New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[DavidWoner]

The regulations do not address the event of a tie.

9f14) If in 'Mean of' and 'Average of' rounds competitors have the same average/mean result, then the order in the results for these competitors is based on the best result per competitor, with lower meaning better.

Yeah I saw that but I guess you were too quick. It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.

 

[Stefan]

9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).

WAAAAT?!?!?!

Counted results. Not timed results. Clear now? I'm really just guessing, as "WAAAAT" isn't very specific.

Edit: Or you could mean that 0.1 isn't a natural number, with which I agree.

It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.

9f15) Competitors with the same result in a round finish at the same position.

 

[ErikJ]

at da vinci 08 one of the center caps fell out of Dan's cube during most of his BLD solves and since he used M2 for edges it meant that he could keep track of centers. I remember pointing this out to Bob and he said that there should probably be a rule for it.

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.

 

[DavidWoner]

9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).

WAAAAT?!?!?!

Counted results. Not timed results. Clear now? I'm really just guessing, as "WAAAAT" isn't very specific.

Edit: Or you could mean that 0.1 isn't a natural number, with which I agree.

Yes Lucas just pointed this out to me as well. However, "counted" does not necessarily imply "not-timed", given the multiple meanings of the word.

It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.

9f15) Competitors with the same result in a round finish at the same position.

That is still unclear, as the word "result" is used with multiple meanings in

9f14) If in 'Mean of' and 'Average of' rounds competitors have the same average/mean result, then the order in the results for these competitors is based on the best result per competitor, with lower meaning better.

I think the wording of the regulations should be as clear and indisputable as possible.

 

[Stefan]

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.

Or he sucks at cheating.

 

[ErikJ]

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.

Or he sucks at cheating.

or that. I thought I brought up a good potential problem with BLD solving though.

 

[esquimalt1]

So BLD cubes should have good caps?

 

[DavidWoner]

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.

Or he sucks at cheating.

or that. I thought I brought up a good potential problem with BLD solving though.

5a) Puzzle defects are defects of puzzles, like: pieces popping, wires breaking, screws/caps/stickers falling off.
5b) If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve.

Going by Bryan's interpretations of these regulations, the defect must be fixed before further moves are made since "continue the solve then repair the defect" is not an option. Therefore if a competitor loses center caps during a solve (blindfolded or otherwise) they must be replaced immediately.

 

[rachmaninovian]

I think a slice move away should be +2 too...DNF-ing would be horrible.

I know that there are only a minority of the speedcubers out there who use slice-dependent methods like roux, waterman, etc, or perhaps direct solving methods of bigcubes like mine, but as a competition, it should really be fair for everyone to compete with the same fairness.

To roux users, an M move would probably have the same value to him as what a fridrich does, etc.

I almost got a DNF during one of my official solves, but I wasted more than 2s to adjust. a +2 would have given me a better timing, and not a DNF.

 

[Bryan]

Also, I think it should be clarified that only official Speedstacks timers should be used. There are those knockoffs that had .16 precision.

Also, Multi-BLD solves where solved < 2 should be DNF's.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Also, Multi-BLD solves where solved < 2 should be DNF's.

They were, until Ron took pity on them.

 

[qqwref]

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.

Hah. You can cheat and still fail.

I'm kinda wondering about this BLD cap thing. Obviously a cap isn't gonna fall out on purpose, but what should be done if one comes off mid-solve? It's clearly an aid to solving when this happens, but since it's an accident it isn't fair to DNF the solve. Maybe the best solution would be to include a regulation that says that if a non-functional piece comes off during a BLD solve the competitor must stop the solve and replace it before continuing.

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.

Also, why should the WCA adjust the regulations to accommodate someone's crappy cube. If your cube is too loose don't use it. Just like if you have a cube that pops all the time you know better than to compete with it in BLD or anything for that matter. Remember when pops used to be judged as re-solves until they changed the regulation? Regardless if it is an accident, when you slam the cube down and a piece pops out, it is judged as a DNF. By your reasoning, they should just get a +2. And what about if a corner cubie twists during a solve and when you put the cube down everything is solved except for the one twisted piece? Isn't that also a DNF even though the misalignment was by accident?

 

[qqwref]

If someone's best cube is "crappy" why should they be forced to switch to another? In the case of +2s it is perfectly fine for solves, and the only problem is in dropping it onto a bouncy mat (which doesn't happen in practice). I don't think people who use certain types of cubes (F, ES 2x2) or prefer their cubes to be loose should be punished for that.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I would also like allowing (all the moves on inverse scramble)' as a valid notation for FMC. This prevents unimportant "translation" and writing down errors for competitors and makes checking a solution more obvious. I can see many people not liking this one.

I would not want to see this unless it is also allowed in partial fashion. So with a NISS solve, you could do something like this:

(for scramble B2 L2 B2 D B2 D' U' F2 R2 D2 L2 F' D2 U' L U2 R B' L' D' B)

D’ R2 D R U F’ U2 R’ U2 R2 U’ R’
(L U’ L’ B U B’ U’ B2 R B2 R2 U R D’ B' D' B U' B' D R’ B R D B2)'

(my solution to this week's competition fewest moves scramble - it's a bad solution, but at least it's an example)

If you don't allow this, you're giving a clear advantage to a particular type of solution (pure inverse scramble) over another type of solution (NISS), and I think that's not fair.

By the way, I felt I had to check my answer above, and it took me 3 tries of attempting to apply that solution above before I got it to come out right. Which is upsetting, because I like to think I'm very good at applying inverse moves. (I always check my match-the-scramble weekly solutions by applying the inverse scramble when I'm done.) So I suspect allowing this would make judging the event significantly harder.

 

[Novriil]

I think transparent cubes should be legal.
Its a rather stupid rule in my opinion.

+1

It's pointless because you can't see through transparent puzzles mostly when they are wearing stickers and when you can then you're solving so fast that it won't help you in any way.

 

[Lars Petrus]

1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.

If the rule is needed because sometimes a solved cube will dealign when dropped on the table, the solution of the root problem is a timer that doesn't require dropping the cube on a table, hoping for a favorable bounce.

2. Sadly, blindfold will not be fully legit until people have to solve on other cubes than their own.

3. To me, if you can use transparent cubes to look ahead better, that's progress in cube solving, not cheating.

 

[Mike Hughey]

2. Sadly, blindfold will not be fully legit until people have to solve on other cubes than their own.

I don't see why that helps at all. If you require people to do blindfold solves on unfamiliar cubes, it's still possible for the solver to be good at immediately noting ideosyncracies in the supplied cube while memorizing, and then take advantage of them on the solve.

I suppose it would be reasonable to do the following:
1. Apply a scramble on 2 cubes - the first being the solver's own cube, the second being a cube supplied by the organizer.
2. Give the first cube to the solver to memorize.
3. When the solver has finished memorizing, have the solver don the blindfold, then remove a cover from the second cube (which has been properly oriented by the judge) and solve the cube.

Would this solve the problem you're thinking of, Lars? Or am I misunderstanding your idea of what is not legit?

(I also want to point out that an unfamiliar color scheme kills me on BLD memorizing, so I'd hate to think I'd ever have to use a different color scheme because of a rules change! )

 

[Muesli]

1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.

If the rule is needed because sometimes a solved cube will dealign when dropped on the table, the solution of the root problem is a timer that doesn't require dropping the cube on a table, hoping for a favorable bounce.

In soccer, they didn't change the rules because hitting the post is nearly in.

 

[gpt_kibutz]

Turning +2 into a percentage is extremely hard to calculate and would punish slower cubers more than faster cubers. It also makes a +2 a calculated risk or even an option instead of a real penalty.

What about turning +2 into a percentage but stopping it at a penalty of 2 seconds?. For example in a 6.00s solve you would get 1.50s of penalty (assuming a 25% penalty) but in a 9.00s solve you would get 2s of penalty. (Instead of getting a penalty of 9*0.25=2.25s)