New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[jazzthief81]

[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.

I don't see where my elbows ever come near the timer. And why would this happen for Master Magic specifically?

And stopping the timer with your elbows would give a penalty? It's simply not allowed.

 

[Olivér Perge]

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?

It only adds ~0.167s to your time.

I completely agree! Thank you Lars for the video!

Let's say it's 0.2 seconds. Is this long enough to be nervous?

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

What does it mean?

Stopping with elbow is so obvious to see for the judges. Rules for stopping the timer with your hands are clear enough, I guess.

In this topic I think we should more accept the conditions rather then changing them.

 

[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.

I don't see where my elbows ever come near the timer. And why would this happen for Master Magic specifically?

And stopping the timer with your elbows would give a penalty? It's simply not allowed.

I've occasionally brushed the timer with my forearms when putting the cube down.
"A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds."

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?

It only adds ~0.167s to your time.

I completely agree! Thank you Lars for the video!

Let's say it's 0.2 seconds. Is this long enough to be nervous?

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

What does it mean?

Stopping with elbow is so obvious to see for the judges. Rules for stopping the timer with your hands are clear enough, I guess.

In this topic I think we should more accept the conditions rather then changing them.

Run the risk I meant.

 

[jazzthief81]

[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.

I don't see where my elbows ever come near the timer. And why would this happen for Master Magic specifically?

And stopping the timer with your elbows would give a penalty? It's simply not allowed.

I've occasionally brushed the timer with my forearms when putting the cube down.

I have to try really hard and sit in a rather unnatural position in order to touch the timer with both my forearms. But of course different people are built differently. I can see how someone who is slightly smaller and leaner can have that problem.

 

[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.

I don't see where my elbows ever come near the timer. And why would this happen for Master Magic specifically?

And stopping the timer with your elbows would give a penalty? It's simply not allowed.

I've occasionally brushed the timer with my forearms when putting the cube down.

I have to try really hard and sit in a rather unnatural position in order to touch the timer with both my forearms. But of course different people are built differently. I can see how someone who is slightly smaller and leaner can have that problem.

I'm quite tall and have a really droopy cubing angle. I sometimes brush the cube on the mat. :fp

 

[adamzamora]

I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.

 

[Olivér Perge]

Well, I think this should be maintained, because on my old store bought cube my look ahead was way better because I could immediately see where all the pieces where (whitout turning the cube at all), because I regonized the different damages of each sticker.

Basically that is cheating.

 

[jazzthief81]

I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.

And who may you be? Shouldn't you introduce yourself to the forum first before making your first post?

EDIT: Seriously, we did a head-to-head event at the UK Open a few times and it was a lot of fun! It certainly adds another dimension to it and it's a lot more competitive.

 

[adamzamora]

naw i thought i was well known already

 

[Pasquale Lombardozzi]

In my opinion it is REALLY IMPORTANT to have a Megaminx Average of 5 instead of a Mean of 3. Because this is totally unfair and sucks. There is for example the 5x5x5 cube there is the single WR 1:07.25 minutes and average is 1:16.75 minutes, where the Megaminx single WR 57.94 seconds and average 1:04.34 minutes is. So why get Megaminx only a Mean of 3 and 5x5x5 a average of 5, when Megaminx deserved it more, because it is faster? So I think when 5x5x5 get a average of 5, for the Megaminx should be a Average of 5, too. And the limit should be, that if the competitor doesn't gets no sub 2:30 minutes after 2 solves, he can't do an Average of 5. Even thought that the Megaminx gets more popular than ever has been. So I hope that WCA makes a new regulation because when you do a bad solve at the Mean of 3, your mean would be worst then it even is. That you can see at the Mean of 3 from Simon Westlund at Swedish Cube Day 2009: 1:54.30 Minutes (POP) 1:16.21 Minutes 1:08.59 Minutes. At the first solve he had a massive pop witch get his Mean down to 1:26.37 minutes. But at the final he gets average was 1:14.69 minutes. So isn't not completely unfair? I think so. I hope some WCA delegate reads this and shares this with the others.

Best Regards

Pasquale Lombardozzi

 

[Bryan]

So why get Megaminx only a Mean of 3 and 5x5x5 a average of 5, when Megaminx deserved it more, because it is faster?

Well, if we only had the top competitors in Megaminx, then avg of 5 would be easier. But when you get into the "slower" competitors, Megaminx will be slower than 5x5x5. Compare the 500th ranked 5x5 against the 500th ranked Megaminx. That's why Megaminx is mean of 3.

And the limit should be, that if the competitor doesn't gets no sub 2:30 minutes after 2 solves, he can't do an Average of 5.

These limits are never in the regulation, they're always set on a per competition basis. If a competition is ahead of time, they can adjust this accordingly.

 

[ianini]

naw i thought i was well known already

Who's Adam Zamora?

 

[Johannes91]

But when you get into the "slower" competitors, Megaminx will be slower than 5x5x5. Compare the 500th ranked 5x5 against the 500th ranked Megaminx. That's why Megaminx is mean of 3.

That's a quite bad comparison; there are more people who've solved 5x5x5 than who've solved Megaminx, so 500th in the former is much better than 500th in the latter. Comparing relative ranks shows that the times are fairly close:

    5x5x5 Megaminx
10% 1:44  1:42
20% 2:00  2:01
30% 2:20  2:21
40% 2:35  2:43
50% 2:57  3:10
60% 3:21  3:33
70% 3:52  3:59
80% 4:32  4:28
90% 5:43  5:41

 

[Stini]

One thing about the regulations that should be changed concerns the fewest moves:

E2e) The solution of the competitor must not be in any way related to the scrambling algorithm. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

At least in the competitions that I have been to, this is interpreted so that if the scramble ends for example with U then your solution can't start with U'. This is really stupid since if you for example solve using inverse scramble and the last move of your solution for the inverse scramble happens to cancel the last move of the scramble, it's technically against the regulations. Also if you happen to find a nice insertion before the first move of your solution, but the insertion begins with the move that cancels the last move the scramble, it's against the regulations. Also it's not clear if the solution is allowed to start with U2 with the last move of the scramble is U or U' and vice versa.

An obvious solution to this is to make the scrambles longer, but I find that this makes using techniques such as inverse scrambles and NISS more tedious. Perhaps it could be possible to make the judge to decide if the explanation of the solve is good enough in case the solution happens to cancel some moves of the scramble.

 

[DavidWoner]

At least in the competitions that I have been to, this is interpreted so that if the scramble ends for example with U then your solution can't start with U'. This is really stupid since if you for example solve using inverse scramble and the last move of your solution for the inverse scramble happens to cancel the last move of the scramble, it's technically against the regulations.

No, it isn't. In these situations the delegate is misinterpreting the regulation. It is obvious that in most cases the solutions are in no way related save for one move. If that was a correct interpretation of the rules, then if the scramble has U R' B somewhere in it then your solution cannot have B' R U' anywhere in it.

This regulation is in place to prevent something like E M E' M' (inverse scramble) M E M' E' or something similar.

I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this. I did not realize this was so common. I had heard of a Polish competition where there was a 1 move 2x2x2, but that 1 move was the inverse of the final move of the scramble, and the competitors were not allowed to use it. I had thought this was an isolated incident otherwise I would have mentioned something sooner.

 

[Stini]

I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this. I did not realize this was so common. I had heard of a Polish competition where there was a 1 move 2x2x2, but that 1 move was the inverse of the final move of the scramble, and the competitors were not allowed to use it. I had thought this was an isolated incident otherwise I would have mentioned something sooner.

Similar thing has happen in a Finnish a competition, but I think it was a 3-move 2x2x2 and the first move of the solution canceled the last move of the scramble so you couldn't use the block. Sure you could use the block and try to leave just 3 corners left and make the insertion before the first move though

 

[idpapro]

i think that there should be a cutoff time for the megaminx avg of 5, like the cutoff time in most competitions, e.g.. you get 2 tries to get below 2:30 to get the rest of your solves, i think that the same cutoff time for the megaminx as the 5x5 in a competition.

 

[Dene]

I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.

I think there should be an Adam Zamora category. To win, you have to chat up the most girls in the room.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I think there should be an Adam Zamora category. To win, you have to chat up the most girls in the room.

David!

I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this.

I strongly support compiling current unofficial guidelines into an official delegate "guidebook" explaining all the rule interpretations that are not worth putting in the regulations themselves.

 

[Chuck]

This:
Should Rubik's brand cubes be prohibited for BLD?