The reasoning behind not allowing them is that if you turn a side of a stickerless cube 45 degrees you can see more colors of more pieces (due to the fact that the pieces are dyed the color instead of just having stickers) than you would if you used a stickered cube. It apparently allows an unfair advantage in look ahead.Originally Posted by ZachyD543
Has anyone found any evidence that shows an actual advantage to using stickerless cubes?
With stickerless cubes you can see pieces you can't with any other cube (at least for dayan ones : the stickerless diansheng (with paint) are allowed)
EDIT : an example of help is turning the U face during F2L, with the LL in front of you (well, it become a F move) : you can see if there are bad edges in F2L slots, which you can't see normally from that angle
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...CA-competition
Suggestion (3c): The rules for stickerless cubes should be the same for speedsolving and blindsolving - there should be no difference. I think I'd prefer that they be allowed, but the rules should be consistent either way.
I disagree. In speedsolving, there is a supposed advantage. In blindsolving, though, the only advantage is when you turn the puzzle, at which point you can't see a thing (well maybe a little light)
This is a great start.
Message to everyone: Please provide sufficient justification for your suggestions. Saying "I feel this should happen" is not considered sufficient justification. Saying "I feel this should happen because X and Y have been allowed on these two instances in the past, and those rulings were reasonable because blahblahblah" is better.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, The problem was that only one of them should have proceeded to the finals, how should this be decided if it comes up again.
If it stays within the 25% limit, then it was legal to send them both to finals. If it doesn't, neither can go. As it stands now, one can't go and one can, but they can both be held back
SUGGESTION (9f14) : Take the sum of the counting times in count before the best time to resolve ties, because it is unfair that someone with a 10.101 average can get beaten by someone with a 10.104 average. There are several examples of such cases.
SUGGESTION (section A) : Clarifying the cumulation of penalty of different categories : if you get a +2 from "Starting the solve" and one for "Ending the solve", is it a +4 or a DNF ?
SUGGESTION (10e3) : Removing the +2 penalty for FMC (it's not clear in the regulations) and blind, because it doesn't make sense (and it solves the stupid multi-blind problem)
And about the stickerless cubes interdiction : if we decide to forbid the stickerless dayans, then we should forbid cube with tiles : with 1.5 mm tiles, you can see much more pieces and the advantage is way better than with a stickerless dayan cube.
9f14: If the averages are the same, then the sum can only be up to 0.01 off.
10e3: There is no +2 for FMC. It's solved or not solved. Stupid MBLD problem? The only problem is the +2 to +(n*2), which really isn't a problem
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks