Many of you will be aware of Vladislav Ushakov's 19-move Fewest Moves result at PSU Open 2016 and furthermore you may know about the suspicion surrounding it. If you aren't aware, the main points of suspicion were:
- His other results do not indicate that he is so good at Fewest Moves
- The solution he produced was almost identical to the solution that Cube Explorer gives (last 5 moves were different)
The WDC has conducted an exhaustive investigation into the solution and has now chosen to close the case, with no action taken.
No doubt many questions will arise in your minds from this, so we seek to provide some background to how the WDC operates and then give a few details of the case.
As per the judicial courts of the modern world, we work on an "innocent until proven guilty" basis. This means that in order to return a guilty verdict we must have conclusive proof of the infraction, or evidence that puts us beyond the point of reasonable doubt. If we do not have this, then we return a "not guilty" verdict, as in this case. Note carefully that "not guilty" does not equate to us declaring someone "innocent" - it simply means we don't have enough to declare someone "guilty".
There are some details about the case that people may be confused or misguided by, so we seek to clear them up here:
- Vladislav is generally not on a world-class level for Fewest Moves. He readily admits that he averages above 30. Fewest Moves is an event where getting a very lucky result is quite possible, and indeed many of the people who have set FM WRs over the last few years would agree that their solves are evidence of this.
- Regulation E2e1) The WCA Delegate may ask the competitor to explain the purpose of each move in their solution, irrespective of scrambling algorithm. If the competitor cannot give a valid explanation, the attempt is disqualified (DNF).
Vladislav provided an explanation to the delegate at the competition. This was filmed and has been reviewed at length. He has also provided clarifications to us where we had further questions of his thought processes. We therefore believe he has fulfilled this regulation.
- We have explored the logistics of the competition and have not found evidence that he could have used Cube Explorer during the attempt, or accessed the scramble before the attempt.
Thank you to everyone who aided with this investigation.
WCA Disciplinary Committee
Discuss the WCA organisation.
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest