As Ton suggested [url=http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=62471&postcount=286:1s3b3n77]here[/url:1s3b3n77], I would like to open up a suggestion for making 6x6 and 7x7 Official WCA recognized events. [quote:1s3b3n77] 9e1) The decision to add or remove an event is made by the WCA Board. 9e2) The proposal to add an event is based on a poll about the popularity of new events. The poll is held each calendar year in January and February, on the forum of the WCA website. 9e3) The proposal to remove an event is done by selecting the event with a low number of competitors in the previous calendar year. The proposal is made each calendar year in February, on the forum of the WCA website. [/quote:1s3b3n77]

I would like to say both. I believe both will have adequate popularity to merit being official events. It will, of course, be up to organizers of competitions to determine whether or not to hold these events... if demand seems insufficient for a competition, simply don't offer the event at that particular competition. Edit: Why is it saying I voted for 6x6 only? I can't change this, but meant to vote for both.

I voted for both. I can imagine that the 6x6x6 would be introduced first offcourse.

I voted both 2 but I'd like to put a side note to that: I think the 6/7 should be side events like pyraminx etc. I don't see much importance for them. Also I think that at the 7x7 we should stop, the 8x8 wouldn't really add anything to the cubes we have so far plus the number of events would get out of hand then...

I agree with adding the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 as official events, however, I think that we should wait for around a year or so before adding them, because they are more widely available, but you can pretty much only get them online for high prices. Some people might not want to invest in a large cube, and people who use online tutorials will have a hard time learning. - edwardb

[quote="edwardb":1qga08pg]they are more widely available, but you can pretty much only get them online for high prices. Some people might not want to invest in a large cube, and people who use online tutorials will have a hard time learning.[/quote:1qga08pg] I can't find most puzzles in stores, just online. And for the price, people aren't required to compete in the event. Some people complain about not being able to afford a 5x5x5, but that doesn't mean we should not have that event.

As a spectator I would love to see these puzzles introduced. I am certainly no expert but perhaps for the 7x7x7 a single solve in each round would be all that is needed to get a fair winner. Since it has so many parts, In a way solving a 7x7x7 is the equivalent of taking the average of a smaller puzzle's multiple solves.

I definitely support these as events. They're wonderful puzzles, there are even speedsolve videos on the V-cubes website!

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum so I thought I'd just put my opinion in on this situation. I think it would be a good idea to put more events in a competition. I've seen the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 become very popular since their release (Youtube being my evidence) I personally would compete in these events but again, like someone said previously, the range for these cubes are very limited so not many people can afford/get these cubes, but at the same time would this not show pure skill as the cubes will be the same between all competitors, this is just my opinion . Thanks. Tom D.

I think we should have these as events. I think when the 11x11x11 gets released we should also have that. BUT i agree with tony fisher and saying that we only need 1 or 2 solves to determine the winner.

[quote="cubetalk":6v0tbq0q]I think we should have these as events. I think when the 11x11x11 gets released we should also have that.[/quote:6v0tbq0q] Ooh, you think. Excellent reason.

At least *I* am saying something constructive. If you understand my comment as the intended advice to either provide a reason *why* you want these events or express *that* you want them through the *poll*. Because when you write that in a message without reason, guess what, nobody cares and you'll only get people dislike you. Just trying to help.

"tony fisher" is dumb.. or maybe hes smart and trying to act dumb.. watever it is, one solve is NOT a good idea. he sed that a 7x7x7 has many parts so it is the equivalent of several small cubes. obviously he has never solved or has never seen someone solve a big cube. for the sake of him and others like him, i will shortly describe the most popular method: create the centers (e.g. 6x6 centers on each face for a 7x7x7 cube), make the edges (now it becomes like a 3x3x3), then solve as a 3x3x3. so essentially, it is NOT like solving several 3x3x3 cubes, but rather the creation of a 3x3x3 cube, and then solving the big cube AS a 3x3x3. but i do have to say that people will take a long time finishing them (3-10 minutes probably). so i propose a 3-solve system, where the top 2 are used for the average.

Tony Has the right idea, really. The idea of an average is to test how a competitor solves on an "average" solve. It minimize the effects of lucky and unlucky solves. A 7x7 has so many more pieces, along with more steps, that any lucky steps (say you get a very easy last 2 centers) is as likely to get cancelled out by an unlucky step (say you get 2 parities) as a 3x3 PLL skip is to get cancelled by a pop the next solve.

I agree. We should make them Best of 1 or 2. With only one WR single. As organiser, I don't want these events to take the most competition time because they are not main events.

If acknowledged as official events, the only possible format of 6x and 7x must be "Best of x" in my opinion. Mean of three is a stupid format and average of five would take too long time. /Anders

[quote="anders":2fak6xgg]If acknowledged as official events, the only possible format of 6x and 7x must be "Best of x" in my opinion. Mean of three is a stupid format and average of five would take too long time. /Anders[/quote:2fak6xgg] With x < 2.

Best of 12

I had the current regulation in mind regading the value of x: 9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. /Anders

If we'll have them offically as best of three, I prefer mean of three, because we'll do the same solves. P.D.: I want both to became official event.

[quote="anders":t95twhy4]I had the current regulation in mind regading the value of x: 9f6) In 'Best of x' rounds competitors get x (<= 3) attempts, with the best attempt counting. /Anders[/quote:t95twhy4] What's the point of having that restriction? I wouldn't have any problem with someone doing a 'best of 4' or 'best of 5' round. For example, suppose an organizer really loves BLD, and wants to do a 3x3 BLD round with 5 solves. I don't see any reason to stop them... It's not like you could do an average of 5, anyway.