Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Congratulations to all winners!!

Expand Messages
  • mackymakisumi
    Hi everyone, I would also like to add my congratulations to the champions in the various competitions (so like, 5 times to Matyas??) and to the finalists. I
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 15, 2007
      Hi everyone,

      I would also like to add my congratulations to the champions in the
      various competitions (so like, 5 times to Matyas??) and to the
      finalists. I very much enjoyed meeting many new (and fast!) cubers as
      well as those from WC05 and 03.

      From the results of the 3x3 speedsolve, I am compelled make some
      observations. I am surprised that no one has made a post about this; I
      know I'm not the only one who has been thinking in this direction.

      Of the 16 finalists, I would say that half or more had at least some
      chance of winning the competition (of course, some had a greater
      chance than others). Yu Nakajima also led the second round in average,
      but his 14.54 in the first round shows that he can have a relatively
      slow average on a bad round. Andrew Kang had a 15.84 first round and
      Mitsuki Gunji, too, finished the second round with a 14.92. With one
      more second on any solve that counts in the average, Mitsuki wouldn't
      even have made the final. At the other, unlucky end are Jean Pons, who
      had a 12.48 in the first round but just missed the podium in the
      final, and Edouard Chambon, Thibaut Jacquinot, and Harris Chan, who
      have all shown themselves to be a better cuber than me but who did not
      perform their best in the final. Had luck played out differently, we
      could have seen a very different final ranking.

      The problem is that being the best just means that you have a greater
      chance of winning the competition than anybody else, not that you are
      going to win it. Suppose Yu had made a few mistakes, and suppose I had
      some U permutations and had gotten a sub-13 average, which is very
      possible. I would have won the competition by luck. You would have had
      a most unwilling champion, apologizing to both the Japanese and the
      French and desperately explaining to the media that it was a fluke
      (not that most of them would have cared). With there having been a
      pretty realistic possibility of something like this happening, we
      should be happy that Yu, a cuber we can agree is one of the very
      fastest in the world, won the competition.

      I like World Championships because they give us a good measure of the
      current level of the top cubers, but I'm becoming more and more
      uncomfortable with the idea of the title of "World Champion." Simply
      because of the role that luck plays in speedcubing, that title means
      just that the cuber who holds it won the World Championship, not
      necessarily that he is the best in the world, as it is usually taken
      to imply by the media. If no method that improves on Fridrich is
      discovered, in two years there will be even more clustering at the
      top. The difference between first and tenth may even be the luck on
      the permutations. Are five solves in the final round of one
      competition, world championship though it may be, enough to choose the
      World Champion for the next two years...the one cuber that, thanks to
      the media, will be best known by the non-cubers around the world as
      presumably the best cuber in the world?

      In any case, I know we have to choose a World Champion based on just
      the results of the World Championship (or is there some sport where
      the world champion is not the winner of the world championship?).
      Somebody has suggested using all solves from a competition to
      determine the overall ranking separate from the ranking in the final
      round, and there are also other ideas that I know some people have. I
      understand that it's difficult to change the system we already have,
      but I find this important enough that it should at least be given a
      discussion.

      It's obvious that no single competition is enough to determine who the
      best cuber is. The World Championship should not be thought of as the
      competition to determine the best cuber but the competition to decide
      the World Champion, no more.

      How, then, can we best determine the best cuber during a certain
      period? What I'd like to see is some average of all averages that each
      cuber had during a certain year on the WCA database. I know there are
      many problems to ranking by this approach--setting the minimum number
      of averages, cubers can theoretically stop competing for the year to
      give themselves a better rank, etc--but it would still be a more
      accurate measure of a cuber than any that exists today.

      On a completely different WC topic, are we not counting Stefan's
      Megaminx solve as a world record? There's no way to tell from the
      database which solve within the same round came first, but can't this
      be entered in manually, if we do accept this as a world record? I have
      personally encountered two other similar cases: Nathaniel Christian's
      4.20 2x2 at Horace Mann 2005, which, if accepted, is very possibly the
      world record that lasted the shortest time (about 10 seconds), and my
      own 2:50.32 3x3 blindfolded at Caltech Spring 2005.

      Finally, I apologize for getting third in 3x3 blindfolded. That was
      possible only because of the easy solve, meaning because of luck.
      Tyson, when we get something to eat the next time, I'm paying.

      Best,
      -macky
    • Jasmine Lee
      Interesting thoughts and comments. I think everyone at the competition (well, all the speedcubers that is, not the media!) all know that there was a relatively
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 15, 2007
        Interesting thoughts and comments.

        I think everyone at the competition (well, all the speedcubers that is,
        not the media!) all know that there was a relatively large number of
        people who *could* have won the 3x3x3. While watching the finals I
        recall having a conversation with some other cubers about how incredibly
        close it was, and that it really was impossible to predict who would be
        standing on the podium at the end. This is quite different to say,
        Worlds 2003, where it was easier to guess in advance who would probably
        be in the Top 10 or Top 5.

        BTW, please don't take this as trying to detract from Yu Nakajima's win.
        He performed fantastically and deserves our congratulations! :)

        For those of us who went to Worlds 2005 and Worlds 2003, it was both
        amazing and wonderful to see how far speedcubing has come in 4 years. My
        recent competition times (mostly in the 20 to 30 second range) are
        nothing special now, but in Worlds 2003 they would have gotten me into
        the semi-finals! I recall back at Worlds 2003 that any sub-20s solve
        would get an applause from the crowd. Now, it almost has to be a sub-12s
        before anyone bothers to clap!

        Congratulations to everyone who participated! It was a great
        championships!!

        Go cubing!!! :D
        Jasmine


        On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:22:07 -0000, "mackymakisumi"
        <mackymakisumi@...> said:
        > Hi everyone,
        >
        > I would also like to add my congratulations to the champions in the
        > various competitions (so like, 5 times to Matyas??) and to the
        > finalists. I very much enjoyed meeting many new (and fast!) cubers as
        > well as those from WC05 and 03.
        >
        > From the results of the 3x3 speedsolve, I am compelled make some
        > observations. I am surprised that no one has made a post about this; I
        > know I'm not the only one who has been thinking in this direction.
        >
        > Of the 16 finalists, I would say that half or more had at least some
        > chance of winning the competition (of course, some had a greater
        > chance than others). Yu Nakajima also led the second round in average,
        > but his 14.54 in the first round shows that he can have a relatively
        > slow average on a bad round. Andrew Kang had a 15.84 first round and
        > Mitsuki Gunji, too, finished the second round with a 14.92. With one
        > more second on any solve that counts in the average, Mitsuki wouldn't
        > even have made the final. At the other, unlucky end are Jean Pons, who
        > had a 12.48 in the first round but just missed the podium in the
        > final, and Edouard Chambon, Thibaut Jacquinot, and Harris Chan, who
        > have all shown themselves to be a better cuber than me but who did not
        > perform their best in the final. Had luck played out differently, we
        > could have seen a very different final ranking.
        >
        > The problem is that being the best just means that you have a greater
        > chance of winning the competition than anybody else, not that you are
        > going to win it. Suppose Yu had made a few mistakes, and suppose I had
        > some U permutations and had gotten a sub-13 average, which is very
        > possible. I would have won the competition by luck. You would have had
        > a most unwilling champion, apologizing to both the Japanese and the
        > French and desperately explaining to the media that it was a fluke
        > (not that most of them would have cared). With there having been a
        > pretty realistic possibility of something like this happening, we
        > should be happy that Yu, a cuber we can agree is one of the very
        > fastest in the world, won the competition.
        >
        > I like World Championships because they give us a good measure of the
        > current level of the top cubers, but I'm becoming more and more
        > uncomfortable with the idea of the title of "World Champion." Simply
        > because of the role that luck plays in speedcubing, that title means
        > just that the cuber who holds it won the World Championship, not
        > necessarily that he is the best in the world, as it is usually taken
        > to imply by the media. If no method that improves on Fridrich is
        > discovered, in two years there will be even more clustering at the
        > top. The difference between first and tenth may even be the luck on
        > the permutations. Are five solves in the final round of one
        > competition, world championship though it may be, enough to choose the
        > World Champion for the next two years...the one cuber that, thanks to
        > the media, will be best known by the non-cubers around the world as
        > presumably the best cuber in the world?
        >
        > In any case, I know we have to choose a World Champion based on just
        > the results of the World Championship (or is there some sport where
        > the world champion is not the winner of the world championship?).
        > Somebody has suggested using all solves from a competition to
        > determine the overall ranking separate from the ranking in the final
        > round, and there are also other ideas that I know some people have. I
        > understand that it's difficult to change the system we already have,
        > but I find this important enough that it should at least be given a
        > discussion.
        >
        > It's obvious that no single competition is enough to determine who the
        > best cuber is. The World Championship should not be thought of as the
        > competition to determine the best cuber but the competition to decide
        > the World Champion, no more.
        >
        > How, then, can we best determine the best cuber during a certain
        > period? What I'd like to see is some average of all averages that each
        > cuber had during a certain year on the WCA database. I know there are
        > many problems to ranking by this approach--setting the minimum number
        > of averages, cubers can theoretically stop competing for the year to
        > give themselves a better rank, etc--but it would still be a more
        > accurate measure of a cuber than any that exists today.
        >
        > On a completely different WC topic, are we not counting Stefan's
        > Megaminx solve as a world record? There's no way to tell from the
        > database which solve within the same round came first, but can't this
        > be entered in manually, if we do accept this as a world record? I have
        > personally encountered two other similar cases: Nathaniel Christian's
        > 4.20 2x2 at Horace Mann 2005, which, if accepted, is very possibly the
        > world record that lasted the shortest time (about 10 seconds), and my
        > own 2:50.32 3x3 blindfolded at Caltech Spring 2005.
        >
        > Finally, I apologize for getting third in 3x3 blindfolded. That was
        > possible only because of the easy solve, meaning because of luck.
        > Tyson, when we get something to eat the next time, I'm paying.
        >
        > Best,
        > -macky
        >

        --
        http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely differentÂ…
      • Pat (PJK)
        I couldn t agree more. Excellent observations. ... -- My Webpage: http://www.pjkcubed.com Speedsolving Puzzles: http://www.speedsolving.com Computer Cleanup:
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 15, 2007
          I couldn't agree more. Excellent observations.

          On 10/15/07, mackymakisumi <mackymakisumi@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi everyone,
          >
          > I would also like to add my congratulations to the champions in the
          > various competitions (so like, 5 times to Matyas??) and to the
          > finalists. I very much enjoyed meeting many new (and fast!) cubers as
          > well as those from WC05 and 03.
          >
          > From the results of the 3x3 speedsolve, I am compelled make some
          > observations. I am surprised that no one has made a post about this; I
          > know I'm not the only one who has been thinking in this direction.
          >
          > Of the 16 finalists, I would say that half or more had at least some
          > chance of winning the competition (of course, some had a greater
          > chance than others). Yu Nakajima also led the second round in average,
          > but his 14.54 in the first round shows that he can have a relatively
          > slow average on a bad round. Andrew Kang had a 15.84 first round and
          > Mitsuki Gunji, too, finished the second round with a 14.92. With one
          > more second on any solve that counts in the average, Mitsuki wouldn't
          > even have made the final. At the other, unlucky end are Jean Pons, who
          > had a 12.48 in the first round but just missed the podium in the
          > final, and Edouard Chambon, Thibaut Jacquinot, and Harris Chan, who
          > have all shown themselves to be a better cuber than me but who did not
          > perform their best in the final. Had luck played out differently, we
          > could have seen a very different final ranking.
          >
          > The problem is that being the best just means that you have a greater
          > chance of winning the competition than anybody else, not that you are
          > going to win it. Suppose Yu had made a few mistakes, and suppose I had
          > some U permutations and had gotten a sub-13 average, which is very
          > possible. I would have won the competition by luck. You would have had
          > a most unwilling champion, apologizing to both the Japanese and the
          > French and desperately explaining to the media that it was a fluke
          > (not that most of them would have cared). With there having been a
          > pretty realistic possibility of something like this happening, we
          > should be happy that Yu, a cuber we can agree is one of the very
          > fastest in the world, won the competition.
          >
          > I like World Championships because they give us a good measure of the
          > current level of the top cubers, but I'm becoming more and more
          > uncomfortable with the idea of the title of "World Champion." Simply
          > because of the role that luck plays in speedcubing, that title means
          > just that the cuber who holds it won the World Championship, not
          > necessarily that he is the best in the world, as it is usually taken
          > to imply by the media. If no method that improves on Fridrich is
          > discovered, in two years there will be even more clustering at the
          > top. The difference between first and tenth may even be the luck on
          > the permutations. Are five solves in the final round of one
          > competition, world championship though it may be, enough to choose the
          > World Champion for the next two years...the one cuber that, thanks to
          > the media, will be best known by the non-cubers around the world as
          > presumably the best cuber in the world?
          >
          > In any case, I know we have to choose a World Champion based on just
          > the results of the World Championship (or is there some sport where
          > the world champion is not the winner of the world championship?).
          > Somebody has suggested using all solves from a competition to
          > determine the overall ranking separate from the ranking in the final
          > round, and there are also other ideas that I know some people have. I
          > understand that it's difficult to change the system we already have,
          > but I find this important enough that it should at least be given a
          > discussion.
          >
          > It's obvious that no single competition is enough to determine who the
          > best cuber is. The World Championship should not be thought of as the
          > competition to determine the best cuber but the competition to decide
          > the World Champion, no more.
          >
          > How, then, can we best determine the best cuber during a certain
          > period? What I'd like to see is some average of all averages that each
          > cuber had during a certain year on the WCA database. I know there are
          > many problems to ranking by this approach--setting the minimum number
          > of averages, cubers can theoretically stop competing for the year to
          > give themselves a better rank, etc--but it would still be a more
          > accurate measure of a cuber than any that exists today.
          >
          > On a completely different WC topic, are we not counting Stefan's
          > Megaminx solve as a world record? There's no way to tell from the
          > database which solve within the same round came first, but can't this
          > be entered in manually, if we do accept this as a world record? I have
          > personally encountered two other similar cases: Nathaniel Christian's
          > 4.20 2x2 at Horace Mann 2005, which, if accepted, is very possibly the
          > world record that lasted the shortest time (about 10 seconds), and my
          > own 2:50.32 3x3 blindfolded at Caltech Spring 2005.
          >
          > Finally, I apologize for getting third in 3x3 blindfolded. That was
          > possible only because of the easy solve, meaning because of luck.
          > Tyson, when we get something to eat the next time, I'm paying.
          >
          > Best,
          > -macky
          >
          >
          >



          --
          My Webpage: http://www.pjkcubed.com
          Speedsolving Puzzles: http://www.speedsolving.com
          Computer Cleanup: http://www.cleancomputerhelp.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stefan Pochmann
          ... each ... are ... number ... There already are some approaches like this, at least a few combining statistics/rankings of several events to offer a view on
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 16, 2007
            --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com,
            "mackymakisumi" <mackymakisumi@...> wrote:
            >
            > How, then, can we best determine the best cuber during a certain
            > period? What I'd like to see is some average of all averages that
            each
            > cuber had during a certain year on the WCA database. I know there
            are
            > many problems to ranking by this approach--setting the minimum
            number
            > of averages, cubers can theoretically stop competing for the year to
            > give themselves a better rank, etc--but it would still be a more
            > accurate measure of a cuber than any that exists today.

            There already are some approaches like this, at least a few combining
            statistics/rankings of several events to offer a view on who's the
            best overall cuber of puzzler. None of them can claim to determine
            *the* best cuber/puzzler, though, as each statistic can be tweaked in
            many ways, like you already mentioned above.

            I'm totally fine with the "world champion" as it is, as there's no
            way to really determine the best person anyway. World champion, like
            you said, only means you won the world championship.

            Are tennis or chess or soccer or many other sports any different?

            > On a completely different WC topic, are we not counting Stefan's
            > Megaminx solve as a world record? There's no way to tell from the
            > database which solve within the same round came first, but can't
            this
            > be entered in manually, if we do accept this as a world record?

            No, we're not counting them as world records. The rules are quite
            clear about this:

            9i2) Regional records are recognised at the end of a round. If a
            record is broken twice or more in a round, only the latter is
            recognised.

            Cheers!
            Stefan
          • JohnLouis Louis
            Again congrats to all winners. All winners deserve to win except me. I am a lucky winner. Even in other games, sometime better teams are eliminated and the so
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 16, 2007
              Again congrats to all winners. All winners deserve to win except me. I am a lucky winner.
              Even in other games, sometime better teams are eliminated and the so called winner is the world champion for the next 4 years!
              Everyone knows I am not the best in 555 bld. But, "I am the world champion". I could not believe this. Similarly, in multiple cubes blindfolded although I did only 3 cubes, I finished third. Again I was lucky. Luck favours sometime.

              I think this kind of result only encourages many to compete. Anything can happen on the day. If we could predict the winner before hand, then the number of participants will come down. Then there is no fun.

              I simply love cubing irrespective of different rules/formats/strategies of ranking.
              I think only 333 speed solving event winner may be dedcided by a different better rules, if any.

              J.Bernett Orlando




              mackymakisumi <mackymakisumi@...> wrote:
              Hi everyone,

              I would also like to add my congratulations to the champions in the
              various competitions (so like, 5 times to Matyas??) and to the
              finalists. I very much enjoyed meeting many new (and fast!) cubers as
              well as those from WC05 and 03.

              From the results of the 3x3 speedsolve, I am compelled make some
              observations. I am surprised that no one has made a post about this; I
              know I'm not the only one who has been thinking in this direction.

              Of the 16 finalists, I would say that half or more had at least some
              chance of winning the competition (of course, some had a greater
              chance than others). Yu Nakajima also led the second round in average,
              but his 14.54 in the first round shows that he can have a relatively
              slow average on a bad round. Andrew Kang had a 15.84 first round and
              Mitsuki Gunji, too, finished the second round with a 14.92. With one
              more second on any solve that counts in the average, Mitsuki wouldn't
              even have made the final. At the other, unlucky end are Jean Pons, who
              had a 12.48 in the first round but just missed the podium in the
              final, and Edouard Chambon, Thibaut Jacquinot, and Harris Chan, who
              have all shown themselves to be a better cuber than me but who did not
              perform their best in the final. Had luck played out differently, we
              could have seen a very different final ranking.

              The problem is that being the best just means that you have a greater
              chance of winning the competition than anybody else, not that you are
              going to win it. Suppose Yu had made a few mistakes, and suppose I had
              some U permutations and had gotten a sub-13 average, which is very
              possible. I would have won the competition by luck. You would have had
              a most unwilling champion, apologizing to both the Japanese and the
              French and desperately explaining to the media that it was a fluke
              (not that most of them would have cared). With there having been a
              pretty realistic possibility of something like this happening, we
              should be happy that Yu, a cuber we can agree is one of the very
              fastest in the world, won the competition.

              I like World Championships because they give us a good measure of the
              current level of the top cubers, but I'm becoming more and more
              uncomfortable with the idea of the title of "World Champion." Simply
              because of the role that luck plays in speedcubing, that title means
              just that the cuber who holds it won the World Championship, not
              necessarily that he is the best in the world, as it is usually taken
              to imply by the media. If no method that improves on Fridrich is
              discovered, in two years there will be even more clustering at the
              top. The difference between first and tenth may even be the luck on
              the permutations. Are five solves in the final round of one
              competition, world championship though it may be, enough to choose the
              World Champion for the next two years...the one cuber that, thanks to
              the media, will be best known by the non-cubers around the world as
              presumably the best cuber in the world?

              In any case, I know we have to choose a World Champion based on just
              the results of the World Championship (or is there some sport where
              the world champion is not the winner of the world championship?).
              Somebody has suggested using all solves from a competition to
              determine the overall ranking separate from the ranking in the final
              round, and there are also other ideas that I know some people have. I
              understand that it's difficult to change the system we already have,
              but I find this important enough that it should at least be given a
              discussion.

              It's obvious that no single competition is enough to determine who the
              best cuber is. The World Championship should not be thought of as the
              competition to determine the best cuber but the competition to decide
              the World Champion, no more.

              How, then, can we best determine the best cuber during a certain
              period? What I'd like to see is some average of all averages that each
              cuber had during a certain year on the WCA database. I know there are
              many problems to ranking by this approach--setting the minimum number
              of averages, cubers can theoretically stop competing for the year to
              give themselves a better rank, etc--but it would still be a more
              accurate measure of a cuber than any that exists today.

              On a completely different WC topic, are we not counting Stefan's
              Megaminx solve as a world record? There's no way to tell from the
              database which solve within the same round came first, but can't this
              be entered in manually, if we do accept this as a world record? I have
              personally encountered two other similar cases: Nathaniel Christian's
              4.20 2x2 at Horace Mann 2005, which, if accepted, is very possibly the
              world record that lasted the shortest time (about 10 seconds), and my
              own 2:50.32 3x3 blindfolded at Caltech Spring 2005.

              Finally, I apologize for getting third in 3x3 blindfolded. That was
              possible only because of the easy solve, meaning because of luck.
              Tyson, when we get something to eat the next time, I'm paying.

              Best,
              -macky






              ---------------------------------
              Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.