# New 2015 WCA Regulations (Effective July 1, 2015)

Discussion in 'WCA Regulations' started by Kit Clement, Jun 25, 2014.

1. ### (X)Member

523
0
Nov 8, 2008
Oslo, Norway
WCA:
2009GLOP01
i656ier
I disagree. I think a very important decision is if we want to move away from the idea/definition of the Rubik's cube, the way it was originally made.

The question of unfair advantages is completely irrelevant, of course there are no unfair advantages when everyone has the same equipement available.

2. ### Dane manMember

262
2
Jul 9, 2010
Earth
Well, we first have to answer the question as to whether or not it is fair to allow competitors to move away from the definition of the original Rubik's cube. You already have, but some others have not yet. Once that question is answered, then we can decide whether or not we want to move away from that original definition. If it's fair, then the answer is yes, if it's not, then the answer is no.

1,221
301
Aug 25, 2008
Portland, OR
WCA:
2008CLEM01
KitClement
Ah, I forgot about transparent cubes. But yes, I would agree with that - before stickerless puzzles, the regulations were often more forgiving than restricting.

6,910
53
Dec 5, 2007
WCA:
2009BEAR01
masterNZ
Other than the pictures on the ball, the design has barely changed at all. The only one that was really different was the jabulani, and there was so much complaining about that ball, FIFA would never go back to it.

Ok I'll give you the shoes but at least they don't have rocket boosters

This is why I deliberately said playable technology. This is obviously completely irrelevant and incomparable.

5. ### RanzhaFriendly, Neighbourhoodly

Does everyone have the equipment available to make tiles such as in the picture on the Tiles github page?

6. ### (X)Member

523
0
Nov 8, 2008
Oslo, Norway
WCA:
2009GLOP01
i656ier
No, I agree, that may be a problem.

anyway, I was mainly talking about the stickerless issue, as I think this can possibly have a much bigger impact on our sport.

7. ### uberCuberMember

Jun 24, 2010
Tucson, Arizona, USA
WCA:
2011THOM01
How is it that the change provided by these stickerless cubes is "deviating from the original idea of the Rubiks cube", while every other change between the original Rubik's cubes and today's cubes is not? Or are you actually already opposed to modern speedcubes as it is? I'll just hope that isn't the case.

Is significantly different piece design that allows the cubes to be turned much faster not deviating from the original idea?
Are torpedoes not deviating from the original idea?
Are the different colored plastics and possible alternatives to stickers currently allowed by the regulations not deviating from the original idea?

I've seen you try to make this point before, and I want to see exactly how you define "the original idea of the Rubik's cube" in your mind such that colored plastic being visible on the inside of a puzzle is a deviation from the original idea, while every other difference is not, including those that clearly make it much easier for cubers to get much faster times without increased effort.

8. ### VillyerMember

25
1
Jul 19, 2012
I feel like a different approach to this whole situation could just be to well-define what a rubik's cube is (and the other puzzles that make up WCA events). The purpose of competing is to see how quickly you can solve a rubik's cube. The specific one you have shouldn't make a difference in the eyes of the competition, as long as it matches the definition of the puzzle. Is the puzzle defined as having uniform color plastic with colored stickers on it, or is it defined to have perfectly flat sides? If there is a definition, it would be easy to see what fits and what doesn't.

Although once you start deciding on a definition, those questions would have to be answered, so the issues at hand wouldn't necessarily become any easier.

2,553
13
Jan 30, 2010
Earth
WCA:
2011GREE03
2015 Puzzle Regulations

The major hang up on allowing these changes is that they deviate from Erno Rubik's original design, however he wasn't designing it with solving speed in mind.

My personal opinion is hardware should be allowed as long as the difficultly of the challenge to solve the puzzle doesn't change.

Edit - just a hypothetical, if the 4x4 was originally made just like modern stickerless cubes would we allow stickerless puzzles for 4x4 but not 3x3? Same goes for tiles and pillowed.

Last edited: Jun 26, 2014
10. ### tx789Member

1,830
83
Sep 6, 2010
New Zealand
WCA:
2010HUNT02
thetx789
The thing about this is that with pillowed cubes they slow you down. The change in times from the V-Cube 7 to Shengshou shows proof of this.

Also I think extra thick tiles provide more of an advantage than stickerless cubes. Since you don't need to rotate the cube at all to see what the sticker colour is on the left and right hand side of the cube.

11. ### vcuber13Member

Oct 14, 2009
Near Toronto
WCA:
2009METH01
simpsons36109
Except the fastest official 7x7 solve ever was done was with a V7?

12. ### (X)Member

523
0
Nov 8, 2008
Oslo, Norway
WCA:
2009GLOP01
i656ier
I partly agree. I think allowing stickerless cubes, as they are made today, allows for easier speedsolving of the puzzle.

13. ### ErikMember

No cube is unfair as long as everyone is allowed the same cube.

Although this is stated a bit harsh, I do agree with the message. Analogies have been brought up a 100 times already and dont contribute anything to the discussion. The issues are quite clear. So far, any analogy that has been brought up is only confusing and cluttering. Lets stick to what Kit actually wanted to discuss.

The original Rubiks cube was made from wood and had cut-off corners. Stuff like transparent cubes or stickerless cubes were just technologically not possible back then, or just too expensive. If you ask Ernö he would not recognize GuHongs or type Fs to be Rubiks cubes, because they are just a copy. Same goes for cubes with a different colour scheme.
So the orignal design is not the best way to go IF you want to work from a "definition" point of view. The regs already allow cubes deviating from this original cube. While it certainly would be a solution to work with such a "definition" I fear it will be a complicated, hard to understand piece of high-level English which most likely will not cover all unwanted variants (unless it is a very open describtion). Not sure if that would be the way to go.

6,910
53
Dec 5, 2007
WCA:
2009BEAR01
masterNZ
Maybe it's a personal thing, but I find analogies very useful. At the very least, the way I feel best to approach things in general is: We don't have to reinvent the wheel, as people have done that before us. It's much simpler to look at what others do and see what works.

I see you think like I do. Originally I brought up this approach with the WRC and delegates, but it wasn't viewed particularly popularly at the time. Regardless I did the work to come up with a definition and resulting regulations. I was planning on getting around to posting it on here at some stage but never got around to it. I'll see what I can do in the next week or two (so busy atm).

15. ### (X)Member

523
0
Nov 8, 2008
Oslo, Norway
WCA:
2009GLOP01
i656ier
Yeah, but stickerless cubes have visual differences from all other cubes allowed until now, and I think they should be put in a separate category.

The argument of "We should make theses changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand." is just really bad IMO.

16. ### ErikMember

Yes, just like a cube with round stickers, purple plastic or cut off corners like the original cube... what is your point?

Please rewrite the argument and also explain WHY you think it is bad, I dont understand what you mean (nor can I check if that is actually what I said)

17. ### (X)Member

523
0
Nov 8, 2008
Oslo, Norway
WCA:
2009GLOP01
i656ier
I interpreted this as something along the lines of :
"We should make these changes that can have an impact on our sport because it will make the regulations easier to understand."
Is that not what you meant?

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.

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.

18. ### GooslyMember

804
43
Feb 8, 2011
Belgium
WCA:
2010VERE01
I can see the colors of the stickers on BUL, BU and BUR if I tilt my Weilong with standard stickers just enough so I can't see the whole back face. Is that a visual advantage?

(My point is you did not define visual advantage, therefor your suggestion can't be used.)

19. ### bobthegiraffemonkeyMember

1,373
120
Apr 23, 2010
Scotland, UK
WCA:
2009SHEE01
bobthegiraffemonkey
Here's an image for those not familiar. I'm sure we can all agree that we do not want cubes in competition to look like the original cube made by Rubik.

20. ### ErikMember

I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but I will give it a go: Because I said "working with a definition is possible, but may be challenging/difficult/not optimal because of X and Y" you assume this is the reason I want stickerless cubes to be allowed?

If that is the case you completely misunderstand.

I just put the rest in a spoiler here, because this has been cluttering this thread too much already... this is after all almost a PM.

For starters because allowing stickerless cubes and working with a "definition" are two completely different issues. Working with a definition does not automatically mean we would allow or ban stickerless cubes, that just depends on the definition... It would only be a tool/instrument we could use to explain what variants are OK and which are not OK. The discussion about what in fact is OK still has to be made. Also: like I said before, I fear a definition would be long and complex. If you have a solution/alterative to that, please share! (not ment sarcastically)

I posted my reasons for allowing stickerless cubes several times here in a very elaborate way, maybe you are interested in reading them?

What do you mean with nitpicking? I never told you my own definition of a Rubiks cube. With some examples I just made clear that although it may seem obvious to you what the "original Rubiks Cube" is, the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Also: I am curious what "impact" you mean? Do you think people will suddenly be faster on stickerless cubes? And if that is the case:
1. Why do you expect that?
2. Why would it be a bad thing?