I would like to propose that Multi-BLD Format be changed to something more similar as FMC. Memorize and solve as many cubes as you want in an hour. I know this changes the very nature of the Multi-BLD competition, but the current Multi-BLD event is structured very poorly. And really, I don't feel it measures a consistent skill. Does someone who memorizes and solves 4 cubes in 2 hours and 15 minutes really beat someone who does 3 cubes in 5 minutes? The current format encourages ridiculous attempts, some people suggesting attempts of 100 cubes. Multi-BLD of 100 cubes is not a cubing competition anymore. It is a memory competition. Using a one-hour format would standardize the competition, and keep things reasonable, and it would foremost keep the event more cubing in nature. If you want to attempt 100 cubes blindfolded, you really should go to a memory competition and memorize 10 decks of cards.

I really like this idea... Good for competitors, perfect for organizers (multi BLD is so hard to put in a schedule actually...). I think that you forgot it... But I (and probably you too) would like to keep the rule 10min/cube when the competitor chose less than 6 cubes.

Sounds good, but would 1 hour be the correct time? It seems like 2 hours would give someone a chance to establish a new WR, but I can't see that ever happening with 1. Would a graduated system also work? If you haven't done 3 cubes in 30 minutes, you're not allowed to attempt higher. Yes, handling those "graduates" might get more complex, but I'm willing to bet more organizers would be willing to set aside a large chunk of time for Dennis or Mike to attempt 20/20 that for a complete newcomer.

So, that's one thing. We wouldn't be comparing these records to the old records. Setting the time limit to two hours also kind of defeats the purpose of a 1 hour event... to prevent people from taking multiple hours. The graduated system also doesn't prevent the problem of people taking hours and hours. So we would be establishing new records. And the new system would only really be compatible with current competition times that were set under an hour.

I agree with Tyson. Multi-blind, as it is now, is untenable. Someone will always be out to break a record. What if Rowe had succeeded with 33 cubes? Next 34, then 40, 50. Attempts that take an entire day. When it comes to the point that a record cannot be broken, not because of difficulty, but because of organizational constraints, you have a problem. I think a one hour format is reasonable, consistent with other events, and most importantly, manageable for organizers. Previous results need not be a problem. They are just ignored, as has been done in the past. -Chris Krueger

If there were to be a time limit, it should only be for memo, or if there were a limit for execution, it should be separate. For example, 1 hour to memo as many cubes as possible, then 30 minutes to execute, or something like that. I say this because it would be hard to judge exactly how long memo and execution will take while doing it, and you really can't afford to be working out the maths in your head while trying to memo.

Well, I do happen to believe that multi IS a memory competition, a different cubing event. If we absolutely want a limit, I don't think we should make the competitors guess. How about this? The competitor asks for a maximum number of cubes. He (read that as gender-neutral) can ask for cubes to be handed to him "one-by-one," until time x. Then he has until time y to start solving, and until time z to finish. Of course, he'd be given time warnings and notifications This way, the competitor can't pick out easy cubes, but still have a safe attempt without having to worry about time. And if he can't finish solving all of them, the regs are not too harsh on result counting. I think reasonable choices for one-hour-total are x=30m, y=40m, z=60m. I'm actually in favor of more time, but people who care can argue about that. There are a few details to this, like either having to pre-scramble all the cubes or scrambling them via buffer (and in both cases hiding them), and having to have a judge to pass cubes. "One-by-one" can also mean different things. I think it's reasonable for the competitor to have taken and memorized 10 cubes by 30 minutes and then take 3 more to finish memorizing by 40 (review time is his issue). I think that this system would encourage a good competitor to perform a reasonable attempt. I think there are two main questions in the way of doing something like this: Do we actually want to remove the autonomy of cuber, and the responsibility to judge how long/much he can memo and finish in time? (How much clock-checking would this be?) What are good values for x, y, and z?

[quote="Tyson":abtd7e8k]Does someone who memorizes and solves 4 cubes in 2 hours and 15 minutes really beat someone who does 3 cubes in 5 minutes?[/quote:abtd7e8k] Not according to our existing rules! You do know about the 10 minutes per cube limit, right? [quote="BryanLogan":abtd7e8k]It seems like 2 hours would give someone a chance to establish a new WR, but I can't see that ever happening with 1.[/quote:abtd7e8k] I can (see that happening). Some guys have shown it possible to analyze, "quick-memorize" and solve one cube in less than a minute on average. So for 24 cubes this part of the job can be done in 24 minutes. What about "longtime-memorizing"? Well, Ben Pridmore is the current world record holder for "10 minutes cards" with 364 cards and for "30 minutes cards" with 884 cards. There are 52 different cards and 48 different cubies (factoring orientations in), so cards and cubies hold about the same amount of information. And 24 cubes have only 480 cubies and I estimate Ben could memorize as many cards in 15 minutes. Admittedly I don't know how long recall was for Ben's records, but then again some recall is already part of the 24 minutes cubing part and can be done while twisting, plus we're at a total of only 39 minutes only, plus both fields (cubing and memorizing) can still become stronger. So I'll be impressed but not surprised if someone beats the current multiblind record in well under an hour.

Both Dene and Lucas are expressing concern that while blindfolded, a competitor cannot time 1 hour. I understand this concern, and I thought about it, and in my opinion, it is not a problem. If someone is going to do multi-BLD, they should simply practice. With practice, they would know what's within their reach. If they're not sure that they can do 7 in one hour, maybe they first do 6 cubes and when that's solid, they can push themselves for 7. I don't think it's a problem for someone with practice. If you are familiar with the event, you would be familiar with your abilities and you would know what you can and cannot handle. This would also encourage people to do things that they are familiar with, instead of having a competitor come up and try 30 cubes, even though they've never done it at home before. I feel that separating memorization and solving complicates things, as does Lucas' system, and if you want a memory event, go compete in the memory olympiad. One of the problems with multi-BLD is that people try things they've never done before at home, and they should at least have the respect to have tried it at home before trying it in competition. The one-hour format would help encourage this. With practice and familiarity, you shouldn't need to figure out and calculate if you're going to make the one-hour limit or not. You should be able to feel by natural intuition if you're close, and if you think you might be border-line, you can speed up. We could also standardize when certain times are called out. Perhaps 5 minutes remaining and 60 seconds remaining, but this is to be discussed later, if we can reach an agreement on the one-hour format.

[quote="StefanPochmann":15pwo8kj]Not according to our existing rules! You do know about the 10 minutes per cube limit, right?[/quote:15pwo8kj] [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008PELL02:15pwo8kj]2008PELL02[/url:15pwo8kj] [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2004KRIG02:15pwo8kj]2004KRIG02[/url:15pwo8kj] [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2006BURN01:15pwo8kj]2006BURN01[/url:15pwo8kj] [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008TROM01:15pwo8kj]2008TROM01[/url:15pwo8kj] [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2005SZAB02:15pwo8kj]2005SZAB02[/url:15pwo8kj] We certainly need to work on better enforcement of the rules. Maybe that's another topic, though. And what about someone that does four cubes in 40 minutes compared to three cubes in five? Standardizing times standardizes results. [quote="Lucas":15pwo8kj]The competitor asks for a maximum number of cubes. He (read that as gender-neutral) can ask for cubes to be handed to him "one-by-one," until time x. Then he has until time y to start solving, and until time z to finish. Of course, he'd be given time warnings and notifications.[/quote:15pwo8kj] I don't like it. What if I can memorize each cube in nine minutes and solve each in only one minute? How do arbitrary limitations on solving technique aid anything? Declare your number of cubes. You are given this number of scrambled cubes, covered. The cubes are uncovered and the time starts. You memorize however you like, solve however you like. At the end of sixty minutes, the number of solved cubes is counted. If you've practiced, you should be able to complete your cubes. If you pushed yourself, added an extra cube or two, you might not finish in time. If you've not practiced, what the hell are you doing competing? -Chris

[quote="cada":qqwthh2q][url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008PELL02:qqwthh2q]2008PELL02[/url:qqwthh2q][/quote:qqwthh2q] Two cubes in 49 minutes under the current rules? Now that is obscene. Let's make organizers pay fines for allowing/submitting such results. [quote="cada":qqwthh2q]If you pushed yourself, added an extra cube or two, you might not finish in time.[/quote:qqwthh2q] But you might add extra cubes not because you want to solve more but because you want to pick easy cubes and leave hard ones out. How to prevent this? I think that was Lucas' point there.

First off, Stefan, there should still be a penalty for unsolved cubes. This will prevent you from just picking easy cubes, as the others will give you a penalty. Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Tyson. The current multiBLD regulations are basically an undeveloped version that probably shouldn't have been official. Either way, standardizing attempts can be done in a few ways, and the 1 hour limit is a good way to do that. I wonder if any of the "top" mulit-BLDers will find this thread and try to argue.

[quote="DanCohen":3k5bqg6d]there should still be a penalty for unsolved cubes.[/quote:3k5bqg6d] That's another possibility, yes. Although... [quote="cada":3k5bqg6d]At the end of sixty minutes, the number of solved cubes is counted.[/quote:3k5bqg6d] ... this doesn't sound like that. And Tyson also didn't mention a penalty for unsolved cubes. So, do Tyson and Chris want to count just the solved cubes or also subtract the unsolved ones?

[quote="StefanPochmann":3m6glgtr]So, do Tyson and Chris want to count just the solved cubes or also subtract the unsolved ones?[/quote:3m6glgtr] I am still of the opinion that less than 100% success shouldn't be counted, in the same way that completing F2L doesn't count as a speedsolve, but I doubt many agree with me. Otherwise, yes, complete minus incomplete is good enough. -Chris

I agree with you, Chris.

[quote="cada":2jx3ukq1]I am still of the opinion that less than 100% success shouldn't be counted[/quote:2jx3ukq1] And I am still of the opinion that this is obsolete thinking which was only valid back when three cubes in unlimited time was considered awesome. Now Dennis has already solved 10/10 cubes in 44 minutes and I believe 15 cubes in an hour will be achieved soon and 25 are possible. And then you'd let the 2/2 guy win against the 24/25 guy who only forgot to flip one edge. The higher the number gets, the less reasonable it is to require perfection. And the numbers do get high these days. One hour with solved-minus-unsolved scoring would get my vote. Though I'd keep the 10-minutes-per-cube restriction because two cubes in an hour is ridiculous. So I guess I'd actually like to keep the existing rules as they are, only adding a general time limit of one hour.

My view is that allowing unsolved cubes is inconsistent with other blindsolving events. How can 2 cubes out of 3 be successful, when a 5x5 off by two pieces is failure? Solving 40 pieces out of 60 can win a competition, while solving 90 out of 92 counts as nothing? It's a basic failure to accomplish what you set out to do. "I declare I can solve a 5x5 cube blindfolded." "Sorry, not quite, better luck next time." "I declare I can solve 5 cubes blindfolded." "Well, you tried, good enough." Is there a +2 state for multiBLD? +2 what? What if I solve ten cubes, each off by one turn? Solving two cubes, forgetting two pieces on one cube is success? What about forgetting one piece on each cube? I just feel that this scoring system leaves a lot of awkward situations. Tim, Mike, Eric, Dennis have already shown that perfection is possible with large numbers of cubes. Why shouldn't everyone competing put effort into this? No, I don't think I'm going to convince anyone, just voicing my complaints. [quote="StefanPochmann":22cl1d2e]One hour with solved-minus-unsolved scoring would get my vote.[/quote:22cl1d2e] Mine too.

I actually hadn't thought about people failing a certain number of cubes. I guess I was more focused on the one-hour general time limit first. If we can agree that this is a good way to go, then I'm definitely ready to begin a discussion of scoring. It was simply something that slipped my mind. But I don't think perfection is unreasonable. Perfection is very unlikely when people do 100 cubes, but that ridiculousness would be taken out.

I agree with Tyson - perfection is not an unreasonable ask. (with the 1 hour limit).

[quote="cada":22gapudx]How can 2 cubes out of 3 be successful, when a 5x5 off by two pieces is failure?[/quote:22gapudx] My opinion: A cube is a complete [b:22gapudx]self-contained[/b:22gapudx] reasonable natural unit, parts of a cube are not. [quote="cada":22gapudx]Tim, Mike, Eric, Dennis have already shown that perfection is possible with large numbers of cubes.[/quote:22gapudx] But they're still taking a lot of time to achieve that perfection, and they don't always achieve it. [quote="Tyson":22gapudx]Perfection is very unlikely when people do 100 cubes, but that ridiculousness would be taken out.[/quote:22gapudx] How likely do you think perfection is when people attempt 25 cubes in an hour? The memory guys btw do it like this for their "hour cards": Fully correct deck counts 52, one mistake and you're down to 26, another and you get zero for the deck. But then the scores of the different decks are still accumulated. Making a mistake only takes away points from one deck, doesn't render you whole attempt void.

As a organiser, I would really like the multiBLD to have a time limit. I think one hour is a good one, so I'm with Stefan's proposal

By Stefan's time proposal, you mean an hour-time limit with one cube penalty for every cube that's incorrect? It seems that we have a good agreement here that a one hour time limit is a good proposal. But, I do worry that we haven't heard from many multi-BLDers. Can we get some of them to comment?

(not a top multi blder...I can't even do 6 cubes ) I agree that time is a problem when the number of cubes grow a lot Maybe the 1 hour idea is good...but what do we do with current records? what if nobody can ever beat Tim's 24 cubes in under an hour? which record will count? I agree with not asking for 100% accuracy...I still believe 9/10 in 60 minutes is better than 2/2 in 30 minutes

[quote="StefanPochmann":26uqk64r]My opinion: A cube is a complete [b:26uqk64r]self-contained[/b:26uqk64r] reasonable natural unit, parts of a cube are not.[/quote:26uqk64r] See, there's where we differ. For multiBLD, I see n cubes as a single "unit" of an attempt, regardless of n. I'll point out that, had I the power to change the scoring, I wouldn't. It's clear that I'm in the minority here. Just voicing an opinion. -Chris

Im not the big MultiBLDer either but I have tried to do as good as I can. But from and organizer point of view I like the idea of a time limit in the form Stefan said. But also from a MultiBLD'ers view I like the idea of having a possibility to try a lot of cubes and get recognized as a official result. So I am proposing two parallel events, for a organizer to chose from or use both, that is up to the organizer. So two events called MuliBLD-1hour and MultiBLD unlimited time (still with the rules of today 10 min. a cube and solved-minus-unsolved for both events) The same goes for cards with the 10 min. card and 30 min. cards two different events, as our MultiBLD would become. Also Chris I would like you to remove 2004KRIG02, in one of your previous posts, because he never broke the rule under our current rules, nor under last rules witch ended after Danish Open 2008 so he has been within the time limit at all times.

[quote="Henrik":3aso091v]So I am proposing two parallel events, for a organizer to chose from or use both, that is up to the organizer. So two events called MuliBLD-1hour and MultiBLD unlimited time (still with the rules of today 10 min. a cube and solved-minus-unsolved for both events) [/quote:3aso091v] Well, technically, this would allow the organizer to hold both events. But really, with all the people who do compete under 1 hr, it's not really different. Why not just let the organizer state a time limit for multi-bld? We let them set it for all other events. For smaller competitions, it would be an hour and that should take care of most people. For larger competitions, it could be longer and that would handle those larger attempts. Regulations would be the same, so the old records would hold. The only thing different we would have to do is to publicly shame anyone who tries to convince the organizer in a pushy way to have a huge time limit. But this is something I would like to see for all events.

No, the organizer should not just set a time limit. This doesn't solve the problem. First of all, no one needs to beat Tim's record of 24. That's a different event if we change the rules. People start over with a blank slate, and set new records again. You cannot compare Multi-BLD unlimited time to Multi-BLD 1-Hour. As for allowing the organizer to set an arbitrary time, this really doesn't solve the problem at all. People will want to break records. Eventually, some organizer will allow 48 hours for this, and Ryosuke Mondo will just win, and no one will touch the record again because no competition will set aside 48 hours for Multi-BLD. Then 72, then a week... (wait, I ignored the 10 minute rule, but you get my idea.) By reducing it to one-hour, EVERY TIME the competition is held, a competitor has the same EQUAL chance to break the record. It doesn't depend on the circumstance of the competition and the schedule, which it shouldn't. It would be unfair to have an event where you could only break records with certain competition schedules. Events in competitions across the world need to be compared on the same standard.

[quote="Tyson":umosxf2m]It doesn't depend on the circumstance of the competition and the schedule, which it shouldn't. It would be unfair to have an event where you could only break records with certain competition schedules. Events in competitions across the world need to be compared on the same standard.[/quote:umosxf2m] Good point. We should establish upper-bounds on all events. According to A1a: [quote="A1a":umosxf2m] A1a) The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event. [/quote:umosxf2m] I could set the limit to whatever I want for whatever puzzle. If someone wanted to get a 45 minute solve on a 3x3x3, they could. For most events, I would say an upper-limit of 10 should be established. This keeps them on the stackmat. If someone could comment on a good time limit for 4x4x4 BLD and 5x5x5 BLD, that would be good.

[quote="BryanLogan":3lgm7rcj] I could set the limit to whatever I want for whatever puzzle. If someone wanted to get a 45 minute solve on a 3x3x3, they could. For most events, I would say an upper-limit of 10 should be established. This keeps them on the stackmat. If someone could comment on a good time limit for 4x4x4 BLD and 5x5x5 BLD, that would be good.[/quote:3lgm7rcj] Hi Bryan, I would respectfully like to point out that you're missing a huge point. If you set the 3x3x3 speed solve time limit to 45 minutes, you aren't cheating anyone's ability to break a world record. In 3x3x3 speed solve, a world record means less time. In the current blindfold regulations, a world record could mean MORE time. There essentially is no upper bound on the time to break a world record. If you set an upper bound of time in the event, then you are taking away some opportunities to break a world record. This is not an issue whatsoever if the event is standardized to an hour.

But even for regular 3x3x3 BLD, doesn't "Best of 3" have an advantage over "Best of 2"? Bob mentioned that in Best of 3, he can be more aggressive, at the cost of accuracy, because he has more chances. So this is a case where the organization decision allows a competitor to have an advantage. Yes, for Multi-BLD, you would get into a scenario where the organizer would have to work with the competitor in order to attempt to break the WR. If the competitor can't find an organizer to work with, then they should organize one themselves.

[quote="BryanLogan":7se3q18v]But even for regular 3x3x3 BLD, doesn't "Best of 3" have an advantage over "Best of 2"? Bob mentioned that in Best of 3, he can be more aggressive, at the cost of accuracy, because he has more chances. So this is a case where the organization decision allows a competitor to have an advantage. Yes, for Multi-BLD, you would get into a scenario where the organizer would have to work with the competitor in order to attempt to break the WR. If the competitor can't find an organizer to work with, then they should organize one themselves.[/quote:7se3q18v] Again, a difference. Best of 2 vs Best of 3 changes the strategy it takes to win the competition. But if you disregard the desire to win the competition, there is nothing changed about an attempt for a world record. (Except more attempts, but that's the same if you had more rounds.) The strategy of winning the competition will vary significantly depending on who the field consists of. If I were in a competition with Alex Yu, I would literally have to make random moves after memorizing for 1 second and hope that I get the 1 in 43 quintillion chance that I solved it. If I were in a competition only against Bob Burton, my strategy to win would be to simply solve one. So Best of N doesn't change the ability to set the world record. It merely changes the strategy of which to win the competition, and this already depends on the field of competitors. Many competitors do not have the ability to organize a competition themselves. A lot of these competitors are young, don't have sufficient resources, or just plain irresponsible. As much as I don't have an affinity for irresponsible people, it would be unfair to create a situation where a very talented 13 year-old was not able to break the world record because he couldn't find the right circumstances. In order to properly compare times in events across the world, everyone must have the same conditions and the same opportunity in a competition. It is simply not fair that someone with friends who are organizers gets the ability to break a world record, simply because his friends are willing to give him a one-week-long multi-bld attempt. What advantage does it have to create such a complicated set of circumstance? Why is this actually better than just one-hour, which is clean, simple, and fair across competitions? There is no way to hold a one-hour competition (under proper regulations) such that a circumstance would occur that one person had the ability to break the world record, and another person at another competition did not have EQUAL opportunity to break that world record. Isn't that better? Note: During the Drexel Competition, I had a conversation with Alex Yu. I told him that he should disregard trying to win the competition, and focus on breaking the world record. I basically told him to not care about getting it, but risk the safety of the solve in order for speed. My point was that the world record was far more valuable to him, and that he had nothing to prove in the world by beating me in 3x3x3 BLD (which he would probably do anyway even by taking extreme risks). Really? Tyson Mao is slow at BLD. If Alex DNFed all his solves, and I took first, no one would look at it and say, "Oh look Alex, you suck!" Everyone would simply look at the reality and know that he's better than me, will always be better than me, and was trying to do something grander than just beat up on me. (Because frankly, I think beating up on me is probably getting boring for most kids.)

so, within the hour, could I do 2 attempts? say I try 4 cubes and take 20 mins. Can I use the rest of the time for another attempt? or is 1 hour the limit for a single attempt? meaning that if I had 3 hours for multi, I could try 3 times, using the full hour?

[quote="Pedro_S":16dryfpz]so, within the hour, could I do 2 attempts? say I try 4 cubes and take 20 mins. Can I use the rest of the time for another attempt? or is 1 hour the limit for a single attempt? meaning that if I had 3 hours for multi, I could try 3 times, using the full hour?[/quote:16dryfpz] I never intended "one-hour" to mean "as many attempts as you want in one hour. Because, then it's kind of a free for all in terms of 2 cubes. You could fail immediately, and keep trying 2 cubes until you got 2 cubes that you liked. So no, I'm going to say you don't get to just use your hour as you see fit. But that doesn't stop an organizer from saying, "Multi-BLD is Best of 2, but we ask that if you take no longer than an hour's worth of time." That's a different situation, of course. But I would not write the rule to allow people to use the hour however they saw fit.

right, so 1 hour is the limit per attempt if the organization has 2 hours, they may allow 2 attempts...right?

[quote="Tyson":cp3spabq]it would be unfair to create a situation where a very talented 13 year-old was not able to break the world record because he couldn't find the right circumstances. ... It is simply not fair that someone with friends who are organizers gets the ability to break a world record, simply because his friends are willing to give him a one-week-long multi-bld attempt. [/quote:cp3spabq] Devil's Advocate: Doesn't he already have to find the right circumstances? A competition he can attend _and_ is holding Multi-BLD? The latter seems like maybe another argument against closed competitions. Closed competitions provide circumstances that not all competitors are able to enjoy. [quote="Tyson":cp3spabq] I think beating up on me is probably getting boring for most kids.[/quote:cp3spabq] This sounds like an interesting mystery event.

Closed competitions is another thing that we can discuss, but I am not really in the habit of allowing a closed competition to occur, and neither are the other two board members. Is it the child's responsibility to find a tournament? What if the only tournaments that allow this are in Finland? Whereas I know that we can't guarantee equal tournament distribution to everyone in the world, when there is a tournament, the events held during the tournament need to be standard. Otherwise, you cannot compare results. If the competition organizers decide to run an event, it should be held to the standard, and not according to what they feel like.

I agree that it is not fair to competitors that multiBLD WRs can only be set in competitions which not only hold the event but have enough time to do an attempt of 25 cubes or however many it is. World records are supposed to be faster than the previous record, and I agree that not being able to set a WR because there is enough time to do a solve but not a good solve is just silly. If you really like the current multiBLD, let's just make a speedsolve event where the competitor solves as many cubes as they want in unlimited time, and you're ranked by the number of cubes you solve. I'm sure that would go over really well with organizers I think the hour thing is a great idea. I have a bunch of suggestions/ideas: - Instead of asking the competitor to choose an exact number, let them give an interval of the number of cubes they will do, so that they can do more or fewer cubes depending on how they feel or how much time is left. For example a competitor might choose 5 through 7 cubes (and in that case they would bring 7 cubes and have them all scrambled). They would automatically have to do 5, and during memorization they can ask the judge for more cubes (up to the limit of 7) if they want, but of course any cube that they have seen will count in the solve. That way, if they memorize the first five and realize they have to start execution immediately to finish on time, they can do that, but if they feel like they are doing really well (or the scrambles are a bit easy) they can still have the option of doing a few more. I think this is a reasonable compromise between wanting to allow a competitor to do more cubes if they feel like they can, and not wanting to scramble an unlimited number of cubes to allow more freedom to the competitors. Of course, the judge or main judge should review the intervals to make sure they make sense. - Allow the competitor to discuss a system of time warnings with the judge before the attempt. For example someone might ask for a warning every 5 minutes starting from when they are blindfolded. It's very difficult to estimate time while blindfolded and while concentrating on recalling the cube information, so this would be quite helpful without giving any actual advantage on the solving itself. - Asking for 100% accuracy is a bad idea because, again, stuff like 17/18 is clearly more impressive than 2/2. Ideally attempts should only count if they are perfect, but in real life competitors simply don't get enough attempts for this to be fair, and someone who can get 17/18 should be able to get 2/2 something like 8 out of 9 times, so it's obvious that the 2/2 is easier. Although arcane scoring methods can be interesting for statistical approaches, a better or more difficult feat should rank higher than a worse or easier one. - As with the memory events, maybe we should have less than an entire cube limit for cubes that are slightly incorrect, in effect using a partial credit system, so that even if you make a mistake on a cube you still have an incentive to get as close to solved as you can. Perhaps we could give +1 for a correct cube, 0 for a cube that is close (8 pieces [one turn] or less), and -1 for a cube that isn't close at all. Or perhaps we could give 10 points for each correct cube but minus 1 point for each piece that isn't solved (so a cube with a 3-cycle off would be worth 7 points, a cube that is one turn off would be worth 2, a cube with everything wrong would be -10). I know these will seem like very bad ideas to those who are very used to the current multiBLD rules, but they make much more sense if you think of it as a memory contest.

[quote="qqwref":2ewjt5pb] - Instead of asking the competitor to choose an exact number, let them give an interval of the number of cubes they will do, so that they can do more or fewer cubes depending on how they feel or how much time is left. For example a competitor might choose 5 through 7 cubes (and in that case they would bring 7 cubes and have them all scrambled). They would automatically have to do 5, and during memorization they can ask the judge for more cubes (up to the limit of 7) if they want, but of course any cube that they have seen will count in the solve.[/quote:2ewjt5pb] So why would they ever choose anything besides "1 through 50"? I don't like the idea of letting them get some advantage by gaming their choice. An easy scramble will give them another cube, but it shouldn't be making the difference beyond that.

It's more about how well someone is doing - if you have a headache or there's too much noise, you might just not be able to do what you thought you would, or if you are feeling really good you might be able to do more. Anyway the judge would be an idiot to allow intervals like that, since nobody's going to scramble 50 cubes if the competitor might only do one or two. You could limit the size of the interval to 3 cubes or something - the point isn't to let the competitor do any number, but to give a small amount of leeway in case they are doing well or badly. MultiBLD is the only event where you have to estimate how much solving you want to do, so I think it's only fair to have something in place to let the competitors do one more or less than their target. Not everyone can estimate exactly how good they will end up feeling during the attempt half an hour before they get there.

[quote="Tyson":1y5yv0do]If I were in a competition only against Bob Burton, my strategy to win would be to simply solve one.[/quote:1y5yv0do] I'd definitely lose that competition.

[quote="qqwref":mni00xsy]It's more about how well someone is doing - if you have a headache or there's too much noise, you might just not be able to do what you thought you would, or if you are feeling really good you might be able to do more. Anyway the judge would be an idiot to allow intervals like that, since nobody's going to scramble 50 cubes if the competitor might only do one or two. You could limit the size of the interval to 3 cubes or something - the point isn't to let the competitor do any number, but to give a small amount of leeway in case they are doing well or badly. MultiBLD is the only event where you have to estimate how much solving you want to do, so I think it's only fair to have something in place to let the competitors do one more or less than their target. Not everyone can estimate exactly how good they will end up feeling during the attempt half an hour before they get there.[/quote:mni00xsy]Why do you have to give them leeway? If a Marathon runner is feeling ill, or literally has feces running down the side of their leg, no one asks them at the 8 mile mark, "So, are you feeling ill? Do you just want to stop at the half-way point and take that result instead of the full marathon?" I believe this idea is an unnecessary complication. Look, if you can do 6 cubes, then do 6 cubes. If you're feeling ill, then sorry. Everyone is already competing under the same conditions. Do you really think we need to add this in? Do you feel at all that this is added complexity when we really don't need it?

[quote="qqwref":1ymxhh4f]As with the memory events, maybe we should have less than an entire cube limit for cubes that are slightly incorrect, in effect using a partial credit system, so that even if you make a mistake on a cube you still have an incentive to get as close to solved as you can.[/quote:1ymxhh4f] Let's do that analogy correctly, shall we? In the memory events, let's say "hour cards", you write down what you recall. What counts as "one mistake" and costs you half of the points of the deck is a mistake in a single card. No, even just switching the order of two adjacent cards does *not* count as one mistake but as two, and costs you *all* points for that deck. So a wrong 3-cycle would definitely earn zero points in the memory events. I dislike that partial credit system you proposed, as mentioned above I see one cube as one perfect self-contained unit for counting. Counting cubies feels unnatural and complicated to me. I had a look at the [url=http://www.worldmemorychampionships.com/hour_cards.asp:1ymxhh4f]hour cards rules[/url:1ymxhh4f] again to see how they deal with competitors picking easy decks (not that I believe decks of cards differ much in hardness). What they do is they number the decks sequentially and you can't just skip some. Of course for them it's easier because they don't "solve" but "submit the scramble", so they know "which deck is which". For us, I see two ways: 1) Number the cubes by putting number stickers on them. Unfortunately that's not peel-and-switch-safe, could distract, and would probably be palpable. 2) Use the above-mentioned interval idea, but enclose the extra cubes in sealed envelopes. That way we can safely track how many extra cubes you took, after the attempt and without needing a judge to be involved during the attempt.

It's funny how you are all in favor of changing it back or even set a time limit for it while after discussion (?) the format was changed after WC 2007 or something like that. I thought we were all happy with the new way... Anyway, if you know you'll take more than an hour then it's just your own problem if you'll miss other events in my opinion.. Just plan it at the same time with unpopular otherevents as minx or feet or events you can do later too (magic master magic) But whatever, I suck at multi-BLD anyway so personally I don't care, but I'll make sure to tell Dennis about this thread. I'm pretty sure he's very angry if it's changed to a set time limit..

Hey guys. i dont understand, why someone started to discuss all that AGAIN! you all know my (and rowes and ryosukes) opinion about that. i dont think its good to have a time limit and blablabla, you know what i think about ALL of this. i only can say one thing: IF we would have a time limit, then it should be 2:30 h and not more(and not less of course), so everybody can break WRs and if you only do like 4 cubes, you arent allowed to have 2:15, like Tyson said before. 10 mins per cube is the rule and its a good rule. i even thought already that we have the time limit of 2:30 h but then i understood, that its not an official time limit. i normally were allowed to get a 5 h time limit for my 30 cubes at the Ec 2008, but i only got 2:30 h wich was hard, BUT possible. i think it should stay like it is, the organizer can say: this and this is the time limit, NOT MORE!but we dont have to change the rule. if an organizer wants to have a time limit, he just makes the time limit for "his" competition. and if someone wants to make a time limit of 10 h (with 10 mins per cube of course) , he can still do it, cause the rules just say 10 mins per cube, thats all. all in all, i think that IFFFF there would be a time limit (wich i dont wnat to have), it REALLY should be 2:30h and NOT LESS! Greetings to all of you...Dennis;):)

[quote="Tyson":3lbjggfo]Why do you have to give them leeway? If a Marathon runner is feeling ill, or literally has feces running down the side of their leg, no one asks them at the 8 mile mark, "So, are you feeling ill? Do you just want to stop at the half-way point and take that result instead of the full marathon?"[/quote:3lbjggfo] The thing is, marathon running isn't about how far you can run, it's about how fast you can run a given distance. Every version of multiBLD (except the one where you solve a specific arbitrary number of cubes as fast as possible, but that is, well, arbitrary) involves doing as many cubes as you want. So it actually does make sense to let the competitor deliberately not look at a cube or two at all, and not to penalize them for that. It's still a valid multiBLD attempt if the competitor only attempts 6 cubes instead of the 8 or whatever that they said they were going to do at the beginning; it isn't still a valid marathon run if you only do 8 miles instead of 26. And of course you don't have to give anyone leeway - in fact you could decide to never give anyone leeway on anything: give a competitor a DNF if their 3x3 is noticeably misaligned when they put it down, or if their blindfold isn't completely over their eyes, or if they talk at all right before, during, or right after the solve. But I like to think we're nice enough to competitors to give them a reasonable amount of room for error, and in my view mis-estimating the number of cubes you will be able to multiBLD in an hour is just an error in judgment and nothing more.

[quote="qqwref":14yxdxfg]But I like to think we're nice enough to competitors to give them a reasonable amount of room for error, and in my view mis-estimating the number of cubes you will be able to multiBLD in an hour is just an error in judgment and nothing more.[/quote:14yxdxfg] You make an "error in judgment" sound so trivial, when in fact that's basically what this whole competition is about. We want to standardize the event so that those who make fewer errors will come out on top.

[quote="leyanlo":3qltx1ex]You make an "error in judgment" sound so trivial, when in fact that's basically what this whole competition is about.[/quote:3qltx1ex] I think he's not talking about an error in [i:3qltx1ex]cubing[/i:3qltx1ex] but about an error in [i:3qltx1ex]predicting the future[/i:3qltx1ex]. I kinda disagree that the competition is about the latter.

Wait, why do they get room for a judgment error? Or a predicting of the future error? Isn't predicting what you're going to be able to do just an understanding of your abilities? No one goes out and runs a race with the understanding that they can stop if they get tired.

Tyson, what race exactly do you think Multi BLD is comparable to? I feel as though continually referring to this analogy is ineffective. Multi BLD attempts to compare someone solving 2 cubes with someone solving 10 cubes in a fair manner. Track events are completely incomparable to Multi BLD, as everyone running event X runs exactly the same distance. If we are attempting to make a rule analogous to a similar event, that event would be the hour cards. I'm going to carefully read those rules to make sure I understand them before suggesting how the rules should be implemented. Additionally, I would like to request that, should a rule change be made now, the cubing community accepts this rule change and does not change the overall format of the event any time soon. If we change the definition of the event year after year, we're confusing everything and making it hard for people who compete in the event. Right now, changing the format to a fixed time limit would drastically change the approach to the event and invalidate all old records. So whatever happens this year, can we agree not to change the definition of the event for a while? Small changes are fine, but huge changes should not be annual things.

Yes, a major change would drastically change the way the event is run and invalidate old records. But this is going to happen sooner or later. Multi-BLD as it is right now is not a sustainable event. We might as well make the change now, rather than suffer with having to run a broken event for a few years, only to be required to make the same change later.

[quote="Tyson":1d0z3zbe]No one goes out and runs a race with the understanding that they can stop if they get tired.[/quote:1d0z3zbe] I'm pretty sure they can stop whenever they want for whatever reason, and I'm pretty sure they understand that. Unless the race takes place in Guantanamo Bay, maybe. [quote="Tyson":1d0z3zbe]Wait, why do they get room for a judgment error? Or a predicting of the future error? Isn't predicting what you're going to be able to do just an understanding of your abilities?[/quote:1d0z3zbe] Someone's ability might be accurately described as 12 cubes in one hour under good conditions and 9 cubes under bad conditions. So should he officially take 12, only to find out that the room has a noisy fan driving him crazy, that the scrambles have a lot of hard cases, that he has to sit right next to someone who smells bad, all being bad conditions allowing him only 9 cubes without any of it being his fault? Yeah ok, in running you also have environmental influences. But since when are runners required to say how far they're going to run? Or how fast? And since when are they punished if they don't match what they predicted?

[quote="StefanPochmann":meqatj7i]So should he officially take 12, only to find out that the room has a noisy fan driving him crazy, that the scrambles have a lot of hard cases, that he has to sit right next to someone who smells bad, all being bad conditions allowing him only 9 cubes without any of it being his fault?[/quote:meqatj7i] Yes he should. Is there some issue with that logic? The competitors are all in the same room, so they will all be equally exposed to the environmental conditions. The cubes are all scrambled the same way for all competitors. [b:meqatj7i]And no one will be allowed to change their mind about how many cubes they will attempt.[/b:meqatj7i] That is about the fairest way to run this event.

...except maybe the smelly person will be insensitive to his own smell.

Leyan, you've missed my point (besides the smelly guy and the fan not being distributed evenly). Imagine there are two identical incarnations of my example guy, except one predicts bad conditions and goes for 9 while the other predicts good conditions and goes for 12 cubes. Then if bad conditions occur and they both solve 9, the second guy gets a three-point punishment *not* because of cubing skills (those are the same) *but* because of bad prediction of the conditions. And in the other case where good conditions occur, the first guy unnecessarily runs out of cubes and can't get as many as his cubing skills would allow but only as many as his conditions-predicting skills allow. So the point is: You're partly measuring people's skill predicting the future, and we're not the World Clairvoyant Association. It's "fair" in the "comparison" sense of the word, but not "fair" in the "adequacy" sense of the word.

[quote="StefanPochmann":1eey0ct9](...) and we're not the World Clairvoyant Association.[/quote:1eey0ct9] genius so how do we determinate the interval of cubes? say I want to try 6...how many more can I ask?

[quote="StefanPochmann":12hvkqdw]Leyan, you've missed my point (besides the smelly guy and the fan not being distributed evenly). Imagine there are two identical incarnations of my example guy, except one predicts bad conditions and goes for 9 while the other predicts good conditions and goes for 12 cubes. Then if bad conditions occur and they both solve 9, the second guy gets a three-point punishment *not* because of cubing skills (those are the same) *but* because of bad prediction of the conditions. And in the other case where good conditions occur, the first guy unnecessarily runs out of cubes and can't get as many as his cubing skills would allow but only as many as his conditions-predicting skills allow. So the point is: You're partly measuring people's skill predicting the future, and we're not the World Clairvoyant Association. It's "fair" in the "comparison" sense of the word, but not "fair" in the "adequacy" sense of the word.[/quote:12hvkqdw] The question is, once you give some leeway, where do you draw the line? I mean, what if you have a competitor, who solves 9-12 cubes when he's given shitty scrambles, and he solves 12-15 cubes when given good scrambles? Should he just go into the competition and write down that he'll solve 9-15 cubes? What's to stop a competitor from saying he'll solve 1-100 cubes? This isn't a blind guess at the future -- it's going to be an educated estimation. The estimation will be based on your cubing experience, your cubing skills, your past experience at cubing events, and your abilities to handle a stressful competition environment. If you have difficulty coping with stress in competition, you will perform worse regardless of event. I don't see why multi-BLD should be any different. The competition is not about measuring how well you solve the cube, it is about measuring how well you solve the cube [b:12hvkqdw]in competition[/b:12hvkqdw].

I'm sure this has been suggested as an alternate format for Multi-BLD before, but how about allowing only certain numbers of cubes? (e.g. 3, 5, 10, etc. With a 1 hour time limit the levels would probably be capped at around 15 cubes, if that many). You choose which category of Multi-BLD to compete in, and you are ranked against everyone else who attempted the same number of cubes as you. This would take some of the clairvoyance out of your attempt. If you want to do 5 cubes in competition, you train for doing 5 cubes in competition.

[quote="leyanlo":nrf1tbms]This isn't a blind guess at the future -- it's going to be an educated estimation.[/quote:nrf1tbms] Yeah. But you're still punished or rewarded for your *estimating skills*. [quote="leyanlo":nrf1tbms]The question is, once you give some leeway, where do you draw the line?[/quote:nrf1tbms] I thought some more about this, and I'll now argue the complete opposite of your standpoint. A competitor being able to request "9 to 12" cubes, i.e., nine for sure and up to three additionally one by one... that's *not* giving the competitor leeway, that's *not* courtesy of the organizers. That's actually courtesy *of the competitor*. Why? Well, the event is about *solving multiple cubes blindfolded at once*. Where's a natural estimation requirement there? There's none, it's *solely* for organizational purposes. So here's the deal: Ideally, the competitor starts the attempt and simply does as many cubes as he can, adding cubes *one by one right from the start*, without estimation and without punishment for bad estimation. Just like it's done in speedsolving as many cubes as one can in one or 24 hours. They don't have to tell in advance how many they'll do and get punished if they fail. And just like it's done in "1 hour cards", where you can stop at any point and the remaining unmemorized decks are simply ignored, not counted against you. So in my opinion, meeting in the middle is the least the organizers can do to get closer to the ideal way.

[quote="StefanPochmann":3uagml35]One hour with solved-minus-unsolved scoring would get my vote.[/quote:3uagml35] Mine too. I've always been a big fan of a fixed time limit for multi bld. And in my opinion we could also remove the 10 minutes time limit per cube. If anyone needs 50 minutes for 2 cubes, it doesn't really matter, or does it? The less rules the better. I just worry about my record. I really would love to see someone breaking it. (I'm serious, Dennis) btw. We're changing the multi bld rules quite often, aren't we?

Stefan: I agree with you that this is similar to the proposed multiBLD event. In fact it is almost certainly the closest thing we have, since there are no current official events that are about how many X you can do in Y minutes. I think it's also worth noting that none of the other events of this style have penalties for unsolved cubes! Want to set the UWR for most cubes in an hour? If you have enough scramblers, there's nothing actually stopping you from picking the ones with the easiest crosses, or discarding a cube if it pops. It won't penalize you at all, except for the lost time. Leyan: In the proposed multiBLD format, the combination of (a) having to predict how many cubes you will do and not being able to change it, and (b) being penalized for cubes you do not finish... is just not nice. Sure, it's fair, but so is ANY other set of rules that doesn't specifically give extra rights to certain competitors. What it does do, though, is penalize people for things beyond their control. I don't want to see someone get what would be a successful 10/10, except for the two extra cubes on the table that they haven't even touched or looked at because they didn't feel up to it. The only thing that makes that not a 10/10 is the rules, and it isn't fair that this person would get a worse score than someone who guessed more conservatively but had the exact same skills. As for the 1-100 thing... how about we scrap the lower bound. The competitor brings up a certain number of cubes, and N of them are scrambled, and then they can do any number up to N one at a time. If you want to prevent people from doing too many, just set an upper limit: for example they cannot choose more than the max(12 cubes, 2 cubes + current WR). The worst possible thing that could happen is that too many cubes get scrambled. Edit: Tim: I agree the 10 minute rule should be removed if we are doing the 'most cubes in an hour' event. It's pointless if the time is already limited, and there are several successful solves over this limit anyway.

[quote="qqwref":5316ezfs]Leyan: In the proposed multiBLD format, the combination of (a) having to predict how many cubes you will do and not being able to change it, and (b) being penalized for cubes you do not finish... is just not nice. Sure, it's fair, but so is ANY other set of rules that doesn't specifically give extra rights to certain competitors. What it does do, though, is penalize people for things beyond their control. I don't want to see someone get what would be a successful 10/10, except for the two extra cubes on the table that they haven't even touched or looked at because they didn't feel up to it. The only thing that makes that not a 10/10 is the rules, and it isn't fair that this person would get a worse score than someone who guessed more conservatively but had the exact same skills. [/quote:5316ezfs] I don't think deciding how many cubes you are going to try has anything to do with guessing if you've practiced multi bld.

Hmm... This is just a suggestion, but what about say, 10min/cube until an hour, then 5min/cube afterwards, maybe up to a set point. Also, can anyone tell me why solved - unsolved cubes is a bad scoring metric?

Hello? What does everyone think of that?

Maybe if you at least hinted at why you consider that a good or even superior idea, people would take you serious.

[quote="StefanPochmann":24z1jppn]Maybe if you at least hinted at why you consider that a good or even superior idea, people would take you serious.[/quote:24z1jppn] I don't even know if this is a remotely plausible idea. However, I will go through my probably flawed thought process when thinking of this. Reading through the thread, I noticed that one concern of the posters is that people who try large attempts, require large amounts of time to be allotted due to current WCA rules. Another thing I heard was that if a strict hour limit were followed, people use all of that hour just to solve 2 or 3 cubes. This idea was my attempt to address both of these concerns. At the 'small end', the rules are essentially unchanged. However, there would be a bound (someone mentioned 2h30, I'm also suggesting 2h and 1h30) to time alotted so attempt times remain somewhat reasonable.

[quote="Scigatt":3aa5psw8]Another thing I heard was that if a strict hour limit were followed, people use all of that hour just to solve 2 or 3 cubes.[/quote:3aa5psw8] Why is it a bad thing if someone takes the entire hour to solve 3 cubes? Anyway, in my opinion you're just making the current rules more complicated.

[quote:1fa7hekd]btw. We're changing the multi bld rules quite often, aren't we?[/quote:1fa7hekd] Yes, we are. But I think we have to do something about the Multiple Blindfolded event, to make it more practical. We created the event in a time when 5 cubes blindfolded was still great. We changed the event without thinking carefully about the effect of accepting missed solves. It is really a pain to organise this event. For several reasons, one of them is that we need a lot of judges for a very long time. And often it takes up so much time that it is held in parallel with other events, and still the multi blind competitors want to compete in those events. The least we should do is limit the time for the event. It is simply not fair that in some competitions people can use 4 hours max. and in others 2:30 hours or less. Based on the feedback above I propose the following: - maximum time limit is 60 minutes. - time limit per cube stays the same: 10 minutes. - calculation of the result stays the same: 1) solved - not solved, 2) time, 3) solved. - we start with a clean sheet. Old results will stay visible in the old year rankings, but not in the new and personal rankings. Can we come to an agreement? I do not want this subject to block the acceptance of Regulations 2009. There will never be a unanimous vision on this event. Thanks, Ron

I second Ron's suggestion (eventhough I am a bit skeptial about the time limit per cube; this restict the number of successes -> less fun). I do not compete in multi-bf, but I organise competitions. From my point-of-view, the important issue is an over-all time limit, and such a limit is introduced in the suggestion by Ron. (My personal opinion is that we should consider to retire this event.) /Anders

[quote="anders":17crp79z]I second Ron's suggestion (eventhough I am a bit skeptial about the time limit per cube; this restict the number of successes -> less fun). I do not compete in multi-bf, but I organise competitions. From my point-of-view, the important issue is an over-all time limit, and such a limit is introduced in the suggestion by Ron. (My personal opinion is that we should consider to retire this event.) /Anders[/quote:17crp79z] I thought this, too, but it is an interesting event (just not very fun to run as an organizer). I agree with you, though, that there should not be a time limit per cube if there is a 1 hour overall time limit. If the event is going to take one hour anyway, why does it matter if someone takes the full hour to do three cubes?

[quote="Ron":1lvnamqr]- calculation of the result stays the same: 1) solved - not solved, 2) time, 3) solved.[/quote:1lvnamqr] If I might make a small proposal, I think this should be changed. I think the following calculation of result would make more sense: 1) solved - not solved, 2) solved, 3) time. The reason is that with the current calculation, it is almost certain that 5/8 will take longer than 2/2, so a 2/2 solve will always be ranked higher than a 5/8 solve, no matter which one you think is more impressive. (We can sort either by higher or lower number of cubes solved first, depending on whether people think a 2/2 or a 5/8 is more impressive.) I don't think it even makes sense to compare the time of a 2/2 and a 5/8. The current ranking is similar to having a ranking where all 3x3 and 4x4 times are in one big list: no matter how fast the 4x4 solvers are, the 3x3 times will always be at the top of the list, so it will look like solving a 3x3 (in under about 40 seconds) is always 'better' than solving a 4x4.

[quote:mwf7z6vl]If I might make a small proposal, I think this should be changed. I think the following calculation of result would make more sense: 1) solved - not solved, 2) solved, 3) time.[/quote:mwf7z6vl] I will publish the draft today. But I am still open to any feedback on the forum, also about Michael's proposal. Thanks, Ron

[quote:15bixlbv]why does it matter if someone takes the full hour to do three cubes[/quote:15bixlbv] From the organisation team's side: Fewer judges for less time. And a very practical reason: unlike Fewest Moves it is very hard to have all competitors of Multiple Blindfolded start at the same time. With many competitors it takes ages to scramble all these puzzles. If we keep the time limit per cube, then I can first start the competitors with 8 cubes, and then start groups of competitors with 2 cubes. From the competitors side I think it is also OK. For a normal blindfolded solve you also (normally) have 10 minutes. There should be some kind of 'quality' standard. Ron

What about the comparison between old and new records ?

I think we should have a completely new ranking as the new rule also changes the approach to the event. We could keep the former results in a class apart, it may seem hard for the old records but the events will be a lot less interest if you can't beat the world record and if some people, those who most enjoy the event, can't beat their own scores !

[quote="Ron":1e9ragxq][quote:1e9ragxq]If I might make a small proposal, I think this should be changed. I think the following calculation of result would make more sense: 1) solved - not solved, 2) solved, 3) time.[/quote:1e9ragxq] I will publish the draft today. But I am still open to any feedback on the forum, also about Michael's proposal.[/quote:1e9ragxq] I don't agree with Michael's proposal, I prefer the original idea. One basic principle of multibld is "try as many cubes as you can solve". If you don't fulfill your pledge, you will get a penalty. Michael! Your suggestion is to reduce this penalty. I think we should keep this calculation as it is today.

[quote="timhabermaas":2upvzln0]btw. We're changing the multi bld rules quite often, aren't we?[/quote:2upvzln0] Yes. Tyson! As I was reading one of your comments about the fairness of record attempts I recognized my own thoughts. Some 1,5 years ago the usual time limit for mbf was 2 hours (1 or 2 attempts). When I first saw an attempt which was longer than 2 hours (I think it was Ryosuke's or Rowe's) I just said:"Hey! It's not fair, because you cannot have more than 2 hours in each competition." So I understand the reason behind this change. It would have been better to set up a 2 hours time limit or 1 hour time limit before the records reached these times. But I also can see Tim's and Dennis's points of view. I know how much work is required to be good in mbf (even with my 7 cubes ). And now should we just ignore their results?! I was watching Tim's 24/24 in April and it was an experience. These are only my thoughts, I'll accept the decision of WCA. But to start with a clean sheet will cause a stupid situation. After introducing the "clean sheet", somebody will have the WR with 2/2. Next weekend somebody will brake the WR with 3/3 and so on...

I forgot to mention one more issue: We are introducing 2 more events: 6x6 speedcubing, 7x7 speedcubing - I think these require the same skills as 4x4 or 5x5. The same people will be good in them. This will mean 2 more possibilities for them. But Tim, Dennis, Ryosuke, Rowe, Mike, Chris, Alex (and me ) are having some other type of skill - we will get the disadvantage of introducing 6x6 & 7x7 with open eyes.

[quote="Tyson":h4juin6n]only against Bob Burton[/quote:h4juin6n] Bob! Are you [u:h4juin6n][b:h4juin6n]only[/b:h4juin6n][/u:h4juin6n] Bob for Tyson?!

[quote="Pitzu":2f1sjv4z][quote="Tyson":2f1sjv4z]only against Bob Burton[/quote:2f1sjv4z] Bob! Are you [u:2f1sjv4z][b:2f1sjv4z]only[/b:2f1sjv4z][/u:2f1sjv4z] Bob for Tyson?! [/quote:2f1sjv4z] Hey! If someone wants to take advantage of the knowledge that I suck at MultiBLD, that is out of my control. :\ EDIT: ...though I am not really sure what you mean.

So, let me see if I understood... if I say I'll try 2 cubes, I have 20 mins if I say I'll try 6 or more, I have one hour right? I agree with Michael that the # of solved cubes should count more than the time... say someone gets 2/4 in 30 mins, and someone else gets 5/10 in 55 mins they'll both have 0 as the score, but I think 5/10 is better than 2/4...

[quote="Ron":266mz5lo][quote:266mz5lo]If I might make a small proposal, I think this should be changed. I think the following calculation of result would make more sense: 1) solved - not solved, 2) solved, 3) time.[/quote:266mz5lo] I will publish the draft today. But I am still open to any feedback on the forum, also about Michael's proposal. Thanks, Ron[/quote:266mz5lo] I just love the new regulations. Multi bld is finally a [i:266mz5lo]speed[/i:266mz5lo]cubing event and the rules still remain simple. That even motivates me to practice again. I would use the time before the amount of solved cubes for result calculation. Just because our sport is called speedcubing.

[quote="timhabermaas":wlongla5] I would use the time before the amount of solved cubes for result calculation. Just because our sport is called speedcubing.[/quote:wlongla5] really? what if someone does 2/4 in 39 minutes and someone else does 5/10 in 40 minutes?

[quote="Pedro_S":plcvtl45] what if someone does 2/4 in 39 minutes and someone else does 5/10 in 40 minutes?[/quote:plcvtl45] It's simple, an other one does 1/2 in 6 minutes and he beats them ! I think it is important to know how many cubes you can do and just try to solve its. And what about I said for the ranking on the previous page ? Any other ideas ?

[quote="Pedro_S":1ptbwtq3][quote="timhabermaas":1ptbwtq3] I would use the time before the amount of solved cubes for result calculation. Just because our sport is called speedcubing.[/quote:1ptbwtq3] really? what if someone does 2/4 in 39 minutes and someone else does 5/10 in 40 minutes?[/quote:1ptbwtq3] I don't care which one's "better", since they are both equally bad. A better example: 5/6 in 30 minutes, 9/13 in 31 minutes. Which one's better? Maybe we should use the time per solved cube. The first guy has 5 cubes in 30 minutes, so 6 minutes/cube. The second guy needed 3.4 minutes/cube. But that makes the rules more complicated.

[quote="timhabermaas":ciuo5gcm][quote="Pedro_S":ciuo5gcm][quote="timhabermaas":ciuo5gcm] I would use the time before the amount of solved cubes for result calculation. Just because our sport is called speedcubing.[/quote:ciuo5gcm] really? what if someone does 2/4 in 39 minutes and someone else does 5/10 in 40 minutes?[/quote:ciuo5gcm] I don't care which one's "better", since they are both equally bad. A better example: 5/6 in 30 minutes, 9/13 in 31 minutes. Which one's better? Maybe we should use the time per solved cube. The first guy has 5 cubes in 30 minutes, so 6 minutes/cube. The second guy needed 3.4 minutes/cube. But that makes the rules more complicated.[/quote:ciuo5gcm] that was my point 2 cubes in 39 minutes = 19.5 min/cube 5 cubes in 40 minutes = 8 min/cube I really don't think 1/2 in 19 minutes should be ranked higher than 5/10 in 40 minutes...

Compared to 1/2 ... 0..49 / 100 loses 50 / 100 needs decision 51..100 / 100 wins Does it really matter that much how this one special case is treated? Particularly since our "score" calculation is a bit arbitrary anyway.

For the MB event, it should go by how many cubes you can do overall ex: A-4-6 B-5-20 B wins A has a higher % but B did more cubes I"m not sure how the record for MB goes so correct if I am wrong

Then the winning strategy will be to demand an absurdly high number of cubes, memorize and solve only the easy ones and discard the other ones. I really don't want to be scrambling in such a competition.

[quote="timhabermaas":6zzc5iqr]I don't care which one's "better", since they are both equally bad. A better example: 5/6 in 30 minutes, 9/13 in 31 minutes. Which one's better? Maybe we should use the time per solved cube. The first guy has 5 cubes in 30 minutes, so 6 minutes/cube. The second guy needed 3.4 minutes/cube. But that makes the rules more complicated.[/quote:6zzc5iqr] That's a good idea too. Sorting by 1) solved - not solved 2) time per cube 3) solved might be a good way to do it, because it would also solve the problem of 2/4 almost always being ranked worse than 1/2, and so on. And it would also keep the speedcubing aspect, if you think you might miss a few cubes then you have a reason to go fast, because it will actually affect your rank (whereas before it didn't because someone who did fewer cubes but got the same number of points would always beat you).

[quote="qqwref":2awc1s1v]That's a good idea too. Sorting by 1) solved - not solved 2) time per cube 3) solved might be a good way to do it, because it would also solve the problem of 2/4 almost always being ranked worse than 1/2, and so on. And it would also keep the speedcubing aspect, if you think you might miss a few cubes then you have a reason to go fast, because it will actually affect your rank (whereas before it didn't because someone who did fewer cubes but got the same number of points would always beat you).[/quote:2awc1s1v] Will this make much of a difference? In most cases, doing more cubes means your time per cube should be slower, right? Multiple blindfolded times don't grow linearly. Even the fastest: 1/1 is 0:48 (0:48 per cube) 2/2 is 4:13 (2:07 per cube) 3/3 is 11:03 (3:41 per cube) 4/4 is 18:34 (4:39 per cube) 5/5 is 24:16 (4:51 per cube) 6/6 is 47:58 (8:00 per cube) 7/7 is 1:06:24 (9:29 per cube) 10/10 is 44:09 (4:41 per cube (but he did 24/30 at 6:23 per cube and is crazy fast)) 11/11 is 1:41:51 (9:16 per cube) 15/15 is 2:12 (11:00 per cube) 24/24 is 2:15 (5:40 per cube (okay, but he is also crazy)) In general, I think the trend is clear. Attempting different numbers of cubes makes results difficult to compare because the difficulty grows with each additional cube.

This discussion is like IAAF said: Sorry, marathon runners! Marathon is too long, you need too much distance, too much judges for too much time! It's hard to organize it! I think, the situation is similar. Marathon runners mustn't be good at 100m, 100m runners mustn't be good at marathon. Marathon is a classic distance and the current WR is some 2:04. It's the longest distance in a [b:2g3zzzbx]normal[/b:2g3zzzbx] athletics competition. There are longer events, but they need special competitions. So I think a 2 hours time limit would be more fair. It would have been 100% fair to introduce it some 1,5-2 years ago (before the first attempt which was longer) but it is still quite fair now.

Bob: I agree that it is hard to compare times on different number of cubes. However, I think it is much better if we consider a 2/2 in 5 minutes to be equal to a 4/6 in 10 minutes, rather than a 4/6 in 5 minutes! Maybe we could divide by the number of cubes attempted, which would equate doing 2/2 in 5 minutes with 4/6 in 15 minutes. I guess you could 'cheat' this system by doing just 4 cubes and then claiming you attempted 6 (and thus getting a ridiculously good time/cube statistic), but you'd be an idiot for not just taking your 4/4. However we rank it, though, we should at least give people who miss one or two cubes a chance to beat others who did fewer cubes but got them all right. Doing 4/6 in 5 minutes is just impossible, and I'd like to have a ranking system where it is possible to beat a decent 2/2 with a 3/4. I still think 3/4 is a better result than 2/2, but whatever. Pitzu: Or we could just, you know, have special competitions. I think I suggested somewhere that if people really want unlimited time multi (well, as much time as you need anyway) then the WCA should allow multi attempts to be done out of competition. There is really no way, logistically speaking, to continue to allow people to do huge numbers of cubes (Rowe's 19/33 in 5:17 for instance) in competition. For example, you could allow multi competitors to apply for a session up to 3 private attempts outside of competition, and as long as they can get a WCA delegate to judge them (and as long as the WCA approves it, of course, you can't just give one person 1000 attempts). Then if they get a successful attempt and the delegate says it is good, it would be counted as official. I believe Guinness World Records does things like this, where they send over a judge to watch over an official record attempt. It makes sense for stuff that you just can't fit into a competition format.

[quote="qqwref":2i1ae1st]I still think 3/4 is a better result than 2/2[/quote:2i1ae1st] I think not. The existing system is perfect. If you do a 10/12 your result is 8 (10-2). It's better than a 7/7, worse than a 9/9 and in the current system, worse than a 8/8. I totally agree. You are motivated not to miss that 2 cubes next time or not to try too much cubes next time.

[quote="timhabermaas":2l8l6lyh]I just love the new regulations. Multi bld is finally a [i:2l8l6lyh]speed[/i:2l8l6lyh]cubing event and the rules still remain simple. [b:2l8l6lyh]That even motivates me to practice again.[/b:2l8l6lyh][/quote:2l8l6lyh] I wholeheartedly agree. When I'm at a competition, I simply don't want to spend *hours* on it. I'd rather spend more time hanging out with others or doing more events. At most I'd like to spend an hour on this. But then if others can take 5+ hours that's very demotivating because I know I can never compete with them and they're out of reach anyway. Same with two hours still. I believe a one hour limit for everybody would motivate me to do this again.

[quote="Ron":2sznl96y]we start with a clean sheet. Old results will stay visible in the old year rankings, but not in the new and personal rankings.[/quote:2sznl96y] Does that violate 9i3? 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.

[quote="Bob":2261a8fi][quote="Ron":2261a8fi]we start with a clean sheet. Old results will stay visible in the old year rankings, but not in the new and personal rankings.[/quote:2261a8fi] Does that violate 9i3? 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.[/quote:2261a8fi] This does seem to violate 9i3, but I would have no problem with it. This is not a simple rule change (such as mean of 3 -> average of 5, or changing the +2 condition), it is changing the entire event. So I feel like this is actually a new event, with the old one being retired. Besides, in a normal rule change you could expect the times to be broken, but with this there is no way. I don't think 24/24 will ever be done in an hour. On a related note I hope that perhaps one day the unlimited time multibld can still be officially attempted outside of competition - other record trackers seem to be interested in it, because it is a 'most cubes blindfolded with an official judge watching' event.

[quote="qqwref":3v1miqs0][quote="Bob":3v1miqs0][quote="Ron":3v1miqs0]we start with a clean sheet. Old results will stay visible in the old year rankings, but not in the new and personal rankings.[/quote:3v1miqs0] Does that violate 9i3? 9i3) If the regulations for an event are changed, then the old regional records stand until they are broken under the new regulations.[/quote:3v1miqs0] This does seem to violate 9i3, but I would have no problem with it. This is not a simple rule change (such as mean of 3 -> average of 5, or changing the +2 condition), it is changing the entire event. So I feel like this is actually a new event, with the old one being retired. Besides, in a normal rule change you could expect the times to be broken, but with this there is no way. I don't think 24/24 will ever be done in an hour.[/quote:3v1miqs0] So, why don't we give it a completely new name? Something like "One hour bld", "Hour cubes bld", ... according to the "Hour cards" from memory sports. This will still leave us the chance to offer 'most cubes blindfolded with an official judge watching' events.

[quote="qqwref":2ucyh0n1]This does seem to violate 9i3, but I would have no problem with it. This is not a simple rule change (such as mean of 3 -> average of 5, or changing the +2 condition), it is changing the entire event. So I feel like this is actually a new event, with the old one being retired. Besides, in a normal rule change you could expect the times to be broken, but with this there is no way. I don't think 24/24 will ever be done in an hour[/quote:2ucyh0n1] I don't have a problem with the change, I have a problem with the violation of the rule. We are making rules about how rules can be changed and then not following them (another example being 9e2). I think this is a bad habit to get into and lessens the integrity of the WCA. I think it is a good change to not compare the events because of how different they are, but I do not think it is the right one. (And I don't think that the event should start over with a "clean slate" -- what about the attempts that were under 1 hour?)

[quote="timhabermaas":16optgtq]So, why don't we give it a completely new name? Something like "One hour bld", "Hour cubes bld", ... according to the "Hour cards" from memory sports. This will still leave us the chance to offer 'most cubes blindfolded with an official judge watching' events.[/quote:16optgtq] Very good idea. Instead of "3x3 multiple blindfolded" we should just get around 9i3 by renaming the event. Another suggestion "Hour 3x3x3s (Blindfolded)". We should leave the unlimited time multiple blindfold as is, in case we might want to make it official again later. [quote="Bob":16optgtq]And I don't think that the event should start over with a "clean slate" -- what about the attempts that were under 1 hour?[/quote:16optgtq] That's a good idea too. Instead of a complete clean slate, we should just keep all past attempts that (a) are under an hour total AND under 10 minutes per cube, and (b) are worth at least 0 points in the 'solved - not solved' format. The best few solves of that type would then be Dennis Strehlau, 10/10 in 44:09 Dennis Strehlau, 8/8 in 57:55 Rafal Guzewicz, 6/6 in 47:58 Olivér Perge, 6/6 in 59:14 If we do this, we should give out a WR only when the best previous result (10/10 in 44:09) is beaten.

[quote="Bob":3w2sb7fj] Will this make much of a difference? In most cases, doing more cubes means your time per cube should be slower, right? Multiple blindfolded times don't grow linearly. Even the fastest: ... 15/15 is 2:12 (11:00 per cube) ... [/quote:3w2sb7fj] Sorry, I just want to make one minor clarification - 15/15 in 2:12 is 8:48 per cube, not 11:00 per cube. (I don't want anyone to think that my result was invalid because it went over 10 minutes per cube!) (Bob, how on earth did you manage to get 11:00?) Anyway, I'm pretty happy with this change. I'm sure it will make some people unhappy, but I've been dreading ever competing in multiBLD again, since I knew I'd have to try at least 20 cubes for it to be worthwhile. This is much better.

[quote="qqwref":2r0qrqkt] [quote="Bob":2r0qrqkt]And I don't think that the event should start over with a "clean slate" -- what about the attempts that were under 1 hour?[/quote:2r0qrqkt] That's a good idea too. [/quote:2r0qrqkt] I don't think, with the new rules it's realy a new event and we should start with a clean sheet and with a new name too. It's too bad if we erase some of the hold results which was better than that we don't erase... no ??

[quote="Mike Hughey":11knbdmj]Sorry, I just want to make one minor clarification - 15/15 in 2:12 is 8:48 per cube, not 11:00 per cube. (I don't want anyone to think that my result was invalid because it went over 10 minutes per cube!) (Bob, how on earth did you manage to get 11:00?) Anyway, I'm pretty happy with this change. I'm sure it will make some people unhappy, but I've been dreading ever competing in multiBLD again, since I knew I'd have to try at least 20 cubes for it to be worthwhile. This is much better.[/quote:11knbdmj] I have no idea what I did wrong. Too many calculations, maybe I mixed something up. [quote="Mario":11knbdmj][quote="qqwref":11knbdmj] [quote="Bob":11knbdmj]And I don't think that the event should start over with a "clean slate" -- what about the attempts that were under 1 hour?[/quote:11knbdmj] That's a good idea too. [/quote:11knbdmj] I don't think, with the new rules it's realy a new event and we should start with a clean sheet and with a new name too. It's too bad if we erase some of the hold results which was better than that we don't erase... no ??[/quote:11knbdmj] It depends. If we change the name, it is a new event, so the old results should not carry over. If we keep the name but change the rule, the regulations tell us to keep the old results.

I just feel that with these new regulations open eyed cubers get something (6x6, 7x7), blindfolded cubers lose something. One of the reasons is "MBF needs too much judges". Could it be helpful to create some issue like "If a competitor tries more than x cubes, he must ensure himself the invisibility of cubes." (Like I do usually) In this case we don't need a judge to hold a paper.

[quote="Pitzu":15sp1zqc]I just feel that with these new regulations open eyed cubers get something (6x6, 7x7), blindfolded cubers lose something. One of the reasons is "MBF needs too much judges". Could it be helpful to create some issue like "If a competitor tries more than x cubes, he must ensure himself the invisibility of cubes." (Like I do usually) In this case we don't need a judge to hold a paper.[/quote:15sp1zqc] But you still need a judge to make sure he does not lift the blindfold or make moves during inspection. The judge would not hold paper, but a judge is still necessary.

One thing I am a little worried about is the following regulation (which has been there since the ten-minute rule went into effect last year): H1b1) When the total time is reached, the attempt is stopped and the number of solved and not solved puzzles is counted. Practically, this hasn't been much of an issue this year, since most people trying large numbers of cubes already knew how much they could handle, and so never came too near the limit. But with the new hour time limit, it will be much more common for people to try the maximum number they think they can handle, and wind up cutting very close to the hour limit. (I know I would - I would go as high as I thought I possibly could, figuring that if I get cut off on the last cube, it's no worse than DNFing the last one.) That means the judges will really have to watch the hour limit carefully, and understand well that they need to stop the attempt right at the hour mark. So what happens if a judge is a little late in stopping the attempt? Does the judge try to estimate how many cubes the competitor had finished at the hour mark? Does the competitor get credit for all the cubes until the judge stops the attempt, even if it's several minutes late? And if it's that, what is the recorded time for the attempt - 60 minutes or 62:35 (or whatever the time actually was)? Or does it count as a DNF? I would hope it could never be the latter, since there's no way for the competitor to know their time has expired. I know that technically this shouldn't happen (the judges need to be alert), but it seems like it will be much more likely for competitors to go over the limit with the new rules, and it WILL be tough to make sure every judge is alert enough to catch this, when they've been basically doing very little for a whole hour and suddenly they need to watch so carefully. And remember the judge will likely be distracted by holding a piece of paper when they're also needing to watch the stopwatch. At the very least, organizers need to be aware of this issue and prepare the judges very well for it.

Mike, alarm clock?

You could make competitors start at [i:3cu3cz11]End_Time - ( Number_of_Cubes x 10 minutes )[/i:3cu3cz11] to be sure noone gets extra time. But it's not very helpful since you have to precisely time each attempt. An alarm clock is useless too. A competitor can decide to stop anytime, you need 1 judge/competitor. ---------------------------- Another problem, I think it hasn't been discussed, but I'm not sure. [b:3cu3cz11]How many attempts / competitor?[/b:3cu3cz11] [b:3cu3cz11]In my opinion, people should have the same number of attempts.[/b:3cu3cz11] With competitors asking for 20 cubes, it was difficult maybe. Now with the new standard, it's different. When your best is 2 cubes in a row, in 60 minutes you have time for 2 or 3 attempts, and that's what people sometimes did in the past. It is not fair. Not fair if people who choose 3 cubes have two chances, and people who want 4 have only one. Article H1a seems to say more than 1 attempt is possible. It should be made clearer. I propose: - "Best Of #N" format (N attempts) - 60 minutes max / attempt - Number of cubes are collected and kept secret before the event (cannot be changed between attempts). This event has always been and will always be a pain... Gilles.

from what I understood, 60 minutes is the limit per attempt the number of attempts depends on how much time the competition has available for "new multi bld" or whatever it will be called

[quote="StefanPochmann":2ent2oc1]Mike, alarm clock?[/quote:2ent2oc1] For my practice attempts before the US Open, I essentially did this. (I used the timer on our microwave - when it went off, I knew I needed to stop because I was over 10 minutes per cube. I think I actually ran out of time once - it was on a day I didn't have enough sleep and had a terrible time memorizing.) An alarm clock really would help a lot, and I think it's a good idea. At least the judge would then be reminded to stop the competitor, which is what I really think the biggest problem is. Big cube BLD solvers are used to the idea that they usually have to instruct the judges how to judge before the attempt. I learned that from Chris and Daniel at my first big cube BLD competition (Virginia Open 2007), and have done that ever since everywhere except the US Open (where there wasn't a problem - the judges there pretty much all knew what to do). I assume the same will be necessary for a while for competitors in multiBLD with the new rules. Between instructing the judge before the attempt and using an alarm clock, I think this would work out fine. As Gilles says, you'd still probably need 1 judge per competitor, though.

I don't know of any timers like this at the moment, but it would be very nice to have some kind of alarm clock or egg timer which did not make an audible alarm, but rather a visual alarm or some kind of vibration. The judge would see it and stop the competitor, but if the alarm itself was not loud it would not disturb other competitors. This is essential because realistically the competitors might start and end their attempts at slightly different times, and it would be awful to be disturbed right at the end of an hour-long attempt.

Wouldn't the judge already have a stopwatch? Is that not enough?

[quote="blade740":1aos7j40]Wouldn't the judge already have a stopwatch? Is that not enough?[/quote:1aos7j40] [quote="Mike Hughey":1aos7j40]Practically, this hasn't been much of an issue this year, since most people trying large numbers of cubes already knew how much they could handle, and so never came too near the limit. But with the new hour time limit, it will be much more common for people to try the maximum number they think they can handle, and wind up cutting very close to the hour limit. (I know I would - I would go as high as I thought I possibly could, figuring that if I get cut off on the last cube, it's no worse than DNFing the last one.) That means the judges will really have to watch the hour limit carefully, and understand well that they need to stop the attempt right at the hour mark. So what happens if a judge is a little late in stopping the attempt? Does the judge try to estimate how many cubes the competitor had finished at the hour mark? Does the competitor get credit for all the cubes until the judge stops the attempt, even if it's several minutes late? And if it's that, what is the recorded time for the attempt - 60 minutes or 62:35 (or whatever the time actually was)? Or does it count as a DNF? I would hope it could never be the latter, since there's no way for the competitor to know their time has expired. I know that technically this shouldn't happen (the judges need to be alert), but it seems like it will be much more likely for competitors to go over the limit with the new rules, and it WILL be tough to make sure every judge is alert enough to catch this, when they've been basically doing very little for a whole hour and suddenly they need to watch so carefully. And remember the judge will likely be distracted by holding a piece of paper when they're also needing to watch the stopwatch. At the very least, organizers need to be aware of this issue and prepare the judges very well for it.[/quote:1aos7j40]

The new thread [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=545:294ypf62]Multiple blindfold time limit enforcement[/url:294ypf62] changed my mind, I now suggest to get rid of the "10 minutes per cube" rule. Make it a one hour event for everyone, independent of number of cubes. I think the ten minutes limit doesn't really serve a good purpose, it's more of an unnecessary complication and nuisance. Competitions should then run it like the fewest moves event is run, everybody starting at the same time and then one hour later time's over for everyone. A side effect benefit would be increased feeling of competing against each other which I do experience in fewest moves because of how it's run, with all of us being in it together in parallel.

[quote="StefanPochmann":26oabl3z]The new thread [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=545:26oabl3z]Multiple blindfold time limit enforcement[/url:26oabl3z] changed my mind, I now suggest to get rid of the "10 minutes per cube" rule. Make it a one hour event for everyone, independent of number of cubes. I think the ten minutes limit doesn't really serve a good purpose, it's more of an unnecessary complication and nuisance. Competitions should then run it like the fewest moves event is run, everybody starting at the same time and then one hour later time's over for everyone. A side effect benefit would be increased feeling of competing against each other which I do experience in fewest moves because of how it's run, with all of us being in it together in parallel.[/quote:26oabl3z] I totally agree.

This would also lessen the need for judges (especially if there is some sort of device to block the view of the cubes) One judge can watch 3 or 4 solvers easily, since the only thing they need to do is make sure the solvers don't do any moves during inspection or try to look around the obstruction (AND under the blindfold, simultaneously) That also makes it less of a big deal if someone who isn't very good at multi wants to do 2/2 in 40 minutes. They're solving with the rest, and so taking up no extra time.

[quote="blade740":3fzyyvlv]This would also lessen the need for judges (especially if there is some sort of device to block the view of the cubes) One judge can watch 3 or 4 solvers easily, since the only thing they need to do is make sure the solvers don't do any moves during inspection or try to look around the obstruction (AND under the blindfold, simultaneously) That also makes it less of a big deal if someone who isn't very good at multi wants to do 2/2 in 40 minutes. They're solving with the rest, and so taking up no extra time.[/quote:3fzyyvlv] Not true. They also need to stop the timer when the competitor finishes solving. We still rank competitors by time if they have the same result.

Ah, true. Although, it should be easy enough to judge more than one competitor as long as they aren't close to each other in time. Just watch who's getting closer to solving(attempting) all of their cubes. Of course, don't make one person judge 10 solvers, but an attentive judge could fairly and accurately judge 2 or 3 competitors, especially if they're at different skill levels or solving different numbers of cubes.

Stefan wrote: [quote:24wtgix9]The new thread Multiple blindfold time limit enforcement changed my mind, I now suggest to get rid of the "10 minutes per cube" rule. Make it a one hour event for everyone, independent of number of cubes. I think the ten minutes limit doesn't really serve a good purpose, it's more of an unnecessary complication and nuisance. Competitions should then run it like the fewest moves event is run, everybody starting at the same time and then one hour later time's over for everyone. A side effect benefit would be increased feeling of competing against each other which I do experience in fewest moves because of how it's run, with all of us being in it together in parallel.[/quote:24wtgix9] Sorry Stefan, I do not understand your reasoning and why you changed your mind. Please explain. I understand your comparison with Fewest Moves, but not why you think this would be better. It is too late to make this change for today's release of Regulations 2009. But maybe for a future version. Thanks, Ron

My reasoning is simply this: If a rule has no advantages but does have disadvantages, it's a bad rule and we should get rid of it. I said I "changed" my mind because earlier I had said [i:23109kf5]"I'd keep the 10-minutes-per-cube restriction because two cubes in an hour is ridiculous"[/i:23109kf5]. Btw, I only remembered that my earlier suggestion was to keep everything the same except introducing an overall limit of one hour, but I actually didn't remember why I suggested to keep the 10-min-per-cube rule. I really had to go back and read the quote I just copied. And now I disagree with it and don't understand why I said that back then. Yes, two cubes in one hour is slow, but there's no reason to forbid it unless anything other than my arrogance speaks against it.

I wonder what will happen with the current multi bld results. I have two suggestions: 1.) Start over with a clean sheet. 2.) Just remove all results which took longer than 60 minutes. This will make Dennis the new world record holder with 10/10 in 44:09 minutes. I prefer 2.) for two reasons: - There won't be a world record holder with 2/2 in 18 minutes, which looks kinda strange. Strange because we have the multi bld event for several years now and out of nowhere the wr went from 24/24 to 2/2. - People who have been fast enough to get an attempt under one hour don't have to compete again, just to confirm their (legal) record.

[quote="timhabermaas":1uknyj82] 2.) Just remove all results which took longer than 60 minutes. This will make Dennis the new world record holder with 10/10 in 44:09 minutes.[/quote:1uknyj82] 9i3? It's still the same event. It would also be silly to remove the times but only maintain regional records. Why didn't we do the "One-Hour Multi" renaming thing?

[quote="Lucas":1savhsup][quote="timhabermaas":1savhsup] 2.) Just remove all results which took longer than 60 minutes. This will make Dennis the new world record holder with 10/10 in 44:09 minutes.[/quote:1savhsup] 9i3? It's still the same event. It would also be silly to remove the times but only maintain regional records. Why didn't we do the "One-Hour Multi" renaming thing?[/quote:1savhsup] I'm aware of 9i3. But i think we'll have to violate that rule. Otherwise my record will stand for a very long time (according to almost all speedcubers: forever. But they don't know about memory sports).

I've been checking every few days to see if my time has been removed yet, but I see it hasn't. It looks like Lucas is right - we have no justification from the rules for removing the times. Although if we do, I'll completely understand. (I've already been preparing myself for this, even though it will be quite disappointing, since the only multiBLD result I've ever had went way over an hour.) But yeah, I'm very familiar with the memory sports records. If Ben Pridmore can do 27 packs of cards in an hour, after having practiced for about 6 years, I should be able to do 27 cubes in an hour, after having practiced for about 6 years. I've been doing multi for a little less than a year and a half now, so in about 5 more years I fully intend to take that record. (Of course, by then someone like Dennis or Tim or Mondo will probably have already done 30.) By the way, note that Ben Pridmore only managed 7 packs of cards in an hour in the 2002 World Memory Championship, and he got 27 packs in 2006. So Dennis, Tim, and I are all just getting started - we might improve dramatically over the next few years.

Ron, does the fact that no results have been removed mean that no results will be removed? I would like to argue strongly for removing all results (that is, for renaming the event "One Hour 3x3 Multiple Blindfold" or something). -Leaving the times that were over an hour is unfair. The rules of the event have been changed drastically, in such a way that previous results are completely impossible. The old records will stand for a disproportionate amount of time, and they are not accurate reflections of the event as it is held now. -Leaving only times that are under one hour is also unfair. I do not think that we should retroactively impose a time limit on solves that were already done, as that time limit is a completely arbitrary measure of how good the solve was. A perfectly acceptable strategy when those solves were done for n>6 cubes was to take as long as necessary (under 10n but possibly over 60 minutes) to ensure accuracy. Also, consider a hypothetical person with, say, 8/8 1:00:01. That person pretty clearly had at least 7/8 after an hour. But a 6/8 1:00:00 time is considered better if we remove only the over-1-hour times but the others are allowed to stay. Basically, attempts should not be deleted when those that are considered worse whether both had been done under the old rules or under the new rules stay. The only way to do that fairly, in my opinion, is to start from a clean slate.

I agree that a new event should be "created"..."One hour multi bld" or whatever perfect argument on the 8/8 in 1:00:01 the old results could stay in the database, as "Old multi bld", "unlimited multi bld", "multi bld" or any other name but comparing Mondo's attempt (6 hours long) to the upcoming ones is no fair. Imagine if he got all 50 cubes. I don't see anyone doing more than 50 in just 60 mins.

[quote="Tim":1eakr780]Leaving only times that are under one hour is also unfair.[/quote:1eakr780] Looking at your example... so you say it's better to punish two people than one? [quote="Pedro_S":1eakr780]Imagine if he got all 50 cubes.[/quote:1eakr780] But he didn't.

Those who worry about 9i3. Please look Ron's post. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=494&start=60#p We must start with clean sheet for new multi-BLD. 9i3 must be applied for the events in which the format is changed from mean of 3 to average of 5. I agree we should call old and new multi-BLD differently. Masayuki

[quote="StefanPochmann":njd54npc][quote="Tim":njd54npc]Leaving only times that are under one hour is also unfair.[/quote:njd54npc] Looking at your example... so you say it's better to punish two people than one? [/quote:njd54npc] I'm saying that, assuming we get rid of the >1:00:00 times, it's better to clear the rankings entirely than to leave what is essentially an arbitrary selection of results. You could say that, if you like. I don't think that a certain selection of people should be "punished" for going over an hour while everyone else is not.

The current rules are arbitrary, but the selection would not be arbitrary. "List all results matching the current rules" sounds quite natural to me. In my opinion, the result list shows what people are capable of doing. Within the rules, of course. But then throwing out results matching the rules doesn't reflect reality as good as keeping them does. If only we already had someone capable of beating 24 cubes in one hour...