds[/quote:2j3gr6vu] Wasn't this [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97&highlight=inspection:2j3gr6vu]discouraged by many people[/url:2j3gr6vu]? [quote="Ron":2j3gr6vu]2) new starting procedure (as proposed by Gilles beginning of this year)[/quote:2j3gr6vu] Is that referring to what was discussed [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=180:2j3gr6vu]here[/url:2j3gr6vu]? Tim and Coinman made valid points that were never addressed. [quote="Ron":2j3gr6vu]13) improvements of the definition of the solved state[/quote:2j3gr6vu] I am all for this. It occurs to me that the WCA is trying to push inspection times lower and lower (with points 1 & 2), which many people do not agree with. Jonathan Choi

Jonathan, Thanks for the feedback. [quote:1bhz2ijf]It occurs to me that the WCA is trying to push inspection times lower and lower (with points 1 & 2), which many people do not agree with. [/quote:1bhz2ijf] It is true that seven persons on this forum said that they were against bringing the inspection time down. That was in 2006. The reasons they mention are: [list:1bhz2ijf]1) current WR being set by using a 15 second inspection time 2) different standard for the world record 3) 24-year traditional standard 4) beginner cubers will not close up to professional cubers as fast as they can 5) some people use the whole 15 seconds 6) people seek deeper inspection 7) except if we get rid of it completely [/list:u:1bhz2ijf] I think these reasons are all 'soft' reasons. 1), 2) and 3): typical reasons against change in general. The current WR holder for 3x3 normally does not take more than 8 seconds for inspection. 4): disputable whether this is correct. 5) and 6): is this what we really want? 7): like some people added it's important to allow the competitor to place the cube as he/she likes it. On the other hand I speak to many people during competitions, who fully agree with bringing the inspection time down. We have to understand that in this forum we (only) have a selection of the most active members of our community. The main reasons I think why we need to bring the inspection time down are: a) solving times are getting much shorter than the inspection times b) 90% (rough estimate) of the competitors don't take more than 8 seconds for inspection c) there are actually competitors who can fully plan a 2x2 cube during inspection. This is definitely not what WCA should be moving towards. d) competitions will run a bit smoother because time per solve will be brought down a bit. The current number of seconds was chosen quite randomly in a time when people solved in 30 seconds. Outsiders consider inspection cheating, especially if you inspect very long. My experience is that outsiders think you are cheating if you inspect more than zero seconds (estimate of 50%), or more than 2 or 3 seconds (the other 50%). The total possible time of looking at the cube before actually solving it is now: 15 (inspection) + 1 (time for a warning after inspection) + 3 (before picking up and starting the solve). That is 19 seconds! I think in a few years we have to bring that down to 5 + 1 + 2. That is good enough for placing the puzzle the way you like it and planning a first step. Completely removing inspection is not a good idea, because then we would have to always place the puzzles the same way on the mat (which is logistically very hard to manage). A reasonable step for 2008/2009 is 10 + 1 + 3. We should not have different inspection time for different puzzles. I think for 2008 we have to make a choice between: 10 seconds or a different starting procedure. I prefer the 10 seconds. No change is not an option for me. Thanks, Ron

[quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]1) current WR being set by using a 15 second inspection time[/quote:9vdy1mn0] Much more than "current WR". All current records (personal, national etc.) for many puzzles. [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]The main reasons I think why we need to bring the inspection time down are: a) solving times are getting much shorter than the inspection times[/quote:9vdy1mn0] If this really is a problem, 10 seconds is still too high. There have already been solves faster than that and the times are going down. [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]b) 90% (rough estimate) of the competitors don't take more than 8 seconds for inspection[/quote:9vdy1mn0] So? [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]c) there are actually competitors who can fully plan a 2x2 cube during inspection. This is definitely not what WCA should be moving towards.[/quote:9vdy1mn0] Ten seconds is more difficult, yes, but still doable for some people. [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]d) competitions will run a bit smoother because time per solve will be brought down a bit.[/quote:9vdy1mn0] Would the difference really be big enough to matter? I don't think so, not only because of your point b) but also because 5 seconds per solve just isn't much. [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]Outsiders consider inspection cheating, especially if you inspect very long.[/quote:9vdy1mn0] Well, they are outsiders, I don't think the regulations should care about pleasing them. And anyway, 10 isn't any less cheating than 15 for most of them. [quote="Ron":9vdy1mn0]I think in a few years we have to bring that down to 5 + 1 + 2 ... A reasonable step for 2008/2009 is 10 + 1 + 3.[/quote:9vdy1mn0] This is something I'm very strongly against. Why do you want to invalidate all records not just once, but again the next year? If 5 + 1 + 2 really is the "perfect" solution, why not switch to it immediately? And it wouldn't fix all the problems you listed above. People are averaging sub-8 for 2x2x2.

Hi Johannes, So what is your opinion? What should we do? Ron

[quote="Ron":30ciu5jd]7) except if we get rid of it completely[/quote:30ciu5jd] That was me, being ideological. Now I'd rather see the time getting closer to zero at all than to stand still. So I'd vote in favor of a reduction. However, ... [quote="Ron":30ciu5jd]I think for 2008 we have to make a choice between: 10 seconds or a different starting procedure. I prefer the 10 seconds.[/quote:30ciu5jd] ... I'm certain that most cubers would like the no-interruption starting procedure, so if you're going for just one of these two ideas, the starting procedure change might have more support.

[quote:2il9zhvm][list:2il9zhvm]1) current WR being set by using a 15 second inspection time 2) different standard for the world record 3) 24-year traditional standard 4) beginner cubers will not close up to professional cubers as fast as they can 5) some people use the whole 15 seconds 6) people seek deeper inspection 7) except if we get rid of it completely [/list:u:2il9zhvm][/quote:2il9zhvm] Alright, I personally do not see any of those points valid in regards to the 3x3x3 cube. However, I do think that with some of the other puzzles (Square-1, Megaminx, 5x5x5, and future NxNxN cubes, where N > 5), points 2, 5, 6, and 7 are valid. For these puzzles, the current, full 15 seconds of inspection is beneficial and reducing the inspection time would, indeed, change the standard of the world records; we have to realize that there are puzzles other than the 3x3x3. I do think that 15 seconds is long and unnecessary for the 3x3x3, but that is not the case for some of the other puzzles. Johannes brought up all other points I would've. The only other comment I have to say to the 10 second inspection change is that if it goes though, it *should* be given notice well ahead of time. I have started 10 second inspections for all puzzles early this autumn, and it was somewhat a difficult change for me, at least for the puzzles I mentioned above. I am used to it now, but that was after 1-2 months of practice.

I don't understand how the 15 seconds are more necessary for those harder puzzles you mentioned than for the 3x3. Can you explain?

[quote="StefanPochmann":54pj7pu9]I don't understand how the 15 seconds are more necessary for those harder puzzles you mentioned than for the 3x3. Can you explain?[/quote:54pj7pu9] Alright, in the 5x5x5, I tend to use an average of 12 seconds (in competition situations) to find all the centers pieces and plan out my first center. I figure, if I take more than 10 seconds, other people must do too. In at-home conditions, I take maybe 6-8 seconds to find the pieces of my first center, and I do them in my head when the timer (JNetCube) beeps for the last three seconds. But this leads to frequent mistakes... I know a couple people, myself included, that have trouble finding pieces on megaminxes. The additional 5 seconds let us solidify our first cross/star and find at least a couple of the pairs.

I'm not sure how close this is to the current proposal, but I'll put it out there: -The judge and the competitor are both responsible for resetting before inspection -10 seconds to inspect, with a "5 seconds" at 5 seconds left (this is now unambiguous, but that really doesn't matter) -At the end of 10 seconds the judge says "put the cube down"--it must be down, and the red light must be on on the stackmat, by 11 -The solve must be started by 13 seconds A 2-second penalty is given for exceeding the 11 or 13 mark, passing 13 for putting the cube down or 15 for starting is DNF. Note that the competitor may, if he so desires, put the cube down, put his hands on the timer, and continue to inspect--the 3 second rule is no longer in effect, so he may distribute the time as he wishes, as long as by 13 seconds he has started the timer. There is no covering--this seems unnatural. If we're reducing the inspection time, I believe we need to not cover the cube. Jonathan, you mention square-1. I don't believe most people need more than 5-6 seconds of inspection of square-1 (people may correct me if this is wrong). All you really need to do is look at the shape, which is readily visible. Then you remember the alg you need and figure out the correct top and bottom moves to start. For me 3 seconds is sufficient. The other puzzles I can't really comment on as I'm really not very good at speedsolving. Last year I was not in favor of any change in inspection. Right now I'd be content with 10 seconds, but I care much more about eliminating the covering.

[quote="JChoi":1wguv3gc]Alright, in the 5x5x5, I tend to use an average of 12 seconds (in competition situations) to find all the centers pieces and plan out my first center. I figure, if I take more than 10 seconds, other people must do too.[/quote:1wguv3gc] [i:1wguv3gc](Disclaimer: Don't take this too personal)[/i:1wguv3gc] So this is about you? I looked at your records. Not world class yet. If there are people faster than you despite using less inspection, there's a problem with you, not with the inspection time. Same argument as for the 3x3, which you apparently accepted. I looked a bit but the only video I could find so far is from Matyas' 5x5 average WR in Budapest, where he inspected for 9 seconds. Also, like said before, David Allen for example uses his own corners first method for the 3x3 and apparently needs 15 seconds inspection (and rather would like more) to get top speed. Similarly, I believe the fastest cubers who only inspect for maybe 6 seconds would become even faster if they just looked for more during inspection. Instead of just inspecting for the cross, inspecting for extended cross, for example. I don't see how more inspection should ever not allow better results. Except if you can at some point see the whole solution after a certain amount of time, then further inspection would probably really not help much anymore. But this applies to maybe the 2x2 and pyraminx, i.e., the easy puzzles, *not* to the larger/harder ones. [quote="JChoi":1wguv3gc]I know a couple people, myself included, that have trouble finding pieces on megaminxes. The additional 5 seconds let us solidify our first cross/star and find at least a couple of the pairs.[/quote:1wguv3gc] I'm impressed. Honestly. I often have trouble planning just that first star in 15 seconds. I don't even attempt to look for the following pairs during inspection. Maybe I should... I need to beat Erik again...

[quote="StefanPochmann":3h4935v8][i:3h4935v8](Disclaimer: Don't take this too personal)[/i:3h4935v8] So this is about you? I looked at your records. Not world class yet. If there are people faster than you despite using less inspection, there's a problem with you, not with the inspection time. Same argument as for the 3x3, which you apparently accepted. I looked a bit but the only video I could find so far is from Matyas' 5x5 average WR in Budapest, where he inspected for 9 seconds.[/quote:3h4935v8] But Matyas is, well, Matyas (and in that example, 9 is still very close to 10 and definitely greater than 5). I honestly don't know how much world class fellows take for inspection times as I live no where near one. Perhaps one of them can enlighten us/me? I do know of one other person who would also like the full 15 seconds for this puzzle, but he is only slightly faster than I am... I think that it will eventually be possible (for anyone) to inspect cubes by glancing at each face of the cube and then solving the first step in his head between putting the cube down and starting the timer, provided that we have the same procedures as we do now. [quote="StefanPochmann":3h4935v8]Similarly, I believe the fastest cubers who only inspect for maybe 6 seconds would become even faster if they just looked for more during inspection. Instead of just inspecting for the cross, inspecting for extended cross, for example. I don't see how more inspection should ever not allow better results.[/quote:3h4935v8] I agree, that more inspection leads to faster times. But should the inspection time be reduced because the fastest people are not taking the opportunity to inspect deeper?

[quote="JChoi":o1uskilc]But should the inspection time be reduced because the fastest people are not taking the opportunity to inspect deeper?[/quote:o1uskilc] No, this by itself is not an argument to reduce the time. It however is an argument against the "but less time will make new records impossible" argument. My reasons for reducing the time are: e) We are solving - even if "only" mentally - and thus we don't measure our time for solving. Thus inspection for free should be eradicated altogether. f) A very long time like 15 seconds seems unnatural, especially to outsiders, but not only to them. When someone hands you a scrambled cube for solving, it's awkward to not start twisting for so long. Especially if you then twist for a shorter time.

Removed Content

[quote="Removed Account":1k62l0xl]Removed Content[/quote:1k62l0xl] Well, you're certainly wrong about that, because *I* happen to think *24* seconds is a pretty good inspection time, so that's what it should be. And no, since you didn't provide any explanation, I won't provide any, either.

Perhaps we can have the best of both worlds like this: One event with a 15 second inspection period ("classic") One event with a 10 second inspection period ("short-inspection") One event with no inspection period ("no-inspection") It could work...?