Ich habe die Diskussion mal auf speedsolving.com gestartet und bin interessiert, was die deutsche Community dazu sagt. Hier mein Originaltext:
Zitat:~sorry for my englisch - I have many ideas about this and I hope you can understand what I wanted to say. If not, feel free to ask~
Because of personal reasons and current occasion I want to start this discussion about Means for FMC. So let‘s get started:
I know this is a result of personal frustration in official FMC but nevertheless I am interested in what you think about this because I am surely not the only one thinking about this.
I often compare FMC with 2x2x2 Singles in a higher level - you all know the discussion about easy scrambles and luck. I think I don‘t have to tell you more about this.
So what‘s about the idea changing the official rating system of FMC in competitions? What about a mean of 2 attemps for official Fewest Moves?
You do not just need luck (e.g. LL-Skips) but also skill to win. So one lucky single would not be the garant to be definite on the podium. Yeah I know it‘s true - getting lucky is not a crime, but what can we do to get an better balanced FMC-system without luck as a main factor? Today FMC is the only event beside BLD which has not the Best-of-system. So why not change this to a mean of 2 or 3?
With this change you can prevent winning a competition with pure luck. You really need beside luck also skill to find two or three good results in a row. So the better persons in FMC have to pay attention not to DNF an attempt because of already a good solution.
This - in my opinion - would lead to „fairer“ results in FMC.
I know there are some arguments against this:
you need much more time for two attempts, but just a little note: there are already many competitions who not just have one attempt of FMC but two or three
there would be less means because many people DNF one of their attemps - what about this: they have to pay attention not to DNF, if they do it‘s their own fault . I bet, if we will have the mean system, there would be much less DNFs than there are now
less people doing FMC: if you really want to do FMC, another system is not a reason to stop doing it. It is much more a motivation to be more effective and to find a solution in every attempt
BUT: I see there also a lot of pros for official FMC-means:
you really need skill to have more good solutions than just a lucky one
you have to do both (or three attemps) to win; you not just have one good solution and DNF or DNS the second one.
no more lucky solutions which will stay in the world ranking forever without a high chance to be better
the means would be much more clearly about skills: you have to do another good attempt after you had a really good solution in the first one
my personal suggestion:
I would prefer to have the Single AND the Mean-system for WCA-Competitions:
both count for the WCA-statistics and results but it would be like in any other event: a Single is more meaningless than the mean. Why not change the score to mean of 2/mean of 3. So you can do two or three attemps in competitions and they both count in the same record statistic.
Or the second way to handle with this: you get two scrambles in the limit of one hour. The mean of these two is the final result. But I think this is not a good way of doing FMC. Everyone who does FMC and want to get a nice result need the full hour. So there would be less good solution.
Another example for means: in the german forum we are testing the mean-system for FMC in the weekly competition since last week (3 scrambles) - successfully. The competitors really try to find a solution for every scramble to have a mean. I am not sure if this will last for long or it is just a motivation at the beginning but I like it.
So what do you think about it? I am really interested in different opinions about this topic.