Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[esquimalt1]

A problem with the coloured Guhong was that when you turned the U layer 45 degrees, you can see what colour is on the LF and the RF edges where on a stickered cube it would be harder.

It's not a huge advantage but it sort of is one.

 

[Tall5001]

A problem with the coloured Guhong was that when you turned the U layer 45 degrees, you can see what colour is on the LF and the RF edges where on a stickered cube it would be harder.

It's not a huge advantage but it sort of is one.

Yeah i understand why they say it is an advantage but when you use the Colored Gu Hong does that really help you solve it? i turn to fast to even catch a glimpse of the color on the corner

 

[amostay2004]

I will lurk after this post. You can still cheat even if your blindfold is checked.

That's why there is the added safety of a piece of paper held between you and the cube by the judge. And it is a really good thing to have that based on my experience. I have a small-ish and tight-ish blindfold and in competition I can't be bothered enough to properly pull it down so it's comfortable and totally cover my eyes (I close my eyes anyway so I dunno if I can actually see =p)

 

[Daniel Wu]

Yeah i understand why they say it is an advantage but when you use the Colored Gu Hong does that really help you solve it? i turn to fast to even catch a glimpse of the color on the corner

See this thread for that whole debate.

 

[noedgesoriented]

Make head to head official. I < 3 it.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.

Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."

Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."


also, that reg would just be a total pain to organizers and scramblers.



Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I'm not sure, but I think it used to be that you could choose your orientation, then it got changed to how it is now.

And just to pull a technicality, just because competitor A had easy green scramble, doesn't mean you put green on U If anything, given to how we normally scramble, you'd want blue on U

 

[Ranzha]

Skewb should wait for a year. There need to be applied trial regulations to see how things run.
Oh, and what would scrambling orientation be for puzzles whose faces don't turn, such as the Skewb? (This is assuming that the URLB notation is used.)

Keep a consistent orientation for scrambling. The competition is based on solving what you're given. The way you solve determines your times. If you had an easy solve on white cross for a particular scramble, you can't expect a Roux solver to have the same amount of luck as you, vice versa et al.

 

[amostay2004]

Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?

From what I understand a +2 penalty is simply to represent the time it takes for you to fix whatever gave you that penalty.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Skewb should wait for a year. There need to be applied trial regulations to see how things run.
Oh, and what would scrambling orientation be for puzzles whose faces don't turn, such as the Skewb? (This is assuming that the URLB notation is used.)

You can always use notation that highlights the turning vertex. On a face turning cube for example, we'd use UDRLBF, with an edge turning puzzle (helicopter cube) you could use UF, UR, FB, etc, and with a corner turning puzzle you just need some way of identifying all fixed corners, like Bryan Logan did here.

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."

Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."


also, that reg would just be a total pain to organizers and scramblers.



Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?

Addressing your scenario, the regulations already state to scramble with white top, green front, which applies to Competitor A and B. Once A says what he says, B will know and lookout for it.

 

[Olivér Perge]

I say again like I said last year: remove the +2 penalty. I think it should be either solved state or DNF. Yes, it would definitely change the competitions as we know them but in a good way. People would start to learn how to finish the solve properly. As we know from Lars Vandenbergh's video, rushing the end of your solve not really saving that many time (around 0.16 seconds).

For those who say that knowing that the penalty can only be a DNF and that causes stress, I say: either do not make a penalty or choose a less stressful hobby. I remember missing a WR average on a DNF. Yeah, I was nervous, but I didn't blame the rules for the DNF, I blamed myself.

For those who say the +2 should remain, since it's a nice safety net to have, I say 45° is nice enough. I don't know what is the background story of the +2, why was it created in the first place, why is it 2 seconds, but I think we should remove it at all.

Also it would solve the problem of having the same penalty for magic and 7x7x7.

Last point (and this is the less important): it would finally make it clear for the non cubers and for the media if our cube was solved or not. Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.

Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."

This should not happen in the first place.

 

[DavidWoner]

What should happen and what does and will happen are often two different things.

Skewb does not need a trial period, as it is just another speedsolving event. It's not like adding teamBLD, or speedBLD, or head to head where you need an entirely new subset of rules.
- Random state (optimal limit+1 moves) scrambles, white top green front with URLB fixed corner notation.
- Set 60 degrees as the limit for +2.

OMG so difficult. Adding skewb should be just as easy as adding 6x6 and 7x7.

 

[Tim Major]

- Random state (optimal limit+1 moves) scrambles, white top green front with URLB fixed corner notation.

Why suboptimal scrambles? At home it makes sense, as you are the scrambler, but in competition there is no advantage over having the scrambler, scramble optimally.

From what I understand a +2 penalty is simply to represent the time it takes for you to fix whatever gave you that penalty.

Dene took a +2 penalty in feet to save time (iirc, though it may've been someone else)
Some competitors may take longer than 2 seconds at some puzzle to AUF.

 

[hr.mohr]

I agree with all of Olivér's arguments for removing +2.

There is also some strange things allowed under current regulations that would be fixed by removing +2.

There is +2 in all events but fewest moves, even in BLD. If a competitor are unsure if he has made the last M2 in a solve he could just do a R2 at take the +2. And that's in an event about memory.

Note:
Remember if your suggestions are serious to post in the WCA forum when the "official" discussion begins.

 

[DavidWoner]

Why suboptimal scrambles? At home it makes sense, as you are the scrambler, but in competition there is no advantage over having the scrambler, scramble optimally.

Damage control. Some people may accidentally or intentionally see the scramble sheet and notice a short scramble. They may see or hear the scrambler only doing a few moves. I believe Bryan did this with 2x2 at Cubetcha and I thought it was a good move.

Actually we could change the regs for pyra and 2x2 to be optimal limit+1 as well, the 2x2 scrambler already has that functionality and it shouldn't be too hard to implement in the pyra scrambler.

 

[Tim Major]

Damage control. Some people may accidentally or intentionally see the scramble sheet and notice a short scramble. They may see or hear the scrambler only doing a few moves.
Actually we could change the regs for pyra and 2x2 to be optimal limit+1 as well, the 2x2 scrambler already has that functionality and it shouldn't be too hard to implement in the pyra scrambler.

I understand. Of course if the regs were made that way for Skewb, it would have to be implicated into 2x2 and Pyraminx as well, otherwise it would be a bad inconsistency. There was discussion awhile ago, is optimal limit+1 possible to reach all positions? The 32 positions that take 12 moves, can they all be solved in 13?

 

[Stefan]

FMC clarification on how the scramble should not be related to the solution.

You mean you'd like a precise definition so you can circumvent it and submit a solution related to the scramble in a different way?

wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.

It doesn't.

Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."

Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."

You mean "white on F please" (if white is your preferred cross color).

Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.

Since when is two moves off valid?

10e3) If one move is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a penalty of 2 seconds.
10e4) If more than one move is needed, the solve is ruled DNF.

 

[Olivér Perge]

Since when is two moves off valid?

10e3) If one move is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a penalty of 2 seconds.
10e4) If more than one move is needed, the solve is ruled DNF.

I am familiar with the regulations.

I was not clear enough. I was trying to look it from a non cuber point of view. By move I meant turning any side of the cube with any degree. For average, non cuber persons that is a move on a cube. Many of them think that even a less than 45° turn is not solved, so for them this (at 0:16) not seem to be solved, even thought by the WCA regulations it is a +2 right now. But literally you need 2 moves to solve the cube.

 

[Dene]

Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?

The thing is, doing an extra face turn during a 2x2 solve has a much larger effect proportional to the finishing solve time than doing an extra face turn on a 7x7. Which basically brings us back to what is supposedly the point of the rule, that 2 seconds is "the time it takes to do that turn", or more like "the time it takes to do that turn plus a bit of a punishment for not doing it".