New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[MistArts]

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)

Still quite some time to calculate for faster events...

 

[gpt_kibutz]

Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.

 

[Olivér Perge]

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.

I agree. I still think all the +2s are enitrely the competitors fault. So the competitor should be able to fix them.

In the video of Lucas's 2x2x2 solve, it was Lucas's fault, not the stack mat's.

 

[MistArts]

Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.

A percentage penalty on fast events would be small enough to take the penalty and getting a faster time than executing the last turn.

Also, would you add the percentage penalty after or before other penalties?

 

[Muesli]

I think the entire point of the +2 penalty was to make it impossible to gain an advantage from not doing the last turn. Making that penalty 20% would add 30 seconds onto a 2:30 5x5 solve for missing off a 0.5 second AUF or dropping the cube funny. That defies the point of the penalty. It is supposed to make it not viable to miss the last turn and not to punish the cuber for making a mistake.

 

[Olivér Perge]

Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.

A percentage penalty on fast events would be small enough to take the penalty and getting a faster time than executing the last turn.

Also, would you add the percentage penalty after or before other penalties?

That's the point! I think these "percentage penalty" ideas have no sense.

 

[Lars Petrus]

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! )

Yeah, that's the problem I'm talking about.

You're right that my idea wouldn't eliminate 100% of the problem, but I disagree that solving 95% would not help at all. Also, even if you can find and memorize features of an unknown cube, that effort takes time out of your solve.

Your 2 cube scenario is would address even the chance of learning cube features while memorizing, but at a considerable cost of complexity.

A more serious problem is that you have no control over how easy to turn the unknown cube is, how well it fits with the competitors turning style, and the problem of matching everybody's color scheme that you mention.

It may be that any cure is worse than the disease here, but the fact remains that as long as people can use their own cubes, they will be able to recognize things on it, even if they don't intend to cheat.

One low tech remedy would be to require people to wear gloves, to remove the chance of sensing minor sticker differences.

 

[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.

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

That is a good rebuttal of an argument I didn't make.

 

[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.

That is a good rebuttal of an argument I didn't make.

Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.

 

[Lars Petrus]

Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.

I think your analogy is broken because dealing with the bouncing of balls is an inherent part of the skills needed for soccer and rugby, so trying to compensate for it would defeat the purpose of the game.

I don't think anyone is claiming the same for cube bouncing?


The cheating aspect is a valid concern, but it is easy to construct a timer where it's impossible to make turns while the clock isn't running, or to stop the timer when all sides are not aligned.

 

[Muesli]

Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.

I think your analogy is broken because dealing with the bouncing of balls is an inherent part of the skills needed for soccer and rugby, so trying to compensate for it would defeat the purpose of the game.

I don't think anyone is claiming the same for cube bouncing?


The cheating aspect is a valid concern, but it is easy to construct a timer where it's impossible to make turns while the clock isn't running, or to stop the timer when all sides are not aligned.

Like a machine that chops your hands off when you finish?

Why can't putting the cube down properly be part of the skill?

 

[Kian]

And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!

I know I'm probably in the minority here, too, but I'd also like to see this happen. Everyone seems to have a lot of fun with these events. I understand that it poses some different challenges, but I think it's a reasonable thing to try on an interim basis, at least. With proper considerations up front, of course.

At the end of the day I think we're all here to have fun so we should try to contribute to that the best we can. I think team events would be a refreshing twist that people would enjoy.

Anyway, just my two cents, and I know it'd be difficult. I don't mean to pick a fight about it.

 

[qqwref]

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.

I actually disagree with this. The fact that you have to invert parts of your solution is a given if you use inverse scramble or NISS. I feel like it is the competitor's responsibility to end up with a solution in the standard FRUBLD notation, and I think it's part of the NISS method (i.e. something you knew when you decided to use it) that you will have to invert your moves later, just like it is part of using insertions that you will have to rewrite your solution with the inserted moves inside it. The brunt of translating a solution from nonstandard notation (insertions, inverses) into normal notation should be on the solver, not on the judge.

It may be that any cure is worse than the disease here, but the fact remains that as long as people can use their own cubes, they will be able to recognize things on it, even if they don't intend to cheat.

One low tech remedy would be to require people to wear gloves, to remove the chance of sensing minor sticker differences.

In theory we could just force people to use new/perfect cubes. If the judge can literally feel no difference between any of the stickers or sides, the cube is acceptable; otherwise, it isn't. Of course this would put a lot of responsibility on the competitors' side. I don't know if there's any way to prevent telling pieces apart by touch and still allow people to use their own preferred cubes.

It might actually be reasonable to say that the idea of blindfold solving does not prohibit telling things apart by touch. Since we call it blindfold solving, it's not really all that out of the way to say that anything involving the participant not being able to see is OK.

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.

"Opens a new world of cheating"? Many people already do this in practice; if we had replay cameras (instead of judges who can only see things as they happen) it would be much easier to check if the cube really was solved when the timer was stopped, and in that case, not only would we not need people to drop their cubes, but we could also eliminate the +2 rule completely.

 

[Pedro]

The cheating aspect is a valid concern, but it is easy to construct a timer where it's impossible to make turns while the clock isn't running, or to stop the timer when all sides are not aligned.

How exactly? How much would it cost?
We currently have competitions in a lot of countries, and I have no idea how many new timers we would need...

 

[Edmund]

New Rule: Competitors are not required to wear clothing while solving.

 

[Mike Hughey]

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.

I actually disagree with this. The fact that you have to invert parts of your solution is a given if you use inverse scramble or NISS. I feel like it is the competitor's responsibility to end up with a solution in the standard FRUBLD notation, and I think it's part of the NISS method (i.e. something you knew when you decided to use it) that you will have to invert your moves later, just like it is part of using insertions that you will have to rewrite your solution with the inserted moves inside it. The brunt of translating a solution from nonstandard notation (insertions, inverses) into normal notation should be on the solver, not on the judge.

Actually, I totally agree with you. (I seem to be making very unclear posts today - sorry about that.) My argument was simply that it wouldn't be fair to just allow a pure inverse solution, but not allow partial inverse solutions. But I think it's best to simply keep the rules the way they are now - as I mentioned above, it can be quite difficult for a judge to handle inverse moves.

 

[jazzthief81]

I think requiring the competitors to start and stop the timer themselves and having to pick up and put down the cube while the timer is running is the only fair and straightforward way to time a solve. I don't see how you could determine the end of the solve while the competitor is still holding the cube and therefore is still able to move it.

There has been a lot of talk about cubes misaligning while dropping it. I find it amazing that cubers spend so many hours practicing the most complex movements at high speeds but seemingly have a lot of trouble putting down an object on a table and putting their hands flat on the timer. Is it really that hard?

I did a small experiment and worked out how much time it takes to stop the timer in the following two ways:

• by releasing the cube in the air and immediately stopping the timer (the fast, but risky way)
• by putting the cube down on the surface with both hands and then stopping the timer (the slow, but safe way)

I filmed myself executing those two ways of stopping the timer and counted the frames.

As you can see, dropping the cube took ~0.233s and putting the cube down took ~0.400s. Now I held the cube at the same height for both cases to be able to compare them. I think both ways can be done faster by holding the cube at a lower height as you do the final moves. However if you carefully look at the replays, the extra ~0.167s it took for the second way (the "safe" way) is really the time it takes to bring the hands from the cube to the timer pads.

I don't see any way how stopping the timer using the second, safe way could ever result in a penalty unless the cube really wasn't solved when you were still holding it up in the air.

It only adds ~0.167s to your time.

 

[Muesli]

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.

"Opens a new world of cheating"? Many people already do this in practice; if we had replay cameras (instead of judges who can only see things as they happen) it would be much easier to check if the cube really was solved when the timer was stopped, and in that case, not only would we not need people to drop their cubes, but we could also eliminate the +2 rule completely.

Finishing the solve in a position where you can discreetly apply the last move is almost the same as turning a face in the inspection time. Regardless of the fact that people do it in practise I think we should not allow it in competition.

 

[Muesli]

[Loads of stuff that I deleted so it wasn't a massive quote]

But then you jun the risk of doing a MasterMagic timer stop (with your elbows) which would end up with a +2 penalty anyway.

 

[Lars Petrus]

Like a machine that chops your hands off when you finish?

Imagine two flat surfaces at a 90° angle, with a start/stop button where they meet.

No more +2 judgment calls. Fully aligned sides. Faster times.

The downside I can think of is that you'd need different constructions for the few non straight angle puzzles.

Why can't putting the cube down properly be part of the skill?

It can (and currently is) but I don't think that's the interesting part of the sport.

If it has to be there for practical reasons, it's no big deal, but it would be better to remove that factor.