Just coming back from US nationals, a few people found it funny to compete in the multi-bld event without any intent of doing multiple cubes. Lucas Garron got a 1/2 in 1:38 and only intended on doing that one cube. Because of this, I think that we should raise the minimum cube count to 3 cubes. This provides a guarantee that to achieve a non-DNF result in the event, you would have needed to solve more than one cube blindfolded. This change would keep the event a little more separate. I do also think that if you are capable of doing 2 cubes, then you are almost 100% capable of doing 3. Even if you are not, 2/3 cubes will still prove that you can solve multiple cubes blindfolded, and not just one cube in a different event.

I agree with this idea. I think we need a little leeway for anyone doing multi (getting 1 cube wrong shouldn't just be DNF) but at the same time we have to prevent people from just doing one cube while another scrambled one is sitting on the table. Making it necessary to attempt at least 3 cubes would fix this as well as guarantee that only people who really intend to do multi are participating in the event (thus not wasting judges/competitors/cubes that could be used in other stuff, since generally competitions which hold multi are pretty busy).

I was going to post something similar, but why require a minimum of 3? Just make it required that 2 cubes must be solved or it's a DNF. Basically, you require that they do "Multi". So 2/2 would be fine, but not 1/2.

I'm still in favor of removing the event completely. Tyson and I did the same thing as Lucas (Adam and I did it first) to sort of prove a point. I think the event is a waste of time and should be removed for 2010.

I like multiblind, but doing 1/2 it's ridiculous, I agree with Dan, if you are capable of doing 2 cubes, then you are almost 100% capable of doing 3 the event it's really cool to see in a compt, even for non-cubing people, and takes only 1 hour

I second Bob's opinion, that is, to retire the event.

I'm not in favor of removing the event; to me, it still adds something to competitions. Especially with the hour time limit, it is a very manageable event to hold. The 1/2 not being a DNF is a glitch, not enough reason to throw the event out in my mind.

I don't think the event should be removed. It would be a shame to nullify all the hard work people have put into this because you can "fake" results... yeah, you can take just one cube and solve it...will it give you a good ranking? no way

As with all events, there are fans and there are dislikers. If we listen to our community then we will never remove an event. It is often a pain to organise this event and also a pain to make it a fair event. The event is not important enough for me to not make it a side event in parallel. If we set a minimum of 3 cubes, then there will be a lot fewer competitors (most try 2 cubes) or there will be many more competitors trying more cubes than they are capable of. The easy solution would be if competition organisers would just set a minimum. Although this may be unfair to competitors, because then they cannot compete anymore in some competitions. But this is similar to time limits for the other events. What can we conclude on this subject?

I think the best solution is to only count results with at least two cubes solved. That way, you MUST do a true "multi" blind to get a success.

[quote:m9npshpf]I think the best solution is to only count results with at least two cubes solved. That way, you MUST do a true "multi" blind to get a success.[/quote:m9npshpf] Which problem would that solve?

The problem of cubers "attempting" 2 cubes but only ever intending to even try one.

[quote:307sbl9y]The problem of cubers "attempting" 2 cubes but only ever intending to even try one.[/quote:307sbl9y] I do not consider that a problem. The best will still win. I do not like it that some people do this to show their opinion on the event. Some kind of protest. I could do the same thing for any event. For example after 4 good solves in a first round Rubik's Cube, I could make fun of my last solve. We do not have a rule against that either.

[quote="Ron":ndlpc4k1][quote:ndlpc4k1]The problem of cubers "attempting" 2 cubes but only ever intending to even try one.[/quote:ndlpc4k1] I do not consider that a problem. The best will still win. I do not like it that some people do this to show their opinion on the event. Some kind of protest. I could do the same thing for any event. For example after 4 good solves in a first round Rubik's Cube, I could make fun of my last solve. We do not have a rule against that either.[/quote:ndlpc4k1] But that would only affect you, giving you a bad average, maybe. When people do 1/2 tries, but just memorise and solve one cube, it's not fair that they beat someone who actually attempted both cubes. And since there's no way to make sure they're memorising the 2nd cube, I agree that we should count 1/2 as DNF. (Forbidding 2-cubes attempts won't work, because some people actually try them both)

[quote:3mtty2ik]When people do 1/2 tries, but just memorise and solve one cube, it's not fair that they beat someone who actually attempted both cubes.[/quote:3mtty2ik] The same would go for 2/3 or 3/4. In the beginning we wanted everyone to solve ALL cubes. If you want to beat someone who does 1/2 while only trying 1, you know exactly what to do: solve both. It is all in the game. I do not consider this unfair.

But attempting two cubes out of three is still a multiple blindfold solve. It's the solver's fault they asked for more cubes. If you wanted to only do two cubes, you'd only attempt 2 and forget about the third. To do otherwise would let you ignore the hardest cube, but at a cost of one point. We don't allow solvers to attempt 1/1 cubes in multi.

[quote="blade740":1r203vof]But attempting two cubes out of three is still a multiple blindfold solve. It's the solver's fault they asked for more cubes. If you wanted to only do two cubes, you'd only attempt 2 and forget about the third. To do otherwise would let you ignore the hardest cube, but at a cost of one point. We don't allow solvers to attempt 1/1 cubes in multi.[/quote:1r203vof] Can't say it better than Andrew. Honestly, if you ask for 3 cubes and just try 2, you're not really smart...Maybe you can ignore the "hardest" one, but you'll get 1 point instead of 2. You may gain what? A couple minutes? I'd rather solve 2/2, since points count more than time...

I do not see why someone who did 1/2 should be penalised with DNF, where a competitor doing 2/4 is not penalised. The rule is that you have to solve at least half of the cubes. We could change it to at least half + 1. But I do not think it is a good idea to penalise competitors who seriously try 2/2 and only solve 1/2, because some competitors only try 1/2.

If you have the proof that someone only memorise one cube of the two, as a WCA Delegate, you could give him a warning or even dismiss his solve. But why people that seriously want to do 2 cubes can't ?

[quote="Ron"]I do not see why someone who did [b:1rz1gltv]1[/b:1rz1gltv]/2 should be penalised with DNF, where a competitor doing [b:1rz1gltv]2[/b:1rz1gltv]/4 is not penalised.[/quote] 1/2 is only one cube solved, 2/4 solved 2 cubes, which is multiple. [quote="Ron":1rz1gltv]The rule is that you have to solve at least half of the cubes. We could change it to at least half + 1.[/quote:1rz1gltv] I personally like that idea. But what about the odd number attempts? Let's say someone tries 5 cubes, half of it is 2,5, 2,5+1 is 3,5. Should that be 3 or 4? [quote="Ron":1rz1gltv]But I do not think it is a good idea to penalise competitors who seriously try 2/2 and only solve 1/2, because some competitors only try 1/2.[/quote:1rz1gltv] I think it is similar to the FMC topic. Result was 80 moves which penalises the cubers who cannot solve the cube in less then 80 cubes. In my opinion that is ok, and the 1/2 = DNF should be ok too.

[quote="Ron":37a8d3sh]I do not see why someone who did 1/2 should be penalised with DNF, where a competitor doing 2/4 is not penalised. [/quote:37a8d3sh] No, don't change it to half+1. The 1/2 didn't solve multiple cubes, the 2/4 did. The simplest way to avoid the 1/2 issue is to say that 1/2 isn't valid. Don't make the new rule more complex that'll affect 2/4 or anything else people don't have an issue with.

1/2 is different from 2/4, because 1/2 is not "multiple cubes blindfolded". Maybe the rules could be written like: 9f16) For the Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is lower than 0 [b:18kmy5r2]or less than 2 cubes are solved[/b:18kmy5r2], the solve is disqualified.

[quote="Olivér Perge":38gpfv4j][quote="Ron":38gpfv4j]The rule is that you have to solve at least half of the cubes. We could change it to at least half + 1.[/quote:38gpfv4j] I personally like that idea. But what about the odd number attempts? Let's say someone tries 5 cubes, half of it is 2,5, 2,5+1 is 3,5. Should that be 3 or 4?[/quote:38gpfv4j] I think Ron meant to change from "If the result is lower than 0, the solve is disqualified" to "If the result is lower or equal than 0, the solve is disqualified" That would be fine to me. But still, I don't see where is the problem. Another suggestion that I think nobody will agree on except me : allow to try 1 cube. Remember that 1 is a multiple of 1

Why not 0 cubes ? 0 is a multiple of 1 too. With a 0-minute time limit it wouldn't slow competitions that much, and it would prevent competitiorsmemorizing only 1 cube from winning the event, because they could never beat the 0/0 in 0:00.00 competitors (0 points too but faster time than any possible 1/2). (No, I'm not suggesting that seriously )

The word "multiple" means "more than one" in this context. It can also mean "divisible by", as in 3, 6, 9 are multiples of 3, but that's not what it means here. I know those comments were jokes--just thought it worth clarifying in any case. I agree with the argument that someone who solves 1/2 has not solved multiple cubes blindfolded.

[quote:cfj5u5jw]The word "multiple" means "more than one" in this context.[/quote:cfj5u5jw] [quote:cfj5u5jw]Why not 0 cubes ? 0 is a multiple of 1 too.[/quote:cfj5u5jw] Let us not make this a language discussion. If you try 2 out of 2 but only solve 1 out of 2, then you solved 1 in the "multiple" event. If you try 1 out of 2, it is a tactic that we may not like, but that we cannot prevent without hurting people who actually try 2 out of 2, but only solve 1 out of 2. Even if we would write rules like 'must actually try to memorise and solve all puzzles' there is no way to enforce this. We have to draw a line somewhere. Option 1: we require EVERYONE to solve MORE than half of the cubes. 2 requires 2, 3 requires 2, 4 requires 3, 5 requires 3 et cetera. Option 2: we require EVERYONE to solve AT LEAST half of the cubes. 2 requires 1, 3 requires 2, 4 requires 2, 5 requires 3 et cetera. I do not see why we have to create a special case for 1 out 2.

[quote="Ron":2nr3aqhf]we cannot prevent without hurting people who actually try 2 out of 2, but only solve 1 out of 2.[/quote:2nr3aqhf] Can we allow an edge-flip on 4x4? The current rules actually hurt people who try 4x4 but end up with parity. Requiring a minimum of 2 solved cubes is the same thing. We define a goal and people who can't get to the goal don't get credit.

[quote:3okvoflo]Can we allow an edge-flip on 4x4? The current rules actually hurt people who try 4x4 but end up with parity. Requiring a minimum of 2 solved cubes is the same thing. We define a goal and people who can't get to the goal don't get credit.[/quote:3okvoflo] I think that is a bad analogy. The only 'problem' I hear people about is the fact that sometimes a competitor tries only 1 out of 2. I do not consider that a problem. I do not like the strategy, but it is within the regulations. We could solve this by changing the regulations, but the effect is that competitors who actually try 2 out of 2 have the disadvantage that they MUST solve both cubes, where a person with 3 cubes can actually miss one without being disqualified. One other argument I have is that we changed the regulations of multiblind too many times already. Let us for consistency sake not change the regulations again without a very important reason.

First of all, for me, this isn't a language question. This is a fairness question. I think we shouldn't change the regulation in an important way. Theyr is already an old multiple blind event. Let's not make an old old multiple blind. The only thing I would change in the regulation is that score of 0 must be DNF. But This will make inconsistent results with actual results. So I don't think changing this is a good solution.

[quote="deadalnix":2eee1231]First of all, for me, this isn't a language question. This is a fairness question. I think we shouldn't change the regulation in an important way. Theyr is already an old multiple blind event. Let's not make an old old multiple blind. The only thing I would change in the regulation is that score of 0 must be DNF. But This will make inconsistent results with actual results. So I don't think changing this is a good solution.[/quote:2eee1231] When we got rid of the pop rule, we didn't move all old 3x3 results to a different category. All we're doing here is not allowing people to have a 1/2 count as a solve.

And what do we do with all the old 1/2 results ?

[quote="deadalnix":32e1bmt0]And what do we do with all the old 1/2 results ?[/quote:32e1bmt0] We would do the same thing that have been done with averages that had pops in the past, which is to just leave them there, but not accept new ones.

I don't know if it is said before, I did not read all posts in this tread but.. Trying two cubes is still ok but it is not a multiple blindfold solve if only one is solved. Make it 1/2 = DNF and 2/2 = OK

I haven't seen any good arguments PRO/AGAINST my last proposal, so for consistency sake we will keep it this way. Many members of our community like the event. If a competition organiser does not like the event, then he does not need to have it. I do think that trying only 1 out of 2 as a protest is bad sportsmanship. I do think that trying only 1 out of 2 as a strategy is acceptable (though not 'cool'), the others should simply do better or adjust their strategy as well.