Competitor requested orientation

[Kirjava]

Random is fair, but not easy.
You would need to add a random orientation to the cube at the end of the scramble, the cubes should be placed it the right orientation on the scramble table

These are both very easy to do.

ánd the judge must place it in the right orientation on the table.

This is not required.

It's hard to check if all of these were done correctly.

It is very very easy to add a random orientation to the scramble.

(x,y,z turns would be tricky to keep exact from scrambler to competitor)

Like I said, it doesn't need to be kept the same. As long as it is not influenced by the judge it will remain random.

 

[tseitsei]

Why not make it so that the cube is always at predetermined orientation (let's say standard WCA scrambling orientation white on top and green in front)?
That would be an easy solution and I think quite a fair one, since you know what orientation the cube will be in, you can rotate it to your solving orientation VERY quickly...
And if you don't want to waste that time you can always learn to solve the cube white on top and green in front.

Just my opinion. It might be stupid one, but I think it makes some sense...

 

[Kirjava]

Nah, that's unfair.

 

[Godmil]

But if you add the x,y,z to the scramble, and it doesn't end up that way on the table, wouldn't the competitor not have something to moan about... like say the scramble came out with a common orientation and in most cases the cubes were put out for a round in the exact same way, but one persons got turned round... then later everyone is saying wasn't it lucky that the scramble was already in this orientation and that one guy goes... hang on, that's not what it was like for me.
Better to not keep a record of what the orientation should be, and just leave the competitors aware that there is no set orientation.

 

[Kirjava]

Better to not keep a record of what the orientation should be, and just leave the competitors aware that there is no set orientation.

There *will* be no set orientation. The rotations are just added to ensure the orientation the cube gets to the competitor in doesn't become predictable.

 

[Godmil]

Just to be clear, you think the best solution would be to 1) add rotations to the scrambles and 2) for the judge to not specifically orient the cube.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Nah, that's unfair.

Would you care to elaborate?
Since it would be standardised for all competitors, it is fair. If anything, having random orientation is more unfair because people are used to having cubes given to them in standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA.

 

[Godmil]

people are used to having cubes given to them in standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA.

Are they? I've never been to a comp, but I didn't think that position was always given.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

For what it's worth, I vote for always WCA scramble orientation. No confusion about which orientation should be used (either solver specified or scramble specified), no worry about the judge messing with a specified random orientation for that scramble without even realising. The judge sits the cube down, ensuring white top/green front. It's standardised, thus fair, and probably the easiest fair system to implement.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Are they? I've never been to a comp, but I didn't think that position was always given.

It's supposed to, just not very well enforced.

 

[aronpm]

For what it's worth, I vote for always WCA scramble orientation. No confusion about which orientation should be used (either solver specified or scramble specified), no worry about the judge messing with a specified random orientation for that scramble without even realising. The judge sits the cube down, ensuring white top/green front. It's standardised, thus fair, and probably the easiest fair system to implement.

It's not fair. It discriminates against people who don't use white-green as their colour scheme.

 

[Kirjava]

Just to be clear, you think the best solution would be to 1) add rotations to the scrambles and 2) for the judge to not specifically orient the cube.

Yes, unless I or someone else can think of a fairer way to enforce randomness.

Would you care to elaborate?
Since it would be standardised for all competitors, it is fair. If anything, having random orientation is more unfair because people are used to having cubes given to them in standard orientation as defined by the scrambling rules set by the WCA.

Some competitors would have to rotate and some would not have to. This is unfair.

 

[tseitsei]

It's not fair. It discriminates against people who don't use white-green as their colour scheme.

By same logic:

Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer.
Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
So the cube should be floating in mid-air to make it completely fair, but that would be quite hard to do so we just put the cube on the table.
So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?

 

[aronpm]

By same logic:

Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer.
Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
So the cube should be floating in mid-air to make it completely fair, but that would be quite hard to do so we just put the cube on the table.
So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?

Just because one thing is 'unfair' (I disagree with what you said) does not justify other things to be unfair also.

 

[Kirjava]

Putting the cube on the table discriminates against people who use DF as their buffer opposed to those who use UF as their buffer.
Because DF users must pick the cube up before they can see where the first piece goes, while UF users can see it instantly...
So the cube should be floating in mid-air to make it completely fair, but that would be quite hard to do so we just put the cube on the table.

How is that the same logic? You cannot make a cube float in the air, but you can randomise it's orientation.

Using your twisted logic people who use DF have an advantage because you have to lift the cover off the cube and you will see the FD sticker before the FU sticker.

So maybe we could also just make life easier for everyone and just use standard orientation?

Easy is not our main objective. Fairness and correct procedure come before ease.

 

[DrKorbin]

Some competitors would have to rotate and some would not have to. This is unfair.

In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?

 

[mariano.aquino]

Even though the cube has to be randomly scrambled, every cuber gets THE SAME state of "randomness". If you want to implement random orientation, you have to add rotations to the official scramble, and ensure every judge places the cube in the correct position. That is, for example, round 1, every one gets orange on top, blue on front. otherwise, that new random randomness would be unfair.
Now, on both cases (pre-orienting or not pre-orienting the cube) we should train our judges to place a cube in a determined orientation, and standardize this procedure, along with the covering device someone else mentioned before.

 

[Godmil]

In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?

I'm pretty sure colour netural people don't make a cross on whatever side is face down regardless of what colour it is. In 3x3 everyone has plenty of time to inspect the cube and orient it the way they want before the solve, so it's different enough to not be an issue.

It's interesting that the covering device is also being seen as an issue. Standardisation would be good here too for fairness. Those old videos of Haiyan where he just flicks off the cover in a fraction of a second, seems more advantageous than when people have to pick up boxes.

 

[Kirjava]

In 3x3, if a competitor is color-neutral, he can pick up a cube and make a cross without rotations, and if he is not, then he have to rotate before he starts. Is this fair?

Yeah, that's fair.

Even though the cube has to be randomly scrambled, every cuber gets THE SAME state of "randomness". If you want to implement random orientation, you have to add rotations to the official scramble, and ensure every judge places the cube in the correct position. That is, for example, round 1, every one gets orange on top, blue on front. otherwise, that new random randomness would be unfair.

I don't believe it would be unfair. So people may get different orientations, people in different groups get entirely different scrambles.

I've competed in an event where I was the only person doing the set of scrambles I was doing before.

This is a bit of a problem, but I think it is a minor one and overall a muuuch better solution than allowing competitors to specify where certain stickers should be for themselves.

The problem can be resolved by ensuring the judge places it in a predefined orientation - which has the same problems as any solution offered that wishes competitors to choose their orientation.

 

[qqwref]

Competitor: "I would like the puzzle oriented with yellow on top and orange in the back."
Judge checks under the cover and orients the cube if necessary: "yellow top, orange back. Go."

Easy to do, problem solved. It could be noted that asking for orientation of the cube is the competitors responsibility and you do not get a new solve if the orientation is not as requested.

I like this procedure.

The problem of the competitor knowing the location of certain stickers before seeing the puzzle still exists.

The stickers they know about give them no information about which of the 43252003274489856000 positions the puzzle is in, so that's not a problem at all. (Note: we know orientation is not part of the cube position, because the competitor is allowed to freely reorient the cube without having the blindfold on, and because the orientation at the end is not factored into whether the cube is judged to be solved or not.)

I think maybe the simplest solution is to just specify that the judge should not deliberatly orient the cube.

It sounds like it makes sense, but the technicalities are a little trickier. If the judge does deliberately orient the cube, how could we catch them? How would this affect the competitor's result (we don't want a judge to be able to ruin a competitor)? How would we punish a judge for not modifying this rule?

The problem can be resolved by ensuring the judge places it in a predefined orientation

Didn't you just say white-U/green-F was unfair? (And what do we do if it's in the wrong orientation?)

I think we need a situation where it is the same for all competitors. However that ends up, it'll be fair; the current situation isn't fair because competitors who are friendly with the judges can get a cube in their orientation.