Constantin Ceausu and I are also wondering why 3x3 multiple blindfold is unofficial. Can you tell? Can't be lack of popularity anymore, at Euro2006 we had nine competitors with 12 attempts which is more than 3x3 feet which is official and even got prize money. So what is it?

Hi Stefan, Multiple blindfolded cube solving does not have a clear regulation for the memorization time. What would be a good time limit? I think there is a big difference if someone would take 1 year to memorize 5 cubes and someone doing it in 1 hour. My proposal: - memorization time limited to 90 minutes total - solving time limited to 30 minutes total Btw. your 5 cubes blindfolded is listed on the world records page. Have fun, Ron

Yes but Ron, someone memorising 5 cubes in 90 minutes, or someone memorising 6 cubes in 60 minutes, you also need to denote depending on how many cubes, sort of thing.

[quote="Ron":29yhnmba]My proposal: - memorization time limited to 90 minutes total - solving time limited to 30 minutes total[/quote:29yhnmba] What if some very slow cuber decides to do two cubes and take 90 minutes? I think we can use a lower limit for small number of cubes. What if a very good cuber is able to do ten cubes in 3 hours? Wouldn't you want to let him do it? How about 5 for one cube, 10 more for a second cube, 15 more for a third and so on? Then 5 cubes would have 5+10+15+20+25=75 minutes. Well there can be a general upper limit for practicality, e.g., 10 hours might just not reasonable because of the organizational effort necessary, so maybe 3 hours as a general upper limit. Or simply let it depend on what the organizers are capable and willing to do. [quote:29yhnmba]Btw. your 5 cubes blindfolded is listed on the world records page.[/quote:29yhnmba] Oh cool! Didn't expect that. But why? I thought it's only for official records, no? What exactly is the purpose of the official/unofficial distinction? If unofficial records make it into the official WCA record lists like the official records, doesn't that make the distinction meaningless?

Hi Stefan, I understand your confusion about official/unofficial. There is only one person we know of that solved 5 cubes blindfolded with proof. The problem is that someone else may solve 6 cubes blindfolded next month and take 20 hours of memorisation. Therefore we need official regulations. Thanks to Stefan and Craig for the feedback. I have a new proposal. Memorisation time: <=6 cubes: 15 minutes per cube >=7 cubes: 10 minutes per cube for each additional cube. Solving time: <=6 cubes: 10 minutes per cube >=7 cubes: 5 minutes per cube for each additional cube. This is of course arbitrary, but we could lower the limits in the future. Competitions can limit the total time to fit to the schedule. So in a 125 minute event, taking the maximum time per cube, you could solve 5 cubes blindfolded. 5 times 15 + 5 times 10 = 125 minutes. Of course you could do better... What do you think? Any more regulations we need for multiple blindfolded, other than normal blindfolded? Have fun, Ron

Why do you want to have separate limits for memorization and solving? With this you're trying to force a strategy onto the cubers. Imagine someone who memorizes for a long time but then solves very quickly. With separate limits you're suggesting the guy should change his strategy. I don't like it. At Euro2006 I've only seen three other 5-cubes attempts, none of the other multiple blindfold attempts. But those three were finished shortly after me, so we all took between 67 and maybe 80 minutes for five cubes. I believe people trying this at all are real serious about so the simple rule "20 minutes per cube" would be enough time (this is less than your suggestion for up to 11 cubes). Additional regulation: should say that all cubes need to be solved, otherwise the whole attempt gets DNF (i.e. solving 9 out of 10 doesn't count as successful 9). At least that's the way it is right now so it should be mentioned.

Hi again, OK, here is a new proposal: <=6 cubes: 20 minutes per cube >=7 cubes: 15 minutes per cube The reason why at first I wanted to limit memorisation time explicitly, is that competition organisers could stop people early when they were not finished memorising. Now I think that was a bad idea. Yes, 4 out of 5 is DNF. Still it is better than 3 out of 5. So I propose to order DNFs to percentages solved. Have fun, Ron

I think the multiple bld format is not good at all. I didn't really care for now, because I'm not personnally interested in this event, and because it is unofficial for now. I'm writing this message now because I'm not the only one to think there's a major flaw: [b:3b588dk5]I can't accept that someone who decides to solve 1 cube, and succeeds, beats another competitor trying 100 cubes and "only" solves 99 correctly.[/b:3b588dk5] Another problem: during the last competition, I can see that competitors had more than 1 attempt. You can argue it's like high-jump. It's the rules, and there's nothing to discuss. I don't agree. High-jump is what it is for purely technical reasons. In long-jump for example, it's easy to measure any distance, and it makes a different kind of event. But I understand you can't give 100 scrambled cubes to all competitors, because the competitor could choose the easiest configurations. That's why I propose the following format: [list:3b588dk5]- The competitor tells the judge he wants to try to solve N cubes. If he thinks he's got no chance to solve more than 3 cubes in a row, it limits the number of cubes to scramble. - After inspection, the competitors solves all the cubes he can, one by one, starting from cube #1, then cube #2... then cube #N. - If cube #M (M<N) is not correctly solved, when proceeding to cube #M+1, the judge stops the attempt. - The result is M-1. - A competitor who solves K cubes in S seconds beats another who solves K cubes in S'>S seconds. [i:3b588dk5]This way, the inspection time is automatically kept short[/i:3b588dk5], because if you take too long inspecting, another competitor will beat you, and we just need an upper time limit for the whole event.[/list:u:3b588dk5] Clear, simple. Any problem, feedback?

I've had the same thought, Gilles. I think the rule comes from this page, see rule 4: http://www.recordholders.org/en/records ... dfold.html I talked about it with Ralf (previous record holder) last year when I did my world record attempt with four cubes. His reason was indeed that otherwise you could get a large number of cubes and pick only the few "easiest" or avoid "hard" ones (e.g. only pick those where U and D layer corners can be oriented separately). I didn't like it, either, because we're getting to larger numbers and as you said, effectively calling 99 out of 100 worthless doesn't seem right. I think the rule was made in a time where three cubes looked like a lot, but actually even my five must be considered a rather small number. However, I haven't found a better way yet. I've thought about the idea you describe, counting all correct solves from the beginning, but it's also flawed. What if I make a mistake in my first out of 100 cubes but get the remaining 99 correct? Of course with your additional suggestion to stop the attempt at the first mistake we'd never find out. Also, quite importantly, it is possible that I notice a mistake in the first cube when I'm at a later cube. So I could go back and fix it. Not with your suggestion, though, so I don't like that. My conclusion is that I'm alright with the current format. And if I get 99 out of 100 correct and don't get the world record because of that, then so be it. People will still get to know that I got 99 out of 100 correct. And once the database is updated we should have a list for multiple blindfold so that all attempts including the unsuccessful ones are visible. Like the current Euro2006 results page already does. I'd rather sort the DNFs by number of solved cubes than percentage, though, otherwise 4 out of 5 would be ranked higher than 15 out of 20 and I think the latter is still more impressive.

Hi Gilles, [quote:271icval]Another problem: during the last competition, I can see that competitors had more than 1 attempt. [/quote:271icval] Hmm, this is a matter of definition. No competitor at the Euro 2006 champs had more than 1 attempt on the SAME amount of cubes. I told competitors upfront that they could do 3 attempts for DIFFERENT amounts of cubes. This format will also be used for Dutch Open 2006. I think this format helps to prevent your extreme example of one cuber solving 1 out of 1 (1) and another cuber solving 99 out of 100 (DNF). I do not 100% like your proposal but it is interesting. Your extremely example could still be the case: what if the 100 cubes solver does the DNF on his first cube? Also: it is harder to memorise 10 cubes than 3 cubes. So the chance of a DNF (in general) is bigger for the 10 cube solver. And if he DNFs his second cube, he is beaten by the 3 cubes solver who DNFs on his third. What I am trying to say is that it IS interesting to know how competitors are doing on all cubes, not only on the 1st or the 2nd (if they would have a DNF). You could easily conclude that the 100 cube solver is just bluffing if he DNFs his first. Although maybe he could solve the other 99. Other people? Have fun, Ron

Hi, I think we must concentrate to less then 12 cubes,not more;if somebody want to solve more good luck! The most important at the moment is the total time for number of cubes -20 min for cube is what we are looking for;less it is no right for the beginers,more it is too much for the competition -could change in time,but we must start in someway... If one try 6 and solve 5,it is normal to tell this but not to give him the time for 5 -he tried 6 - six is the meaning!so DNF -solved 5,is so right to say! [/quote]

@Stefan+Ron [quote:2lu8xiyl]I told competitors upfront that they could do 3 attempts for DIFFERENT amounts of cubes.[/quote:2lu8xiyl] So is it ok if I ask for 8, then 7, then 5 cubes? Given the records we had, it's gonna happen. And what's the logic behind not allowing the same numbers? [quote:2lu8xiyl]I've thought about the idea you describe, counting all correct solves from the beginning, but it's also flawed. What if I make a mistake in my first out of 100 cubes but get the remaining 99 correct? Of course with your additional suggestion to stop the attempt at the first mistake we'd never find out.[/quote:2lu8xiyl] Sorry, I can't get your point. With the format that was applied at EC'06, the winners are competitors who were succesful on [b:2lu8xiyl]ALL [/b:2lu8xiyl]their solves!!?! You're dead if you make a mistake at solve #1, #2, ..., #100. With my proposal, you still can mistake a mistake at solve #65 and get a good ranking (that you deserve). It's much less crual. [quote:2lu8xiyl]Also, quite importantly, it is possible that I notice a mistake in the first cube when I'm at a later cube. So I could go back and fix it. Not with your suggestion, though, so I don't like that.[/quote:2lu8xiyl] That's the only good point I see. But does it often happen? You can answer, not me. Do you often realize while solving cube #4 you made a mistake at cube #1, go back and fix the problem? [quote:2lu8xiyl]What I am trying to say is that it IS interesting to know how competitors are doing on all cubes, not only on the 1st or the 2nd (if they would have a DNF). You could easily conclude that the 100 cube solver is just bluffing if he DNFs his first. Although maybe he could solve the other 99.[/quote:2lu8xiyl] [quote:2lu8xiyl]And once the database is updated we should have a list for multiple blindfold so that all attempts including the unsuccessful ones are visible.[/quote:2lu8xiyl] I understand that such statistical stuff is interesting, it's interesting for people like "us" only, but I consider it's not important for what is needed: establish who's the champion. There's no place for ambiguous results. Bluff or not? Who cares! Only the result counts. It's an (un)official competition. And if you get very difficult scrambles, you can adjust the risks you're taking. Example: "I'm inspecting cube #8, it does not look good, and configurations #1...#7 are already hard enough to remember, maybe I'd better stop here in order to perfectly remember everything I learned, I was a fool to ask for 10 cubes!".

Hi guys, So the problem we are trying to solve is that a competitor who solved 19 out of 20 should have beaten the competitor that solved 5 out of 5? We should not go into a discussion where we define how much you can fail and still win. In that case I have a different proposal: [quote:1alkpx1k]if a competitor solves n-1 cubes out of n, then he is considered to have solved n-1 out of n-1.[/quote:1alkpx1k] If you make more than 1 mistake, then it is not a matter of bad luck anymore. For me that would be a DNF. Suppose we would use the format that Gilles proposes. You memorize 20 cubes, I memorize 5. We both fail at our 5th cube. Who wins? Someone else memorizes 4 and solves 4. Who wins? If you would say "all square" then we could argue about percentages, no mistakes <=> 1 or more mistakes, harder to memorize 20 than to memorize 4. So in the end we would still have a discussion about fairness. I think by having more than one attempt, people should be able to do a successful solve of all cubes. I also think that there is nothing wrong with a weightlifting like format. In weightlifting you have only 3 attempts in total. You can choose any weight for your 3 attempts, but not go back to a lower weight. The reason they do this is that weightlifting takes a lot of your power, so with many more attempts you would be exhausted and there would be a larger chance of accidents. Lifting 300 kilos above your shoulders, but without fully stretching your arms is still much more difficult than completely lifting 200 kilos. Still the lifter of 200 kilos wins. But a smart weightlifter would first try 225 kilos and then go for 300, even if he fails at 225. Have fun, Ron

[quote:2hhrj2c3]if a competitor solves n-1 cubes out of n, then he is considered to have solved n-1 out of n-1.[/quote:2hhrj2c3] So if I know I can remember 2 cubes pretty well, but I don't want to try 3 because it's too hard for me, I can ask for 3 and choose the 2 easiest scrambles? Mmhh... It's like the "POP rule", and we just killed it! I think that simple rules only are good: [list:2hhrj2c3]- standard speedsolving: the fastest competitor wins - fewest-moves: the shortest solutions wins - blindfolded: the fastest inspection+solve wins - 24h marathon: easy to guess [i:2hhrj2c3]- "my" multiple blindfolded: the most succesful solves in a row wins[/i:2hhrj2c3] (the current rule is simple, but too crual)[/list:u:2hhrj2c3] Of course, as in many other events (fewest-moves...) having at least 2 attempts can be necessary (bad luck, etc.), that's not new. That's all, thanks for reading.

[quote="Gilles":fuxrfp49]Sorry, I can't get your point. With the format that was applied at EC'06, the winners are competitors who were succesful on [b:fuxrfp49]ALL [/b:fuxrfp49]their solves!!?! You're dead if you make a mistake at solve #1, #2, ..., #100. With my proposal, you still can mistake a mistake at solve #65 and get a good ranking (that you deserve).[/quote:fuxrfp49] Point was that if I change the #65 in your sentence to #1, you have the same situation. If you and I do 100 solves and we both get 99 correct, but you fail your first while I fail my last, why do I deserve the great ranking of 99 cubes and you deserve the fatal ranking of zero cubes? We both solved 99! [quote="Gilles":fuxrfp49]That's the only good point I see. But does it often happen? You can answer, not me. Do you often realize while solving cube #4 you made a mistake at cube #1, go back and fix the problem?[/quote:fuxrfp49] Not often, but sometimes, yes. For example I do the parity fix on the third cube and realize I forgot it on the first cube (that does happen from time to time). In any case, I don't like the idea of stopping someone early. Even if I make a mistake in my first cube and do *not* fix it, I can still be proud solving the other four. If you stop me early, you take that away from me. Besides, it looks like memorizing is the larger part of the total time, so stopping someone early during twisting is going to save a little and waste a lot of time. [quote="Ron":fuxrfp49][quote:fuxrfp49]if a competitor solves n-1 cubes out of n, then he is considered to have solved n-1 out of n-1.[/quote:fuxrfp49] If you make more than 1 mistake, then it is not a matter of bad luck anymore. [/quote:fuxrfp49] If you make more than [b:fuxrfp49]0[/b:fuxrfp49] mistakes, then it is not a matter of bad luck anymore. It's [b:fuxrfp49]you[/b:fuxrfp49] who made the mistake, so it's [b:fuxrfp49]your[/b:fuxrfp49] fault, don't blame it on some "bad luck".

Hi guys, [quote:ookccm2x]If you make more than 0 mistakes, then it is not a matter of bad luck anymore. It's you who made the mistake, so it's your fault, don't blame it on some "bad luck".[/quote:ookccm2x] I seem to remember that in speed blindfolded during Euro 2006 there was a German competitor who messed up an algorithm twice. I thought it was bad luck for him. I also remember that in blindfolded during Euro 2004 there was an Israelian competitor who had an edge pop. After finding the piece blindfolded, popping it back in, continuing the solve, he had the bad luck that he had put back the edge flipped. I thought it was bad luck for him. Anyway, can we come to a conclusion on this subject? We have seen three proposals here: 1) current way of doing multiple blindfolded, all cubes must be solved to have a successful attempt 2) current way of doing multiple blindfolded, all or all but one cubes must be solved to have a successful attempt 3) different way of doing multiple blindfolded, competitor is stopped when one cube is not solved, the number of solved cubes until then is counting. My first vote is 1), second is 2), third is 3). Any other options? Any other votes? Have fun, Ron

Hi, First vote for me too! the other too has no sense;if the name of the attemt is "5 cubes blindfolded" one must solve "5" -it is right to be so!

[quote="Ron":2y1s4r9j]I seem to remember that in speed blindfolded during Euro 2006 there was a German competitor who messed up an algorithm twice. I thought it was bad luck for him.[/quote:2y1s4r9j] This competitor himself thinks it was his very own stupidity and has nothing to do with bad luck. Btw, the problem was that I confused two algorithms that start the same way. It had happened to me in practice before and I've now found a way to ensure it won't happen again. [quote:2y1s4r9j]I also remember that in blindfolded during Euro 2004 there was an Israelian competitor who had an edge pop. After finding the piece blindfolded, popping it back in, continuing the solve, he had the bad luck that he had put back the edge flipped. I thought it was bad luck for him.[/quote:2y1s4r9j] I won't speak for Dror, but if I pop, it's my own fault. Unless it was caused by someone else, e.g. a judge pretending to ensure I'm safely blindfolded and I make a mistake when I accidentally touch him. But then it's that person's fault. Still not bad luck. Maybe we generally differ in what (bad) luck means to us. [quote:2y1s4r9j]1) current way of doing multiple blindfolded, all cubes must be solved to have a successful attempt[/quote:2y1s4r9j] That's my first choice. [quote:2y1s4r9j]2) current way of doing multiple blindfolded, all or all but one cubes must be solved to have a successful attempt[/quote:2y1s4r9j] My second choice. If you choose this, please also go back and call Dror's 5x5 solve successful in which he was only one swap (of two centers) away from solved. Of course I'm not serious. If you don't succeed, you don't succeed. Simple. [quote:2y1s4r9j]3) different way of doing multiple blindfolded, competitor is stopped when one cube is not solved, the number of solved cubes until then is counting.[/quote:2y1s4r9j] I don't like it, for reasons I mentioned earlier. [quote:2y1s4r9j]Any other options?[/quote:2y1s4r9j] A rule with three parts: a) Allow a fixed amout of total time (e.g. one hour) b) Count the number of correctly solved cubes, not the attempted ones. c) Require fixed success rate (e.g. 2/3 of given cubes solved). Part a) is comparable to fewest moves. Part b) let's a 9/10 cuber win over a 5/5 (and also 8/8 but I think 9/10 *is* better if both have the same time limit). Part c) attempts to avoid picking few easy out of a large number of cubes.

"My first time was ok, 1:34 plus penalty because I locked up and didn't get the last turn at all so it was off by a fifth turn. A little bad luck and it would've been DNF..." I don't really understand you Stefan. What do you mean here?

Hi, The first proposal-all cubes solved correctly-has my vote;the second is nice but the one who solve n-1 will have a bad total time for them because he must memorise a cub more;the third it seems no good for the reason that exposed Stefan- one can easily turn back and solve a mistake(I often do this),so I would say to eliminate it -anyway the total time would be so insignificant(imagine to memorise 6 cubes and the third go bad -1hour for 2 cubes blindfolded!?). Bad luck could be a piece poped up,but not the algoritms used! For the moment the best is proposal 1,let's voted!

[quote="JohannesLaire":1pmw3avg]"My first time was ok, 1:34 plus penalty because I locked up and didn't get the last turn at all so it was off by a fifth turn. A little bad luck and it would've been DNF..." I don't really understand you Stefan. What do you mean here?[/quote:1pmw3avg] Dude, for that we have email . But ok. Scramble a 3x3 with U' R'. To solve you want to do R U but imagine you only rotate R by 80 degrees so you can't turn U. If you don't do the remaining 10 degrees before stopping the timer then you're more than one turn off so it's a DNF. I almost did that.

[quote="constantin":11y2p17v]For the moment the best is proposal 1,let's voted![/quote:11y2p17v] Hey, you forgot my proposal 4. The one with 1 hour fixed time limit and counting the correctly solved cubes. What's your comment on that one?

Btw, look here: http://www.worldmemorychampionship.com/ ... _Rules.asp That's from the memory competitions. Besides short disciplines they have "hour cards" and "one hour numbers" where everybody has the same long fixed amount of time to memorize (and later recall) as many cards/numbers as they can. They do have world records for even larger amounts of data in longer time, but that's special events, not in the regular competitions. P.S. oh and sorry for hijacking this thread with multiple blindfold...

what if instead of each competitior choosing there own number of cube thye all submit how many they want then everyone gets whatever the person who picked the highest said then there would be no dnfs (unless you didn't solve even one) and no one could comlain about well you got 10 and sjut picked the easyest ones becaseu everyone woudl have that oppertunity the main problem i see is that if somone picks to have like 20 cubes and no other copetitor has 20 cubes so to make an incetive not to do something like that say you have to solve 50%(or 75 might be better) of hoever many you say you cna solve or you get a DNF this isn;t perfect and i woudl have to put some more thoguht into it but it would stop people from doing 99 out of 100 and losing or somone who gets 6 out of 10 losing to somone who gets 3 out of 3 becasue everyone has the same out of.

Hi, About 1 hour fixed time and counting the solved cube- proposal of Stefan: -could be a nice game!but in 1 hour one can memorise no more then 6 cubes at the moment,so we can let it for the future! I would like to memorize more but my brain does not want! For me the memorization it's the problem;once I catch it the cube is done! Bye!

[quote="StefanPochmann":sqpjvty7][quote="JohannesLaire":sqpjvty7]"My first time was ok, 1:34 plus penalty because I locked up and didn't get the last turn at all so it was off by a fifth turn. A little bad luck and it would've been DNF..." I don't really understand you Stefan. What do you mean here?[/quote:sqpjvty7] Dude, for that we have email .[/quote:sqpjvty7] Well, yeah... But you and Ron were discussing "bad luck" here so I posted it. [quote="StefanPochmann":sqpjvty7]But ok. Scramble a 3x3 with U' R'. To solve you want to do R U but imagine you only rotate R by 80 degrees so you can't turn U. If you don't do the remaining 10 degrees before stopping the timer then you're more than one turn off so it's a DNF. I almost did that.[/quote:sqpjvty7] So you think that would be bad luck?

[quote="StefanPochmann":2pvm95vw]A rule with three parts: a) Allow a fixed amout of total time (e.g. one hour) b) Count the number of correctly solved cubes, not the attempted ones. c) Require fixed success rate (e.g. 2/3 of given cubes solved). Part a) is comparable to fewest moves. Part b) let's a 9/10 cuber win over a 5/5 (and also 8/8 but I think 9/10 *is* better if both have the same time limit). Part c) attempts to avoid picking few easy out of a large number of cubes.[/quote:2pvm95vw] That one gets my vote.

[quote="JohannesLaire":14vlnz9a][quote="StefanPochmann":14vlnz9a]But ok. Scramble a 3x3 with U' R'. To solve you want to do R U but imagine you only rotate R by 80 degrees so you can't turn U. If you don't do the remaining 10 degrees before stopping the timer then you're more than one turn off so it's a DNF. I almost did that.[/quote:14vlnz9a] So you think that would be bad luck?[/quote:14vlnz9a] Ah ok... now I see the connection. You're right, I shouldn't call it bad luck. It's a habit phrase I got used to because society tought me. It's not easy to stay clean. I'll fix it.

For multiple blindfolded in Dutch Open 2006 we saw two interesting cases: 1) John Louis solved 7 out of 8, still he lost to someone solving 5 out of 5. The one he missed was his first cube (2 edge not oriented correctly). 2) Clément Gallet solved corner orientation of each of his 3 cubes, then edge orientation, then corner permutation, then edge permutation. My conclusion: 1) Although harsh for John, we should stick to solving all cubes. 2) The idea to stop after the first cube that is missed cannot be implemented cleanly. Have fun, Ron

Hi, I tried 7 cubes at Duch Open- after I solved the second,I remembered a mistake at the first cube and I have fixed it;it is not the first time that is happening to me... Please try to think at a time limit for numbers of cubes(20 min for cube it seems so right),because if John had solved the first cube,8 cubes solved well it would have meaned "do not finished" -the rule was 90 min time limit,so...it is not ok!? We have a lot of competitors,let's make it official because have the right to be!Thank you!

I know this thread has been quiet for a while, but I found it interesting. I have to say that my vote is for all cubes to be solved in order for an attempt to be successful. This is harsh for John Louis, but this so far has been the spirit of BLD cubing, look at Dror's DNF on 5x5x5 being off by only 2 centers, it's basically the same thing in principle. I think it would be cool to have a point system, sort of like the memory champions. So if you attempt 10 cubes, you get X points per successful cube, but you also lose points for mistakes. So maybe a solved cube could be +10 points, and an unsolved cube (at the end of the attempt when the competitor declares they are done) could be -5 points, or -1 points. The problem with the points system are that the world record is meaningless to a lay audience. Who can get excited that the multiple cube record is 74 points, or some other number? Also, who is to decide how many points a good cube is vs. a bad cube? It seems like an arbitrary definition. I think in order to be the most fair we should probably have all attempts successful, or otherwise DNF. This is the same as having the entire 5x5x5 cube solved, or otherwise DNF. I of course am proud when I solve all but two centers swapped on the 5x5x5 since this is such a small mistake. However I also accept it as a failure. I think if we call Dror's 2 centers off solve a DNF, then so would be attempting 100 cubes and solving "only" 99. If someone attempted a 7x7x7 cube blindfolded and solved everything but two swapped centers, I guarantee that solve would be considered a complete DNF. BLD already has this harsh spirit and strict definition of the solved state. If someone attempts the 5x5x5 (92 pieces) and solves "only" 90 of them it is still a DNF. I think the limits of this multiple 3x3x3 cube event will be much lower than our extreme examples, perhaps no more than 20. This is because what if you attempt 21 and solve 20? You DNF the entire attempt. This is very stressful in my opinion. This may have the result of changing this event so that people reach for a certain limit (say 10 cubes). But once many people can do ten cubes, the record becomes 10 cubes in 5 hours, or 10 cubes in 4.5 hours. Then finally some crazy person attempts 11 and gets it! I think this format could be exciting for cubers and for audiences who are not very familiar with cubing. The only issue seems to be that someone who attempts and solves 10 cubes is the winner over someone who attempts 12 and solves 11. However someone who attempts a 5x5x5 and is off by 2-3 centers is beaten, in a theoretical sense, by someone who attempts the 4x4x4 and solves it successfully. Sure one puzzle is easier, and being off by 3 centers on the 5x5x5 is a much better performance than solving the 4x4x4 - but the 5x5x5 is still called a DNF and the 4x4x4 a good solve. So in a sense we already do this to competitors. Dror's 5x5x5 solve off by 2 centers is a better performance in my opinion than his successful 4x4x4 solve at RWC2003. However, his 4x4x4 solve was a world record, and his 5x5x5 solve a DNF. I think keeping the same spirit for the multiple blindfolded 3x3x3 record would be a good idea, since that format seems to work for the bigger cubes. Just my thoughts, I know this thread is probably dead, but I wanted to post. Chris

The people who want to do multi-cube BLD should practice and hone their skills in single-cube BLD before attempting multi-cube BLD. Why would you bother doing such a stressful idea when you can't solve a Rubik's Cube in under 2-minutes blindfolded? Focus on the basic puzzles first. The goal of new events should not be for people to have their own records. If you want a world record, in the spirit of competition, you should practice, and take it from somebody else.

[quote="cmhardw":12gu1kyv](...) The only issue seems to be that someone who attempts and solves 10 cubes is the winner over someone who attempts 12 and solves 11. However someone who attempts a 5x5x5 and is off by 2-3 centers is beaten, in a theoretical sense, by someone who attempts the 4x4x4 and solves it successfully. Sure one puzzle is easier, and being off by 3 centers on the 5x5x5 is a much better performance than solving the 4x4x4 - but the 5x5x5 is still called a DNF and the 4x4x4 a good solve. [/quote:12gu1kyv] that's what I don't like in the current way...if someone does, let's say, 14/15 and someone does 2/2, who should be the winner? for me it's the one who did 14... your 4x4/5x5 example is not very good, for me, because someone who gets a 4x4x4 correctly doesn't exactly [b:12gu1kyv]beat[/b:12gu1kyv] someone who got just 2 wrong centers in the 5x5x5...they're different events at the end but I think someone who tries 20 cubes and gets 19 should "beat" someone who did just 2 (attempting just 2 or anything else)

Hi Pedro, Another example: You solve 3 out of 3. I solve 4 out of 100. (I just pick the 4 easiest scrambles and don't even try the other 100. Oh, and I do have much more time for memorisation than you 6*15 + 94*10.) Who should win? Thanks, Ron

yeah, maybe Stefan's idea of x% necessary to count is the best... then, if you get those x%, the cubes you get right count y points and so...

[quote="Pedro_S":1vwfjnhe] that's what I don't like in the current way...if someone does, let's say, 14/15 and someone does 2/2, who should be the winner? for me it's the one who did 14... [/quote:1vwfjnhe] Between the person who did 14/15 and the one who did 2/2, one person did a mistake, and one didn't. So I find it fair that the one who did perfect won. If on the 3x3 someone does a wrong PLL then stops the timer in 7 sec, you won't say : "Ok, he did a mistake, but obviously he's much better than the others, so he should win." For me, the regulations are fine as they are.

Attempting two cubes is something completely different from trying 15 cubes. Two cubers trying one normal solve means two cubers trying to do the same thing. Also, one cube is somewhat indivisible, so I agree having a partly solved cube count is unnatural. Counting 14/15 as 14 rather than 0 however I think is natural. In short: bad analogy. And I think 14/15 should win.

I agree with Clément... The rules are good as they are. Of course 14/15 is more impressive than 2/2 but one people did a mistake, one did not.

If you think A is "of course more impressive" than B, then why should B win? I believe people are holding on to the idea that total perfection comes before quantity simply because that's what they've (in terms of multiblind) grown up with and are used to. Remember the rules were made in an era when three cubes was considered awesome. For those small quantities, I agree total perfection should be demanded. After all, if you fail one out of three cubes, that's 33% failure. But attempting much larger quantities is something completely different. For example when you solve 14/15, that's 6.7% failure. I don't see why this shall be deemed to be a complete failure, especially when there's a completely natural way to count: having solved 14 cubes.

My opinion is that 2/2 should beat 14/15. Of course 14/15 is more impressive in some respect, but one part of the event is to assess ones ability.

Oh and you think the 14/15 guy isn't able to do 2/2, while the 2/2 guy is able to do 14/15? Or what do you want to say?

I look at the event as "the maximum number of cubes I can solve blindfolded". Thus, the event has two elements: 1) Assessment of my capability: Decide how many cubes that I believe that I successfully can solve blindfolded. 2) Solve the cubes. The cuber who solves 14/15 fails the first element. An analogy can be high jump or pole vault. The one who jumps over 2 m beats the one who by a millimeter misses 2.40 m. Sergei Bubka missed several medals by not manage to make any valid attemp in pole vault since he started at a too high hight.

The WCA is open for changes. The problem is that the community cannot come up with a decent alternative that is supported by a big group. There have been several discussions, but none of them has come to a conclusion. No conclusion => no change. Ron

Another bad analogy. If he tries 2.40 and fails then nobody can know by how much he failed so there simply is no way to give him a valid score. If you try 15 cubes and solve 14, that 14 is a very valid and natural way to score. Guys, please stop using "analogies" with this flaw. And I've probably mentioned this before, but here's a good analogy: the "hour cards" discipline of the memory competitions. They try to memorize as many decks of shuffled cards as they can, then try to recall them. This is very similar to multiblind, with one deck of cards being similar to one cube. And they evaluate each deck separately and if you have a mistake in one deck, it doesn't affect the scores of your other decks. All the correct decks get them full points.

[quote:3tga6xo8]but here's a good analogy: the "hour cards" discipline of the memory competitions[/quote:3tga6xo8] That is also not a good analogy, because the time limit is fixed whereas for multiple blindfolded the time limit depends on the number of cubes attempted. So basically one improvement could be to have a fixed time. Thanks, Ron

[quote="StefanPochmann":29a4d1t8]Another bad analogy. If he tries 2.40 ...[/quote:29a4d1t8] Ok. Let's skip analogies. My opinion is still that the cuber who solves 14/15 fails the first element as stated above. Thus, I do not accept 14 in 14/15 as a valid score. This is our main disagreement. (Anyhow, it is possible to measure by how much a high-jumper fails by using video judgement or by introducing laser sensors parallel to the bar. However, replacing the bar with sensors would probably kill the sport, since the jumper needs something to aim at.)

[quote="Ron":lrwmppzh]That is also not a good analogy, because the time limit is fixed whereas for multiple blindfolded the time limit depends on the number of cubes attempted.[/quote:lrwmppzh] I have yet to see a competition that truly gave you unlimited time for this. At RWC2007 for example, four hours was the limit. Other competitions have different limits. Which, btw, is another flaw.

If people really want change, then my proposal would be: - one hour time limit - all solved cubes count - to prevent people asking a 100 cubes and selecting the easiest: if less than half the cubes is solved it is a DNF Feedback? Ron

I made the same proposal before, except I suggested a higher required success rate. Back then I suggested 2/3 but today I'd actually rather go higher than lower, a few days ago I thought about requiring 80%. But I'm open to other values. Mostly I'd like the "one hour" and "all successes count" parts. Previous discussions of this idea: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/for ... ?p=792#792 http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread. ... count15987

I propose this: 1. Competitor gets to choose how many cubes he wants to solve (as it is now). 2. Judge writes down the time after each cube is solved. 3. Competitor solves until he fails to solve cube; i.e. he puts the cube down and starts another cube. 4. At the first failed cube, the judge stops the competitor and the time of the last solved cube is the final time. 5. The competitor has as the time between the start of the event and the start of the last event of the competition to complete solve.

Jon, Thanks for your proposal. I like it when people come with proposals. I think your proposal will not work, because some competitors solve in stages for each cube. Like first orientation of edges for all cubes, then orientation of corners for all cubes, et cetera. Ron

I agree with the one hour time limit, in the way that it will be easier to organize competitions with this event. But what I don't like with the time limit is that it will become a speed multiple blindfold. Some people like John Louis won't get a chance after that (well, as I remember him during the dutch open 2006) Well I'm not against this new rule, but it will have a lot of consequences. And Matyas will become even stronger :S And Stefan, just to be sure, with your 80 percent rule, you think that someone who did 4/5 should win against someone who did 20/26 ? For JChoi > Ok, I can change my way of doing the multiple blind event if your rule is adopted, I don't really bother. But I don't really like this because you could have done a mistake in the first cube, and all the others could have been solved. You have some sort of random variable in your result, about the order you decide to solve the cubes. Also, it happened to Constantin that during the solve of one cube, he realized that he did a mistake on the last one, so he took it and corrected the mistake. Finally he did 5/5 ! Clément

[quote="Clement Gallet":3b6jluu9]And Stefan, just to be sure, with your 80 percent rule, you think that someone who did 4/5 should win against someone who did 20/26 ?[/quote:3b6jluu9] Well, below some point you need to call the attempt as a whole a failure. Otherwise 5/26 would beat 4/5, and that doesn't feel right, either. Particularly because 5/26 sounds ridiculous, someone getting that clearly overestimated his ability or cherry-picked easy cubes. What about 20/26, should that count as valid? Or did the cuber simply try too much? That's the question. I think he did try too much. Especially since Matyas shows that large attempts and perfection don't necessarily exclude each other. But like I said above, I'm certainly open for other opinions, as I do know my 80% are rather arbitrary. Might have to do with the allowance of 20% luck in unofficial records, but I don't fully remember.

I'm actually in favor of keeping the current format. Part of multiple blindfolded is choosing how many cubes to do, that is, assessing your own ability. If you think you're able to do 30 cubes perfectly and you only do 28, you tried to get too high a record and you failed. The 30 cube guy has to know going into the event that he's not attempting something easy--to get a do what he sets out to do, he is well aware that his chance of success is slim. I apologize for the analogy, but in regular 3x3 BLD, should someone who gets a 30 second DNF with two edges flipped beat someone who had a 9-minute successful solve? I don't see any reason they should. The 9-minute guy was more conservative (like someone who attempts and solves 2 cubes)--he probably spent over 15 times as long memorizing to make sure he got it correct. And Stefan, isn't the 30 second DNF with 2 edges flipped more impressive than a 9-minute solve? I would argue it is. Every other blindfold event does demand total perfection, why shouldn't multiple be the same?

[quote="StefanPochmann":1ao9x1t7]Guys, please stop using "analogies" with this flaw.[/quote:1ao9x1t7] Sigh... why won't they stop? [quote="Tim":1ao9x1t7]I apologize for the analogy, but in regular 3x3 BLD, should someone who gets a 30 second DNF with two edges flipped beat someone who had a 9-minute successful solve?[/quote:1ao9x1t7] I repeat: Please stop using "analogies" to argue for perfection when that "analogy" has no natural way to value imperfection. No, "cube solved except two edges flipped" is *not* comparable to "28 cubes solved". Not at all.

I did however change my mind and would like to keep the current format. My reasons: 1) I used Matyas as an argument why 80% can be required. I should also accept him as an argument why 100% can be required. 2) Let's face it, multiblind will always be a side event. Very rarely there will be prize money. And if someone gets 28 of 30 correct, he might not win the competition, but he'll still get a whole lot of respect and admiration from the cubing community, and can be very proud. Which - besides prize money - are the things we're doing this for, right? 3) It might be awkward to mix the old results with the new results. Should the old results be reevaluated and reordered under the new rules? Whether yes or no, this could become irritating. 4) The changes, including the results of 3), would have to be implemented in the record pages system. With a very unclear vision of 3), I feel queasy about this. 5) One of my arguments for fixing the one hour time limit was to ensure equal opportunities at different competitions, because right now some competitions give you a lot more time for multiblind than others, so records might only be achievable at certain competitions. But let's face it, this is the case throughout the events, and won't change. For example, there are competitions with a 5x5 event and there are others without it. So at some competitions you can break its records, at others you can't.

[quote="JChoi":pcacb0mg]I propose this: 1. Competitor gets to choose how many cubes he wants to solve (as it is now). 2. Judge writes down the time after each cube is solved. 3. Competitor solves until he fails to solve cube; i.e. he puts the cube down and starts another cube. 4. At the first failed cube, the judge stops the competitor and the time of the last solved cube is the final time. 5. The competitor has as the time between the start of the event and the start of the last event of the competition to complete solve.[/quote:pcacb0mg] I like this format, if I understand what you say, it's the format I proposed on message #8 on this thread, and you add the mandatory timing. IIRC, it was refused because of 2 things: 1) "Some people don't solve the cubes one by one". -> Well, when people create different habits before any rule exist and want to stick to them, of course it's difficult to make a standard format to please them all. For example, people who prefer speedsolving without inspection or with different timers had to adapt when the rule was set. 2) "It's unfair that a competitor failing on his first solve out of 10 gets 0, while a competitor failing on his 10th gets 9". -> Yes. But it means than you can take more time to safely memorize the first cubes and secure them, and the more cubes you memorize, the more risks you take. I think that it would be very fair, and strategically interesting. Let me add that the event would be more interesting for the audience. What's the point of letting a competitor go on for 10 cubes when he has already lost any chance of beating a noobie who solves 1/1 ?!? I still consider that it would be a very decent format, the best I can imagine. But since it was rejected, let's forget it, and stick to what we have today since that's what people wanted. ---------- But I propose that since you need to solve all the cubes you asked for to beat a noobie, get rid of partial success in rankings. [b:pcacb0mg]-> Success, otherwise DNF.[/b:pcacb0mg] I know people care when somebody solve 8/10, it's much more satisfactory than 0/1. But with the ranking system we have, it just doesn't matter, and too many people still ask whether 4/10 is better than 3/5. We don't keep track of +2 penalties in speedsolving, or partial success in fewest-moves or standard bld. I won't try to propose analogies. When the ranking system says that with 8/10 you're a looser, then we don't have to record it. Simple.

[quote="Gilles":37b853dl]When the ranking system says that with 8/10 you're a looser, then we don't have to record it.[/quote:37b853dl] While that might make you a looser, it's not the same as the DNF in other categories. If you DNF in 3x3 speed, there's no good way to describe the partial success. In multiblind, there is. You can still say "8 cubes solved". But I repeat myself. Again.

Ok, I propose this : You choose the number of cubes you want to solve. At the end, your result is : (the number of cubes you solved) minus (the number of cubes you failed to solve). With this rule, you still get a good result if you failed 1 or 2 cubes, and it prevents asking to many cubes. If you failed more than half of the cubes, you get 0 (no negative results)

Sorry for the double post. For same results, for example 2/2 and 3/4, I would say 2/2 is better than 3/4, so I would order by number of cubes failed : 2/2 better than 3/4 better than 4/6 etc...

Hi Crude as it may seem i think it's only just that a person solving n-1 out of n cubes in multi-bld should get a dnf. It is a [b:13bcisrz]bidding error [/b:13bcisrz]from the competitors side. The only slightly crude thing is that someone bidding for less cubes will be more likely to have time for more attempts while a person bidding for more won't have time to use all the 3 attempts. But that's all part of the game. Alternatively make it 2 different formats. One where one has to solve the n number of cubes bidded for. Another where simply the highest number of cubes solved would win. So in the latter 12/13 would be better than 10/10. Especially if a time limit would be imposed one could relax a bit on the last few cubes and go faster on them without the risk of completely wasting the attempt!! But now onto something else. I have read up a bit on the accusations of [the competitor]. I have the following simple suggestion. I propose that for all bld events every participant should get a RANDOM scramble (scramble). This would seem to go against the fairness principle - but let's face it, bld is not as close-races as say 3x3x3 speedsolving. The advantage of a better scramble seems fairly small to me. And even more so if an attempt is for a ltrager number of cubes. This would completely eliminate that chance that someone would study other people's solves and trying to memorise the scramble. I dont't think there is any rules that deals with cubers caught cheating red handed? Other than disallowing that particular solve. I would suggest that a cheater have all his attempts cancelled at that patricular competition, pluss getting a 1-yr ban from all official competitions. On successive cheating a life-time ban should be enforced. The WCA should keep a list of all banned competitors While im at it. I think the fewest moves regulations should be amended with a requirement that a diagram be provided with the correct scramble set up. And if possible also have a real cube to compare with before setting up the scramble on own cube. In EC 2004 real cubes were provided for both scrambles. In WC 2005 and EC 2006 nothing was provided to guide competitors set up the correct scramble. When one is under pressure it is increasingly difficult to set up a scramble correctly. My free thoughts - Per

I completely agree with this point of view. Solving the cube in 1'30 is better than stopping the timer and have done 8 secondes but with the wrong PLL. One person succeeded, the other missed.