2009: 6x6 and/or 7x7 as an official event

Erik (2008-11-11 23:33:09 +0000)
I can imagine people wanting 6x6 and 7x7 as an official event. There is a thread about this although it's not formatted in the format Ron requested to be an official 2009 regulations thread. Hereby I clearly vote AGAINST it :D Let me explain that: I think with the 17 events we have nowadays we have more than enough trouble on making the time schedules. As seen on competitions like Dutch Open 2008 a 6 and 7 event will take a LOT of extra time resulting in deletion of other events, for example the multibld. Besides the fact that 6 and 7 are cool puzzles I don't really think they add something new to the events we already have, pyraminx chrystal would be different for example (although I'm not at all trying to make that official). Furthermore a 6 or 7 will cause problems in scrambling too: 1. it takes LONG (especially for inexperienced scramblers) 2. many mistakes will be made due to the length, resulting in requesting the competitor to have to solve it again which can sometimes take more than 10 minutes, imagine they make a mistake in scrambling twice! 3. pops during scrambling: I can imagine at least 5 out of 30 6x6's would pop during scrambling which results in the effects named at 2 plus the extra time to fix the pop. Anyway, it maybe seems a little pointless to start a thread about something I do not support, but I'm 100% sure there would be a thread about this anyway seeing the other thread down here and the 'test runs' at competitions with these new (and wonderful) puzzles. Erik
Dene (2008-11-12 00:08:32 +0000)
I may as well vote for it. I definitely want 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 to be official events. There could be a rule where people who participate must finish the solve on the stackmat. Penalty: DNF. There would also need to be some regulation about scrambling, although I'm not sure what could be done about it.
BryanLogan (2008-11-12 01:12:55 +0000)
I would vote for Skewb as a new official event. Even learning a few basic algorithms, you can easily get 20 seconds. I suspect once people practice, the times will drop immensely. It will be about as fast as the 2x2x2, and it can easily be held. If the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 were adopted, I would say that a mean of 3 should be the format, and have strict cutoff times for the first solve. If you DNF because you went over, you're done. Of course, that could vary with the competition, just like I allow longer times for my 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 combined finals than they do at larger competitions, but I think organizers do need to set some standard.
DanCohen (2008-11-12 01:42:51 +0000)
Erik, I think all of your reasons for not having a puzzle as official are ridiculous. 1. The time issue. You don't HAVE to have every event at a competition. Just because feet solving is official (regardless of if it should be), you don't see it being done at every competition. Not even 5x5 is done everywhere. It's up to the competition organizer to schedule events and pick ones that will fit within the time limit for the competition. Also, there are other events that are much longer than 6x6 and 7x7 (4, 5, and multi BLD) that are still official. 2. I think the purpose of computer generated scrambles are to ensure a fair random scramble. The longer the puzzle takes to solve, the less the scramble really effects how the solve goes. It's not like on 2x2 where the scramble makes the entire solve. Even if someone has a slightly better first center than another (on supposedly the same scramble), The overall solve is not too affected by that. I don't think anyone (even the top bigcubers) will really care that the scrambles are not exactly the same between people. I really don't see any issue with a slight mistake in scrambling on 6x6 and 7x7. 3. Puzzle defects SHOULD NOT BE considered at all in making a puzzle official. The quality of a puzzle and the fact that it can be prone to pops shouldn't exclude it from the ranks of official events. I was happy to compete in 6x6 even though my solves were ruined by devastating pops. It's something that comes with the puzzle, and should be considered as such.
jbcm627 (2008-11-12 02:52:39 +0000)
I agree with Dan. I don't see a good reason not to introduce more events. if you don't want to participate in them, simply don't. If you don't want to see them in a competition, just organize your own without them. Just because the events are rare and/or time-consuming doesn't mean they shouldn't be official. Whether they are held or not should be up to the competition organizers. If the events are time consuming (6x6 or 7x7), it is reasonable to make the event format something like best of 2 (or even 1), but I still think they should be official.
Ton (2008-11-12 07:07:48 +0000)
I still like to evaluate the 6x6 and 7x7 a bit more before introducing it in competition, this is why I scheduled it for Den Hague Open in a full format of mean of 3 Time and scrambling is not an issue, we simply need more room in the schedules, so we will not see them in all competitions, same is true for 4x4 Bld etc. And yes a prefect scramble is most unlikely , but there is no advantage as long as the number of turns are done- we had the same issue with the megaminx before we had the Stefan Pochman scrambling method. The quality of the puzzle is however an issue for me to be fun in competition, they are great puzzles still it need lot of improvement for speedcubing. Maybe DIY kits will resolve most of the problems.
Erik (2008-11-12 10:48:58 +0000)
I think my reasons are not ridicilous. I would like to be 6 and 7 official but I just forsee a lot of trouble. If you think puzzle defects should not be considered I would like to ask you some questions: 1. if you pop a 6x6 and pop more than 3 pieces you DNF, this happens to a lot of people. Would you like to have a DNF half of the time in your mean of 3? 2. if you scramble and pop a 6 or 7 the scramble will be off, of course it'll still be thoroughly scrambled but I wouldn't like that I get a scramble with no centres connected while someone else would get 2 lines done, would you like that?. Basically if you let scrambles that are not the same still go to be solved you are not really applying to one of the main goals the WCA has: fairness. You cannot give people different scrambles no matter how much influence it will have in my opinion. To come back to your first point. I think we already have too many events. (Where I would agree that feet solving official is stupid) I know 5x5 is not done everywhere. I can imagine you don't like that, and nor do I. How would you feel if other events are canceled too because the organiser wants 6 and 7? Anyway, if you know a way where you can avoid all of these problems (which have proven to be problems in the tryout tournaments) I'm in favor of the idea to get them official of course.
BryanLogan (2008-11-12 13:53:00 +0000)
[quote="Erik":3383emg4]You cannot give people different scrambles no matter how much influence it will have in my opinion.[/quote:3383emg4] We already do that today with different groups of competitors for the same round.
TMOY (2008-11-12 14:31:46 +0000)
[quote="Erik":1vy6q75r] 2. if you scramble and pop a 6 or 7 the scramble will be off, of course it'll still be thoroughly scrambled but I wouldn't like that I get a scramble with no centres connected while someone else would get 2 lines done, would you like that?. Basically if you let scrambles that are not the same still go to be solved you are not really applying to one of the main goals the WCA has: fairness. You cannot give people different scrambles no matter how much influence it will have in my opinion. [/quote:1vy6q75r] Where's the problem ? On such big cubes it won't make a huge difference anyway. And remember different people have different solving methods, the same scramble can turn out to be lucky for me and not for you, or the converse. Giving people slightly different scrambles isn't more unfair than that.
DanCohen (2008-11-12 16:23:41 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":17vb99gu][quote="Erik":17vb99gu]You cannot give people different scrambles no matter how much influence it will have in my opinion.[/quote:17vb99gu] We already do that today with different groups of competitors for the same round.[/quote:17vb99gu] Bryan, that brings up a completely valid point that I didn't even think of. I definitely agree that the use of groups in the same round helps negate the need for the exact scramble between competitors.
TomZ (2008-11-13 11:43:12 +0000)
I think that diversity should be preferred over 'quantity' - I'd much rather have 2, 3, 4, 5 and a whole bunch of other events than all the medium/big cubes. Since solving a 4/5 and a 6/7 is so similar, I don't think 6 and 7 add something new. Therefor, in order to allow other people to show off their skills as well, we should try and have events in as many different puzzles as possible.
anders (2008-11-13 19:05:36 +0000)
I support the idea of having both 6x and 7x (and Skewb...) as official events: More puzzles => More fun! As I mentioned in another thread, we already have too many events to hold them all in one competition. It's up to the organiser to select among the events. In Sweden, we discuss which events to hold at Swedish competition at the svekub.se forum. But it is the organiser who has the final word. /Anders
Dene (2008-11-13 19:14:39 +0000)
[quote="TomZ":3nddfwhc]Since solving a 4/5 and a 6/7 is so similar, I don't think 6 and 7 add something new. [/quote:3nddfwhc] Try telling that to Michal. Basically, you're wrong.
DanCohen (2008-11-13 20:10:52 +0000)
[quote="Erik":1xlfyx8p]1. if you pop a 6x6 and pop more than 3 pieces you DNF, this happens to a lot of people. Would you like to have a DNF half of the time in your mean of 3?[/quote:1xlfyx8p] I can't believe I missed this. Basically, you are absolutely wrong here. The regulations don't say ANYTHING about a puzzle popping more than 3 pieces. It just says that you can't forcibly remove pieces to fix the puzzle. If your 6x6 pops every piece but corners, you can still solve it. Unless you somehow magically pop a corner on 6x6, you won't have an issue with repairing the puzzle.
Edouard Chambon (2008-11-13 23:04:31 +0000)
I'm FOR these puzzles as official events, but with apropriate formats, since I don't really care of them. I prefer letting more freedom to the organisers, and even if that's not official, there are already lots of competitions with these puzzles.
DanCohen (2008-11-14 04:33:34 +0000)
I hate to be "spamming" up this thread, but I came up with another idea: Why not just have multiple acceptable formats for 6x6 and 7x7. The official averages will be done out of 5, but you are still able to hold a competition for best of X. This way, organizers who are truly committed to holding the event, provide a valid record, while others can still hold the event. I don't see any reason for penalizing organizers who want to hold a complete event. We shouldn't dumb down an event just because it takes a little bit longer. 5x5 BLD takes long. Not everyone does it. Some competitions have more than 1 attempt. That's how this should work.
Hadley (2008-11-15 03:36:03 +0000)
Maybe 6 and 7 could just be best of 2? I think that a lot of people would find that fine. I can't tell you how much I would love to have a chance to solve the 6x6x6 officially. As far as popping, puzzle defects happen. Just the way it is. I popped Andrew Kang's 4x4x4 while scrambling it. Minor differences in scrambles wouldn't make the solves un fair. Like said said earlier, there are different groups with different scrambles. There were 2 groups at Decatur Open, each had unique scrambles.
anders (2008-11-15 11:20:26 +0000)
@DanCohen Already today, different formats are allowed. The regulations state both "Possible formats" and "Preferred format for finals" for every event ( Rules 9b)-9d) ). /Anders
Tyson (2008-11-18 18:58:07 +0000)
Here's a question... are both 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 necessary as official events right now? In running, there's the 100 meter dash, the 200 meter dash, and the 400 meter dash. There isn't a 150 meter dash, and there isn't a 337 meter dash... What if only 7x7x7 were official, but not 6x6x6? Is there a competitor who's really good at one, and not the other? I feel that for an nxnxn cube, for sufficiently large values of n, it's really testing the same skill set.
Dene (2008-11-18 22:14:27 +0000)
Tyson: I think that, although one might be similar at 6x6x6 and 7x7x7, there is still a difference between people. What I mean is: at the moment, Dan Cohen is probably the best at 6x6x6, while Michal is probably the best at 7x7x7. If you only have one, one person might get the only WR, when someone else is being deprived, depending on which puzzle you choose to make official. You might say "there has to be a limit somewhere", and at the moment it looks like 11x11x11 is the limit. Perhaps bigger bigger cubes (after 7x7x7) don't need to be official, but for sure, 6x6x6 has a different element from 4x4x4, and 7x7x7 has a different element from 5x5x5. I don't think the bigger cubes will have any new element (someone correct me if I'm wrong) so you can be nice to us big-cubers are draw the line at 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 :) .
Tyson (2008-11-19 18:03:43 +0000)
Can you justify this objectively? You say 6x6x6 is different than 4x4x4 and 7x7x7 is different from 5x5x5, but I feel that you're making this statement simply due to the line-up of puzzles that are available on the market. What's to stop someone from saying an 11x11x11 is different from a 9x9x9? If you can't actually say anything objectively, then why should we really go beyond the 5x5x5? Don't people solve the 5x5x5, 6x6x6, and 7x7x7 in mostly similar ways? You could go ahead and argue that 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 BLD are not very different, and I might agree there. But that doesn't really have much bearing on this discussion. If you want to argue to eliminate 5x5x5 BLD, then that would be more appropriate for another thread.
blade740 (2008-11-19 21:17:36 +0000)
The 6x6 and 7x7, from a puzzle standpoint, DO contain different elements than the 4 and 5. They are the lowest-ordered puzzles to have oblique centers, which are in 2 distinct orbitals. They are the smallest to require (during a normal reduction solution) commutators to finish the last 2 centers. Not that I think it matters much, but it's answering your question objectively.
Dene (2008-11-19 21:43:49 +0000)
Tyson: My view is this: from a reduction sense blade740 basically said what I was thinking. While 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 reduce centers immediately around the center point, the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 have the extra element of a second level around that. Edges have the same quality. While additionally large cubes will add further layers, the general idea remains the same (I think, again someone correct me if I'm missing something). It's kind of like: 2x2x2/3x3x3: no reduction 4x4x4/5x5x5: reduction Above: second stage reduction (and further). I believe that these are three fundamentally different levels. I'm sure others disagree.
DanCohen (2008-11-20 03:32:54 +0000)
Ok, so where do we draw the line? I don't think that ANYONE really would want to see anything >7x7 official (ok.. maybe Michal). After 7x7 the general consensus is that the puzzles are basically the same. The addition of 6x6 and 7x7 have been on the backburner since before the cubes were even readily available. They add a new challenge and should definitely be official. As to comparing ability on 6x6 and 7x7: I do think there's a difference between the two. Personally, I am horrible at 4x4 compared to what I am at 5x5. I sort of feel the opposite about 6x6 and 7x7. My 7x7 times are far behind the top couple of guys, where my 6x6 times are much closer. Also, not that this really makes a difference, the 6x6 and 7x7 do have different shapes ;). There's obviously enough demand for these puzzles, and I think it will be a somewhat popular event... so why not add it?
Tyson (2008-11-20 19:47:43 +0000)
Okay, so that's what I was a looking for: an objective difference between nxnxn cubes for n = 4,5 and n = 6, 7. Do people generally agree that, looking at how it was put down by Dene, we have no stage reduction, 1 stage reduction, 2 stage reduction, and things beyond 7x7x7 are redundant? What if there was high demand for 8x8x8? and 9x9x9? and nxnxn for n = 10, 11, 12 through 15? Where do we draw the line? When the time comes, can you objectively justify that 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 are redundant?
Dene (2008-11-21 00:32:03 +0000)
Personally, I haven't put any though into 8x8x8 and over, but the idea I think, for them, will be the same as 6x6x6 and 7x7x7. They could all be included in the "higher stage reduction" group. Of course, if these cubes ever exist I would love for them to be official events, but I also think there will be little or no demand for it.
Clement Gallet (2008-11-21 13:25:54 +0000)
[quote="blade740":3ra63faf]They are the smallest to require (during a normal reduction solution) commutators to finish the last 2 centers.[/quote:3ra63faf] Sorry, but you can solve the last 2 centers of a 7x7 without any commutator. Except for the last 2 centers, I solve 6x6 and 7x7 the exact way I solve the 5x5.
Tyson (2008-11-21 13:44:04 +0000)
The IAAF recognizes the 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, 400 meter dash, etc. There isn't a 420 meter dash, a 450 meter dash, a 600 meter dash, and a 613 meter run. Just because one person is better at a 7x7x7 and another person is better at a 6x6x6, I don't really know that it means that the puzzle is testing a new skill. I like pointing back to the IAAF, because I feel there are very good comparisons. Let's look at the difference between the mile and the 1500 meter run. Essentially, they are the same race. There isn't one person who's definitely better in one event over the other. Pretty much, your 1500 meter runner is going to be at the same skill level in a mile run. The IAAF counts a record for the mile run, but it is rarely run. And it is not contested in the Olympics. What about that idea? But really, I hate to do this, but it is a bit of a slippery slope argument. When the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 and 10x10x10 and 11x11x11 come out, and the nxnxn comes out for everything n up to 20, are we going to make all of those official? And if your answer to this is no, then why the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7? I really want to see this justified in such a way that comes to the following conclusion: A. No, 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are not accepted as events. B. Yes, 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are accepted as events, but nothing larger. C. All cubes nxnxn are accepted as events. I want to see objective analysis to support one of these, because right now, I haven't seen anything objective reason that 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are something new, and not just redundant to the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5.
chevy (2008-11-21 15:59:44 +0000)
In my opinion, not letting the two puzzles official would be very sad. But we're not ready. Since 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are the two bigger puzzles finally appear to the world after the invention of the rubik's professor.It's been like , almost 30 years? We as cubers are more excited than ever to try the amazing cubes after long waits. And as long as we do speedcubing, we wanna do it fast. Than ? Of course we do want to compete! For the long history of speed-competing , and the excitement of the V-miracles, It's very natural that people are eager making it official and create records. Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting. But being one of the competition holders , I can imagine that doing it in competitions could be a nightmare. Scrambling a 5x5x5 is already very hard for "volunteering scramblers "to do them all correct in a competition, not to mention bigger cubes . I personally never follow the scrambles from the timers while solving 7x7x7. If we do these two event , the whole competition would be prolonged and difficult to handle.Maybe in bigger competitions which holds for two days , they can manage that well, but most of the competitions don't. However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option. We still do the combined rounds for the first solve, you can even make it under a stackmat time, for top players , 7x7x7 under 6 minutes even 5 minutes is possible, and I bet most 3x3x3 blind cubers take longer time than that.In that case , I would be very glad to hold it in a competition. As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely . Chevy Li - Taiwan
BryanLogan (2008-11-21 16:52:23 +0000)
[quote="chevy":2glky0r4] Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting. [/quote:2glky0r4] But when the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 comes out, are people going to say, "Well, I can do double-pairing of obliques on the 9x9x9", or "I have a method where I pair up the entire cross in a single algorithm". I'm not arguing about the merits, I'm just saying that you can always have a new solving technique for larger puzzles. [quote="chevy":2glky0r4] If we do these two event , the whole competition would be prolonged and difficult to handle.Maybe in bigger competitions which holds for two days , they can manage that well, but most of the competitions don't. [/quote:2glky0r4] Yeah, but the organizers make the decisions. Even with the events we have today, no one is force to hold them. [quote="chevy":2glky0r4] However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option. [/quote:2glky0r4] Mean of 2 would be ugly. Just have a restrictive cut-off. If you can't make it to an average, then you don't get an average. 9f13 should be modified so that you go by average first, and then "best of" if people don't have an average. That way, we can still rank the competitors. [quote="chevy":2glky0r4] As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely . [/quote:2glky0r4] So why not add the quicker cubes, like Skewb or Rainbow cube? Besides, I'm guessing people all the time are saying, "Wow....I don't think we'll ever see that broken." and they get broken.
chevy (2008-11-21 17:03:16 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":1tnei75t][quote="chevy":1tnei75t] Besides that, I agree that solving 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are different from 4x4x4 ad 5x5x5(for example the appearance of oblique centers.) , the centers and the edges are absolutely more interesting. [/quote:1tnei75t] [quote="BryanLogan":1tnei75t] But when the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 comes out, are people going to say, "Well, I can do double-pairing of obliques on the 9x9x9", or "I have a method where I pair up the entire cross in a single algorithm". I'm not arguing about the merits, I'm just saying that you can always have a new solving technique for larger puzzles. [/quote:1tnei75t] Yes it comes back to the question for future bigger cubes, but they are not in the market now, and when they show up , they won't be any more impressive than 6 and 7 , also, the size of them may not be suitable of speedcubing for normal people, that means it's not hard to decide whether making them officials or not. Maybe yes maybe no, but it will definitily not as a controversy than the 6 and 7. [quote="chevy":1tnei75t] However, I still think,it is very sad that these two puzzles can't be official, so I suggest that, why don't we create special formats for them? I think mean of 2 can be an option. [/quote:1tnei75t] Mean of 2 would be ugly. Just have a restrictive cut-off. If you can't make it to an average, then you don't get an average. [quote="chevy":1tnei75t] As long as I'm concerned , the records for the "old cubes" is very hard to break now (Thanks to Erik:)) , new cubes in official creates new records, if there won't be excitement of new world records coming in the future, then it would be some kind of boring ,no ? Not only for the records, new cubes would definitely add fun in competitions, so that's why i hope they can be official, but considering the staff work, we can do it diferrentely . [/quote:1tnei75t] So why not add the quicker cubes, like Skewb or Rainbow cube? Besides, I'm guessing people all the time are saying, "Wow....I don't think we'll ever see that broken." and they get broken.[/quote:1tnei75t] I never mention not adding those puzzles , my considerations are for 6 and 7. And for the records ,I say very hard now, but how about in the future ? Does anyone really thinK 3x3x3 would approach 5 secs? 3 secs? One day there will be a limit.
Dene (2008-11-21 20:32:12 +0000)
[quote="Tyson":264zznk7]The IAAF recognizes the 100 meter dash, 200 meter dash, 400 meter dash, etc. There isn't a 420 meter dash, a 450 meter dash, a 600 meter dash, and a 613 meter run. Just because one person is better at a 7x7x7 and another person is better at a 6x6x6, I don't really know that it means that the puzzle is testing a new skill. I like pointing back to the IAAF, because I feel there are very good comparisons. Let's look at the difference between the mile and the 1500 meter run. Essentially, they are the same race. There isn't one person who's definitely better in one event over the other. Pretty much, your 1500 meter runner is going to be at the same skill level in a mile run. [/quote:264zznk7] I ignored this comparison for a while, but seeing as you seem to like it, I'm going to strongly disagree with the validity of it. With running, they could create any length run, as you suggest: 117m, 289m, 364m, 11453m, and so on. We cannot do this with cubes. There are physical limitations and practical limitations to the size that cubes can be. Also, we cannot have cubes that are "6.5 x 6.5 x 6.5" or "9.1 x 9.1 x 9.1" or whatever, which basically means that anything "in between" is impossible, whereas for running, if we take every 100m to be like a whole number in cubes, then anything between the 100's in running, such as 165m, would be like comparing to a "5.7 x 5.7 x 5.7".
qqwref (2008-11-23 03:20:39 +0000)
One does have to ask the question, why doesn't anyone run [url=http://www.directathletics.com/results/track/4800_327012.html:17qdmab0]300 meter dash?[/url:17qdmab0] Or [url=http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/jan/track011506.html:17qdmab0]500 meter dash?[/url:17qdmab0] ;-) On the other side of the spectrum, it's true that people don't run every possible track event (because of course there is not enough time to do everything), but they do keep getting bigger. Sure, people run 800s and miles, but they also do two mile runs, five mile runs, half-marathons, marathons, ultramarathons... So that's probably not a very good comparison. The only time the distances actually stop being competitive are when there are only a handful of people in the world who will try the distance, although even the completely ridiculous [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Transcendence_3100_Mile_Race:17qdmab0]Self-Transcendence 3100 Mile Race[/url:17qdmab0] attracts some 15 participants every year. You would almost certainly see similar results if you ran a 20x20 competition. I think the big cubes actually do stop changing at the 7x7. The 4x4 and 5x5 introduce new types of pieces: wings, x-centers, and t-centers. The 6x6 and 7x7 introduce oblique centers. But after that, there really are no more pieces. If you're solving the 10x10x10, you are solving the same types of pieces as the 6x6x6, just more of them. So I think I would say that you really do have to learn new tricks for 6x6 and 7x7 if you want to be very fast at them, but for the larger cubes you don't because you are already used to manipulating all possible types of pieces. Note that even though all pieces have been introduced by the 6x6 or smaller cubes, the 7x7 is the first cube where they are all found together, so it is still a distinct challenge.
cubetalk (2008-12-20 02:03:14 +0000)
there should not be a limit to NxNxN cubes if you have a problem during anything, scrambling, solving, time, then don't have it! but of course, for big competitions, get experienced scramblers...
Ron (2009-01-02 16:46:46 +0000)
Hi all, Thanks for your feedback. For WCA Regulations 2009 draft 1 we will add 6x6x6 Cube and 7x7x7 Cube as official events. Some remarks: [list:2opjqfi8] Scramble length will be 80 resp. 100 moves, based on the calculation at the bottom of this message. We will start with a clean sheet, so we will not accept results from past competitions. We will use the current <sub> notation, with the double and triple slice moves as used in the WCA Scramble program. Format will be 'Best of x' and/or 'Mean of 3'. [/list:u:2opjqfi8] Thanks, Ron =========== Calculation of number of moves for nxnxn sized cube puzzles. Thanks Jaap! [quote:2opjqfi8]nxnxn cube There are ns = 3(n-1) slice cuts, n-1 along each axis. Each slice cut has np = 4(n-1) piece pairs along its outside. There are ns*np pairs of adjacent pieces at the start. Each move disturbs everything along one cut, i.e. leaves fraction (ns-1)/ns of all pairs alone Assuming constant mixing, approx ns*np * [(ns-1)/ns]^m adjacent pairs remain after m moves Want this to be <1, so we have ns * np * [(ns-1)/ns]^m < 1 [1 - 1/ns]^m < 1 / (ns*np) m*log(1 - 1/ns) < log ( 1 / (ns*np) ) m > log ( 1 / (ns*np) ) / log(1 - 1/ns) This gives: n ns np m 2 3 4 6,1 3 6 8 21,2 4 9 12 39,7 5 12 16 60,4 6 15 20 82,6 7 18 24 106,1 8 21 28 130,6 9 24 32 156,1[/quote:2opjqfi8]
qqwref (2009-01-03 05:43:05 +0000)
Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect? However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.
Bob (2009-01-03 07:05:28 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":g670xqur]Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect? However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.[/quote:g670xqur] Why not? It happened in every other event, right?
TMOY (2009-01-03 09:23:51 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":2j9x9p3t]Hi Ron, I'm glad that 6x6 and 7x7 will be official events. When does this go into effect? However, if all past results are not valid, this means that the best result in the first competition which is held after the regulations come into effect would be the new WR, correct? Would it be possible to not give out world records until certain time barriers have been broken? For example for 6x6 it might be a 3:30 single and for 7x7 a 5:30 single. I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.[/quote:2j9x9p3t] Where's the problem ? As a relatively slow cuber who has already attended some 6^3 and 7^3 competitions I know very well how faster than me some other cubers are, if I got such a ridiculous WR it would only give me a good laugh. And it wouldn't last very long anyway.
Edouard Chambon (2009-01-03 09:47:07 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":3aa9g1bf]When does this go into effect?[/quote:3aa9g1bf] Ron must be busy... So I will answer : As soon as the new regulations are official. (probably February) I am not really happy with the fact that are old results are not kept. I think that at least, current best times and avg should be kept, in order to prevent a slow cuber to have 4 WRs.
BryanLogan (2009-01-03 13:00:31 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":15bwb6j0]I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.[/quote:15bwb6j0] [quote="qqwref from viewtopic.php?p=2493#p2493":15bwb6j0]In fact I would say that EVERY time a WR is set it is expected to be eventually broken as people get faster. But that is not a reason to not give a WR in the first place.[/quote:15bwb6j0] So what do you want? This is why I suggested some waiting period. Give a few people around the world a shot first, and then determine the winner. I choose 1 year since some competitions only occur once a year, so by then every organizer would've had a chance to hold it if they wanted to. I'm just curious why this is being announced official at this point when the poll hasn't even occurred. Yes, I expect V-Cubes would probably win, but it would be good to conduct it. Besides, it would help us to determine any voting issues (ballot stuffing, voting eligibility, etc) for future votes.
Mario (2009-01-03 15:01:49 +0000)
I think it's not a problem to have more official events, if you don't like 6x6x6 and 7x7x7, like me, you can simply not participate when you go to a competition and use that LOT of free time :mrgreen: to visit the city. And when you organize an open you simply don't put 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 (and 5x5x5, and megaminx) in the list of events. It's good for all of us.
StefanPochmann (2009-01-03 15:34:19 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":1mss7pl9][b:1mss7pl9]I just don't want someone who is relatively slow to get the world record[/b:1mss7pl9] just because they were the fastest person at a particular competition.[/quote:1mss7pl9] Why not? [quote="Edouard Chambon":1mss7pl9]current best times and avg should be kept, in order to [b:1mss7pl9]prevent a slow cuber to have 4 WRs[/b:1mss7pl9].[/quote:1mss7pl9] Why do you want to prevent that?
qqwref (2009-01-03 21:22:28 +0000)
I was actually thinking more towards Edouard's idea. (Oh, and a year is WAY too long. I'm sorry.) Just keep only the current semi-official best times for 6x6 and 7x7 single/avg. Erik won't mind the extra WRs, and that will also prevent slow people from getting a WR which doesn't represent the fastest times people are getting. Stefan: It's because I think a WR should represent fast times. Relatively fast times have been gotten in competition (and REALLY fast times if you count the unofficial V-cube one), and if you call a 7 minute 7x7 time a "world record" it just wouldn't make sense.
Dene (2009-01-03 21:58:31 +0000)
I have a feeling qq, that either you or Dan will be the first to have a shot at the WR, so there shouldn't be a problem.
Bob (2009-01-03 21:58:53 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":h4v9ads4]I was actually thinking more towards Edouard's idea. (Oh, and a year is WAY too long. I'm sorry.) Just keep only the current semi-official best times for 6x6 and 7x7 single/avg. Erik won't mind the extra WRs, and that will also prevent slow people from getting a WR which doesn't represent the fastest times people are getting.[/quote:h4v9ads4] I highly disagree with this. Those are not semi-official best times. They are unofficial best times. This is in clear violation of regulation 9b). 9b) Official speed solving events and formats of WCA are: [List that does not include 6x6 or 7x7]. I can't believe this could even be discussed as a possibility. [quote="qqwref":h4v9ads4]Stefan: It's because I think a WR should represent fast times. Relatively fast times have been gotten in competition (and REALLY fast times if you count the unofficial V-cube one), and if you call a 7 minute 7x7 time a "world record" it just wouldn't make sense.[/quote:h4v9ads4] This has happened many times in speedcubing: 20.00 average for 3x3 (589 people have broken that "WR") 22.95 single for 3x3 (1373 people have broken that "WR") 1:20 single and 1:30 average were WR for 4x4 2:19 single and 2:50 average were WR for 5x5 8.44 single and 10.87 average were WR for 2x2 3:56 was WR for 3x3 bld 44.98 single and 47.78 average were WR for 3x3 oh 3.06 single and 2.92 average were WR for magic 8.22 single and 3.54 average were WR for master magic 2:12 single and 1:33 average were WR for megaminx 14.09 single and 16.55 average were WR for pyraminx 41.80 single and 33.21 average were WR for square-1 38.97 single and 11.61 average were WR for clock 22:35 was WR for 4x4 bld 2:34:36 was WR for 5x5 bld (This is now under 16 minutes!) Would you also suggest that we do not recognize these times as WR anymore because they are "too slow" ?
anders (2009-01-03 22:27:20 +0000)
I am happy to see that 6x and 7x become official events. [quote="Ron":1s7fzpi8] We will start with a clean sheet, so we will not accept results from past competitions. [/quote:1s7fzpi8] However, I do not like this. The results in the "unofficial data base" (www.speedcubing.com/results/) are achieved under WCA-competition standards. Furthermore, the unofficial 2x speedcubing results were promoted to official results. Acknowledging the unofficial results makes it more relaxed to retire events from, and to promote events to, the list of official ones. [quote="Ron":1s7fzpi8] Format will be 'Best of x' and/or 'Mean of 3'. [/quote:1s7fzpi8] I do not like this, either. I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x". /Anders
Ron (2009-01-03 22:59:39 +0000)
Hi Anders, [quote:14gw9uzp]I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x".[/quote:14gw9uzp] I am not a fan of 'Mean of 3' either. But keeping it 'Best of' makes it a very different event! With 'Mean of 3' you have to take every solve seriously. With 'Best of 3' you could take all risks and just hope one of the solves is great. Therefore I prefer 'Mean of 3'. Ron
qqwref (2009-01-03 23:34:57 +0000)
[quote="Dene":w6f40w2y]I have a feeling qq, that either you or Dan will be the first to have a shot at the WR, so there shouldn't be a problem.[/quote:w6f40w2y] Maybe, or maybe not. It would be nice if it worked out (just by luck) that the inaugural WR was a fast time, but I'd like to guarantee this. [quote="Bob":w6f40w2y]I highly disagree with this. Those are not semi-official best times. They are unofficial best times. ... I can't believe this could even be discussed as a possibility.[/quote:w6f40w2y] They're not just random unofficial PBs, though. I am talking about the records on speedcubing.com/results, which were (a) achieved in a competition setting, and (b) the best of a very limited number of attempts, just like in any other WCA event. When I say they were achieved in a competition setting, I mean that the only difference between those times and all other official times is that, at the time, the WCA regulations did not consider those events to be official events. That is why I say "semi-official". There is much more of a difference (in terms of validity) between those times and the times on the UWR page, than between those times and the official 5x5 rankings. At the very least, we should wait to award WRs until these times have been beaten, which they will be as soon as a world-class 6x6 or 7x7 solver gets an official attempt. [quote="Bob":w6f40w2y]This has happened many times in speedcubing: ...[random stuff that I don't care about]... Would you also suggest that we do not recognize these times as WR anymore because they are "too slow" ?[/quote:w6f40w2y] You don't understand at all. All of those records were perfectly fast at the time. Take the first 5x5 WR as an example. It is, by current standards, very slow - but if you look back at the comments from the 2003 WC, people found that VERY impressive. So it was clearly fast for the time. On the other hand, if I see a 6:xx WR single on 7x7, there is no way I would say that is impressive. It's not. I can get under 5 minutes easily and I know several other people who can as well (Michal, Matyas, Dan, Erik, Breandan, etc.). A world record isn't deserved if there are people at the time who have demonstrated that they can beat it by a large margin with a terrible solve.
BryanLogan (2009-01-03 23:35:57 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3bd261xh]Hi Anders, [quote:3bd261xh]I find "Mean of 3" being a most terrible format which we should get rid of. Since "average of 5" would be tiresome, I suggest that the only allowed format should be "Best of x".[/quote:3bd261xh] I am not a fan of 'Mean of 3' either. But keeping it 'Best of' makes it a very different event! With 'Mean of 3' you have to take every solve seriously. With 'Best of 3' you could take all risks and just hope one of the solves is great. Therefore I prefer 'Mean of 3'. Ron[/quote:3bd261xh] Is "Mean of 3" the preferred format for the final round? Or will "Best of" also be "allowed"?
Ron (2009-01-04 07:43:51 +0000)
[quote:2vobis47]Is "Mean of 3" the preferred format for the final round? Or will "Best of" also be "allowed"?[/quote:2vobis47] I prefer a Combined Round "Best of 1", "Mean of 3". :-) "Mean of 3" is preferred, "Best of x" is ALWAYS possible.
StefanPochmann (2009-01-04 19:11:21 +0000)
qqwref & Co, I have two questions for you: 1) Who gets hurt if some slow solver gets a world record (compared to noone getting one for a while)? 2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.
qqwref (2009-01-05 07:27:45 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":bcd3oe6v]1) Who gets hurt if some slow solver gets a world record (compared to noone getting one for a while)?[/quote:bcd3oe6v] Nobody gets hurt, but I think it undermines the high amount of skill we expect from a world record. For me the world record seems like a time that should represent the best times the community can get in competitions: that is, a goal that the top cubers have to practice for, not something that the top cubers will certainly beat as soon as they get to a competition. For me, if someone claims a WR with a very slow solve, it's not a difficult goal to work towards, but basically a joke. I want the WR to be a proper representation of how fast the fastest people are. [quote="StefanPochmann":bcd3oe6v]2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.[/quote:bcd3oe6v] It is the fastest WCA-official time achieved (in a particular event and format) up to a certain point in time. But there are different gradations of a time being valid, from 100% (it is in the WCA database) down to 0% (a time someone claims they did, but with no proof or record of it). And I think a time achieved in an unofficial event which was held at an official competition has a higher 'validity score' than basically every other non-official solve.
StefanPochmann (2009-01-05 10:17:38 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":1xtaox36][quote="StefanPochmann":1xtaox36]2) Please give a definition of what "official world record" means to you.[/quote:1xtaox36] It is the fastest WCA-official time achieved (in a particular event and format) up to a certain point in time.[/quote:1xtaox36] Yep, I agree. So once it becomes official, and a slow solver "achieves the fastest WCA-official time", this should be the official world record, right?