Ever since Tyson told me he was allergic to multiple BLD ( don't take that so seriously, Tyson The Europeans are taking over BLD soon, and you probably owe me a multi BLD attempt for a sub-2 in competition), I've liked speed BLD more. Then came the regulations and the new database, and it was not transferred as an official event like multi BLD was. I want it back (not in every competition, but as an official event. And to make Tyson happy about rules, I'll specify exactly what would need to be changed. Note that I myself would take about 15-20 minutes per attempt if I could memo on a side table and time is not an issue. Others can do the same: http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs ... solve.html http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs ... ormal.html The latter list is newer and more incomplete. It's missing my 11.88 (which was a bit easy), and both are missing Mátyás' records, which I'm not sure he wants me to divulge. So, no Ugelin' 3-hour DNF's anymore... So, I suggest that we give an entire hour to give 2 attempts. 3 seems to much, but 1 doesn't seem nice for fast people. (Memo time should get recorded for the WCA database, but execution alone should count.) Rules get amended as follows: [quote:g1o8tiw2] [u:g1o8tiw2]9d)[/u:g1o8tiw2] Add bullet: [list:g1o8tiw2][*:g1o8tiw2]3x3x3 Cube: Speed Blindfolded format 'Best of x' (preferred format for final) [/*:m:g1o8tiw2][/list:u:g1o8tiw2] Add [u:g1o8tiw2]Article I: Speed Blindfolded Solving[/u:g1o8tiw2] I1) Standard procedure is followed as described in Article A (Speed Solving). Additional/special regulations for Blindfolded Solving are described below. [list:g1o8tiw2][*:g1o8tiw2]I1a) The inspection phase is replaced by a memorization phase. There is no additional inspection phase before solving.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2][/list:u:g1o8tiw2] I2) [b:g1o8tiw2]Memorization[/b:g1o8tiw2] [list:g1o8tiw2][*:g1o8tiw2]I2a) Standard procedure is followed as described in Article A (Speed Solving). Additional/special regulations for Blindfolded Solving are described below.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2] [*:g1o8tiw2]I2a) The competitor must memorize a solution to the scramble. No proof of progress or success is needed.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2] [*:g1o8tiw2]The competitor may be asked to sit in a side event area for memorization and brought to a stage for execution.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2][/list:u:g1o8tiw2] I3) [b:g1o8tiw2]Execution[/b:g1o8tiw2] I3) Upon finishing memorization, the competitor signals completion to the judge. The judge will cover the cube and begin the execution phase: Standard procedure is followed as described in Articles A4, A5, B5, and A7. Additional/special regulations for Blindfolded Solving are described below. [list:g1o8tiw2][*:g1o8tiw2]I3a)The judge must place the cube in front of the competitor in the same orientation as he took it. In case of uncertainty, the judge may verify the top and front center colors.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2] [*:g1o8tiw2]I2a) The competitor may not review the cube before beginning execution. He must be blindfolded before the judge uncovers the cube.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2] [*:g1o8tiw2]I3a) When the competitor is blindfolded and ready, the judge will remove the cover and say "Begin."[/*:m:g1o8tiw2] [*:g1o8tiw2]I3a) If the cube is misaligned as in 10e2), a 5 second penalty will be added to the result.[/*:m:g1o8tiw2][/list:u:g1o8tiw2] [/quote:g1o8tiw2] [list][*]Is +5 good for misalignment? Coming close is a great accomplishment, but we should really discourage sloppiness. People might even misuse +2 to avoid calculating AUF after PLL, but +5 is considerable... [*]Notice that adding it to the regulations only makes it official, nothing else. Doesn't mean it would have to be held soon (bbut I would like it to be). [*]Someone would have to add speed BLD to the WCA database [*]Should we be concerned about a low number of competitors, lucky solves, or Mátyás? Lucky solves make WR's less meaningful, and and few competitors at a competition reduces fair "head-to-head" comparison. And Mátyás will be 25% ahead of everyone else, anyhow...[list]

A few ideas to make this easier to implement in competition: 1) The judge should verify the cube matches the given scramble (For the regular 3x3x3, I'm guessing if someone does a B instead of B', it's not something people really worry about). 2) When the competitor has finished, they should signal to the judge that they are ready to compete (there's no guarantee a station will be open immediately). The judge will bring them to the next available station. 3) The judge should verify the cube matches the original scramble given. I know some people will argue that this wouldn't be good either, because the competitor cannot immediately compete, but you'd have the same problem unless you held a station for each competitor.

I would like to bring this topic back for 2009, since I'd like speed BLD to become an official event. I've only thought of one more concern: preventing a competitor from performing moves. The judge should b watching, but in practice, organization issues might rely on trusting the competitor for a while. How about allowing the organizer to place the scrambled cube in a clear, closely-fitting container for memorization. (That way, we can try to implement cheating-deterrent if it becomes necessary.)

I've got a better idea for that, Lucas: after the competitor is done memorizing, they will give their cube to the judge so the judge can make sure that it still resembles the starting position. So that way the competitor cannot change the position of the cube. Or, even better and to prevent the competitor from turning the cube at all during memorization, you could actually print out the scramble and somehow affix it to a non-functional cube. There's no real need for the competitor to memorize on the same cube that he/she will solve on, since memorization time doesn't matter (so they don't have to start execution immediately).

Lucas, don't talk bad about Geirs memo times. He used that much, not to find one solution but the shortest solution, at least for F2L that he wanted to be four short operations. It was a little like speed BLD FMC that he did. In his wery last attempt he did so far he used only 30 minutes memo (it was wery llittle time left for the comp so he decided only 30 for that try) and made it a successful 27 second solve. [quote="Lucas":2wlbof6p]Is +5 good for misalignment? Coming close is a great accomplishment, but we should really discourage sloppiness. People might even misuse +2 to avoid calculating AUF after PLL, but +5 is considerable...[/quote:2wlbof6p] Why would some purposly add 2 seconds to the solving time just to avoid to do some tracing that may take 1 minute?, 2 minutes? 3 minutes?... it does not matter... but the solving time does.

[quote="qqwref":2ync62v0]I've got a better idea for that, Lucas: after the competitor is done memorizing, they will give their cube to the judge so the judge can make sure that it still resembles the starting position. So that way the competitor cannot change the position of the cube. Or, even better and to prevent the competitor from turning the cube at all during memorization, you could actually print out the scramble and somehow affix it to a non-functional cube. There's no real need for the competitor to memorize on the same cube that he/she will solve on, since memorization time doesn't matter (so they don't have to start execution immediately).[/quote:2ync62v0] The problem with both of these is non-standard color schemes. Yes, if I switch around blue and yellow, it's still possible to compare it to a scramble, but I have to realize the scheme is different. Not impossible, but does make it more complext.

I really don't think this should be an official event. According to speedsolving records, there's only 7 people who have done this in under an hour. Why add an event that not many people do, and takes a long time, when there's other events more widely participated in. There's also a need for a judge to be with the competitor for the entire time. If you are memorizing moves, then you can just easily undo those. If I were to go through and memorize F R U R' U' F', I'm sure that without much trouble I can completely reverse what I have memorized to get it in the original scramble.

I really think there's too much variation, and I don't think you're really testing a consistent skill. If someone memorizes the cube in 1 hour and solves it in 17.8 seconds, is he better than someone who takes 3 minutes to memorize and solves it in 18.1 seconds? Furthermore, what prevents someone from sitting there for 3 hours? There have been cases in normal blindfold solving where inept assholes take up a timer, pretending to memorize for 9 minutes and 50 seconds, only to DNF. What if the person taking 3 hours genuinely wants to try? And what's the real point of this? Normal blindfold solving is already kind of like speed solving. You could do a normal blindfold solve and attempt to use the Fridrich method if you really wanted. I don't see why this is necessary. I am probably more allergic to this than I am of multi-BLD. The difference in skill set that you are testing is so subtle, that only cubers would understand the difference. And as BLD methods develop, it might not really be much faster.

Tyson: The way I envision it would have a fixed time limit for inspection, let's say 15 minutes. That would prevent someone from sitting there for three hours, and it would make it comparable, as the guy solving in 17.8 after 15 minutes inspection clearly beats the guy solving in 18.1 after three minutes inspection. The goal of this event and what counts is "fastest blindfolded execution", nothing more and nothing less. The 18.1 seconds guy might be more "impressive" due to his way shorter inspection, but that aspect doesn't matter here! I do acknowledge my suggested 15 minutes limit is somewhat arbitrary, although it is based on the unofficial record list and reflects what I believe is fully sufficient to plan a solve with a regular speedsolving method. And I don't see any other way and I think we'd find a time limit that'd make all serious possible competitors in this event happy (if you take three hours if others can do it in 10 minutes, then sorry, you just don't count). I think this is very different from "normal" blindsolving, and I could imagine it possible to regularly inspect in 10-15 minutes and solve in less than 20 seconds. I very much doubt this time is possible with a "normal" blindsolving method. And yes, you could already do it in the "normal" blindsolving event, but then your achievement won't be properly recognized. What if the person taking 3 hours genuinely wants to try? Well, he should just get better first. This scenario is not new, it already applies to the other events as well, where we already use time limits. Only cubers would understand the difference? Well, maybe. So what? Then again, I haven't done this myself yet and wouldn't be ready to do it in competition. So this is really not my fight. But I'm interested to see how far we can go with this and maybe to develop specialized methods. [b:2vmq5vlo]I would like to suggest this as the first step towards making it an official event:[/b:2vmq5vlo] Let's do it unofficially in a way suited for competitions. Currently [url=http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_bf_333normal.html:2vmq5vlo]the way it's done at speedcubing.com[/url:2vmq5vlo], the solving time doesn't matter much, the records are sorted by total time including inspection. In my opinion, that's completely wrong, missing the whole point of the event as I see it (and as it has been unofficially done at some competitions), namely that the execution time should be the only thing that matters. I propose a 15 minutes inspection limit, though of course that can change to something suited better. The point is just to agree on competition-ready rules so that we have something solid to work with. That'd also be an incentive for new people to try this, at least me. And once we establish this as a reasonable event unofficially, I can imagine it becoming it official, too. I do like the event, but I fear right now it's still too immature to be official. The guys good at this: How consistently can you do it? What's your success rate and time range? How often do you get under 15 minutes? Under 10? Edit: Just read Lucas' initial post again and noticed I'm repeating some of his points and he had somewhat answered my question about possible results already.

[quote="StefanPochmann":3mtoymgu]... and solve in less than 20 seconds. I very much doubt this time is possible with a "normal" blindsolving method.[/quote:3mtoymgu] Ehum, look at [url=http://speedcubing.com/records/recs_bf_333.html:3mtoymgu]the UWR's[/url:3mtoymgu] - subtract the memo of 10 and you got 17!

Ehum, my keyword was "regularly", though I admit I could've made that more clear. On the other hand... while I think Ville regularly executes in about 35-40 seconds, I wonder what he'd be able to do with the same method, but inspecting longer (minutes). So that he can optimize the solve and mentally practice it a few times so he has no execution delays at all.

[quote="StefanPochmann":1r6dejy0]I propose a 15 minutes inspection limit, though of course that can change to something suited better.[/quote:1r6dejy0] 15 minutes is pretty fast for memo(considering that only 3 people have achieved this unofficially). I'm sure that if I practice this more I may be able to achieve this as well but it is fast. [quote="StefanPochmann":1r6dejy0] The guys good at this: How consistently can you do it? What's your success rate and time range? How often do you get under 15 minutes? Under 10?[/quote:1r6dejy0] I'm not [i:1r6dejy0]that[/i:1r6dejy0] good at this but I'll comment anyway. I've only attempted this 5 times. 2 of which were a success. 2 were memo mistakes and the last was an execution mistake. The first success(which was also my first attempt) was 45 minutes for memo. The second success(which was my 4th attempt) was 28 minutes. I might start practicing and try to get under 15 minutes. Not sure what my limit is.

Why are we suggesting that this be an event when so few people have even attempted this? Aren't there some events which are eccentric enough that they don't need to be regulated by the governing body? The IAAF doesn't recognize the 350 meter dash, and it doesn't recognize the blindfold steeple chase or the "run a mile while juggling," even though I feel the former would be HILARIOUS. I really feel there simply isn't enough interest to consider this as an official event. Just because you do something, it doesn't mean it should be official, especially if you're one of the only people that does it. Do we really need a 7x7x7 OH-BLD competition? Or a OH Square-1?

[quote="Tyson":ipqukil0]Why are we suggesting that this be an event when so few people have even attempted this?[/quote:ipqukil0] Why did we make multi BLD an official event? When the regulations officially incorporated multi BLD, multi BLD and speed BLD had been held exactly equally often at competitions. Not many people had seriously practiced speed BLD, but not many people had done multi either (most of them did 2 or 3 because it doesn't involve learning anything more to try a few times, while speed BLD takes a bit more initiative). The reason "so few people have even attempted this" is because it's not an official event. The reason "so many people have even attempted multi" is because it's an official event. (Not entirely, but it's a big factor.) Anyhow, speed BLD is the "other" intuitive way to measure blindfolded solving times. Non-cubers often expect this to be an official category; why shouldn't it be? Multi BLD encouraged a lot of work on memo methods (which, for example, helped Mike Hughey approach bigbigcube BLD) because practicing it allowed using the skill in competition. Speed BLD trains a certain mental, spatial dexterity and analysis, which we don't even know what else in cubing it can be good for (at least speed BLD as I know it; the development of specific speed BLD solving methods would be really cool); I think it would be beneficial to make it an official event.

I think a lot of people get scraed away when they think of figuring out the whole soution in their head.

[quote="Lucas":17d89h1e]The reason "so few people have even attempted this" is because it's not an official event.[/quote:17d89h1e] I don't think so. At least for me, that statement is missing the real problem. Yes, if it were official, I'd probably do it. But it being official would *not* be my reason to do it. My real reason would be solid rules and a record list, so that really meaningful comparisons are possible. We'd surely need and thus have that if speedblind were official, but we could have that unofficially as well, as UWRs on speedcubing.com! However, the way it's currently done there is completely flawed and will never become official. Right now the speedblind UWR list "requires" us to use our normal speedsolving methods, but nobody could ever check that, and that would not work for official competitions. With the flawed UWR version, I'm not motivated to do it. If we replaced it by or added a new version suitable for competition (e.g., 15 minutes inspection, only execution time counts), I could very well see myself getting into it. After all, I already attempted speedblind once at Euro2006, even though I didn't use my speedsolving method but a mix of M2 and freestyle (I DNFed but it could've been 31 seconds I think). Bottom line: I believe the main obstacle is uncertainty about rules and comparison with others. We'd need to fix that to make it official, but we don't need to make it official to fix that.