uberCuber
Member
When it comes to the idea of a Rubik's cube I think you are nitpicking.
http://rubik.storflor.com/logo/kube2.jpg
This is what a Rubiks cube looks like.
This is what most people in the world would point at if asked to point at a Rubik's cube.
Noncubers would still look at a stickerless cube and recognize it as a Rubik's cube as well (though they might think it was a cheap knockoff in the same way many would say about my white-plastic Weilong). I think it is you who are nitpicking about the idea of a Rubik's cube. But I can't be sure since you completely ignored my previous post requesting your exact definition of "the original idea of the Rubik's cube." >_>
I think we should allow all puzzles that do not give any visual advantages over this cube.
Suggestion: This could possibly be something to use in the regulations, show a picture of a Rubik's cube and say that any cube that don't give any visual advantages is allowed.
Somebody already mentioned that you failed to define "visual advantage," but here's a couple of points anyway:
We already know that if a cube has tiles, you can see, for example, the BU color without having to tilt the cube as far as you would with stickers. Does this mean you are thoroughly against tiles being allowed by the current regulations?
Hypothetically, if I were able to conclusively prove that I can lookahead better on a white 3x3 than on a black 3x3, would you then be thoroughly against white cubes being allowed?