I'm a speedcuber. Inspection time makes for a more interesting competition because it raises the skill ceiling. The top solvers can plan out a dozen moves in advance, find solutions that are more efficient, or skip steps entirely. Removing inspection time means there's no reason to practice this skill. Furthermore, removing inspection time hurts some solving methods more than others. ZZ requires edge orientation, which involves scanning all 12 edge pieces and classifying them as good or bad. Not being able to do this in inspection time would mean it cuts into the solve time, making the entire method unviable. Inspection time adds more diversity and complexity to the hobby.
Also, the video references feet solving. It was removed as an event at the start of 2020. Furthermore, they talk about Red Bull events as if they're another competitor to WCA events. Red Bull events are primarily designed to be broadcast to an audience. WCA events are designed so that everyone from young children to the elderly can compete. These two offbase points by the video creator make me think they aren't actually an active member of the speed solving community, just a random pedantic passerby.
For what it's worth, I think a no-inspection event would be an interesting addition to the competition, but the WCA probably doesn't like it because it would not be substantially distinguished from normal 3x3. I'll look into seeing if there are any discussions anywhere.
Edit: 3x3 No Inspection actually was an official WCA event from January 2006 to July 2006. Not sure why it was removed, though.
Good points about inspection time making it more interesting, I think a lot of people agree with you, and I find it very interesting personally.
The RedBull thing was shown to me by a speedcuber who just wanted to point out that there are no inspection events out there, even though they aren't aimed solely at the speed cubing community.
Here's my issue. The statement "the world record for solving a rubiks cube is 3.47 seconds" is false. It took him longer than 3.47 seconds, we just don't count the extra time because of the rules of the game (which is a great game by the way).
There's a lot of lines you can draw about what technically counts as the world record time. It's also incorrect to say that the world record is 3.47, because there are many on-camera examples of faster solves. They simply weren't done in the course of an official WCA event. The goal of the WCA isn't to most accurately determine what the world record is, it's to determine who can solve a cube the fastest in the context of an accessible and enjoyable competition. Trying to change WCA regulations to better match your personal definition of what counts as the world record is against the goals of the WCA.
I think that’s a more reasonable stance if people has say 10 minutes for inspection. 12 seconds is applying real time pressure and then the format just ignores that pressure, which is silly.
The format isn’t a pure test of manipulation skills or solving skills but a hybrid of both with much heavier weight on manipulation skills.
10 minutes is likely too long, at that point it would be possible to execute and memorise a full solution during inspection. The time would come down to who can make ~40 turns fastest from memory.
As an ex-cuber, I disagree that including inspection time would make the event more fair or would reduce the number of ties.
The reason there's so much variance in inspection time (usually over 8 seconds since that's when you get the warning from the timekeeper) is because nobody has previously cared about inspection time. If it started being included, people would spend far less time inspecting (maybe just looking for the first cross pieces at most) and you'd end up with similar competitive levels.
I'm also not sure I agree with the statement that they're "already solving the cube". It's not wrong but it gives the wrong impression -- given enough inspection time you couldn't solve the whole cube in your head using traditional methods like CFOP (obviously you do this in blindfolded solves but that's much slower than CFOP). Cross planning is a thing but I doubt that the variance in times is actually because Felix is slower than other cubers at doing cross planning -- he just takes his time because he knows inspection times are not counted.
That being said, I'm not against having it as a new format. It would be interesting to see how the meta would evolve (though I suspect it would just result in cross-only inspections, if that -- but it would be interesting if CFOP fell out of favour because there are better techniques that don't need as much inspection to get off to a running start). I also get the viewpoint that "it makes more sense" but I've also never had issues when solving cubes for laypeople when I say "hang on, lemme take a look before I start" so I'm not sure it's that big of a deal (not that many laypeople care about speedcubing minutiae anyway).
I also wonder whether this would disproportionately affect vision-impaired cubers (though I don't personally know any so I can't ask them if they typically have longer inspection times or if they're doing anything special during inspection).
You don't plan out the entire solve in your head during inspection. At most you plan out the cross and maybe the first F2L pair, the rest is dealing with what you see when you see it (so for the majority of the solve it is a question of dexterity, pattern recognition, and look-ahead ability).
My issue with saying "they're already solving the cube" is the implication that more inspection time would let you get even shorter solve times and I don't think that's the case (unless you went really ridiculous and gave everyone an hour to do a smallest-moves solve on paper).
(There are also practical issues with this kind of format that nsilvestri pointed out that I hadn't originally considered.)
Note for others reading this thread, "fewest moves in an hour" is a WCA official event which is the natural conclusion when taking inspection time to the extreme.
I think it is one of the more interesting and underappreciated events, though it likely gets fewer entries due to the time commitment.
But to imply that the inspection time doesn’t affect the solve time at all seems totally disingenuous. I agree with the thesis of the video. “Time to solve a cube” should mean exactly that; how long, from first seeing the cube in front of you, it takes you to solve it.
I don't think I implied that the inspection time doesn't affect the solve time, but I'm learning a lot about how people interpret the words you say in a monologue. For example, I totally misspoke when I said "they're solving it in their head", they are... but not completely, and that's what many people took my words to mean which was not my intention, lessons learned.
I've heard of colorblind cubers using alternative color schemes that have more contrast for helping them distinguish colors. WCA also allows textured cubes for blind solvers (obviously these aren't allowed in the blindfold event)
I agree, it would be interesting to see what techniques evolve. We can get some hint by looking at unofficial multicube records (most solves in 24 hours, most solves while holding breath underwater, etc). It would definitely wreck zz. Not sure which method would come out on top though. I've always been biased towards petrus so am enjoying coming up with reasons why that would potentially see a boost (although I doubt it would actually come out on top). I doubt we'd see many x-cross starts among CFOP solvers which I think is sad. I'm also wondering how this would effect color neutral solvers compared to solvers that stick to a specific color cross. I spent a month switching to be color neutral before my average times got back down to pre switch average.
Meh. If tournament organisers want, they can run tournaments where inspections count in the total time, get enough steam and I'm sure it will be exciting enough.
Competition is based on the details in the format, which competitors will optimise for.
Counter example from the examples given in the video. Olympic swimmers race, with heats and rules deciding who takes the less draggy centre lanes. But if we're truly looking for the fastest swimmers, we would conduct individual time trials in temperature controlled single lane pools at sea level, with times measured starting when the competitors' legs leave the diving board and when the competitors' fingers touch the wall at the end of the measured distance. Why should reaction time and inconsistent water drag count for the competition?
People can host their own competitions with different rules, and do: Red Bull has their own format of competitions where inspection time is not included. However, under the regulations outlined by the World Cube Association, inspection time is required (except in blindfolded formats).
If there’s sufficient demand, the World Cube Organization could (and probably should) organize two events, or one event with two championships.
You see that in many other sports. Basketball has 3×3 championships, road cycling had the road race and the individual time trial, cricket has at least 3 different game formats (tests, one-day, and T20), soccer has indoor and outdoor forms, sailing has many different boat types, swimming has separate events for 25m and 50m pools and for open water swimming, etc.
The WCA already does have multiple events for different puzzles and styles of solving, such as 7x7 cubes and solving a 3x3 with the fewest moves. All but the biggest competitions choose from a subset of those 17 events to include because there's too much demand. There's no technical reason why no-inspection can't be an event, too. No-inspection was an event for 6 months over 15 years ago, but I can't find any information on why it was removed. That being said, it's still possible for a event organizer to have an unofficial event as part of the WCA sanctioned competition. I've recently been seeing Face Turning Octahedron appear as unofficial competition events.
Ex competitive swimmer: having other people in the pool matters. It’s a race, and people do swim (run, climb, etc) faster with competition than without.
In theory, anyone can host a competition under their own brand. By far, the World Cube Association is the most-recognized institution. It is even officially recognized by guinness world records
- the World Cubing Association speed cubing rules are designed to make competitions more interesting and fair for speedcubers and NOT for general public.
- the 3x3x3 without inspection used to be an official WCA event but was removed as it was considered a worse way to fairly judge competitor's skill.
- it isn't the fault of speedcubers that people interpret WCA records as something they aren't and then claim it's lying when they find out what they actually are
And the whole analysis of who is fastest with inspection by looking at the data from solves with inspection is kind of meaningless.
Max park has solved 434 cubes in one hour solving cubes with an average 8.2s per cube inspection included. I guess you'll find a 5 seconds solve somewhere in the video.
The inspection phase is not really about "solving" the cube, but more about checking what is the best route to start solving the cube. In the most commonly used solving method that means that they are checking which color to create the initial cross to and what corners to place in first. If you take out the inspection phase, they will more or less just have to choose that at random, which will only cause more random variation to the final times which is already a huge problem with single solves.
Also comparing current record times by including the inspection time is absolutely useless, as the optimal way has been to use as much of the 15s you have to make sure that you are choosing the right approach and the time used for the inspection has no correlation to the time they have actually needed to inspect the cube.
I can barely solve a cube, so I may be wrong, but if I see these insanely fast movements in the solving phase I think not much decision making is taking place there and every move was planned in advance. If that is the case then I think it makes sense to include the planning in the total time.
You’re not correct. Inspection time for a 3x3 solve allows you to plan the early moves, but no farther. It is possible to solve the entire cube in your head (i.e., blindfold solving), but not in 10 seconds. Progress through a solve goes in several stages, depending on your method. Each stage may require several sub-stages.
E.g., for the CFOP method the second stage is pairing middle edge pieces with bottom corner pieces, and putting them in place. There are 4 of these middle edge pieces, so that stage has 4 steps. Each step may require from zero to ~8 moves.
Speed solvers typically scan the cube for the next step, and then while their fingers execute the moves they scan the cube, looking to setup the next step. Sometimes this allows them to anticipate the next _next_ step.
The fastest blindfold solvers in the world have their memorization under 10s. It encodes all the information they need to solve the cube, so arguably they are able to solve the entire cube in their head in under 10s. Execution takes longer, though, because blindfold methods at that level are still less efficient than traditional methods. However, one of the best BLD solvers, Jack Cai, has used blind solving during a normal 3x3 event, by doing his memorization during inspection (inspection time is included in the total time for the actual blindfold event). Then, with a blindfold on, executes the solve. He had a sub-12s average, IIRC.
>but if I see these insanely fast movements in the solving phase
As an old fart who was a kid when the Rubik's Cube was introduced to America, I'd like these young whippersnappers to solve on the original Cubes, not these Ferrari cubes that never stick or get filled with hand salsa and backpack detritus.
Basically most methods of solving go from more intuitive phases to more algorithmic phases. Cubers plan the intuitive phase earlier on in inspection, but the later phases is mostly pattern recognition. So there is still decision making but less complex ones than are necessary at the start.
There's not really any decision making in solving the cube when you have learned the method, you just see the pattern and execute the algorithm. That doesn't really change at all with the inspection time.
There is still plenty of decision making. For any scramble, there are usually a few dozen ways that make sense to make a cross. A top cuber may choose a slightly slower way to do the cross to make the first f2l pair easier (or even solve the first pair at the same time as the cross). They may choose an unusual way to insert the second f2l pair to make the third pair easier. There are a handful of videos out there of cubers breaking down their solves and explaining their decisions.
The last layer doesn't really have any decision making though.
This is equivalent to people who argue "President X didn't REALLY win because they didn't win the popular vote"
Such an argument ignores the fact that president X would likely have changed their strategy if the determinant for winning the election was changed to winning the popular vote
What you're saying might be true (I'd take a bet against Rs suddenly winning the popular vote if the game changed, though) but it could also true that we're playing the wrong game.
Don’t have anything on-topic to say. Instead, I will say: great presentation. The animations etc. kept my attention for something I’m not all that interested in.
It's stupid. They didn't know someone would retroactively try to change the rules. Maybe someone was chatting with referee in their inspection time. Maybe someone just look at the cube for a second and then spend 10s with breathing exercise or relaxing.
They didn't and couldn't possibly know you will change the rules and judge them retroactively.
What if you try to count time to sit on chair next, should they preemptively start to sit really fast in competitions in case you decide in the future to change the rules?
The time they made were made with current rules, you cannot deduce absolutely anything from them. Maybe the fastest total guy is just really stressed and to be done with it. Maybe the slow total guy is just enjoying the show, maybe he's watching his friend doing his best time on next table. Or maybe he's checking if his camera is recording. It's just totally unfair and meaningless.
Also if you count inspection time, referee can now deliberately slowly reveal the cube to slow down someone's inspection.
I closed the video about 4 minutes in because the presentation, while great, was incredibly redundant. The video could be condensed to two sentences. (Note that I'm not claiming to be the target audience, just giving my two cents).
Also, retroactively judging competitors based on a completely different objective does not make sense for determining world records. Maybe the current fastest solver would still be the fastest (inspection+solve)er, but they have had no incentive to demonstrate it so far.
Pretty strange to compare inspection times when the players know it's not counted, so they don't care whether they inspect fast or slow. It's like suddenly measuring the time it takes to walk up to the table.
I am a speedcuber, and the video missed this point. Inspection is needed to make the measurements precise.
Imagine how a no-inspection event would occur. A judge would remove the cover from the cube, and the timer would start simultaneously. Your solve would be partially dependent on how quickly the judge removes the cover, which is unacceptable in a race that can be decided by milliseconds. It would be like in a 100 meter race if a human whispered in your ear when you're allowed to start. Human variance should be avoided at all costs in a race that needs precision.
It wouldn't be at all difficult to remove the variable "uncover" time. Place the cube behind a small fence or curtain that disappears mechanically and starts the time, e.g. Ultimately the "sport" can be whatever its players want it to be, but as an observer, the time used to prepare the solution seems way more important than the current scoring method permits it to be.
> How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.
That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.
The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time spent solving the cube.
Its a broader point that the limits are arbitrary, like high tech clothes or bike designs getting created and banned (or not), but there are actual sports with rolling starts or maximums and minimums defined but no bonus for using less than the max.
The long jump is measured from the board, not from where you jump. Getting close to, but not over the edge is part of the arbitrary rules of the sport.
A better analogy would be to ask whether we should count the time Bolt spent stretching before the gun was fired. If Bolt hadn't stretched, he would've been slower but he still would've been pretty fast.
> The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.
It looks like an interesting idea. The long jump competitions have something like that. Can someone organize it? Do you have to go slowly the first 40 meters and increase the speed just in the last 10 meters before the start line? Can the data from the 200m run be used to estimate this?
And it is absolutely the case that the times for world class second-100m of a 200m sprint are generally lower than even world record 100m sprints (in that report above, out of the field of 8, 6 runners beat the 100m world record over their second 100m)
Usain Bolt's world record 100m from a stationary start is 9.58s.
His world record 200m splits were 9.92s and 9.27s.
So yes, a flying start makes a massive difference. 200m runners are generally slowing down in their second half (Bolt's last 50m took 4.75s, while he covered 100-150m in 4.52s, and 50-100m in 4.32s), but their average speed over the final 100m is still faster than a 100m runner. In a 100m sprint the runner may still be accelerating by the time they reach the line.
I just remembered that all (some?) boat races start like this. You must cross the starting line after the initial time, but you can already have speed.
I really thought this was going to be about something else which I am curious about. It seems as a complete layman to Speed Cubing that some ways the cube can be mixed (shuffled? randomized?) will be harder to solve than others. For experts in Speed Cubing, is that accurate? And, if so, among elite speed cubers how much are the records just a matter of the luck of the draw (mix)?
Luck is a pervasive factor in speedcubing. Much of the time it manifests in a way that allows the solver to skip one or more steps of the solve. This is why most events take the average of 5 to rank people (throw out the fastest and slowest solves from a round of 5, average the middle 3 solves), because it's much more representative of a person's skill. But if you're looking to break the world record single solve for 3x3, you need to be pretty lucky on top of being world-class. When taking into account the luckiest situations we've ever seen in cubing comps, only the top 50 or so fastest solvers in the world even have a statistically significant chance at breaking the world record single. I'd feel comfortable placing money on it being someone who's already in the top 15, because there's still a big gap in skill between them and the top 50.
However, the better a solver gets, the more they are able to manifest lucky situations. For example, I do most of my solves oriented around the white side. If there's something lucky in the initial state that would make using the blue side better, I still might opt to not take advantage of it, because the downside of reorienting myself to the blue side is greater than the advantage from that lucky situation. However, someone who has practiced their recognition on all sides and is color-neutral might be able to take advantage of that situation in a way I could not.
Can you get lucky with the initial configuration of the cube in some way, or is is shuffled in a way that ensures roughly equally hard solves? What's the protocol here?
Luck can and does play a role. The official regulations for scrambling do require an optimum solution of >x moves. It doesn't take into account solving technique though as that's not really feasible. A scramble might be considered really lucky for a roux solver and unlucky for a cfop solver. It may even be lucky for a cfop solver that builds a white cross but not one that builds a green cross. There are far too many variables to take into account. Especially since one of the biggest sources of luck when using cfop is OLL skips (1/216 chance) and PLL skips (1/72 chance). An OLL+PLL skip would be insane but far too rare for competition. OLL and PLL are the O and P in cfop so occur at the end of the solve so they are pretty much impossible to predict since there are so many possible ways to do the cf (cross and f2l) portions of the solve.
Even if you don't get a skip, some OLLs and PLLs are faster than others. A "u perm" is way better than a "g perm" for PLL. In the OLL step a sune is really fast.
2 is a lot smaller of a number than I remembered but I looked at the regulations in the way back machine and it looks like it's been that way for a while. I kind of wonder why they'd have it at such a low number.
It is possible to get lucky with the original scramble. There are a couple ways to think about it. First, some pieces you care about in the early solve may be in place already (e.g., for a CFOP solve, some cross pieces may be in place), or nearly so. This will save you a move or two.
Secondly, sometimes the combination of the scramble and your early path through the solve creates future opportunities. Sometimes you’re lucky that a later step in the solve can be skipped. With a 10-second inspection time, no one can look this far ahead. With a world record hovering around 3 second, skipping one step that requires a 5-10 moves is a big deal.
The world record for the 2x2 is currently an eye-watering 0.49 seconds. 2x2 solvers use inspection time to plan the entire solve, something not possible with 3x3 and above. So that record 2x2 scramble was solvable in under a dozen moves; that’s good luck.
Most of the points have been covered in other comments, but not much talk of fewest moves solving [0].
There are 3 obvious choices on how to deal with inspection time: none, some, and lots. The current and most popular event is in the some category. It's enough time that competitors can plan out a not insignificant portion of the solve, but by no means all of it. Competitors can gain an advantage by training to maximise the use of inspection time which in some ways adds to the event, but can also be seen as unrepresentative of the true solve time.
No inspection time would make for an interesting event but I don't think it would replace the event with some inspection time. They are different events with different but overlapping skill sets that the video doesn't really discuss. Instead it attempts to reach a conclusion by timing a phase that the competitors are using with the knowledge that the time doesn't matter.
Lots of inspection time, represented by the fewest moves event is an interesting but underappreciated event in my opinion. It takes out the physical aspect of how fast a competitor can turn faces, instead competitors have 1 hour to find the shortest sequence of moves to solve the same scramble. Drawbacks are the long amount of time per attempt compared to the usual speed events, and the lower resolution to differentiate competitors.
This has to be one of the best produced videos I've ever seen regarding a data driven subject. The visualization, explanations, pace, and approach was outstanding.
While I agree its worth changing the competition approach to count inspection time into the overall result, the fact that inspection time DOESN'T count in addition to solve time taints the results in the data. We don't know how any of the top 100 would have performed if they knew inspection time counted towards their overall record time.
> The visualization, explanations, pace, and approach was outstanding.
It was, but it was extremely enhanced by the background drum track being keyed to visual changes in the data. That really emphasizes focus on the key data points.
I do agree that inspection should be merged into the time. It might mean that people have to start optimizing diffrently, but.. the time it takes to solve a cube, should be the time from you first cast eye on it and to it lies solved on the table..
Reminds me of old road racing, where they probably went a bit too far, when the start went, the drivers had to run onto the track, and start their motorcycles and go! None of this sitting there with the engine turned on and waiting for the lights.. :P
I have issues with this video, not because of the idea of including inspection time - I think it should be included - but because if you have a fixed 15s window to look at something there is not necessarily any reason to rush to be faster than that. So the current WRs have inspection times that aren’t being raced.
What the video is doing is equivalent to going back to prior Olympic events and then including the time taken by participants to walk out to the starting positions and get into the starting position if appropriate. Then reordering the participants based on those new times. Similar for the other records, like typing I’m sure retiming including setup and sitting down time would impact positions as well.
So I do agree with the basic idea that the prep time here should be included, but I don’t think you can ever reorder existing record holders - they would have to remain in a second category, which is also interesting in its own right as a measurement of pure mechanics.
As an old school cuber, I kinda wish we always did no inspection solves, at least as one event. It always seemed like the "real" way to do it.
There are logistical problems though. Keeping people from seeing the mix before it's their turn to solve becomes essential. Or you could go with just giving each competitor a unique mix.
The logistical problems are already solved. WCA competitions have a strict set of policies designed to minimize people's abilities to cheat. When No Inspection was an official event, it operated similarly to how blindfold solving does today: the competitor removes the covering of the cube themselves after starting the timer.
That's the hope. In practice nobody gets to sit down and examine a scramble in depth before their turn, but might be able to steal a few glances from a distance during someone else's solve. I'd say the advantage of someone doing that would be equivalent to adding 2-3 seconds of extra inspection time. Unfortunately there's a limit to how much cheating can be reasonably prevented and I've never noticed any problems with the current setup.
Interesting to see the arguments against this by people familiar with cubing. Seems like the main one is that the cube is not fully solved during inspection phase, so they are also solving on the fly during the 2nd phase.
As a layperson, I think new category would be interesting, because they would require different approaches. It reminds me of that Tetris post on HN the other day where teenagers innovated new techniques of manipulating the controller to defeat the old guard, or speedrunners coming up with new techniques.
Also I'm curious as to why people don't use all the inspection time in something that's so competitively min-maxed. Spending more time to reduce one or two moves seems like something that could make or break it when you get ties measuring to 0.01s
One reason people don't use all the time is because it gets exponentially more difficult to track more and more pieces as the solutions also get longer. An intermediate cuber can easily 4 pieces in inspection and plan out where they go within 15 seconds, but an additional 2 pieces might require them to spend an additional 45 seconds or more. At some point you recognize your limits and you can't do any better with the additional time and you just go.
No, but that would be true in the reverse situation if we were going the other way and no longer counting inspection since it adds the ability for new strategies and tricks to be integrated. By counting the inspection time the event devolves into just immediately doing what you see first and makes some strategies unviable.
>Also I'm curious as to why people don't use all the inspection time in something that's so competitively min-maxed
As the other reply mentioned the more moves you plan the harder it is to know the current state of the cube at the end of what you planned. There's also a difference between knowing the general position a piece will be in and knowing the exact position and orientation of pieces which is necessary for adding more moves for your plan.
It becomes unviable for that event no inspection event only, definitely keep both events. I'm not familiar but I don't understand why it would "devolve" are you saying no one would bother to plan their moves and just start solving immediately? Is there no trade off where you flip the cube around to optimise for miniminimum inspection and solving time and totally forgo the inspection?
On the second point, it seems like there is more room to push the skill ceiling. Being more precise than general would give those cubers an edge in No inspection. I suppose this is like chess or poker where permutations of moves or hands are impossible to memorise for.
>Is there no trade off where you flip the cube around to optimise for miniminimum inspection and solving time and totally forgo the inspection?
There is not an interesting trade off. You just look to see if there's an obvious good start. Even with 15s of inspection you are usually only planning like 10% of the solve. The majority of the solve is already figured out on the fly.
>On the second point, it seems like there is more room to push the skill ceiling.
Yes, being able to accurately and quickly track pieces under time pressure is a skill.
All cubes in each round are scrambled the exact same way (a computer generates a 40-move scramble that is scrambled by volunteers before the cubes are returned to the tables).
Scrambles are not 40 moves, they're generally around 25 because they're somewhat optimized scrambles to reach a randomly generated state. Simply using a sufficiently long sequence of moves still provides some bias to certain cube states, which is why they don't do that.
Me too. I used to cube in my teens. All my record solves were basically due to RNG, i.e. lucky scrambles. The average of 5 is a much more useful metric, if we’re looking at who is the fastest solver.
I’m just a beginner level cuber but my impression is that starting condition of the cubes is likely controlled for. It is common to share the set of moves used to ‘randomize’ the cube.
Not a (speed) cuber, just a guy that uses the memorized algorithms to do it slowly when my mind wants something to distract it.
What makes me curious is the variance in how the cubes are initially scrambled. Surely some cubes are easier to solve than others? So I have to believe there’s an intersection between skill AND luck of the draw?
As a tournament watcher, these things go so fast, there’s no real build for the spectator either.
Why don’t they do “here’s a paper bag with 10 scrambled cubes—solve em all!” This would reduce the outset variance and allow for some excitement to build in the room. At the rate these guys go, it would still be over in 2 minutes.
Those looking for a slower pace could still watch a chess tournament if need be.
I'm no expert but I took my kid to a speed-cubing event and we watched. The referees secretly set up the hidden cubes to be used for competition to specific randomized configurations which are determined automatically by a software program for each cube. I assume this program ensures that no competition cubes are scrambled such that they are excessively easy to solve.
Interestingly, the rules only stipulate a minimum of two moves to solve. The implementation details of the official scrambling program may be stricter though
The scrambling program tnoodle is open source and you can check out the implementation. [0]
I haven't verified myself, but I do think there is checking involved for some of the events (at least 3x3, 2x2, skewb, square-1, and pyraminx) to make sure the puzzles hit the minimum move limit. Other events like 5x5+ just use a sufficient number of random moves, because it would take too long to find and verify optimal solutions.
I can say in practice that the 2 move limit for 3x3 isn't a problem. I work on some personal projects related to cubing and was exploring the database [1] which has many historical scrambles. The shortest scramble ever generated was 12 moves long [2], and, from what I could tell from an extended inspection, is only "kind of" lucky. It's possible that some other simpler solves exist in the database but I haven't set my computer to crunch out the optimal solutions just yet.
I'm not particularly worried about really-short scrambles being randomly generated; my back of the envelope calculations suggest 3x3 scrambles of 8 moves or less as being one in 3.6 billion, while ~310,000 have been generated since 2014 and I estimate a seventh of them are never used (extra scrambles generated for a round if something goes wrong like the timer malfunctioning, the judge not following protocol, etc.).
I don't know why inspection time is limited to 15 seconds. It would be interesting to allow unlimited inspection (or maybe like 30 minutes) and see how fast people could solve it then.
In ‘00s we had this category called “3x3 supersolve”. In essence it was speed solve with unlimited inspection time. It was kinda stressful because you had one shot after almost hour of tinkering.
I remember on some mailing list we wrote program that calculated time for any algorithm using some heuristics how long would it take average speedcuber to perform specific sequences of moves. Then we would publish one scramble and everyone tried to find solution that should take shortest time. We just excluded physical aspect of speedcubing.
I also remember “3x3 fewest moves” but you can’t move the cube. We just did inspection and wrote solution on paper. In regular “fewest moves” you get scramble and can play with multiple cubes.
This is an event called "fewest moves solving" [0]
Given 1 hour and the scramble, work out the fewest sequence of moves to solve. Competitors are allowed to use up to 3 cubes, pen, paper, stickers etc to come up with their solution.
It's an underappreciated event in my opinion, but 1 hour is also a long amount of time, which also scales time to practice.
Video creator here. Response on this forum has been so productive and interesting, thanks for all the replies and the great discussion, will be doing a follow up video addressing many things that have been discussed here.
Any ideas where else I could promote this video? This site was suggested to me by a friend and it was perfect. Thank you again.
To make this event type completely reproducible and measurable to the millisecond there could be a new cube product which uses LEDs to show the colors of a randomly scrambled cube and start the clock at the same moment too, while the solver is holding it. Clock stops the moment the cube is solved.
It would be interesting to see how such a challenge evolves, because if you do include inspection, then you really just have a no-inspection solve time. And the question becomes how often does it help to do inspections and when do you start doing solves with look ahead along the way.
My fault, fair enough, I should not have used any analogy here. You could also go to the limit and say that each runner did not have same initial starting conditions from birth. At some point, we have to distinguish between event conditions (which you rightly pointed out) and the inherit inequality between each runner (otherwise sports would cease to exist). It becomes pedantic and tiring to discuss these kinds of extremes.
Regardless, it is interesting to inquire what is the distribution of probabilities and how far wide is the spread between the worst scramble and the best scramble (perfect cube which would be not very likely). It can be easily accounted for by providing each player the same random scramble of cubes. Far easier than controlling altitude of each sporting venue for running.
Also, the video references feet solving. It was removed as an event at the start of 2020. Furthermore, they talk about Red Bull events as if they're another competitor to WCA events. Red Bull events are primarily designed to be broadcast to an audience. WCA events are designed so that everyone from young children to the elderly can compete. These two offbase points by the video creator make me think they aren't actually an active member of the speed solving community, just a random pedantic passerby.
For what it's worth, I think a no-inspection event would be an interesting addition to the competition, but the WCA probably doesn't like it because it would not be substantially distinguished from normal 3x3. I'll look into seeing if there are any discussions anywhere.
Edit: 3x3 No Inspection actually was an official WCA event from January 2006 to July 2006. Not sure why it was removed, though.