• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Puzzle Changes: painted/printed colours and 1.5mm tiles for all puzzles

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
In essence, the WRC and Board are making the changes from the grace period permanent.

Read here for details: https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/166

I know some of you were hoping for more, but this more pragmatic for now.

For the future, we're still willing to consider good proposals for "anything goes", or to allow specific things like stickerless cubes.
However, this requires a lot of careful work, which WRC members are unlikely to spend much time on right now. In addition, we need a better process to handle controversial changes (e.g. a fair draft/revision period and something like a majority vote by the Delegates). If you'd like to work on either of these, please try to continue the discussion in another thread, or contact the WRC.

Edit: official announcement: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/2014-04-03
 
Last edited:

megaminxwin

Current Clock NR Holder
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
575
WCA
2010MACA01
So, theoretically, someone could go in a competition with a mini DianSheng or something, with painted colours, and it would be competition-legal?

Why was it banned anyway?
 

Carrot

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,910
WCA
2008ANDE02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I just realised:
3d2) ... Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.

Would this be allowed or would I need to resticker?:
Picture 61.jpg
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So, theoretically, someone could go in a competition with a mini DianSheng or something, with painted colours, and it would be competition-legal?

Not just theoretically! They definitely are allowed to, as long as the paint is not worn down too much.

Why was it banned anyway?
Read the "Painted/Printed Colors" section in the GitHub issue link.

I just realised:
3d2) ... Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours.

Would this be allowed or would I need to resticker?:
View attachment 3834
Depending on the lighting, perhaps a Delegate might be fine with it, but yeah, you should probably resticker that.

(Just to give a concrete example, suppose you have a 3x3x3 with BOY where yellow is hard to distinguish from white. A state (F2 R2)3 away from solved might look like solved, which could mean that you have a lot of options for cross. Perhaps this is not as straightforward for Megaminx, but the colors should still be distinct.)
 

Carrot

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,910
WCA
2008ANDE02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ah. Right. Yeah, you should probably resticker that, I didn't even notice...

Well, "should probably" sounds like it would be a good idea to do it. I am asking if the megaminx is competition legal, because I figured having a grey I can't distinguish from white actually gives me an advatange as I won't get distracted by grey pieces during the solve (white is faster to recognise than grey), and I know my F2L pieces so well, that I would never recognise an F2L corner by the white side, but instead by the adj stickers of white, so it doesn't even bother me when I have to look for white pieces.

(I did resticker the grey, but I would like to go through this hypothetical, but realistic example)

Ohhh yeah I should probably mention before someone says something stupid: The solved state is still unique (and very easy to recognise) as their is no intersection of the groups of adj colours to grey and white sides.

Hehe, lucas answered me before I finished typing this, I called what he was going to say! :D

Edit: (I just figured people may say something about the lighting, just assume it looks like that IRL)
 
Last edited:

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So whether I can compete in Megaminx depends on the mood of the delegate (cause of the slightly "too thick" Meffert tiles). Not exactly happy about that, but it's at least better than being always forbidden.


The "Guidelines" link goes to an obsolete version (and clicking "Regulations" there gets you to an obsolete version of the regulations).
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So... this is the end of Sébastiens draft? (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...s-quot-Anything-Goes-quot-(WCA-Puzzle-Policy))

I think the draft (with some minor tweaks) was perfectly fine to implement and strongly disagree with the argument that it would need "intricate details" (had to google that) to be implemented.

p.s. not happy about the exception for megaminx. Either allow it for all puzzles or for none. This doesn't make sense. Just the fact that these tiles occur "mostly" in megaminx doesn't mean that it can't occur at other events (or would suddenly be illegal for that matter).
Depending on the mood of the delegate (and depending of wether he has such a thing on him: http://www.promotionalpromo.com/Upfiles/Prod_q/Ruler___Calibration_Ruler_7056.jpg) I can compete in 4x4 or not. Also I think it's a bad idea that something that is announced is in force from the second it was announced. Otherwise I would have for instance practiced on a different 4x4 for this weekend's competition.
 
Last edited:

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So whether I can compete in Megaminx depends on the mood of the delegate (cause of the slightly "too thick" Meffert tiles). Not exactly happy about that, but it's at least better than being always forbidden.
If any delegate does so, let the WRC know.

We're going to send out some details to the Delegates.


The "Guidelines" link goes to an obsolete version (and clicking "Regulations" there gets you to an obsolete version of the regulations).
Thanks. Fixed now.


So... this is the end of Sébastiens draft? (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...s-quot-Anything-Goes-quot-(WCA-Puzzle-Policy))

I think the draft (with some minor tweaks) was perfectly fine to implement and strongly disagree with the argument that it would need "intricate details" (had to google that) to be implemented.
It's not the end, but we are not adopting it for now.

I disagree that it's ready, but that's not a conversation for this thread. As I mentioned, feel free to continue discussing it.

p.s. not happy about the exception for megaminx. Either allow it for all puzzles or for none. This doesn't make sense. Just the fact that these tiles occur "mostly" in megaminx doesn't mean that it can't occur at other events (or would suddenly be illegal for that matter).
Everyone would be unhappy about some variant of this. However, since almost everyone was concerned specifically about Megaminx, we felt is was reasonable to address that directly.

Depending on the mood of the delegate (and depending of wether he has such a thing on him: http://www.promotionalpromo.com/Upfiles/Prod_q/Ruler___Calibration_Ruler_7056.jpg) I can compete in 4x4 or not. Also I think it's a bad idea that something that is announced is in force from the second it was announced. Otherwise I would have for instance practiced on a different 4x4 for this weekend's competition.
Actually, tiles over 1.5mm were not for 4x4x4 allowed in the past. From the 2010-2012 Regulations:

3f) Stickers/tiles/textures/paint must not be thicker than 1.5 mm, or the generally available thickness for non cube puzzles.

If your tiles are just a bit thicker, no Delegate should ever allow them.
The intention is now a bit more clear: thick tiles are not allowed, except on Megaminx (for legacy reasons). The WRC sees thick tiles as a slight unfair advantage.

I'm sorry for the slightly quick announcement. Tim wasn't available for updating the Regs, and I have had a busy period. Everyone's differing, emotional view points also made me wary of spending too much time on anything than replying to concerns on the other thread.
I posted in the other thread as soon as I was working on this. In addition, everything is basically unchanged from the grace period. Discussions for alternatives can still continue.
 

reyrey

Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
68
Location
Israel
WCA
2011NOAM01
Just to make something clear:
3d) Puzzles must have coloured parts, which must be one of the following: coloured stickers, coloured tiles, coloured plastic, or painted/printed colours. All coloured parts of a puzzle must be made of a similar material.
3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.

So basically, like before, stickerless cubes (e.g http://www.dayancube.com/sites/defa...an-5-ZhanChi-3-3-3-Brain-Teaser-23-Cube-3.jpg) are still illegal, right?
(Colors are noticeable from inside)

Seems to come from that, and also from how 3h2 changed:
3h2) Puzzles whose face colours are visible inside the puzzle (e.g. "stickerless cubes" with colored plastic instead of stickers/tiles) are not permitted.
to
3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.
Which just removed the example, which is exactly the same rule.
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,900
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yes, "stickerless" cubes are still illegal.

The rule was modified because there is at least one example of a cube around now with plastic tiles: the new Rubik's brand cube.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Everyone would be unhappy about some variant of this. However, since almost everyone was concerned specifically about Megaminx, we felt is was reasonable to address that directly.

This does not make sense to me whatsoever. Why would someone be upset if tile thickness was 2mm for instance?

Actually, tiles over 1.5mm were not for 4x4x4 allowed in the past. From the 2010-2012 Regulations:

If your tiles are just a bit thicker, no Delegate should ever allow them.
The intention is now a bit more clear: thick tiles are not allowed, except on Megaminx (for legacy reasons). The WRC sees thick tiles as a slight unfair advantage.

The issue of how to measure took the delegates at De Wilg Open this weekend hours of their time. Because of the announcement the delegates felt the need to actually measure my tiles. One of the delegates went to a hardware shop to find something with which he could determine thicknessess of 0.1 millimeters. He did not find anything. How do you plan this to be enforced? Equip all delegates with metric laser measurement devices?

In the end we ended up comparing tiles from a mefferts megaminx to my 4x4 tiles. The final decision was made solely by estimating by eye that the tiles were equally thick. If I wanted to be really annoying I could've said this is not the appropriate way to do it, since no form of measuring took place and there was no proper way it could be proven that the tiles in question were too thick. Since I did not want to waste any further time of the delegates I decided I settled for borrowing one of Geert's cubes. (reminder: "innocent until proven otherwise")

I would like to ask you again why you kept these unlogical, unpractial and incosistent regulations even though the majority of the delegates did not agree on this. This was the perfect opportunity to settle things straight and make some improvements.

Again: banning unproven theoretical advantages is neither fair, nor practical. To me and a lot of others this sounds like the way of thinking of a theoretical mathematician rather than the way of thinking that should be applied: fair, easy to enforce, logical, practical.

p.s. kinda funny that about 3 board members and like 20 delegates did not catch this possible illegal cube then. Btw cubes like this: http://www.mefferts.com/products/photos/233_big.jpg have been widely used in a possible illegal way by numerous cubers as well then for 4x4 and 5x5.
 
Last edited:

GoldenPhoenix

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
5
Location
Jacksonville Fl.
YouTube
Visit Channel
One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.
 

Rocky0701

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
2,007
Location
Overland Park, Kansas
WCA
2014MCEV01
YouTube
Visit Channel
One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.
That is a great question. One that cannot be answered, because the "no stickerless" rule is dumb.
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Let's try summing things up.

One question I have, is why something stickerless would need to be banned, it takes approx. (within .001 seconds) the same amount of time to misalign the layers to check the back as it does to tilt the cube slightly to see the back side. In addition, it takes longer to realign the layers and then start an alg than to simply start the algorithm. Tilting the cube is a simple thing to do, and the algorithm can be started from the tilted position, whereas the misalignment of layers is (or at least seems to be) slightly clunky and hindering for the start of new turns. If it is because of misalignment during inspection time, turning of the layers is illegal during such time anyway.

Well, they they haven't really been explicitly banned; they've just never been allowed. We need a good reason to change the policy to start allowing them, and the reasons have never been "good enough". In order to keep it practical for Delegates and competitors to judge what is legal, we have usually stayed conservative if there anything controversial about some feature (i.e. advantage) of a puzzle.

Aligning/misaligning layers or tiling the cube does take time, but that is not the only concern. The WRC/Board aren't a single entity with an overbearing opinion, but concerns might include:
- It is definitely possible to see "back" colors on the last layer more easily from holding the puzzle from some angles.
- It is possible to see the back colors of F2L edges while turning the top.
- The larger amount of color on each side (and no interior "plastic") color make it simpler to see the colors.

Any of these may be used to your advantage intentionally or unintentionally. Since the this could be unconscious, and cannot be blind-tested, it would be very hard to prove/disprove whether it makes a difference in your solving.

In addition, I have to keep bringing up the fallacy that if something doesn't save the competitor a lot of time then it should be allowed. (To pick an example off the wall: allowing a competitor to bring a list of ZBLL algs to the table also probably wouldn't save them time, but I think most people would agree that this should not be allowed.)

Competitors use cubes because they like them, which you can think of has having their favorite "advantages" over, say, a stock Rubik's brand. Some of these, like a better mechanism and lubing, have always been okay.
Perhaps people just like "stickerless" cubes because they literally prefer not to have stickers. Maybe a better version of the new Rubik's speedcubes would satisfy them.
Or maybe they actually prefer seeing colors more easily. (This may not be a conscious thing; it may be that the cube "feels" faster and easier to use. My stickerless cube definitely felt that way when I first tried it.) In that case, these cubes *do* give them an advantage over regular cubes. For all we know, some competitors would benefit from this advantage, and we haven't explicitly decided that this is okay.

It's already hard enough to judge whether the advantages of current stickerless cubes are fair -- partially because we don't have definitions (e.g. fair compared to what?).
If we make a reckless change to allow them, we might find ourselves having to decide this all over again. Even if we want to have an "anything goes" policy, the Regulations might get more complicated -- or their interpretations could.
(What if someone makes a cube with cubies that are so rounded that you can almost always see the back side?)

So, to answer your "question" more directly: Because they have always been "banned". They can provide some advantages, and the Board/WRC have not conclusively decided that it is fair to allow competitors to have those potential advantages. Part of this is the motivation to keep the Regulations as simple as possible, so that they are easier to interpret (especially for Delegates).

That is a great question. One that cannot be answered, because the "no stickerless" rule is dumb.
It *can* be answered. There are reasons on both sides.

I could also call your statement dumb, and that wouldn't get us anywhere.



Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.
 

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.

I'm wondering what the response would be from speed cubers if you asked them anonymously "If stickerless cubes were allowed, would you likely use them in competition." The results would be interesting.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,661
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Things can change, but we need to have productive discussions. Those belong in other threads right now.
I'm trying to get WRC stuff going so that stickerless cubes (and/or general puzzle changes) will be put to a Delegate vote this year.

First of all: it would be nice to get some kind of feedback on my previous post. The delegates at the competition and me think these issues need further discussion.

Second. Thanks for informing us about this github item. Transparency is a necessary step in improving the WCA to a better functioning body. Delegate voting is a way to get some decisions on 50-50 items. Though delegate voting is a step in the right direction to more fairness and 'democracy' I do urge the WRC/WCA to rethink about delegate voting. Not because I think it's bad, but because I think there are better groups of cubers to have the "right to vote" than all delegates.

I am conviced a significant number of delegates does not posses the necessary knowledge or/and experience or/and skill to be able to make the right choices here. There are a lot of experienced cubers out there whose opinion is much more valuable than those delegates I am talking about. Interpreting regulations and making decisions based on regulations is a whole different world than actually understanding the community and even another world than knowing what is good for the community.


I'm wondering what the response would be from speed cubers if you asked them anonymously "If stickerless cubes were allowed, would you likely use them in competition." The results would be interesting.

Define "speed cubers". If you would ask all speedcubers what they think about adding 2x2 OH+BLD while underwater you might as well get more than 50% pro, even though it would be a horrible event to add for a gazillion reasons.
 
Last edited:

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
Define "speed cubers". If you would ask all speedcubers what they think about adding 2x2 OH+BLD while underwater you might as well get more than 50% pro, even though it would be a horrible event to add for a gazillion reasons.

Actually, I was thinking the other direction. It's not necessarily desired, but I think many cubers would feel like they would be at a disadvantage NOT using it, so many would feel forced to switch.

EDIT: I also think you are making a pretty strong assumption about the intelligence and foresight of the average speed cuber :p I really don't think many would be pro underwater OH BLD
 
Top