Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
nsilvestri
Blendtherules
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).
nsilvestri
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.
djmips
A world record should also have a consistent course - but then it's just down to mechanics at that point.
mgsk
Acctualllyyy the record for solving a Rubik’s cube is 3.47s plus the age of the person solving it.
undefined
Retric
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.
muti
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.
hougaard
Showed the video to my speedcubing Son, and he agreed 100% with you.
cyphar
Interesting video.
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).
michaelt
> I'm also not sure I agree with the statement that they're "already solving the cube".
I think it depends on whether you think the record ought to represent a chess-style intellectual feat or a physical dexterity feat.
In the inspection time they've clearly started the intellectual feat - just not the dexterity one.
cyphar
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.)
muti
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.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#article-E-...
hyperhopper
Also, due to muscle memory, etc, a smallest move solve might not even necessarily be the fastest solve by time.
undefined
GoldenRacer
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.
dehrmann
> I also wonder whether this would disproportionately affect vision-impaired cubers
I'm sure it would, but you could say the same thing for biathletes.
raynr
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?
nsilvestri
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).
Someone
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.
nsilvestri
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.
zimpenfish
> cricket has at least 3 different game formats (tests, one-day, and T20)
4 if you include The Hundred[1] (although I don't think it's been exported out of England yet...)
falcolas
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.
hotpotamus
I'm not sure if you're attempting to disagree with the parent comment, but you're just adding to their (well stated) point.
spencerchubb
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
kuboble
- 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.
slampig
This is pretty dumb actually.
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.
growt
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.
sonofhans
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.
nsilvestri
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.
deltarholamda
>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.
skribanto
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.
slampig
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.
GoldenRacer
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.
drcode
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
undefined
DangitBobby
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.
drcode
Oh don't get me wrong, the system we've settled on isn't great
willis936
I'm not sure this makes sense since X is a populist.
gruez
Except according to wikipedia "populist" doesn't refer to "popular vote", it refers to the idea of "the people vs the elites".
>Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of the people and often juxtapose this group against the elite.
mgsk
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.
tomerv
The music is top-notch, especially the timing of the drums with the presentation!
Blendtherules
Trying to change the way tournaments are run, my friend told me you guys might be interested. Please delete if irrelevant. Thanks
dvh
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.
MauranKilom
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.
tomcam
Your video was easily the most polished first effort on YouTube I have ever seen. Hugely impressed.
Kiro
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.
elAhmo
I was about to write this. Where does it stop? Including the warmup time? Travel to the event?
I was quite annoyed watching the video, it felt unnecessarily long trying to back up this claim with unconvincing arguments.
spencerchubb
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.
nsilvestri
It would be like blindfold solving. Competitor starts with their hands on the timer and they remove the cover themselves.
walnutclosefarm
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.
ZeroGravitas
Nice presentation, but I feel the underlying absurdity of world records starts undermining the point once you go this deep.
How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.
How much of the time is a factor of the cubes randomisation, or the speed at which you pick up and drop the cube.
For the world's shortest river, how do you define river?
I think lay people would be surprised by the effectively arbitrary legal minutiae of most sports and competitions.
jVinc
> 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.
ZeroGravitas
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.
cyphar
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.
gus_massa
> 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?
jameshart
200m split times are routinely tracked - see e.g. https://world-track.org/2022/07/what-are-noah-lyles-splits-f... (it turns out the US national 200m record was broken a couple days ago)
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.
Over the middle 100m, his time was 8.84s.
(see https://speedendurance.com/2009/08/21/usain-bolt-200-meter-s...)
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.
pessimizer
This is such a good analogy that it sounds like an interesting event in itself.
eastdakota
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)?
nsilvestri
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.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
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.