This is a HUGE Problem

[@jan_Masewin]

Intentionally setting up a misscramble would be a very convenient way to eliminate dangerous competitors

[@jawstrock2215]

harder scramble specifically.

[@TheUntamedNetwork]

@@jawstrock2215 That works for WR, but if your just trying to win your tourny then you could easily lose even if they had "much harder" scrambles. Remember you can only alter the cube by a move or two.

[@jamesflames6987]

A significantly easier scramble will lead to disqualification.

[@jan_Masewin]

@@jamesflames6987 exactly, this

[@J.J.J.J.J.J.J]

There's probably miscrambles that have occurred creating worse scrambles and stopping world records, but the competitor never knows, because they only check when there is a world record. Thus, misscrambles are just double penalising people.

[@Dannerrrr]

if a normal scramble is 18-20 moves optimal, you're not gonna get much more mixed up than that. there's a limit to the distance from solved you can be, but it's an explosion in all directions. how much do you know about cube complexity?

[@Dreamville4L]

@@Dannerrrr but what if, theoretically, max park was supposed to get a double x cross into pll skip that would probably be a world record, but it ended up being misscrambled. nobody would check if the cube was misscrambled right (cuz nobody would KNOW it was misscrambled)

[@Dannerrrr]

@@Dreamville4L is it worth discussing systems rather than optimal paths?

[@TetraCubing]

This actually happened with Ryan Minjun Cho who could have gotten Pyraminx WR single (it was on the same scramble as Ben Kyle’s former 1.28 WR single but Ryan got a worse scramble on that solve).

[@louisrialland2527]

I hope this gets more recognition. Somewhat unbelievable that a scrambler's mistake can lead to repurcussions on the solver's side.

[@henrybusse7513]

I find it mindblowing that the solvers are so heavily penalized for something that isnt even their fault

[@coasterthekid8867]

@@henrybusse7513 it’s not about a penalty, but rather that it’s not fair to the other competitors for record holders that had 100% legitimate solved

[@jonnyrichards]

It would be pretty easy to make a computer program or even a phone app to verify scrambles just by taking pictures of them

[@thomasrad5202]

would slow things down a lot, but maybe

[@lswcs]

@@thomasrad5202 At least it would be feasible doing this for top solvers :)

[@StretchyDeath]

​@@thomasrad5202 it could be done with 2 pictures and computer vision. Shouldn't be too hard to do in

[@BigDaddyWes]

​ If you use mirrors you could even do it in one photo. Either way, you just have to double check it. You don't need software to verify, just one more step.

[@6infinity8]

@@thomasrad5202 Can't be worse than a DNF

[@cube_range]

Completely agree with your recommendation of "flagging" high profile solvers to double and triple check their scrambles. This is logistically the best way to do it IMO.

[@tamardolenjishvili3542]

100% best solution to the problem

[@voodles3]

I actually think this would have the opposite effect. When mis-scrambles are intentionally performed to give an easier solution, the person doing it likely knows who their scramble is going to and that's why they do it. Having the star would just make it easier for them to know.

[@tamardolenjishvili3542]

@@voodles3 its highly unlike that both scramblers' intentions will be the same if they both will be obligated to check stared competitors cube

[@eragon78]

@@tamardolenjishvili3542 On top of that, then when miss scrambles do happen, its much easier to know it was intentionally done, and find the scramblers who did it, and deal with the issue there. So it makes finding the people who are trying to cheat easier to find and verify their intentions.

[@tamardolenjishvili3542]

@@eragon78 yeap, definitely best and only solution

[@TheOrigamiGenius]

This may be a far-fetched idea, but we could use the GAN robots to scramble for us

[@Adi_Cubes]

no actually, thats a great idea, the only thing is that gan would have to make a better robot which can also turn the u layer (which it cannot yet), and ould also have to be accessible with all cubes, not just gan ones.

[@benjaminschmutter]

The real problem with robot scramblers is the expense. Delegates don't have an unlimited amount of money to buy new scrambling robots, so something like this is unlikely to work.

[@TheAmazingHuman-Man]

I came just to comment robots. Probably pretty far from that being affordable/feasible, but someday hopefully. Scrambling is not always an easy job especially when you’re also competing and it’s just mentally/physically draining. Or even just some software that automatically checks for misscrambles maybe.

[@kattdemko7259]

That would be significantly better, but the cubes could still be tampered with before or after the scramble, as well as during transport.

[@infinitycuber324]

@@benjaminschmutter Maybe at big championships like us nats/worlds scrambling robots can be used? idk

[@anthonytonytelford2945]

I really believe that Yiheng should get the WR, only the AUF being different, as opposed to almost any other misscramble altering almost the entire solve.

[@Hermanator1124]

I don't know, I feel like we should never ever allow mis scrambles.

[@mccardrixx5289]

​@@Hermanator1124 exactly! The WR avg is still 4.86

[@duvi9898]

​@@Hermanator1124 why not? The cube is still scrambled right?

[@jasonchen5056]

@@duvi9898 obviously some scrambles are easier than others. You can’t just say “it’s still scrambled” and say that it’s fair for someone to get a much easier solve than someone else

[@eragon78]

@@jasonchen5056 Yea, but in this case, it wasnt really easier. By basically every metric it was virtually equally as difficult, there was no advantage. Since this sort of thing is already done on a case by case basis and not a blanket rule, I think that it should definitely count as the WR. Especially when considering the 5th solve didnt have as much pressure when he already had the WR by the 4th in his mind. That really does effect how you perform, and it cant be overlooked.

[@TetraCubing]

I definitely agree that misscrambles are a huge problem, hopefully the WCA does something about this.

[@abhaythecuber1837]

Use GAN robots to scramble

[@Dumbledorf1234]

​@@abhaythecuber1837 wait that sounds like a good idea:O

[@samueljehanno]

​@@abhaythecuber1837 but they are slow

[@Deathranger999]

@@abhaythecuber1837 How much money do you think the WCA has lol.

[@daileeedunno]

if felix's 6.88 is allowed, then how come a misscramble which is 99% identical to the original scramble isn't allowed? it just feels like a whole double standard to me. maybe standards have changed with time, but i believe that the world record should be Yiheng's 4.75

[@Technoplane]

yeah but now it doesent matter yiheng got a 4.69 world record avg

[@kupaN9]

As a complete novice, I think the difference is that in the first case the number of steps to solve was identical but in Yiheng's case it reduced the number of steps needed by one move.

[@daileeedunno]

@@kupaN9 it didn't, it just changed the last move from a clockwise move to an anticlockwise move, the move count stayed the same.

[@rich1051414]

@@daileeedunno Disqualify is always given. Rarely exemptions are given after an uproar, if they determined the misscramble was still a 'valid' possible scramble, so no advantage was given. It is possible that the misscramble wasn't considered valid for one reason or another, even if the solution used ended up being the same number of moves.

[@cch8034]

@@Technoplane now it really doesn’t matter since he got a 4.48 avg

[@AndyMok]

it was very pain to watch his reactions in person, this misscramble is really unfortunate

[@jameschea.]

it sucks so much that misscrambles have caused many results to be dnfed lately. also it is crazy that a scrambler would purposely make a scramble easier for top solvers because they should no that if they get a good result the scrambles will be checked and it will just create drama and waste time.

[@ItBeOnai]

The organizers for South East Champs last year actually did mark the top competitor’s score card, though it was mostly to let the runners know to take that cube to a more experienced judge. I can see the same thing working for scramblers too

[@Dr_exztravagant]

I think the best way to prevent misscrambles is to have one of those Rubik’s cube robots scramble the cubes so there is no mistake.

[@George-li1yv]

I feel like a pretty simple solution to this is have a picture of the scrambled cube. Like there's websites that can show what the final scrambled cube should look like for a particular scramble. Quickly checking that can avoid misscrambles if integrated right

[@Yurio]

I really hope if WCA is still discussing this, they can reverse the decision. This case is the bare minimum for a misscramble, so if this doesn't count as a correct solve then no future misscrambles should count.

[@TesserId]

I can imagine having a way to check scrambles. One way would involve a box with four mirrors in a square tilted at 45° to show 4 of the 6 sides simultaneously, along with one face shown directly (not in a mirror), to show five sides overall. Stereo imaging could overlay the image of this with a reference image to immediately reveal any pieces out of place. And of course, the image could be displayed on a monitor/projector, for everyone to see and so everyone can know it was a fair scramble.

[@ster2600]

Just a phone app to check scrambles using the camera would be easy

[@n4cubing]

I scrambled for Zayn Khanani’s 1.02 WR Average, the delegate checked the scrambles before they were even sent out. It’s crazy what’s been happening recently

[@AnthonyRochester]

I was the scrambler for Jode Brewster's 3.88 and I was initially a bit worried it could have been a misscramble - I was checking my scrambles but not really thoroughly. Fortunately the reconstruction showed scramble was right.

[@nasdfigol]

Wait, you scrambled for Joe Brewsters sub 4? Cool, lucky u didnt mess up haha

[@AnthonyRochester]

@@nasdfigol correct

[@Feverstockphoto]

I mentioned on Yiheng's video about 3x3 robot scramblers before. Also simple handheld scanners can be used very easily and quickly to scan the scrambled cube and compare it to a predefined scramble in it's software, app. It can notify if it matches or not. There would also be a need to have senior delegate person or persons overseeing everything that leaves the scrambling table. It's not rocket science. If we can send man to the Moon reducing or eliminating these mis-scrambles should be a walk in the park. I've never once picked up a tin of beans in a supermarket to open it and find peas. It's up to WCA to get their act together 👍

[@sebastiannielsen]

Why are misscrambles punished on the solver? And why are the solver banned from competition at a intentional misscramble? I mean, its not the solvers fault if the scrambler cheats in favor, and this could be used to eliminate competitors scramblers dont like. A idea would be this: If a misscramble is caught: If its for another solve - then just record the time for that solve. For example: If the 2nd solve is given the 3rd scramble, record the time as 3rd solve, and then intentionally give 2nd scramble for 3rd solve, and record 3rd solve in column for 2nd solve. If its a scramble for a already completed solve - record the best time for that solve, and award an extra solve. If other scramble, use a computer program to compute the MOST optimal solve for the intended scramble, and then count number of steps the solver took. If solver took fewer steps than optimal solution for intended scramble, take his time, and divide the time with his steps + 1. So if solver took 20 steps in 2.1 seconds, his "per step time" is 0.1 sec. (2.1 / (20 + 1)) Then add the difference in steps to his final time, so if optimal solution was 25 steps, he would finish with a time of 2.6 sec. This should compensate for the advantage the solver got due to the misscramble. If solver took equal or more steps than optimal solve for intended scramble, then just award time as-is with no modifications, since then solver clearly got no advantage.

[@TheBookDoctor]

Your suggestion about marking the scorecards for high-level solvers to promote double-checking is a very good idea, though. I help organize comps (printing the scorecards) , and I will incorporate that into my workflow. Thanks for the idea!

[@OlgaFyodorova]

This was my thought as well. Appoint a "scramble checker" for fast solvers' cubes. Your idea with two scramblers' signatures is great. One scrambler scrambles and checks, the other double checks.

[@benjaminschmutter]

0:37 im taking credit for this connection, i pointed it out in the livestream What you said at the end with the extra checks for top competitors, I think most of it is good. Actually the idea where both scramblers check is would be smart and relatively easy to implement. The thing is, where to draw the line for "top competitors" is very ambiguous. Should it be anyone who is a world record contender? Continental record contender? National record contender? Anyone who may podium in a major competition? Anyone in finals? How about local competitions? The point is, everyone always needs the same scrambles to ensure fairness. Whatever measures used for the highest level of competition must also be used for anyone else.

[@fc3x336]

I think there can be a line drawn somewhere. (at UK comps at least) the groups are generally sorted by speed, with the 'fast group' last. Maybe it would be worth having the double signature scorecards just for that group

[@InfinityCuberRS3M]

Watched this live, it was so heartbreaking and soo so annoying I believe Yiheng's solve definitely should count

[@jeremiahajam1949]

How did he react? I feel so bad, especially since he’s just a kid:(

[@ThatCubeKidd]

5:42 A friend pointed out to me that I was in this video. Didn’t notice until watching the video a second time. lol

[@dirp_dcb9531]

I don't get the part of verifying the scramble though. It's literally the easiest part 😭

[@J.J.J.J.J.J.J]

4:24 max park type scramble is very possibly what will get a sub-2 second solve with 12 tps in the future

[@Herbert.]

Very insightful. I'm sure this is something that can very easily be automated. A simple app that loads the scrambles, verifying the scrambled cube with the camera (three adjacent sides should be sufficient). Sure this takes extra time for the scrambling process, but as you said, this could be an extra step for more experienced/faster cubers (although this classification is subjective and will undoubtedly lead to more discussion).

[@williamdowling7718]

Why not just have a 3rd party check the scramble before the attempt starts? Right before the cube is placed on the table. Each scramble could have a corresponding image set so that each side can be verified before the attempt starts.

[@kasparaslienys1458]

On miscrambles themselves: Most of the miscrambles go unnoticed. Yes, really. Because of survivorship bias, we only notice the ones that break records. Also, at least in my short organiser/delegate/competitor experience, the fastest groups are prone to having the most issues with misscrambles. Why? Because the most experienced scramblers are competing in this group. The remaining best scramblers tend to avoid scrambling duties because they want to watch how the fastest ones solve (this is not absolute everywhere, but that's my experience so far). What remains are usually nowhere near the top and thus, errors begin. Rule imposed double-checking the scramble before sending it out is a nice idea, but, considering the paragraph above, the second "more experienced" checker isn't as experienced as we would like. Usually, the scramble is checked with 2-4 sides matching, because checking more than 4 is really, redundant. Still, it takes time; even to check 2 sides optimally, you'll spend at least 2 seconds (look at screen, side A -> Look at cube, match side A, look at cube side B, look at screen, match side B), given that the cube is already in your hands. It might seem like not much, but if we did that for every finals scramble, it would quickly pile up and bottle-neck the whole processing of the competition. Although, I tried punching in numbers and it wasn't anything too bad. Still, finding an extra person from organisational perspective sounds like inconvenience at best. In my practice, top 3-5 competitors always receive double/triple checked scrambles, especially in the finals. Sometimes, we only allow the best scrambler of the group scramble for them. This is my and only my opinion: a misscramble is not fair scramble. period. All records (read: all results) should be achieved on fair scrambles. period. The standard (so far) proceeding is this: if scramble is found to be unfair while the competition is not over, it should be replaced with extra. If scramble is found to be unfair after the competition, the result is illegitimate, as it is not done on fair scramble and thus, it should be removed. Even considering one move misscramble that only affects AUF, it is slippery slope to allow it; because it's an arbitrary selection of how many moves and when applied to the scramble can be allowed and when not. This (as far as I know) goes against the spirit of WCA, which values fairness (check 11e3 regulation) over dubious results every time. My biggest condolences to the competitors that did everything right and got punished for errors of others. Again, disclaimer: this is my personal opinion and in no way representative of WCA's. But, given the fact that the punished top competitors showed being able to do it on almost-a-fair-scramble, it's only a question of time when they will do it on a fair scramble. The scrambler robot: logistics make it very unfeasable. It's not cheap, you have to store it somewhere, you have to transport it, you have to protect it from accidental damage. As a delegate/organiser I already have 1/3 of all my containers filled with comp equipment. The twisted corner advice: If you notice a twisted corner during your solve and you're sure you didn't twist it yourself, don't stop the timer and ask for delegate to come to you. Stopping the timer indicates that you've finished solving and twisted corner is not solved cube (duh), thus, you'll have harder time convincing the delegate to give you an extra instead of dnf. Meanwhile, if the timer is running, the incident isn't technically over AND you technically don't know if you have a bad result, which is indicative for a motive to purposely alter the puzzle to get an extra. I learned this from Von Bruchem myself, lol. You'll get extra 95% of the time, if not more. These are my 5 cents.

[@drmonkeys852]

Wonder if someone could make an app that just let you take a picture of a cube and verify the scrambles for you?

[@kasparaslienys1458]

@@drmonkeys852 that's extremely problematic solution; scramble secrecy would be in shambles. Scrambles during competitions are usually displayed in pdf format or printed on paper. Making an app that reads pdf, converts it into virtual image and then compares with fotos is just asking for trouble. If it miraciously weren't buggy, it would open the scrambles for more chances to be leaked. Scramble secrecy is taken very seriously by the wca.

[@mattmatt244]

This was so painful to wait for 😭😭

[@Elijahthecubeyboi]

Nvm u were first

[@abhaythecuber1837]

They should invent a robot for the WCA to do scrambles

[@ichokefinals]

looking forward to this vid. u don't disappoint

[@DongyoungLee212antisune]

Im also concerned about corner twists during scrambles as there’s no way to check that.

[@DongyoungLee212antisune]

@@four_cubed yeah but how do they prove that it wasn't them accidentally twisting the corner during the solve and it was the scrambler

[@DongyoungLee212antisune]

@@four_cubed I have scrambled in comps before and if you have too, you will know that they don't check if the scrambles are correct by looking at the pics since thats too hard and there is gonna be atleast 1 cube thats loose af

[@draakisback]

It wouldn't be hard to have a computer display the sides of the cube to the judge and have the judge check the cube before presenting it to the competitor. If you had multiple redundancies, you could easily find misscrambles before they are given to the competitor. Another solution would be to create a program that takes the misscramble and checks to see if it's still a legal scramble. If it's off because of one minor move, the WCA should automatically just ignore it. One opposite move is not going to make that much of a difference even at the highest level. Obviously each puzzle should have their own tolerance for this, for example square one would be a lot different than 3x3. And finally we're not have like a a gan robot scramble all of the cubes? You don't need a Bluetooth cube to use something like the gan robot, and having a robot do the scramble means that it's probably going to be correct every single time.

[@darkphoton_15keV]

Why cannot the whole community digitize the whole scramble process? The assigned scramble is sent via an app and after the scramble the faces of the cube get scanned by the phone's camera to check for the correctness. This shouldn't be hard to implement.

[@MrCatalyst56]

come on it's 2023, automate the scrambling by a machine

[@Gretchaninov]

It's super-frustrating. In Sydney recently, a guy got one of the best SQ-1 solves ever - around 4 seconds. But, of course, it was a misscramble and didn't count. I usually record my solves and I've found at least one misscramble, but only by one extra move at the end (possibly an accidental turn in the box). I DNF'd anyway as it was a blind solve, but it's annoying to have to sometimes do extra solves because someone messed up. I agree with extra checks for top cubers. In fact, maybe the scramble should also be checked under the box, to make sure no accidental turns occurred. Or you could have a cover that holds the cube in place or something.

[@QuantumQber]

At my last comp, One of the scramblers was intentionally scrambling randomly and not following the scramble. I got a extra because of it.

[@cubeflipper]

Thanks for all this new information that I didn’t know before! Thanks.

[@thomasstokes9412]

I was scrambling a fair amount at the European Championships last summer and we had to write our ID numbers on the score card so that any problems with the scramble could be traced back to us. This is also the case for all the local comps I have been to in the past 5 years. I would be surprised if they weren't doing that at the SE Asian comps mentioned in the video. I think having another experienced competitor check scrambles for the top solvers might be a good idea. But if they are doing that then they might as well be scrambling instead of the more in-experienced scrambler. I have two suggestions: The WCA could introduce a rule which requires any scramblers for the fastest groups to have a minimum amount of experience scrambling or competing. Or if a scrambler is found to have deliberately mis-scrambled a puzzle then all their results from the competition are DNF'd or some other disiplinary action.

[@joeyoest1105]

Agreed. I was surprised that the intentional mis-scrambler only got an 10-month suspension for intentionally cheating. It seems to me that that’s deserving of a much harsher suspension or a ban.

[@username7790]

I'm not a cuber but from an outside perspective, this just seems unprofessional and embarrassing for the cubing community. they should definitely need to fix it

[@samwizeG]

In my opinion once a record is set it should be held. Unless the can prove it was intentionally tampered with, to make it easier

[@davidepstein7397]

as someone who has had a world record taken away due to a misscramble i 100 percent agree that there should be further action taken against this issue

[@speedsnake2]

Which one

[@samueljehanno]

👍

[@FatedGamer]

Sounds like there needs some software validation either through a picture with algorithm or small scramble devices on the table that will follow a shuffle input and just set it down and not let anyone touch it.

[@asailijhijr]

If there's a problem of scramblers making misscrambles that are easier to solve on purpose, then the body that validates world records needs to have some lasting power over the scramblers. Either by payment structure, or by holding publishing rights to records they hold, or by publishing their names and giving them honour in the general community. If the body that validates or publishes world records doesn't have power over scramblers that lasts beyond the conclusion of these competitions, your problem is going to continue indefinitely.

[@comicsansgreenkirby]

A more immediate solution is to add a 'Misscramble' tag to the records list, so if there is a WR, it can still be up there, but viewers will need to decide for themselves whether this truly counts as a WR.

[@DZSRUBIKSCUBE]

It's really painful for Yiheng

[@Napert]

For 1-2 move mistakes, you could just put an asterisk next to the time to notify that the solve might not have been 100% correct or whatever

[@gabrielwykle]

It would be so simple to create an app that would show each face after the scramble. Require a second scrambler to verify and I don't see how non-malicious misscrambles still happen

[@6TDOW66]

Scrambling multiple cubes seems wiser than checking scrambling of one; unlikely to make the same mistake twice. Also delivering them to the table together; even if the tray falls, they're unlikely for all to get same errors. Different ppl can scramble different cubes of the set if you doubt intent as well as precision.

[@lorddeathside]

print out the scramble and have it checked right before the solved.

[@baactiba3039]

I think that accidental misscrambles should be allowed. After all, it's still all up to randomness how the cube turns out.

[@hellboy19991]

while i agree that a lot of misscrambles should be allowed, this logic is very flawed. one random state of a rubix cube is (theoretically) a solved cube or only a handful of moves away from its solve. There is a reason why the scrambles are monitored if something seems problematic, because you want to give everyone a very similar chance of winning a competition or record. In essence: Not all misscrambles are made equal and thusly they should not be treated equal.

[@orangeapples]

Robots should be doing the scrambles, verifying the scrambles and boxing the scrambles in little paper boxes. Give each a 1-5 star difficulty rating or whatever. Maybe even have a printout of what the scramble should look like so both the competitor and the judge can verify before starting. If something as simple as placing the cube on the table wrong can be the difference between WR or not, then you can’t leave it up to chance.

[@hunter-yt4eq]

i think for averages like yiheng's he should get an extra for the last solve too because he didn't need a good time when he first did it

[@BwakBirb]

As you suggested at top skill levels to have two scramblers to verify, why not have two cubes both be scrambled and reference them to make sure they're in the same position before starting?

[@klapiroska4714]

Double (or even triple) checking scrambles, at least on national and worlds events would definetly be a good idea. Also, there could be some experience requirement for 1 or 2 of the people who check the scrambles, just to try to get rid of neglegent checking. I think there should also be a clear rule, that the inspection of the scramble should not be done by the one who scrambled the cube. Another option would be to set some requirements for people inspecting the scrambles. This would likely involve training, supervision etc. and it would end up being quite costly, but it's effectively the system in industries where mistakes can have serious consequenses. Probably overkill for cube community. My personal preference would be to build an official app, where you verify the scramble before handing the cube to a competitor. It would only need some way to identify which scrable is supposed to be used (could be done with a QR-code, or a system based on name, ID number or some other kind of identification), and then two pictures of the scramble (3 sides on each picture). Identifying colored squares on a grid isn't exactly a hard problem for a modern smartphone. Once the app has verified the scramble (pass/fail system), you'd still need 2 people to verify the result given by the app.

[@AsmodeusMictian]

Would it be possible to get one of the robots that have been custom designed to *solve* these cubes involved? I would imagine OSS could easily be developed that would scramble a cube to whatever config was desired. OSS would mean that the code could easily be verified by the community and accepted as valid with little to no issue.

[@affegpus4195]

as long you see 3 of the faces, it shouldn't be hard to have a program in a phone to check if the cube is in the right state after a following the scramble steps

[@karol1158]

How about scrambling machine? There are machnies that can solve cube in seconds, why can't them scramble cubes with given moves? Then you won't have to worry about whether the scrambling was done properly. When 'human factor' is removed from sport it becomes more fair.

[@JimFarrand]

In the cases where misscrambles have been deliberate, do we know the motivation? Are the folks doing the tampering trying to help competitors by giving them an easy solve, or trying to get them disqualified?

[@ivolol]

If you set a cube in front of a camera with 3 sides viewable, some vision learning on a laptop and some code, could it detect 90% or 100% of miss scrambles? Heck maybe even doable in a phone app

[@ignDart]

man i dont get why it's so hard to scramble correctly

[@liamrichter9314]

this is one of my favourite videos EVER! on the whole of KZbin!

[@origamieder]

6:32 hey that's me at the top

[@SerKubos]

Pos si

[@Who_Flipz]

its not possible that it was turned bringing it to the station because the cubed would have to turn 3 times

[@kyleochoa9004]

KZbin seems to recommend me the most random videos sometimes. So obviously I watch them cuz... Anyway I am amazed to learn that there is this serious of a competitive Rubik's Cube scene. Wow.

[@ericstorm4613]

Putting a hair in the cube would be very deadly for lockups.

[@boomercuber]

This one was particularly hard to see as Yiheng is so young and that's a brutal thing to happen. I feel like if Feliks' misscramble from the start of the vid was allowed, then there's precedent for letting Yiheng's one count as they were both off due to one seemingly unintentional mistake. Also agree that there is definitely precedent here for the WCA to take a look at how scrambling is managed at comps. It's clear that the current system is far from foolproof, and I get the impression sometimes that speed of getting scrambles done and delivered to competitors is given far more importance than accuracy. I think you're onto something with the idea of flagging, for example, the top ten competitors in any round and having those scrambles double checked. Any extra time taken in a new process like this will be eclipsed by the time involved afterwards in situations of a WR misscramble. I really feel for Yiheng in this situation. My son is about the same age as him, and I know that this would not be an easy thing for him or me to deal with! (If only my son was interested in cubing though ha ha!)

[@cookierobber]

Feliks and Yiheng's situations differ in that Feliks didn't receive an extra at the comp, so the alternative to letting it stand would've been DNFing it, which is obviously a far harsher punishment than giving an extra (as Tymon showed, it's still possible to perform well on an extra - hell, in theory it's even possible to do *better* on the extra). Also, the Feliks misscramble incident (and the controversy following it) was A) many years ago, and it's arguable whether we should be beholden to precedent from then; and B) is literally the reason it became standard practice to check for misscrambles after records. It's a tough situation and I hope the original solve is restored, but I don't think the comparison to Feliks' situation should be the reason why

[@boomercuber]

@@cookierobber Yah all fair - I guess the thing I thought was most similar is that they were both seemingly unintentional misscrambles and only off by one clockwise instead of an anticlockwise (or vice-versa) move, ya know? Regardless of what happened after that's the thing they had in common initially. I definitely still feel like it's worth considering a change in procedure, because as this video points out there have been a lot of these situations for WR potential solvers, and getting to the cause of the problem at that stage would be beneficial.

[@jeremyarcus-goldberg9543]

Great research for this video

[@sumanmndl]

They could just use image recognition to verify every scramble

[@iamdozerq]

Slow motion camera + scramble app and any judge (even me, i cant solve 3by3 at all) and few minutes after solve we can say was it misscramble or not. Wtf

[@jawstrock2215]

I don't get why the competitor don't call for suspected misscrambled before their attempt. to be inspected or reviewed or something.

[@xqiuvmah]

If the scrambler mis-scrambles, fine them a huge amount of money. People will be damn motivated to scramble the cubes perfectly if a few thousand dollars were at stake.

[@diegomastro5681]

Just a dumb ass take

[@qsquared8833]

There are plenty of scramblers and solvers, it should be fairly trivial for a decent app company to make an app that can take a pic of a cube in a mirror box to verify the scramble. For most competitors it could be done once, at the scramble table. While for the fastest competitors it could be done a 2nd time when the cube is presented to them. That's seems fairly reasonable.

[@BillyHudson1]

A potential control could be to have two people scramble two cubes and make sure they match.

[@SlowerCuber]

Comprehensive stories, analysis, and perspectives

[@GullsForSale]

I think that problem could be solved with a cheap webcam, OpenCV, QRcodes, and like a few hundred lines of python.

[@Games-bl7hm]

its the first time I heard about scrambling, but yeah, makes a lot of sense that something like this has to exist

[@thekilla1234]

Allowing any misscramble for any reason is a recipe for disaster. The people doing these intentional misscrambles will just learn what they can get away with and do them. If a misscramble is allowed then it is essentially considered a legal scramble, because that means it must be allowed in the future for consistency. It seems incredibly odd to me that they just wing it sometimes, I can't see how that could ever end well for anyone.

[@Abcwhatever]

I'm completely new to Rubiks cube competitions and I have no clue wtf a Miss scramble is

[@epoc162]

The fact this happens is hilarious. Like, this doesn't seem like it should even be a thing.

[@ryanjohnson3615]

My unscramble time is going on 40+ years.

[@JohnSmith-kf8mv]

Is it so hard to check the cubes before giving them to the competitors.?

[@KestrelForever]

At this point I feel that there should be a machine that scrambles for the computer and boxes the cube.

[@hawoi]

me living in vietnam and not knowing there's a cubing competition

[@adondriel]

how are they not using a robot scrambler?

[@abj136]

Computer video check can verify a scrambled cube matches the computer’s scramble.

[@ZeketheZealot]

So here’s the thing: if the competition organizers sign off on a scramble and the cube gets to the competitor, then that should be an official scramble. It’s incredibly unfair to the competitors that a world record performance can be negated because the organizers fucked up in not vetting a scramble.

[@zerotsang4604]

Isn't it easy to check if the cube is scramble correctly or not? Just look at a picture of what the cube should look like on all 6 side and look at the cube.

[@gkcuber]

For this reason, I think only experienced / at a certain speed Cubers should be allowed to scramble for world class Cubers

[@ebn1412]

Huh I thought a verification system for the scrambles is already in place, considering the highly competitive nature of these competitions.

[@vaishanthjv2519]

Was the extra not the original scramble?How did rihan get a 6 sec when it was basically the same scramble

[@Gentoli]

Can't they have a robot/ camera check before they solve?

[@jetseverschuren]

Why is there not yet a computer scramble verifier? As a programmer, it's not trivial, but should be doable enough

[@MattMcConaha]

Probably just cause it is extra hardware that needs to be brought to the event, prone to failure that could be hard to fix quickly if the people there don't know exactly how it works, and unless the process is highly optimized then it would take more time to get the scrambled puzzles out to the solvers and slow down the event.

[@jetseverschuren]

@@MattMcConaha That's fair. But there are solutions for it. Perhaps use a phone app. And/or only on the really high level games. If getting it correct is so important, and there are this many errors, I really expected there to be better solutions

[@euclideanspace2573]

I know nothing about cubing even though I hold the 1x1 cube world record of solved in 0 seconds, but wouldn't it be trivial to make a robot that takes photos of all sides to verify the scramble?

[@JaminRat]

Why does nobody produce a cube scrambler? I know gan make the robot but it could be done chaper and easier. This would remove all mis-scrambles.

[@solver5k]

Excellent video. Thanks for explaining mis-scrambles. A second person should sign off on all scrambles. It would hardly add any time to the process.

[@Uncle_Servo_21]

Hopefully the “time base” will solve this

[@KiWi220]

i should say that they should develop scrambling robots like gan robot but one who can do scramble on a non smart cube

[@stefanf922]

Even if you need to have experienced people do the scramble, you could easily have an independent person verify the scrambles.