From cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu Fri Mar 19 10:32:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: from sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil (sun28.aic.nrl.navy.mil [132.250.84.38]) by mc.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1-mod) with SMTP id KAA16650 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:32:05 -0500 (EST) Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@mc.lcs.mit.edu From: WaVeReBeL@webtv.net Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 02:07:36 -0800 (PST) To: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu Cc: IBILUIE@aol.com, IPIIIKA@aol.com Subject: Re: Speed cubing results - March 99 Message-Id: <9085-36F221E8-14@mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: Jiri Fridrich 's message of Thu, 18 Mar 1999 07:35:57 -0500 (EST) I think that if we are to be keeping track records & averages, we should ALL stick to one standard. Using tournament rules sounds like a good idea. This makes comparing times more accurate. Almost everybody responded w/ a different preview time (anywhere from no preview to 15 seconds). People like me who started cold had a disadvantage to those who had a preview. A 15 second preview sounds good to me. This gives enough time to familiarize oneself w/ the cube, look for pieces, and plan out the first few moves. I've been timing myself cold which means much time is wasted at the beginning. Having a preview helps a lot. When it comes to averages, I guess there is no standard. I agree w/ disregarding the high & low extremes though. They can distort the average (arithmetic mean). This should give a more accurate representation. Also, the more entries calculated into the average the better. I hope I'm not going overboard. It's not like we're in a tournament. If all that is necessary is an informal rough estimate, then you can disregard this entire message. =) -Alex Montilla-