Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[Holger]

Then how is it that there are 4 official results that are more than 80 moves, two of them being several hundred moves long? (Note, this is curiosity, not rude cynicism)

Three of them were entered before the regulation, I guess the fourth is because someone is nice and flexible

 

[qqwref]

Would this be better for a FMC write-down:

1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:

U=W
F=G
L=O
R=R
B=B
D=Y

And then I write my whole solution in [WGORBY][ '2] notation. No rotations to worry about. The "solution checker" program at the end handles the mapping.

An even more generalized idea:
- Give a spread-out cube layout with 6 openings (with another one showing RUFLDB like normal).
- Competitors have a few minutes before they start to fill in those openings with 6 letters, symbols, etc. which they will then use for the solution. It's their fault if they are too similar. If they write nothing or if they fill in RUFLDB like normal then they will be using normal notation.

So someone might want to replace UFLRBD with WGORBY, but they might also want to replace it with M+@OXW. I guess this might make it trickier to judge some solutions, but it would allow unambiguous stuff so that even if people have terrible handwriting they can still be easily understood.

 

[Tim Major]

Would this be better for a FMC write-down:

1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:

U=W
F=G
L=O
R=R
B=B
D=Y

And then I write my whole solution in [WGORBY][ '2] notation. No rotations to worry about. The "solution checker" program at the end handles the mapping.

Yes, I would love this. Only problem is wide turns, and middle slices (not my issue, I never use them). In fmc I don't hold the cube in a fixed orientation a lot of the time. I convert "white prime" to U' already. I believe others do this too, or they make R mean Red. I'm all for this, and can't believe I didn't work it out for myself. Obviously M' = R' O' in the new notation. Maybe brackets could we used for wide turns...

 

[Carlos]

I don't know if this question has already been discussed here, but I never understood why did the rules changed to allow touching the cube intentionally at the table at the OH event.

People say: but who is fast doesn't need the table.
Feliks clearly used it at the current average WR.
Also, the OH event exists with the porpouse to make harder to solve the cube, so if it's called OH, it gets to be "OH" in my opinion, not "OHandicapped".

Also, if someone who is considered sub15 by WCA goes to a tv show, for example, he may say "I need a table to get a sub15 time, please" ? It makes no sense at all.
I can't make myself more obvious than this.

 

[ErikJ]

I don't know if this question has already been discussed here, but I never understood why did the rules changed to allow touching the cube intentionally at the table at the OH event.

People say: but who is fast doesn't need the table.
Feliks clearly used it at the current average WR.
Also, the OH event exists with the porpouse to make harder to solve the cube, so if it's called OH, it gets to be "OH" in my opinion, not "OHandicapped".

Also, if someone who is considered sub15 by WCA goes to a tv show, for example, he may say "I need a table to get a sub15 time, please" ? It makes no sense at all.
I can't make myself more obvious than this.

I completely agree. using the table defeats the purpose of solving with one hand. there should be a rule that says something like "while the cube is being held it may not touch any other part of the body (otherhand, chest, leg etc.) or object."

 

[Radu]

Also, if someone who is considered sub15 by WCA goes to a tv show, for example, he may say "I need a table to get a sub15 time, please" ? It makes no sense at all.I can't make myself more obvious than this.

Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.

We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".

 

[Carlos]

Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.

We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".

That's why I used the word "intentionally" at my first paragraph. The judge and everybody around can easily tell, when the cube drops more than once, if looks like that the cuber is doing that on porpouse. I can't imagine how the cube can fall with legitmacy and the cuber get an advantage of it.

 

[Daniel Wu]

That's why I used the word "intentionally" at my first paragraph. The judge and everybody around can easily tell, when the cube drops more than once, if looks like that the cuber is doing that on porpouse. I can't imagine how the cube can fall with legitmacy and the cuber get an advantage of it.

The cube could have been dropped intentionally in order to try to align the sides, which could be considered an advantage.

 

[mr. giggums]

Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.

We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".

Also if someone drops the cube on their hand even by accident that is a DNF by the current rules. Although this isn't as likely but it still would not be fair for the person if it's an accident.

 

[Carlos]

The cube could have been dropped intentionally in order to try to align the sides, which could be considered an advantage.

With "falling with legitmacy" I mean "drop accidentally". Please read my post again with this in mind.

 

[amostay2004]

While I don't disagree with disallowing intentional table use, I think it will be a very hard rule to enforce. Some accidental cube drops may look intentional, and is very dependent on how the judge sees it, or how strict he/she wants to be. It will also increase chances of disputes between competitors and judges should they argue about this after a solve.

Also a 15s solve on TV to non-cubers doesn't look any less amusing than a 14s solve, so there's no need to care about outside spectators

 

[Julian]

Because it's impossible to know a competitor's intent, I propose a +2 penalty should the cube touch the table, regardless of intent or gained advantage.

 

[qqwref]

I think we had an old rule which was something like this: the cube may touch the surface, but all moves must be done without the assistance of the surface. It wasn't perfect to enforce, but I did like it that way.

I think I remember that allowing full usage of the surface was to help out total beginners in the event who may accidentally break that rule or may have trouble doing turns with one hand in the air. But I still think it is pretty silly to be able to use one hand plus the table, because about half of the challenge of OH (and much more than half on larger and more complex puzzles) is that you have to hold the cube and turn it at the same time.

 

[AvGalen]

Solving it with feet is also done to "make it more difficult". Nobody argues that you can't use the surface for with feet.

 

[qqwref]

People would argue that if it was *possible* to not use the surface and still get reasonably decent times. As far as I know, it isn't.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Because it's impossible to know a competitor's intent, I propose a +2 penalty should the cube touch the table, regardless of intent or gained advantage.

Excellent. This gives a +2 to every single one-handed solve ever, unless the competitor throws it in the air before stopping the timer, risking a normal +2 or a pop. But then it still touched the table at the beginning of the solve, unless the competitor threw it in the air then too, for a whole second.

(I understand you don't mean to include putting the cube down, but my point is to make you think through exactly what this rule should prohibit).

 

[cmhardw]

If the purpose of solving with one hand is to simulate a handicap of only having the physical use of one hand, then why should we add the additional restriction that the surface may not be used? If a person only had the physical use of one hand, and they solved faster by using the assistance of the surface, then why should we restrict them from doing so? I like the current rules where one-handed means "using any means necessary, except for the other hand." This seems the most realistic format for me.

As to the TV show example, if a person only had the use of one hand, and was faster with the assistance of the surface, then the TV show would grant them a solving surface. I see no reason why this would be an awkward or unusual request.

 

[qqwref]

I like the current rules where one-handed means "using any means necessary, except for the other hand." This seems the most realistic format for me.

Then why don't we let them use other parts of the body or other objects?

 

[cmhardw]

Then why don't we let them use other parts of the body or other objects?

That was a poor choice of wording on my part then. A better choice would be:

C1a) During the solve the competitor must only use one hand. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
C1b) During the solve no other body part or any object other than the surface must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

My point, with the exact wording of the regulation in place of my previous poor choice, still stands. The current rules are a more realistic way to simulate the handicap of solving with one hand than to ban the use of the surface, in my opinion.

 

[qqwref]

Right, but what I mean is, if you're aiming to emulate the solving of someone who only has the use of one hand, it would be expected that you allow use of anything other than the other hand to help the solve. Since we're not doing that (only the surface is allowed as a turning aid) I don't think the intent of the OH event is to emulate someone who can't use one hand. Personally I see it as "solving with one hand only" i.e. with one hand and as little else as possible, which in this case would ideally be no other object. I can't think of an obvious interpretation of OH that would logically allow use of the surface to make turns, but NOT allow use of other body parts or objects to make turns.