New Multiple Blindfold Regulations 2008

blade740 (2008-03-19 05:50:01 +0000)
I believe that the new regulations for the multiple blindfold event are illogical. There are 2 new major changes to this event. [quote:2b43wuu5]9f16) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is 0 or lower, the solve is disqualified. If competitors have the same result, then the order is based on total time (lower is better). ... H1b) Total time allowed for memorising and solving is 8 minutes per cube, measured with a stopwatch.[/quote:2b43wuu5] This combination of rule changes completely reorders the rankings for multiblind. Dennis' and István's records are both invalid under H1b, as are Olivér's, Clément's, Constantin's, and Stefan's. Unfortunately, Rafal doesn't even take the record. 9f16 means that the record belongs to Ryosuke Mondo, with a 17/18. Some (myself included) would consider this to be equivalent to a DNF, since at the end of the day, he did not complete his intended feat of 18 cubes blindfolded. He takes the world record, second is Tim with 12/16, then Rafal and then Rowe. I don't think this is fair to any competitors. Invalidating past records in such an extreme fashion should not occur.
Pitzu (2008-03-19 09:52:09 +0000)
I totally agree with blade740. According to the new planned rules our results wouldn't be valid any more. Deleting our results would be unfair with us. It was hard to reach them. Keeping our results without giving the same chance for others to brake them would be unfair with others. So I think we should keep the time limits. To make a competition continuous, I can imagine to setup a total time limit of 2 hours (either for 1 attempt or for the whole event) as this is the time limit in most competitions. This would be "only a bit unfair" :wink: with Ryosuke as he had a few attempts longer than 2 hours. This is about time limits. About result counting: I think we should motivate the competitors to try only that amount of cubes that he can deal with. It was a fair system that 100% results are better than anything else. (However Ryosuke's 17/18 is a wonderful production but as we are a sport we should have rules.) Just a thought: If 14/15 would have been better than 6/6 or 3/3 the competitor (who's name we don't say :wink: ) wouldn't have cheated at World Championship.
Henrik (2008-03-19 10:13:48 +0000)
I see the idea of this new rule but i don't like it. I think the idea of Multiple Blindfolded is that you set yourself a goal of x amount of cubes, if you don't reach that goal, then thats a DNF. I think that is one of the beauties of this event, noting else but perfection is good. I know that you can get +2 sec in this even but how many? One for each cube or just one for the whole solve (one for all cubes)?
timhabermaas (2008-03-19 13:51:32 +0000)
I really like the new rules, because they let the competitor show their real skills. No one needs to do 5 cubes less than he actually can, just to get 100% success. Another reason why i like the new rule: It eliminates bad luck. If i drop one cube during execution and don't know the orientaion anymore, i don't see why all other solved cubes shouldn't count. About the time limit: I think 8 minutes are a bit too little. In my opinion 10 minutes should be a good value. And for the old records: We shouldn't delete the old records which don't pass the H1b) rule, because these guys didn't know about a time limit and went for 100% success. So the new rankings would look like: Ryosuke(16), Dennis(10), ... Another thing: Why is the order based on total time and not on unsolved cubes (lower is better)? If i solved 13 instead of 12, Dennis and me would've had 10 as a result and i would be placed in front of him. I don't think that's fair. P.S.: I don't think Multiple Blindfolded implies perfection at all. It just means solving multiple cubes blindfolded.
Schwarz (2008-03-19 14:53:43 +0000)
Maybe two rankings are required for Multiple Blindfold solvings? Why not?: 1st ranking: x cubes from x. (xmax is the best) 2nd ranking: y=solved minus unsolved. (ymax is the best). In this way the old rankings and the perfections (x/x) are also honored! Just the new first places in the future competitions are determined with the new criteria which is also good thing: Of course, 15/16 is much better than 2/2 or even 6/6, in my opinion.
Pitzu (2008-03-19 14:58:40 +0000)
Just an example from athletics, high jump. If you put the stick to 210 cm and you jump 205 cm, is it better than if the other competitor puts the stick to 195 cm and jumps 196 cm?! I think not. And if we don't "motivate" competitors for 100% success, they will try a lot of cubes. As I heard, the original idea to expect 100% success was that otherwise the competitors would try a lot of cubes and pick the best scramblings.
timhabermaas (2008-03-19 15:21:42 +0000)
[quote="Pitzu":1egt5rdz]Just an example from athletics, high jump. If you put the stick to 210 cm and you jump 205 cm, is it better than if the other competitor puts the stick to 195 cm and jumps 196 cm?! I think not. And if we don't "motivate" competitors for 100% success, they will try a lot of cubes. As I heard, the original idea to expect 100% success was that otherwise the competitors would try a lot of cubes and pick the best scramblings.[/quote:1egt5rdz] Your high jump analogy doesn't make sense. The person who gets the heighest height wins, not the person who jumps 15 out of 15 times over 195 cm. Competitors don't have a chance to pick the best scramblings if they want to have a good result. I can't ask for 10 cubes and pick the best 5 scrambles. My best result will be 0 points. Even if i pick the best 8 scrambles (and it's very unlikely, that the 8 scrambles are much easier than the other 2), my best result can be 6. So it's not worth looking for the best scrambles.
timhabermaas (2008-03-19 18:39:19 +0000)
Oh, btw. all non-cubers i talked to didn't understand why 17/18 isn't better than 10/10.
blade740 (2008-03-19 22:44:20 +0000)
[quote="timhabermaas":d9dqllx6][quote="Pitzu":d9dqllx6]Just an example from athletics, high jump. If you put the stick to 210 cm and you jump 205 cm, is it better than if the other competitor puts the stick to 195 cm and jumps 196 cm?! I think not. And if we don't "motivate" competitors for 100% success, they will try a lot of cubes. As I heard, the original idea to expect 100% success was that otherwise the competitors would try a lot of cubes and pick the best scramblings.[/quote:d9dqllx6] Your high jump analogy doesn't make sense. The person who gets the heighest height wins, not the person who jumps 15 out of 15 times over 195 cm. [/quote:d9dqllx6] But multiple blindfold isn't 15 separate attempts. Multiple blindfold would be a single attempt of 15 cubes. If someone puts the hig jump bar at 210cm and jumps 205, he still doesn't beat the competitor who jumped 196 over a 195cm bar. He jumped 9cm higher, but he overestimated his ability and did not clear the bar.
timhabermaas (2008-03-20 00:25:56 +0000)
[quote="blade740":13etso4c][quote="timhabermaas":13etso4c][quote="Pitzu":13etso4c]Just an example from athletics, high jump. If you put the stick to 210 cm and you jump 205 cm, is it better than if the other competitor puts the stick to 195 cm and jumps 196 cm?! I think not. And if we don't "motivate" competitors for 100% success, they will try a lot of cubes. As I heard, the original idea to expect 100% success was that otherwise the competitors would try a lot of cubes and pick the best scramblings.[/quote:13etso4c] Your high jump analogy doesn't make sense. The person who gets the heighest height wins, not the person who jumps 15 out of 15 times over 195 cm. [/quote:13etso4c] But multiple blindfold isn't 15 separate attempts. Multiple blindfold would be a single attempt of 15 cubes. If someone puts the hig jump bar at 210cm and jumps 205, he still doesn't beat the competitor who jumped 196 over a 195cm bar. He jumped 9cm higher, but he overestimated his ability and did not clear the bar.[/quote:13etso4c] Actually i'm sick of all those wrong analogies. But, one more time: A person who tries 5 cubes doesn't overestimate his abilities if he can solve 30 cubes blindfolded at home and gets 5 cubes right every time. But in competition he screws up one algorithm and can't correct the mistake. That's not overestimation at all. Multiple Blindfold is 15 seperate attempts. You have to get all of them right to succeed. (It's like jumping 15 times over a 195cm bar without a mistake) Another reason for the new rule: People will try more cubes than they would try with the old rule, so we can expect some crazy world records. And the new rule is more beginner friendly and doesn't make it easier for experts.
Lucas (2008-03-20 07:04:31 +0000)
I think the analogy only fails in that a single jump is a single short attempt, and you are given these in increasing difficulty (height). Also, ask your non-cubers to choose between 30 and 32/33. Lemme try this: [quote:1mgy23mc]A person who tries 5 meters doesn't overestimate his abilities if he can jump 10 meters at home and gets 5 meters every time. But in competition he screws up one foot placement and can't correct the mistake. That's not overestimation at all.[/quote:1mgy23mc] And yes, a high jump is three attempts at a height. Multi is two. Nevertheless, I consider you a very knowledgable mulit cuber, so if enough of you agree on something, Ill be fine with it. I just think that lowering BLD standards at all is bound to be troublesome. I wouldn't mind recognizing close attempts, but they "did not finish" all the cubes (don't complain that they "finished," albeit incompletely, or else I'll petition my 4x4x4 BLD DNFs) Also, a precedent of modifying the structure of rankings makes everything a bit unstable. If I compete in an event, but can't be sure that my result and ranking will be interpreted the same way in the future, it becomes a gamble in trying to do well under what will eventually be construed as "well."
Schwarz (2008-03-20 09:10:15 +0000)
[quote="Lucas":lu2xyo3h] Also, a precedent of modifying the structure of rankings makes everything a bit unstable. If I compete in an event, but can't be sure that my result and ranking will be interpreted the same way in the future, it becomes a gamble in trying to do well under what will eventually be construed as "well."[/quote:lu2xyo3h] What's wrong with my idea to have two paralell rankings for Multiple Blindfold? For almost every puzzle we have two rankings: single and average. We can also have here.
timhabermaas (2008-03-20 13:46:22 +0000)
[quote="Lucas":gw6go4lz]Also, ask your non-cubers to choose between 30 and 32/33.[/quote:gw6go4lz] You're right, in this case the non-cubers probably wouldn't know what's better (but i think they'll choose the 32/33 result). And that's where the new rule comes into play.
anders (2008-03-20 13:59:05 +0000)
This event is a bit of an ”odd bird” since all other events are measured in time (or moves) where less is better. Why not change it to, for instance, solve five cubes blindfolded as fast at possible? Together with a maximum time limit, the event will be easy to schedule.
Bastien B. (2008-03-20 15:25:56 +0000)
[quote="anders":3m1ueor5]This event is a bit of an ”odd bird” since all other events are measured in time (or moves) where less is better. Why not change it to, for instance, solve five cubes blindfolded as fast at possible? Together with a maximum time limit, the event will be easy to schedule.[/quote:3m1ueor5] Hi Anders, The trouble with your idea, is that the goal of this event would change : at the moment, this event is made (to my mind) to evaluate the amount of "data" your brain can memorize, not how fast you are in memorisation. That's only my opinion :) Oh, and I think too that 8 mn per cube is not enough, since the time of memorisation is exponential regarding the number of cubes. The old way was good (15mn for the first 6 cubes, then 10mn per cube). Or if something linear is needed, 12mn per cube seems good.
anders (2008-03-20 15:44:34 +0000)
[quote="Bastien B.":kz3ij7pj][quote="anders":kz3ij7pj]This event is a bit of an ”odd bird” since all other events are measured in time (or moves) where less is better. Why not change it to, for instance, solve five cubes blindfolded as fast at possible? Together with a maximum time limit, the event will be easy to schedule.[/quote:kz3ij7pj] Hi Anders, The trouble with your idea, is that the goal of this event would change : at the moment, this event is made (to my mind) to evaluate the amount of "data" your brain can memorize, not how fast you are in memorisation. That's only my opinion :) [/quote:kz3ij7pj] Yes Bastien, I am aware of that my suggestion will slightly alter the character of the event. But, by imposing tough time constraints, the fastness of the memorisation is an issue also in the current event.
Mike Hughey (2008-03-20 17:23:05 +0000)
I realize this is not (yet) a vote, but I would also like to put in that I think 10 minutes per cube would be better than 8. Another good justification for choosing 10 minutes is that it is a common limit in speedcubing (due to the limit of a stackmat), so the number would not seem as arbitrary as 8 minutes does. If we choose 8 minutes now, it is likely the time will drop year after year, making old results seem less valid.
john louis (2008-03-20 17:34:18 +0000)
I prefer the following rules for multiple cubes blindfold. 1.Set a time limit, say an hour or 2 hours. 2.The competitor has to decide how long to memorise and how long to solve in the set time 3.Let the competitor try any number of cubes(minimum 2) 4.Stop the competition at the set time 5.Count the no of cubes solved correctly and discount the incorrectly solved cubes. 6.The no of cubes solved correctly is the result. ex; 4/5 is better than 3/3. 3/3 is better than 3/4. John Louis
john louis (2008-03-20 17:39:03 +0000)
In the current format, when maximum time, say 2 hours, is set for multiple cubes blindfold, then why there is restiction of time limit for every cube say, 8 min per cube ? John Louis
Ron (2008-03-21 07:41:03 +0000)
I clarified how we will deal with all old records here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=423#p1916 I changed 8 minutes to 10 minutes. I do not agree, but it looks like the majority prefers 10 minutes. The reason we wanted to have 8 minutes is that it may become a problem that many competitors are trying multiple blindfolded. I like the event a lot, but this way it may become too much of a burden for competition organisers. Updated in draft 4, March 21, 2008 Thanks, Ron
MatsLuthman (2008-03-22 15:25:06 +0000)
I, like many others it seems, think the new time limits in Multi BLD are very tight (even 10 minutes per cube as it was changed to in the draft). I understand the resource problem as you occupy one person per competitor for quite a long time. But the rules as they are now allow for more people than the few very best (like myself who can manage three cubes with the current time limit but can completely forget about it with 8 or even with 10 minutes per cube) to compete. Multi BLD cubing is something that quite a few can do these days but that requires a bit of time for all but very few of them. Shorter time limits would mean that most people that can actually do it will not be able to compete. It seems that, if you look at the really talented multi cubers the time limit is not the problem, some people seem to be able to memorize over ten cubes in a lot less than 15 or 8 or whatever minutes per cube. What is difficult for them is getting all of the cubes right. My suggestion would be to let the old time limits for up to three cubes (which I think is the lowest amount that feels like really 'multiple' and that more than the very best have a chance to succeed with if given enough time) stand. Then you could add a shorter time per cube for the rest which would not be limiting for the elite anyway as it seems.
Ron (2008-03-22 20:46:43 +0000)
Hi Mats, Thanks for your feedback. My opinion is that you need to train harder if you do not meet the time limit. It is a time limit similar to other events. Some people can do 18 at around 7.5 minutes per cube. So please train to do 2 or 3 at 10 minutes per cube. Make it your challenge for this year! Have fun, Ron
pete (2008-03-23 09:49:55 +0000)
Hi Ron, I was quite happy to just visit these "cube" forums and just read posts made by others. However I've decided to register today so that I can also give you my opinion on the new regulations. I must apologize upfront if my post is too long and boring. Let me just start by the known saying (when we were small kids) : "You are not good enough, you can't come to play with us." I'm afraid I have to agree with Mats (above) and with others who seem to think that imposing new time limits in MultiBLD events is not a good idea. Any change in regulations that may potentially reduce number of competitors, is not "healthy" for any sporting environment (and I mean any sport as I could draw many analogies from other non-related sporting events/disciplines). There are currently just about enough competitors in multiBLD event who keep this event worthy in regards to some meaningful competitive status/environment. Reducing the number of competitors in this event is not a way forward. I understand you are not directly reducing the number of competitors, however the effect is going to be the same. There are very few talented people who could probably do multiBLD with 2 min limit per cube, there would be somewhat more people capable with limit 5 min, there would be more people capable of multiBLD with limit 8 mins but there would be even more people if the limit was left at 15 mins. Which one is better ? I reckon the one that's aimed at as many competitors as possible, not just the elite group of very few. Lets be honest, we are not all equal, some people are more talented at some things than others. Even with hard training everyone will reach their limit, for some this limit may be 2 mins per cube, for somebody else it may be 15 mins. For someone who's been stuck at 25 minutes per cube and with hard year long training is now at 17 minutes per cube, the 15 minutes is now not so distant reality, however new 8 minute (or 10 minute) limit kills all his hopes. The person is not going to enter the competition knowing the best he can do is automatic DNF. As Pedro pointed out elsewhere, under your new regulations there would be historically only 7 cubers in the World with official result after successfully solving all their cubes, the remaining 75% of competitors who have also successfully solved all of their cubes would've DNF'ed ! There are many national records that would not stand under new regulations, where in fact many national record holders would've DNF'ed under new regs. I think this two statistics alone tells a lot. Arnaud posted in another thread : "The Dutch record has been 2/2 in 27:41, 26:20, 19:47 and 18:08". Under new regulations all of these efforts would be DNF. Similarly there would be no Swedish national record because all (currently successful) attempts would be DNF under new regs. This in itself brings the question of how fair would it be to implement new time limit in such a way that does not give new competitors same/equal chance at breaking the national record ? Lets say there is someone who trained very hard over the last year and "invested" a lot of time in preparation for multiBLD event in order to break lets say Swedish NR and lets say this person after year long training is now capable of averaging 12 min per cube doing 3/3. He/she would DNF under new rules whereas he/she is clearly better than current NR of Sweden. This is the same as imposing new limit on 3x3x3 speed event, if you implemented a time limit of 22 seconds and everything else was DNF. You would have 75% of competitors with DNF. While this seems unthinkable you must realize that you are creating exactly such regulation for multiBLD. I think it's wonderful that we can have people of different background, different age and *different skill* competing against each other regardless of whether they are elite or not. And I think it's fantastic that we have people like Rune Wesstrom at the age of 76 actively competing and it doesn't matter that there are others who can solve the cube twice or three times faster. Rune would probably not enter events if he knew upfront he'll be getting 5x DNF. Luckily you are not imposing strict time limits on 3x3x3 speed event but I don't see any reason why multiBLD should be any different. If this new change is implemented I would think that it would be very unfortunate if the new regulations were implemented "over night". People need to be given proper notice so that their long training and preparation don't go astray. There could people who train to beat their national record, but you would kill their hopes over night without giving them chance to compete at equal levels with those who set national records. I've been involved in other non-related sports, such as motorsport. It is a standard procedure to give at least 1 year notice before applying drastic changes in regulations. This is in order not to affect people who invested in preparation under current regulations. "Invested in" does not need to be related to money. Most people "invest" their time, the kids may neglect school or adults may neglect their business activities in preparation for an event, others make take annual leave and use the time for their training rather than going away for holiday. I also think that not reducing the time limit any further would give better opportunity to younger competitors to take part in this event. I don't know what the reasons are but it appears there aren't enough youngsters taking part in multiBLD as it is. Perhaps their memory skills are not yet developed at young age but keeping generous time limit (i.e. current 15 minutes per cube) is certainly more open challenge than it would be at 8 minutes. I know I would find it fascinating to watch a 12 year old having a go at multiBLD even if it was "just" 2/2 under 30 minutes. 8 minute limit per cube may just demotivate many people if they know it's not within their capability. Back in 1982 it was unthinkable to do even a single 3x3x3 blindfolded, from 2003 to 2004 it was thought to be remarkable when some individuals could solve single cube blindfolded under 10 minutes. Back then you would be top 10 in the World with over 10 minutes effort. Does it mean now when we have some brilliant individuals setting extremely fast times, that suddenly over 10 minutes is not an acceptable effort ? I don't think so, I still think it's remarkable and more so when it involves multiBLD. Just ask folks on the street if they think solving several cubes blindfolded is just an ordinary effort if you can't do it under 8 minutes per cube. Anyone who can solve Rubik cube blindfolded to me is a champion and so it is to ordinary folks on the street. So why reward with DNF someone who can do multiBLD just because he was not fast enough ? Lets not forget that as in any sporting environment that's heavily dependent on volunteers there is always potential for shortage of event officials and those who compete in one event, may volunteer in next event and we don't want to drive these potential competitors away with new regulations. Now just little bit about the new rule on ranking results based on number of cubes solved minus cube unsolved. Clearly there is a demand for type of an event where errors are tolerated, so that someone who can do 17/18 gets some meaningful result. This is all fine but it is a different type of event. This sort of event is geared more towards speed (how many cubes you can solve correctly out of how many as fast as possible). The speed element comes out of the fact that your effort does not need to be perfect, errors are tolerated therefore you can afford to rush your memorization process (and the execution process). On the other hand the current format of multiBLD event is different, it's geared towards perfection, errors are not tolerated and memorization must be no less than 100% perfect and so the execution. You are forced to correct your errors if you realize half way through your next solve that on the previous cube you forgot to correct parity, this is an exciting prospect for some people and successful retracing and correcting errors is more satisfactory to them than setting personal best (again we would lose this exciting part of the this event by imposing strict time limits). Current event format has one more element and that is to correctly assess your skills. You have two groups of people wanting either one of the two version and you are trying to satisfy both camps. It is not possible to satisfy everyone by trying to meet each camp half way and drawing a compromise. If there is a demand for both type of multiBLD events why not have 2 different ones ? One geared towards the speed and quantity with errors being accepted and the other leave as per current regulations geared towards perfection. You don't need to run 2 different multiBLD events, you just give 2 different rankings based on different rules. As someone already suggested earlier, you would still have one multiBLD attempt per competitor but 2 sets of results based on different criteria. You would then have two official results per competitor, two different rankings, 2 different World and national records without the overhead of running an additional event. That way the current World and national records can still be challenged under current rules. Cheers Pete
StefanPochmann (2008-03-23 14:01:06 +0000)
[quote="pete":3epv4lwl]There are very few talented people who could probably do multiBLD with 2 min limit per cube, there would be somewhat more people capable with limit 5 min, there would be more people capable of multiBLD with limit 8 mins but there would be even more people if the limit was left at 15 mins. Which one is better ? [b:3epv4lwl]I reckon the one that's aimed at as many competitors as possible[/b:3epv4lwl], not just the elite group of very few.[/quote:3epv4lwl] Yeah, let's have a one-hour-per-cube limit, right? Is that what you're saying? [quote="pete":3epv4lwl]Arnaud posted in another thread : "The Dutch record has been 2/2 in 27:41, 26:20, 19:47 and 18:08". Under new regulations all of these efforts would be DNF.[/quote:3epv4lwl] No, the latter two wouldn't. Get your facts right. Plus, notice these were in *the past*. Don't argue with old and obsolete states of the art. Don't ignore that cubing, particularly blindcubing, has evolved and improved a lot. (At this point I scrolled down to see how much more you wrote, and stopped reading. You seriously need to learn/try to be concise.)
Ron (2008-03-23 17:18:12 +0000)
[quote:167zke19]in 27:41, 26:20, 19:47 and 18:08". Under new regulations all of these efforts would be DNF[/quote:167zke19] No, they will still stay. There is no reason to invalidate old results. Ron
MatsLuthman (2008-03-24 17:30:44 +0000)
[quote:4frur09u]in 27:41, 26:20, 19:47 and 18:08". Under new regulations all of these efforts would be DNF No, they will still stay. There is no reason to invalidate old results.[/quote:4frur09u] The results in previous competitions as such need of course not be invalidated. But the results that don't meet the new regulations will be invalidated as records (world, national, personal) by definition in the new rankings. The world, national et.c. rankings will be very different from the rankings today. (I guess you don't mean that you should count the old results in under the new rules, it would be bizarre to have a record that you can beat without beating it). I agree with Pete that it is unfortunate to solve the resource problem by restrictions that are more or less directly aimed at reducing the number of contestants even though you of course have to have some kind of time limit to make the event meaningful. I think the idea of having two events in one is quite interesting. I can't think of any other sport where you have something like this, but why not? You could even have different time limits and still have both events in one go. One ranking for speed and one for precision...
blade740 (2008-03-24 23:20:50 +0000)
Old records which do not fall under the new regulations SHOULD be invalidated. What if a competitor beats an old regional record, but is not within the new time limit, so his result is invalid. He is obviously the superior cuber, as he has beaten the record, but he does not receive it because his result came after the limits changed. It is one thing to change regulations to make events easier and allow old records, as they will be beaten eventually. But when you make the event harder, you give a disadvantage to current cubers just for not having competed one year ago instead.
StefanPochmann (2008-03-25 12:26:10 +0000)
[quote="blade740":2ir2l187]What if a competitor beats an old regional record, but is [b:2ir2l187]not within the new time limit[/b:2ir2l187], so his result is invalid.[/quote:2ir2l187] H1b1) [b:2ir2l187]When the total time is reached, the attempt is stopped[/b:2ir2l187] and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.
MatsLuthman (2008-03-25 16:07:26 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":17ym6ylt][quote="blade740":17ym6ylt]What if a competitor beats an old regional record, but is [b:17ym6ylt]not within the new time limit[/b:17ym6ylt], so his result is invalid.[/quote:17ym6ylt] H1b1) [b:17ym6ylt]When the total time is reached, the attempt is stopped[/b:17ym6ylt] and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.[/quote:17ym6ylt] This confuses me a bit. Does this really mean that you advocate that old results that don't meet the new regulations may still stand as records even though they then, by definition, don't qualify as such? What is the WCA official view on this?
Ron (2008-03-25 17:04:26 +0000)
Hi Mats, [quote:2zwyuaep]Does this really mean that you advocate that old results that don't meet the new regulations may still stand as records even though they then, by definition, don't qualify as such? What is the WCA official view on this?[/quote:2zwyuaep] The current WCA regulations have the answer to your question: 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations. Thanks, Ron
pete (2008-03-25 17:32:53 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":2z4sfgau] Yeah, let's have a one-hour-per-cube limit, right? Is that what you're saying?[/quote:2z4sfgau] no [quote="StefanPochmann":2z4sfgau] No, the latter two wouldn't. Get your facts right. Plus, notice these were in *the past*[/quote:2z4sfgau] the Draft has been updated only recently from 8 to 10 minutes, but it's still only a draft and Ron mentioned he doesn't agree with 10 mins. the examle given was based on 8 mins but I could give other examples where recent NRs would've been DNF under proposed regs. I'm aware multiBLD has evolved and the role you played in that, the point I'm trying to make is whether it evolved far enough to justify time limit of 10 (or 8) minutes. Istvan's result at recent Benelux Open under new regs would've been what ? 3/7 (5-2=3) or 5/7 (6-1=5) ?? instead of 7/7 there are some great efforts in top 10 (incl. yours) that would be of a lower status had those been set under new rules.
pete (2008-03-25 17:47:25 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":34oxxt2e] H1b1) [b:34oxxt2e]When the total time is reached, the attempt is stopped[/b:34oxxt2e] and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted.[/quote:34oxxt2e] example : Person_A knows his average is 12 minutes per cube in multiBLD Person_B knows his average is 15 minutes per cube in multiBLD Person_A enters event and nominates 2 cubes for his attempt Person_B nominates 3 cubes limit for Person_A = 20 mins limit for Person_B = 30 mins Person_A solves his 1st cube after 11 minutes, then at 20 mins he runs out of time while solving 2nd cube. Person_B solves his 1st cube after 14 minutes, 2nd cube after 29 minutes, then he runs out of time just as he started his 3rd cube. Results : Person_A : 1-1= 0 = DNF Person_B : 2-1= 1 This would not happen under current regulations.
MatsLuthman (2008-03-25 20:45:44 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2ifdm4t7][quote:2ifdm4t7]Does this really mean that you advocate that old results that don't meet the new regulations may still stand as records even though they then, by definition, don't qualify as such? What is the WCA official view on this?[/quote:2ifdm4t7] The current WCA regulations have the answer to your question: 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.[/quote:2ifdm4t7] A record can not stand when the requirements are changed to be totally different in this way, that is just plain silly. Imagine that you changed the rules of the 10 000 meter event so that you have to run under 27 minutes to get a valid result. If you do it in 27:54 you would beat the current swedish record but having to stop running after 27 minutes no matter how close you are to the finish would somehow not seem right. I guess most people agree that this would not honor the best athlete. What is suggested here is completely analogous. The term "record" means "the best performance" and having an official ranking where you are not plain and simple ranked after performance, but also arbitrarily after when the performance was made you completely lose the meaning of having it as I see it. The only reasonable way to go is to regard the old records that don't make it under the new regulations to be forever standing records in an event that no longer exists (like I believe they did in weightlifting where they changed the weight classes to deliberately start all over under more strict doping control). But I think we are getting away from the point. How much of a burden is the Multi BLD event for competition organizers? Is there a real problem in letting those who can barely manage three cubes in 45 minutes (or two in 30) have a go at it and if, how much better will the situation be if we don't? Could you change the rules in some other way so that you need less than one judge per competitor? My guess is that if you could find some way to manage with one judge per two competitors instead of one you would save more resources than by lowering the time limits.
Ron (2008-03-26 06:04:47 +0000)
[quote:1qqs6zdl]A record can not stand when the requirements are changed to be totally different in this way, that is just plain silly. Imagine that you changed the rules of the 10 000 meter event so that you have to run under 27 minutes to get a valid result.[/quote:1qqs6zdl] It happens in many sports. With table tennis they changed the size of the ball recently. Everyone adapted. With speed skating they allowed the klapschaats (special skate). Everyone adapted. With swimming they allowed the shark suits. Everyone adapted. If you want to go to the Olympics for 10,000 meters, then the time limits for qualification have dropped significantly. For chess they lowered the time to 2 hours for 40 moves. Everyone adapted. That is life! [quote:1qqs6zdl]Is there a real problem in letting those who can barely manage three cubes in 45 minutes (or two in 30) have a go at it and if, how much better will the situation be if we don't? Could you change the rules in some other way so that you need less than one judge per competitor?[/quote:1qqs6zdl] We could have 1 hour per cube and have even more competitors compete! The point is that the world standards are higher now. For normal blindfolded solving we often used to have a 30 minutes time limit. Now the standard time limit is 10 minutes. Similar for 4x4x4 blindfolded and 5x5x5 blindfolded. Also, the event is much more popular now than it used to be. In the beginning we could easily have the event overlap with other events. It was easy to arrange that the few Multiblind competitors could be a separate group for an overlapping event. With the current number of competitors this is much harder. Multiblind is becoming a main event and taking a real share of the available time. That is good, but it needs measurements. Don't give up on Multiblind, practice more and beat the 10 minutes per cube. Have fun, Ron
MatsLuthman (2008-03-26 08:45:39 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2zgar7zk]It happens in many sports. ... Everyone adapted. ... We could have 1 hour per cube and have even more competitors compete![/quote:2zgar7zk]Of course there has to be a time limit and of course you must be able to change regulations. What the first part of my posting was all about is that you can not have an official ranking where the results have been produced with different sets of rules. In none of the sports you mention it has become harder to beat old, official records. Compare to weight lifting instead, where the lower limits for the new weight classes was actually used to let the old records stand for ever and start all over. The reason that I quenstioned lowering the limits was that, at least up to now, very few competitors in the world would have produced results that are valid under the new regulations. This may indeed change but I think we should first look at what other options we have to solve a resource problem before resorting to a solution that will limit the number of possible contestants to just a few in the whole world (how about looking into if it would be possible to have one judge per two or three contestants at the same time?). If the day comes when every little kid can do three cubes in half an hour I will change my mind.
StefanPochmann (2008-03-26 09:33:40 +0000)
[quote="MatsLuthman":3kbb8fg3]If the day comes when every little kid can do three cubes in half an hour I will change my mind.[/quote:3kbb8fg3] That day has already passed. With the knowledge and support available today, that's an easy feat.
Paiev (2008-03-29 23:48:34 +0000)
Ron, [quote="Ron":2v74knp8][quote:2v74knp8]A record can not stand when the requirements are changed to be totally different in this way, that is just plain silly. Imagine that you changed the rules of the 10 000 meter event so that you have to run under 27 minutes to get a valid result.[/quote:2v74knp8] It happens in many sports. With table tennis they changed the size of the ball recently. Everyone adapted. With speed skating they allowed the klapschaats (special skate). Everyone adapted. With swimming they allowed the shark suits. Everyone adapted. If you want to go to the Olympics for 10,000 meters, then the time limits for qualification have dropped significantly. For chess they lowered the time to 2 hours for 40 moves. Everyone adapted. That is life![/quote:2v74knp8] All of those analogies are flawed. In the first case, changing the size of the ball has the same effect on everyone; lowering the multi-BLD time limit doesn't affect the top competitors that much as they would be going as fast as they are regardless; it serves rather as a disadvantage only to less experienced competitors. Also, changing the size of the ball does not prevent less experienced competitors from competing; this also applies to the second and third analogies. Regarding the Olympics, that is an individual event where only the best are expected to compete; this regulation applies to all competitions and I would sure hope that you don't want only the best to compete. Chess comes the closest, I think, but changing the chess time limit (by the way, that only applies to some tournaments, not to the entire sport) does not prevent anyone from playing, it just means that everyone has to analyze a bit less. Also, in chess, there is no advantage to quickly (it's a disadvantage); there is an advantage to going quickly in multi-BLD, though. I realize that the above is perhaps me just being pedantic, and that your point is that sports change regulations and people must adapt to it. None of those regulation changes prevent less experienced people from competing, however. [quote:2v74knp8][quote:2v74knp8]Is there a real problem in letting those who can barely manage three cubes in 45 minutes (or two in 30) have a go at it and if, how much better will the situation be if we don't? Could you change the rules in some other way so that you need less than one judge per competitor?[/quote:2v74knp8] We could have 1 hour per cube and have even more competitors compete! The point is that the world standards are higher now. For normal blindfolded solving we often used to have a 30 minutes time limit. Now the standard time limit is 10 minutes. Similar for 4x4x4 blindfolded and 5x5x5 blindfolded. Also, the event is much more popular now than it used to be. In the beginning we could easily have the event overlap with other events. It was easy to arrange that the few Multiblind competitors could be a separate group for an overlapping event. With the current number of competitors this is much harder. Multiblind is becoming a main event and taking a real share of the available time. That is good, but it needs measurements. Don't give up on Multiblind, practice more and beat the 10 minutes per cube. Have fun, Ron[/quote:2v74knp8] You mentioned that standards are higher now. Is this justification? I don't think so. Standards are higher for all puzzles now, but it doesn't mean that beginners shouldn't be allowed to compete in them. Of the five most recent competitions with a multi-blindfolded event, here are the ratios of multi-BLDers vs 3x3 solvers: 7/84 (It should be noted that five of these seven were only trying two cubes) for Princeton Open, 13/65 for French Open (again, it should be noted that nine of these thirteen were only trying two cubes), 1/17 for Västervik Cube Meeting (the one person tried three cubes), 4/54 for Toronto Open, and 8/54 for EPGY (seven trying two cubes and one trying three cubes). These numbers seem large for a few tournaments (specifically, the French Open), but not enough to warrant calling multi-BLD a main event, in my opinion, especially when you consider that a majority of the competitors in multi-BLD were only trying two cubes. Personally, I think it does not make sense to enforce a lower time limit for multi in all competitions because some competitions have scheduling issues. Perhaps there is some way that competitions can choose the time limit for multi-BLD on a case-by-case basis? I'm just tossing this out because I don't like the idea of punishing all competitors because some competitions have had scheduling issues. On a final note, I'm not sure that this will save all that much time. You seemed to imply that having more multi-BLD competitors takes more time out of the schedule because they have to compete in the events that they are missing while they are doing multi-BLD. However, this is not really the case, because this is balanced out by the time that can be saved by moving to the next event early.