New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

[dbax0999]

I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.

Swimming goggles that are made black are (close to) flawless for that, and easy and fairly cheap to make (like $5 for a cheap pair of goggles)

Maybe it's time to relook at this: http://www.stefan-pochmann.de/spocc/blindsolving/blindfolds/

 

[Slash]

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252807&postcount=1
something like this? I'd like to see a better solution, because it really disturbs during the solving. It kinda like solving under the table, but in this case the spectators are watching your .... this thing between your legs. so to avoid this thing, we should use a thing like this
any opinions?

 

[qqwref]

Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.

And it lead to new method like speedblind. It would be a pretty interesting event.

It wouldn't be long before someone good at 2x2 got a very easy scramble with a 1 move FL or something and got a stupidly fast time on it.

Yes, the problem with 2x2 BLD is the huge difference between the best times on a typical scramble and the typical times on the best scramble. Someone who averages 40 seconds might get a 5-second solve (!) just because the scramble is easy. That is, every problem we have right now with 2x2 single would be 10 times worse with 2x2 BLD single. So I think we should never add this event.

 

[clement]

For 2x2 bld, I think that the bests solves would be with the speed method, when you could see the entire solve quickly. So it would not really differ from the 2x2 speed.

As for the 3x3 speedblind, I think it's too close from the regular 3x3 event.

 

[cincyaviation]

they need to add another puzzle such as the rubiks 360 or the skewb

They ABSOLUTELY NEED TO add Speed BLD. :rolleyes:

i would like to see that, it might take a while though, but it would be very fun and entertaining...

 

[Erik]

they need to add another puzzle such as the rubiks 360 or the skewb

They ABSOLUTELY NEED TO add Speed BLD. :rolleyes:

i would like to see that, it might take a while though, but it would be very fun and entertaining...

And very impopular, hard to learn, few people competing, time consuming and another blindfolded event. (which in my opinion isn't speedcubing, but memory-sports/speedcubing combined)

If any event should be added it should be either teamsolving or team BLD. These events don't take much time: you can only get half the amount of teams as there are competitors and easy to scramble.
Team BLD is a bit easier to judge, since at teamsolving you have to problem of determining 'communication' and that it's hard to tell if both are touching the cube at the same time or not.
Anyway, main reason I'd like team solving/BLD is that it adds a social and team aspect into the individual sport we have. It's fun (for audience and solvers) and easy to learn.

 

[Muesli]

I'm thinking Y/N team BLD is good fun. I think you could come up with some really awesome techniques.

 

[Yes We Can!]

I would like 3x3x4 or 3x2x2.
At least I would like one new event (whichever) get added, which shouldn't take too much time.

Also a new format could be used for that (e.g. mean of 2 for 3x3x4).

 

[mrbiggs]

I don't see any reason to have team BLD. We already have way too many events--so many that it's very rare to have a competition with all of them. We just added two new ones last year, and they were long ones at that (6x6x6 and 7x7x7).

It's always possible to add an event and justify it by explaining that it does not take too much time, but if we keep doing that, we're going to have way too many events. Which we already do.

Not to mention the added overhead of keeping track of teams of two as opposed to single competitors.

 

[Faz]

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=838

Ugh...

This would disadvantage people alot.

For example, people would feel alot more rushed, and get tense after the judge says 5 seconds, which most people would normally use to inspect the cube and plan their first moves.

Also, the people who hold WR's (specifically in 3x3), will have had more time to inspect the cube, and plan ahead, without feeling rushed and nervous. This has no positive effects, only negative ones.

IMO, this shouldn't become a regulation.

 

[Escher]

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=838

Ugh...

This would disadvantage people alot.

For example, people would feel alot more rushed, and get tense after the judge says 5 seconds, which most people would normally use to inspect the cube and plan their first moves.

Also, the people who hold WR's (specifically in 3x3), will have had more time to inspect the cube, and plan ahead, without feeling rushed and nervous. This has no positive effects, only negative ones.

IMO, this shouldn't become a regulation.

Wow.
It's true that a lot of people (particularly the sub 30/20 like Michael said) only ever use a few seconds of inspection, but also a lot of people use Fridrich and only a single colour for cross only.
Most 3x3 methods other than Fridrich (particularlyZZ) have a lot more going on in inspection. Add some form of colour neutrality (be it opposite or complete) and the solver is searching through six different crosses or many different blocks and ways to build blocks.

As was said before the full 15s inspection is rarely used and the 'time saved' from this new regulation would amount to perhaps 15s per competitor per round if everything ran just like before. In fact, plenty of people suffering from 5-10s less inspection may well actually solve 5-10+s slower.

Ron said that he didn't like the idea of people planning a whole solve in pre-inspection, like in 2x2: if you are a practiced solver and know one or two advanced methods you can plan the entire solve in a majority of scrambles; should these advanced cubers get even less time to inspect than others who can't do that?

 

[jazzthief81]

Ron said that he didn't like the idea of people planning a whole solve in pre-inspection, like in 2x2: if you are a practiced solver and know one or two advanced methods you can plan the entire solve in a majority of scrambles; should these advanced cubers get even less time to inspect than others who can't do that?

The way I see it, everyone should compete under the same circumstances and be given the same opportunity. If you can get a better result because of your skill level, that's to your own credit and is totally fair.

 

[Escher]

The way I see it, everyone should compete under the same circumstances and be given the same opportunity. If you can get a better result because of your skill level, that's to your own credit and is totally fair.

Yes, I completely agree!

The reason for this is that inspection often takes longer than the actual solve. People are making more effective use of inspection, and I do not like to go a situation where more parts of the solve are planned during inspection. Btw. for 2x2 we are already in a situation where people can plan more than half of the solve.

It upsets me to think that the many hours I've spent practicing speedBLD specifically to improve my preinspection lookahead would be completely wasted because it is decided that I (and others) lookahead 'too far'? :confused:

 

[CharlieCooper]

I absolutely do not think the inspection time should go down to ten seconds. The inspection time is an integral part of solving and it doesn't seem fair to penalise people by reducing this just because now we are "in a situation where people can plan more than half of the solve".

On a personal level I wouldn't like this due to the nature of my solving style.

 

[Muesli]

I don't see how the inspection time is a problem that needs changing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[cmhardw]

I'm ambivalent to this, and I have opinions on both sides of the issue.

Pros:I like the idea of reducing inspection, because from a non-cuber perspective it is strange to see people look at the cube for longer than they solve, and the time only counts as the solve time. Over the years I've heard a number of people, non-cubers, ask at competitions "isn't that cheating somehow?"

I'm more of a fan of going to a no-inspection style, but Ron does raise some good points about orienting the cube, aligning all slices, making sure the cube is the right distance from you, etc.

So that is why I am in favor of reducing inspection.

Cons: I do see why it would be frustrating to people who use methods who rely more heavily on inspection. I would also be affected, as I practice X-cross solving purposefully so that I can see them easier and solve using them as often as possible. I am probably, on a good day, up to about 40% of all my solves using some sort of block building/Xcross solving technique instead of just the cross. I would certainly not do Xcross anywhere near as often with shorter inspection, it would simply not be a good idea to do so.

To those who are up in arms about how they feel the change affects them too harshly, how do you think the people back in 2003 who practiced Siamese cube, or Rainbow cube feel now that their events have been completely discontinued? I don't bring this up to say the WCA should bring these events back, that is simply not feasible, but only to illustrate that sometimes big changes are implemented in order to help the sport as a whole.

General Thoughts
I do think having a significantly shorter inspection time, or eliminating inspection altogether, would give cubing a much higher credibility factor amongst non-cubers and could help us become much more of a "mainstream" sport. Seeing as how growing cubing as a sport is part of the mission statement of the WCA, then I think this is something that should strongly be considered.

Changes to your solving strategy for inspection heavy methods:
On a final note ZZ solvers and the like, myself partially included, who do use more inspection could benefit from this line of thinking. Just think of the part of inspection not completed as the part to be finished during the first part of the solve. So for example if inspection is reduced to 5 seconds. You will use probably 2-3 seconds to orient the cube, and count some or all of the flipped edges. After the solve time starts you will, on the fly, create the solution to the EO line. Don't feel like you must abandon your method entirely, it will only be a motivating factor to do more with your available 5 seconds, leaving you less to do during the solving phase while the timer is running. With practice you may be able to see the EOline solution in it's entirety during the inspection time + starting the timer time (where you can still see the cube and think about how to solve). The other possibility is that this change will eliminate ZZ as a speedsolving method, because it relies too heavily on inspection, but I have a feeling people are resourceful enough to come up with changes to allow ZZ to still be used as a very competitive method even if the new change went into effect.

On the whole, I guess you could say I am more in favor of reducing inspection than I am against it.

Chris

 

[Bryan]

I do think having a significantly shorter inspection time, or eliminating inspection altogether, would give cubing a much higher credibility factor amongst non-cubers and could help us become much more of a "mainstream" sport.

Inspection is planning. Just like when the clock is stopped in American football, the players are still doing planning.

 

[Escher]

So basically the only argument for reducing inspection times is that non-cubers don't understand why we have inspection time when they see clips of the sport, or it in person?

Imo it's analogous to snooker, where before each shot a player will plan much further ahead than the current play. A non-snooker player would ask 'why is he waiting so long before taking a shot?'. That doesn't make the sport less mainstream, just that non-snooker players (and non-cubers) are ignorant of the technique involved.

I personally think that pre-inspection makes minimal difference to attracting more people to cubing. Media and popular representation of the puzzle is far more of a hindrance.

 

[Pedro]

I think reducing inspection is not a good idea.

Methods were (and are) developed having the 15s inspection in mind. People practice using the 15s inspection. If you can "see" more stuff than someone else, IN THE SAME TIME, it's because you have skills.

I believe this would affect negatively our sport. Everyone has the same 15 seconds available. Wether to use it entirely or not is a personal choice.

 

[jazzthief81]

Imo it's analogous to snooker, where before each shot a player will plan much further ahead than the current play. A non-snooker player would ask 'why is he waiting so long before taking a shot?'. That doesn't make the sport less mainstream, just that non-snooker players (and non-cubers) are ignorant of the technique involved.

Yeah, well... I'm not so sure if that analogy is well chosen. Cubing and snooker are very different in nature anyway.

For speedcubing, there is always the time pressure because you have to solve it as fast as you can. That's what it's all about: it's a race against the clock.

A game of snooker is a head-to-head battle against another player and the pressure comes from the fact that making a mistake lets your opponent in with a scoring chance. It doesn't matter how fast you play when it's your turn. Speed doesn't earn you any points in this game.

But I think the bottom line of your reasoning is that it shouldn't matter what some unknowledgeable outsiders may think, and with that I agree.