Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[TMOY]

I had a thought about how to run certain events in the competition I might be running:

Sort of running a two track system. Big BLD events at the same time as some side events (Sq1, Pyra etc.) and each competitor can only compete in one track of events. The challenge I thought with this would be judging the BLD events but then I thought that each person doing Big BLD could pair up with another and they could judge each other.

What do others reckon for this as a compromise on this?

Sorry but that kind of pairing doesn't work. You can't judge a big BLD attempt if you're competing too and haven't done your own attempt yet.

Besides, I really wouldn't like to be forced to choose between Square-1 and 4BLD. I think the usual way of holding big BLDs as side events (you have a whole afternoon to do your attempts, you choose the moment when you want to do them (and eventually which speed events you may sacrifice for them)) works much better.

 

[Toad]

Sorry but that kind of pairing doesn't work. You can't judge a big BLD attempt if you're competing too and haven't done your own attempt yet.

Besides, I really wouldn't like to be forced to choose between Square-1 and 4BLD. I think the usual way of holding big BLDs as side events (you have a whole afternoon to do your attempts, you choose the moment when you want to do them (and eventually which speed events you may sacrifice for them)) works much better.

That's pretty obvious, I'm a muppet :fp

 

[Reinier Schippers]

People are all complaining about cheating with a blindfold. But the comps I attended The judge of the solve was responsible for holding a paper between the solver and the cube?

 

[Zarxrax]

For the +2 penalty, I think it should remain (except for bld), but one of the big issues I see is that as some have said, applying the same penalty across all puzzles doesn't seem fair.
I would propose that for the smaller, quicker puzzles (2x2x2, pyraminx, magic), there should be a +1 penalty instead. 1 second is still a rather significant penalty for those events, but it wont kill averages quite so badly.

 

[Reinier Schippers]

For the +2 penalty, I think it should remain (except for bld), but one of the big issues I see is that as some have said, applying the same penalty across all puzzles doesn't seem fair.
I would propose that for the smaller, quicker puzzles (2x2x2, pyraminx, magic), there should be a +1 penalty instead. 1 second is still a rather significant penalty for those events, but it wont kill averages quite so badly.

Could be a possibility but penalties are made for being nasty though. If you change them you keep changing and making exceptions for penalties although I like your idea.

 

[Slash]

I've been thinking a lot about the +2 issue. On the one hand, you should solve the puzzle so it'd seem to be ok to simply delete this regulation and judge everything that was a +2 as a DNF. Although, this wouldn't be fair at the locked-up solves. So, I suggest the following:
Every turn that is bigger then 45 but smaller than 90 degrees should be +2, and turns bigger than 90 degrees should be counted as a DNF 'causet you haven't done a move, which if was during the solve would also be a DNF (hope you understand...)
+2 maybe should be reduced to +1, I'm not sure about that. It should be the time in which the move can certainly be done, even if the competitor's best time is 8 minutes. And I think this is rather 2 seconds than 1.

 

[amostay2004]

+2 maybe should be reduced to +1, I'm not sure about that. It should be the time in which the move can certainly be done, even if the competitor's best time is 8 minutes. And I think this is rather 2 seconds than 1.

That fix probably took just barely under 1 second but it's close enough to prove 1 second is not a long enough penalty

 

[Hodari]

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.

I just started cubing about 1.5 months go and never done any competitions, so could be wrong on this but..
I'm guessing it's not so much that a different orientation might give an advantage but rather the position was standardized simply to make it easier for the judge inspecting the cubes to ensure they are all scrambled the same way.

Also, I had an unusual situation occur last night and not entirely sure if the current rules cover it. While solving my cube(Guhong), during the final algorithm, one of the corner pieces somehow got twisted in its place without actually popping out so that at the end, everything else was correctly solved except that one corner which was rotated 90 degrees. In an actual competition, would this be considered a DNF if it was not fixed or would this fall under rule 5b5) and be considered a successful solve? Again, note the following:
1. The cube was 100% correctly solved prior to scrambling.
2. No pops occurred during scrambling or solving the cube.
3. At the end of the solve, all pieces were in the correct position and only this single corner was oriented incorrectly.

If needed, maybe the rules could be clarified to address this situation, though I'm guessing it's rather rare that this would actually occur.

 

[cmhardw]

In regards to the +2 issue I would also be fine with removing this from BLD events and just calling it a DNF.

 

[TiLiMayor]

While solving my cube(Guhong), during the final algorithm, one of the corner pieces somehow got twisted in its place without actually popping out so that at the end, everything else was correctly solved except that one corner which was rotated 90 degrees. In an actual competition, would this be considered a DNF if it was not fixed or would this fall under rule 5b5) and be considered a successful solve? Again, note the following:

It is considered as a puzzle defect and you can fix it, otherwise would be a DNF; You have already solved it and there is no way you can put the pieces in a more favorable position.

 

[Radu]

Wouldn't it be better to discuss the change proposals here: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=918e386497489a403e6d1bb607019164?
And with a separate thread for each idea so that we can keep track of every opinion easier.

 

[Erik]

I can't quote everyone so I'll just reply like this:

Masterofthebass: that's a great idea! I will ask some main organizing people soon about the possibility to utilize this here too.

Olivér: loose cubes are fast cubes, if you drop a cube straight on a table with the white face down even calmly, it will still flip over a LOT of the times. With a loose cube this can mean that a side will turn no matter how precise you are at twisting. Luckily the cubes are improving, for instance the 2x2's with springs make that I +2 much less. That was my other few percents ;-)

Chris H.: I love you I really do. Don't understand me wrong, I deeply admire the memorization of cards, that's why I added it in the hope nobody would get me wrong. I have the same admiration for 4 and 5 BLD. To my pride I actually can solve a 4x4 BLD now I am still convinced though that especially the 3 big BLD events (not big-cube events ;-) are more memory sport than cubing (or SPEEDcubing). Because it is so far away from my aspect of 'speedcubing' I think 3 of those events are just too many.

Mike Hughey: thanks for mentioning that, it shows my intentions better than I wrote them down here.

Bryan: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...eam-BLD-discussion-thread!&highlight=Team+BLD

qqwref: I did not think about this because I never saw a competition without a printer. If you do not have a printer it is indeed easier to print the certificates on forehand!

pablobaluba: it would, but sadly that forum has very few members so a discussion with the full community is impossible

 

[Julian]

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."

Consider this similar case: Competitor A gets a much better than normal 2x2 or pyraminx solve (say he gets half what he averages). Competitor B, who is very good at this event and is in the same heat as Competitor A, is on the lookout for a one-look solve. Thus an unfair advantage.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...eam-BLD-discussion-thread!&highlight=Team+BLD

And they seem to be avoiding the big issue (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ussion-thread!&p=497098&viewfull=1#post497098), so perhaps you can share how they've handled that in Europe.

 

[Pedro]

Consider this similar case: Competitor A gets a much better than normal 2x2 or pyraminx solve (say he gets half what he averages). Competitor B, who is very good at this event and is in the same heat as Competitor A, is on the lookout for a one-look solve. Thus an unfair advantage.

Nothing we can do about it, I think.
Maybe have timing stations separated, like the people on a call center, so nobody can see the other people's times.
Yeah, probably not a good idea

About the +2...it may be a good idea for the audience, but I think it should stay, because of the mentioned loose cubes (specially 2x2x2).

About the big cubes bld, if you don't like/have time for it, just don't hold it. It's not like it will damage you in any way (as a competitor or organizer).

 

[Dene]

People are all complaining about cheating with a blindfold. But the comps I attended The judge of the solve was responsible for holding a paper between the solver and the cube?

I did not see anyone complaining about this. And yes the judge is responsible for holding a paper between the face of the solver and the cube.

 

[hatter]

I think that reducing the +2 penalty is kind of silly. Not too long ago (before our WRs were so low), 2 seconds wasn't as big of a percentage as it is now (obviously). We can't continually reduce the penalty because people are getting better, so we might as well not reduce it at all. Does that make sense?

 

[Julian]

Regarding +2: It's nice the way it is, but the impact of the penalty on a 2x2 solve is, as mentioned, substantial. I like the +1 idea for faster to solve puzzles, except the people could get better at a particular puzzle, and that puzzle would have to be included in the +1 realm. I like the idea of a proportional penalty, except that it would only work for 2x2. Imagine doing a 7x7 solve, and finishing with a +40 or something.

Regarding +2 in BLD: I do think that it's an unfair advantage to the average BLD solver that they can R2 to avoid a DNF when they haven't fully memorised. This convinced me that there shouldn't be +2 in BLD... for a while. For the elite BLD solvers (Alejandro, etc.) BLD is more of a speedsolving sport than a memory sport. These people are much more likely to accidentally mess up the last turn while stopping the timer, which would lead to an undeserved DNF.

Thoughts?

 

[HelpCube]

1. add skewb. I dont understand why we would need another year, its just like adding any other event like 4x4 or 5x5, you can apply the same rules.
2. thoughts on BLD:
It's hard to find a blindfold which will completely cover up your eyes, which is obviously the reason for the paper. I think the judge should look at it, and just make sure its not see-through or something like that, but be required to use the paper. (i understand that this is already in the rules, im just helping out with the debate on here)

 

[riffz]

In regards to removing any of the current BLD events, I strongly believe that we should keep them all. I like the idea of allowing competitors to choose whether to compete in those or other side events because there is often not enough time at competitions.

But for those of you who are saying that 4 events is too much and that 4BLD is very similar to 5BLD, I am somewhat puzzled that you are not also suggesting that the 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7 speed events also be removed, as they are all very similar to the 4x4.