[WCA Regulations 2012] Remove +2 penalty for misaligned sides

[keyan]

First, I disagree with anyone suggesting to end the discussion. I don't see this as having come to a stalemate. What I see is a few people making unsubstantiated claims, then saying they should be proven wrong, rather than provide supporting evidence themselves. The data is limited, but we can actually analyze the situation. Emotional appeals aren't going to help anything.

And then the analogies. So many analogies.

How about this one:
Basketball game. Tied. Only seconds left on the clock. Blocked pass leads to a scramble for the ball at half court. One player in the middle of the confusion comes up with the ball, and at the buzzer makes a spectacular half court jump shot. Straight into the wrong net.
He showed he could make the shot. He didn't give up. He just happened to get turned the wrong way. Does his team get the points and win the game?
(I'm pretty sure not. But I don't even know if I got the nomenclature right.)

But really, could we just stop with the terrible analogies?

The problem with Dene's test, is that it cannot work. The same problem with Rowan's assertion of the influence of metagame, and demand that those in favor of changing the rule prove it wrong. It cannot be proven wrong. The test can't be blinded. Some people would go about their cubing as always and have no trouble. Some people would be adamant about the negative influence of the change and, conscious or not, would DNF more.

I'm really having trouble making myself clear, apparently. But that's what I was trying to suggest. Hold a competition exactly as we do now. But record +2s as DNFs. (This is the part I'm apparently not expressing clearly. The competitor isn't aware of the change in procedure. They think +2s apply as before.) The competitor would go ahead cubing like they always do, and we have a decent experiment to see what the result of this rule change would be. Unfortunately, no one is going to go to the trouble of doing this.

However, with the right record keeping, we actually can do this. I already did. By looking at past results, changing +2s to DNFs, we can see what impact removing this rule would have if competitors didn't change anything about how they compete. That is, if "meta" were irrelevant. And what we see is that about half of a percent of valid averages became DNF averages. Not a big change. The data set is small, I know, but this weekend I should have a chance to go through some other competition results.

As for the argument that such a rule change will stifle future records, that's pretty defeatist. Also the same argument that was brought up when POPs were eliminated. And again when inspection time was reduced. I think we've done pretty well since then.

The point is that the difference between no penalty and DNF would be between 45 and 46 degrees, with your proposal.

The same issue exists under the current regulations.

In my experience faster competitors are more likely to attempt to perform manoeuvres like AUF with less pausing and caution than slower cubers since each delay costs a larger percentage of the solve time. If a 40 second competitor spends .5s double checking it's obviously less of a difference between that and a 9s cuber. It seems intuitive to suggest that faster people are more likely to overshoot. Though I guess it could perhaps mean they're more likely to be 100% certain of AUF before performing it.

Also that fact that Dene used the 4 fastest competitors I can think of makes me lol.

Could you actually define what your "metagame" is? Exactly who is involved? If it was so silly of Dene to look at the fastest cubers, who should he look at? I take your statement here to mean that you think fast cubers will be significantly more influenced by removing this rule than slower cubers. So what did Dene do wrong? Do you have any thoughts on why, in previous iterations of this discussion, it was "obvious" to some that such a change would only impact slower cubers?

So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved enough. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.

You're saying you think that "solved with penalty" should be determined by whether the case is trivially solvable? And one turn is trivially solvable? Is two turns trivially solvable? Can I expect to see you arguing that a cube two turns from solved be counted as "solved with penalty"? Is U2 R(44 degrees) distinctly more solvable than U R'? What about (Uu)2 R(44 degrees) l(44 degrees)?

I was mainly pointing out that making a change to the rules that could make it harder to set faster times is easier when people are getting much faster anyway. I wasn't saying that it was significantly less likely for more records to be broken if +2 was changed to DNF.

New records are a measure of the success of speedcubing as a sport/hobby? Another unrelated sports analogy, but do you think it was a bad idea for swimming to ban the LZR suit?

I never get +2s, but I would never support removing the penalty. I would, however, suggest making M slice a +2, as I think getting a DNF on an M slice is outrageous.

I wish you would argue your point. Why would you never support such a change? People throwing out their opposition without an argument, it's like someone handing you a monochrome cube and demanding you solve it.
To go back to the bad analogies.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

You're saying you think that "solved with penalty" should be determined by whether the case is trivially solvable? And one turn is trivially solvable? Is two turns trivially solvable? Can I expect to see you arguing that a cube two turns from solved be counted as "solved with penalty"? Is U2 R(44 degrees) distinctly more solvable than U R'? What about (Uu)2 R(44 degrees) l(44 degrees)?

Trivially solved is <=1 move HTM from solved position. TBH, I think that the +2 should only be for misalignments on 1 axis, not a turn and a misgalignment.
In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.

 

[Pedro]

I'm really having trouble making myself clear, apparently. But that's what I was trying to suggest. Hold a competition exactly as we do now. But record +2s as DNFs. (This is the part I'm apparently not expressing clearly. The competitor isn't aware of the change in procedure. They think +2s apply as before.) The competitor would go ahead cubing like they always do, and we have a decent experiment to see what the result of this rule change would be. Unfortunately, no one is going to go to the trouble of doing this.

A decent experiment? How's that? It doesn't make sense if people are not aware of what's going on. Some people's argument is that KNOWING about the more-likely DNF will influence solving times...

...45 x 46 degrees

The same issue exists under the current regulations.

My problem is not about the issue itself. Is about wheter 45x46 degrees should be the decision between solved and DNF (instead of solved and +2 as it is now).
Stefan has mentioned this before, but I think giving a DNF for what can be less than one degree off (and which may not be clear or possible to reach a consensus) is way to harsh, in my opinion. Unless we start bringing angle-measurement-equipment to competitions...


And my point about the discussion is that nothing new is going to appear. The WRC will be the one making the decision, and I'm sure they have plenty of stuff to read here.

 

[Robocopter87]

So this was somewhat mentioned already, about a non-cuber who will turn a side and then say "look I solved it!" I believe here though that when a cube is in an obviously solveable state to a non-cuber, then the cube is obviously solved enough. The problem this presents though is that some non-cubers actually know how to fix the M2 U2 M2 pattern, or the M2 E2 S2, etc. We wouldn't consider either of those states solved, but when only one face is turned incorrectly it is very obvious the competitor knows how to solve the cube.

Yes, I mentioned that. We don't apply that logic to more than one move though, because then you could technically start from a scrambled and jsut solve to a point that is easily solvable and hit the timer. This is where it becomes technicalities. U Turn off is obviously the farthest we can apply the "Anybody can solve it from here" logic, because after that it means the cuber failed to even finish his movements.

One U Turn off usually means the person got flustered and their fingers shakes and they hit the timer without completing that turn. We say, " No Biggie, it happens, +2." No harm done.
Now three or four turns off means the cuber didn't properly complete the algorithm, which obviously means that they failed to solve. DNF.

However, I agree that this shouldn't be just for U slices. Even though these rules shouldn't be method based, we can't argue the fact that crap tons of people use methods (Primarily Roux) that end with M slices.

Trivially solved is <=1 move HTM from solved position. TBH, I think that the +2 should only be for misalignments on 1 axis, not a turn and a misgalignment.
In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.

Bingo.

Yes the cuber shouldn't end with a misaligned turn. Yes they should have some sort of punishment. Which is the +2.

Summary: My "Anybody can solve it" Logic should only be applied to one misaligned turn. And MaeLSTRoM is right.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Emotional appeals aren't going to help anything.

Just want to address this one. If it affects the emotions/psychological state of people solving such that it affects their times, then clearly emotions are relevant. Also, since it is impossible to get data from competitions already held which will back up either argument since all those solves were set without DNFs for misalignments, and neither the existence or reason for +2s are recorded afaik (and the variance of any such data would be too high to draw meaningful conclusions from anyway), I would say that emotional arguments actually hold more weight. Clearly not everyone agrees with this.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Robocopter: This isn't only for U layer misalignments. The current +2 rule affects any single face, more than one face turned greater than 45 degrees means the cube is in a DNF state. This is actually the "rabbit hole" I said could be created when saying "the cube is obviously solved when it's one turn away," but you can sometimes see an obvious 2 move solution, or 3 move solution, etc. It honestly boils down to how familiar you are with the cube. The bottom line is, though, most non-cubers (I'm saying most here because if we find somebody with a disability or something that prevents them from understanding) can see that the cube is one turn away from being solved and "solve" it themselves.

 

[Vincents]

Wow, this thread has gotten large. At some point in the next week or two, hopefully someone will come up with a concise, balanced summary. I have my impressions, but they're probably wrong.

 

[Dene]

Just want to address this one. If it affects the emotions/psychological state of people solving such that it affects their times, then clearly emotions are relevant. Also, since it is impossible to get data from competitions already held which will back up either argument since all those solves were set without DNFs for misalignments, and neither the existence or reason for +2s are recorded afaik (and the variance of any such data would be too high to draw meaningful conclusions from anyway), I would say that emotional arguments actually hold more weight. Clearly not everyone agrees with this.

People can have emotions over all sorts of things. I don't see how they're relevant to anything that will be of use.

Also people should stop deciding how many moves away is trivially solved. It depends on the case; 2 moves will be trivial to the vast majority of people in the world; nothing more to say. They +2 rule is arbitrary and pointless and inconsistent.

 

[keyan]

How about this one:
Basketball game. Tied. Only seconds left on the clock. Blocked pass leads to a scramble for the ball at half court. One player in the middle of the confusion comes up with the ball, and at the buzzer makes a spectacular half court jump shot. Straight into the wrong net.
He showed he could make the shot. He didn't give up. He just happened to get turned the wrong way. Does his team get the points and win the game?
(I'm pretty sure not. But I don't even know if I got the nomenclature right.)

No longer talking hypotheticals.
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/shooting/news/story?id=1864883
Now of course cubing isn't like other sports. But this is interesting. Emmons didn't run a race and stop half way. He made a slight mistake at the very end because he was nervous. He simply turned (himself) slightly the wrong way. There was no question that he could do it. There was no question of his intent. Does anyone feel that he should have gotten partial points for the shot? He would have a silver medal if so.

In my opinion the +2 acts as a safety net against people who get nervous, to such an extent that you panic at the end of a solve. This helps people to be more relaxed, instead of having the pressure of a DNF on them, especially during final rounds, or PB solves/Averages.

I think Pedro's the only one here that was around, but back in the days of Ryan Heise's BLD contest, there was a guy going by the name "chi chu" who dominated. He was averaging sub 60 when the world record was 1:28. His first WCA competition, when an average solve for him would have easily been WR, he was so nervous his hands were visibly shaking and he couldn't perform algorithms. Got about two minutes. Where was his safety net?

A decent experiment? How's that? It doesn't make sense if people are not aware of what's going on. Some people's argument is that KNOWING about the more-likely DNF will influence solving times...

The experiment tests the hypothesis that removing the rule wouldn't cause a change.

Why I say Dene's test is impossible is a sort of reverse placebo effect. Some people are so certain that a change in rules would be bad that they would do worse if asked to test their performance. However, we can test what would happen without such a placebo effect. Looking at past competitions and showing what changes would happen if we changed +2s to DNFs. That is, we can look at what would happen if competitors didn't let the rule change their behavior. I've already done this with one competition. I'll get back with more soon as I have time. I know the sample size is small, but we can even get more data. Competition organizers and delegates could check old score cards and just assume all +2s were due to unsolved cubes, rather than stopping and starting procedure. That would skew the data a bit higher, but so be it. At least gives us some data to talk about, rather than just people stating as fact their feelings about the change.

From such data, we can see what change the rule would have on its own. One case has already shown just a minimal change. If others show similar results, we can take that to mean changing the rules would have a similarly small change in and of the rule change itself. Beyond that, a "huge increase" of DNFs that some people have claimed would happen, would be the result of a reverse placebo effect. If fear is causing the competitor to perform worse, that's the competitor's problem to deal with.

However, I don't think that would happen. Just like the POP rule. Some people said removing it would ruin people's results. After the change, nothing. We've continued improving, just like we will continue to do so.

My problem is not about the issue itself. Is about wheter 45x46 degrees should be the decision between solved and DNF (instead of solved and +2 as it is now).

45 and 46 degrees right now stand between solved and DNF. U D(45 degrees) versus U D(46 degrees).

The problem I have with the emotional arguments is that they are preventing reason based discussion. When reasonable points are being shouted down as "ridiculous" without any explanation, you're failing to advance the discussion. If a change is or isn't made, it's best to do so with regard to all the points for and against the change in question. What's being brought up aren't points against the change itself, but rather statements that change will make some people unhappy. That's not something we can change, nor something that we should weigh too heavily. Some people were unhappy about adding 6x6 and 7x7. (Those that always get stuck scrambling.) Does that mean we shouldn't have added the events?

 

[Pedro]

The experiment tests the hypothesis that removing the rule wouldn't cause a change.

I'm probably sleep deprived, but I don't see your point here. We can't test anything, because changing the rule may change people's mind/attention/meta/whatever. So, simply taking +2 and applying DNFs doesn't show what would happen.

45 and 46 degrees right now stand between solved and DNF. U D(45 degrees) versus U D(46 degrees).

Well, that's (TWO 45x46) = DNF, not just one, which is the proposal. I must admit I've never seen that happen (except maybe for square-1), but it should be a DNF anyway...I don't think U D is a single move, and don't think it would happen by the cube hitting the table (or would it?). That raises the point of slice turns being DNF, which I also consider wrong, since they are used as a single move (by most people, at least).

 

[keyan]

Replying to an old post while waiting on a PCR.

You don't have group 1 solves judged by group 2 rules, but you're trying to argue with that as if you had. Also, judging group 1 solves by group 2 rules doesn't make sense - when you're going to get judged by group 2 rules, you'll do group 2 solves, not group 1 solves.

Yeah, that's a problem with the way that Dene posed his trial. However, we do have a huge amount of solve data explicitly solved under group 1 conditions. We can look at competition solves, at least those that we have +2 data for, and see the result that Dene was looking for in his test. That is, we have solves where the cubers were solving without any hypothetical change in "meta", without a "fear of punishment", without any of these changes, and we can see the result of this rule change and only the rule change. Any other potential impact of a change would be entirely created in the heads of cubers unhappy with the regulations.

We're pretty short on data to look at, though. (Do other organizers keep old scorecards in case of competitors questioning results in the database?) Based off of the data that we do have, though, we can see that +2s are a rare event, and this rule change would have a very small impact on competition results.

We already have two similar cases to look at. The POP rule and the change in inspection time that came with the change in inspection procedure.

The primary argument against removing the +2 rule is that some competitors dislike the change, and claim it will impact their results and "punishes" competitors for things outside their control. These are the same arguments that were used against removing the POP rule. In that case, we decided those arguments were insufficient.

However, the POP rule is different from the +2 rule, as there are more cases where the former could be abused. And so, some say that as there are fewer direct negatives that result from keeping the +2 rule, it should be kept given the claimed negative impact such a change would have on competition results. But there is already precedent for rejecting the hypothetical emotional state of competitors when considering changes in competition regulations. When the inspection procedure was changed, inspection time was reduced. This was done against similar arguments that such a change would make comeptition results worse. The point in question, the amount of time given for inspection, is distinctly more arbitrary than whether a cube is solved or not. When discussing rules dealing with such an arbitrary choice, such emotional arguments could be seen to have more validity. And yet these same arguments were rejected. The difference between 15 seconds inspection and 18 seconds inspection, for example, are clearly more arbitrary than the difference between a solved cube and a cube off by one turn. For an arbitrary decision, such emotional arguments carry more weight. Why not choose 18 seconds, if cubers were really going to be so terribly impacted. But we didn't, and they weren't.

"I don't like the change because my results will be worse. My results will be worse because I don't like the change." We already have precedent for rejecting this argument.

 

[keyan]

Disappointing to see this thread buried.

I don't really follow sports, so I only became aware of this comparison recently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-false-start-final-Yohan-Blake-wins-gold.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/14779544
Yes, cubing isn't the same as running or other sports. But let's try the comparison for a moment.

In running the technology exists to time exactly from when the runner leaves their starting block to when they cross the finish line. Reacting to a starting gun is not, inherently, part of running. It's a procedural aspect of timing. If pure running speed were the only question, runners could be timed across a set 100 meter track after a free range of track to get up to speed. But that's not what is done. Part of the race is distinctly not running.

Now, with regard to the +2/DNF issue, a false start is now grounds for disqualification. A mistake in the non-running part of the race removes a competitor from the competition. One significant difference between cubing and running is that we take an average. Judging an unsolved cube DNF would have far less impact on results than the current IAAF rules. Judging unsolved cubes as DNF would be less strict than the current regulations of one of the world's largest sports governing bodies.

Despite the talk of "bad luck" and "timing procedure", what happens in the vast majority of unsolved cubes under discussion here is that the competitor tried to "jump the gun" by beginning to stop the timer while they were still mid-solve. Given that literally jumping the gun leads to disqualification in a sport with just one chance, why are we currently so lenient when competitors fail to finish their solve, particularly given that our use of averages averages means reasonably DNFing such a solve would usually not impact the overall result at all.

I'm curious how others see the comparison between the treatment of unsolved cubes and false starts.

 

[Ickathu]

I don't really care what it gets changed to, but I want slice turns to be +2 if outer turns are +2. As people have said before, why should roux users get more of a penalty than CFOP users because they use M instead of R (for example). If Slice turns are DNF, outer turns are DNF, etc.
Oh, and I'm also referring to inners on big cubes when I say slice turns.

In running the technology exists to time exactly from when the runner leaves their starting block to when they cross the finish line. Reacting to a starting gun is not, inherently, part of running. It's a procedural aspect of timing. If pure running speed were the only question, runners could be timed across a set 100 meter track after a free range of track to get up to speed. But that's not what is done. Part of the race is distinctly not running.

Now, with regard to the +2/DNF issue, a false start is now grounds for disqualification. A mistake in the non-running part of the race removes a competitor from the competition. One significant difference between cubing and running is that we take an average. Judging an unsolved cube DNF would have far less impact on results than the current IAAF rules. Judging unsolved cubes as DNF would be less strict than the current regulations of one of the world's largest sports governing bodies.

Despite the talk of "bad luck" and "timing procedure", what happens in the vast majority of unsolved cubes under discussion here is that the competitor tried to "jump the gun" by beginning to stop the timer while they were still mid-solve. Given that literally jumping the gun leads to disqualification in a sport with just one chance, why are we currently so lenient when competitors fail to finish their solve, particularly given that our use of averages averages means reasonably DNFing such a solve would usually not impact the overall result at all.

^^^ yes.
Most +2s are already the worst time in the average, so making them DNF won't really change much unless you are a really consistent +2er.
Let's let them do a cross average, f2l average, OLL avg and PLL avg, with examination before each stage then. It's the same idea as running.

 

[Kirjava]

why should roux users get more of a penalty than CFOP users because they use M instead of R (for example).

Because R is one move and M is two.

Let's let them do a cross average, f2l average, OLL avg and PLL avg, with examination before each stage then. It's the same idea as running.

wat

 

[peterbone]

Because R is one move and M is two.

Subjective

 

[TMOY]

Because R is one move and M is two.

No. M is one move period. It's just that the current WCa regulations count it as if it was two.

 

[keyan]

Reviewing the thread, these are the arguments that I found in favor of the status quo. (I started only skimming after the first dozen pages, though, as the "pro +2" arguments got very repetitive. Apologies if I missed a point.)

DNFs would become too frequent.

I only looked at one competition, but I found it very representative based on my experience. The numbers showed that only about two percent of solves would be impacted by the rule change in question here.

Such a rule change would be inconsistent with previous results

The previous handling of the POP rule and inspection time show that we aren't concerned with this.

Misaligned layers can be caused by "bad luck"

Similarly, an unsolved cube can unintentionally rotate and become solved due to 'luck'. Based on personal experience, these situations are in the extreme minority of unsolved cubes. When such a case does occur, it is the result of an overly loose puzzle, which was the competitor's choice to use. The competitor was aware of the condition of their puzzle, and was aware of the possible of unintended turns. If the competitor is worried about this happening, they can tighten their cube.

Such a rule change makes competitors feel bad.

The regulations are not intended to make everyone happy. They are meant to make for a consistent and fair solving environment. The consistency and fairness of this rule are in question. Furthermore, bad feelings created by a rule change would be a result of a sense of entitlement, that leniency for unsolved cubes is deserved. The current +2 rule is arbitrary, and any bad feelings would only be because people are used to it. Were it removed, people would quickly adapt.

Competitors are more likely to argue over judgement if +2 is changed to DNF.

This ties back to the previous point. People would argue because they feel their solve should count regardless whether they actually finished the solve or not. I'd like to believe that once people realized that the overall impact of the rule would be small, there wouldn't be much argument. I feel like this is the strongest argument against removing the +2 rule.

Inexperienced judges over-apply penalties, meaning penalties should be overly lenient.

If a competitor questions a judge's ruling, they should consult the competition delegate. Also, in my experience, judges actually under-apply penalties.

Many +2s are a result of the act of stopping the timer, which is separate from solving the cube.

Given that we are competing for fastest solve, timing is inherently part of the competition. The method of timing could be improved, but that doesn't change whether an unsolved cube should or shouldn't be considered "close enough". Furthermore, often an unsolved cube results from a competitor either mis-predicting AUF or fumbling during the final few turns. The fact that the timer is separate from the puzzle doesn't mean that competitors shouldn't be required to solve the puzzle. Also, why should a competitor who in a hurry makes an incorrect turn be given a chance that isn't given to a competitor who in a hurry smashes the timer so hard they knock the battery loose?

Changing the rule would cause competitors to solve more slowly, reducing the number of records.

First, the point of competition is not to set new records every competition. Second, there is nothing showing that competitors will necessarily solve more slowly. The only time this would matter is at the very end of solves, where the vast majority of cubers don't have trouble.

A cube off by one layer is effectively solved.

A cube off by two layer is, to the vast majority of the world and an even larger portion of cubers, similarly trivially solvable. Anyone arguing this point should be arguing for solves off by two turns to also be considered "close enough".

Such a rule change would affect "meta".

Competitors that intentionally get worse results shouldn't be a concern of the regulations.

There are a few points that I previously made that never were responded to. (Beyond being called stupid.) I'd like to ask again.

Proposal:
A cuber gets to PLL, with a clockwise U. They accidentally do a counter-clockwise U and DNF. A friend was filming, and has a very good view with high definition video. Can this cuber petition the board for the solve to count, saying that they "obviously know how to solve"? How about, in the video the counter-clockwise U takes exactly one second. With the 4:1 ratio previously mentioned, could they petition for the solve to count with a four second penalty?

Can anyone explain what is wrong with this argument?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer04/shooting/news/story?id=1864883
Now of course cubing isn't like other sports. But this is interesting. Emmons didn't run a race and stop half way. He made a slight mistake at the very end because he was nervous. He simply turned (himself) slightly the wrong way. There was no question that he could do it. There was no question of his intent. Does anyone feel that he should have gotten partial points for the shot? He would have a silver medal if so.

This got no response. Can anyone explain their feelings about this event, and how it relates to cubing?

If we had a way to time only the turning portion of a solve, self-timing cubes, would you consider it acceptable to do a U4 after PLL and claim the cube solved, regardless of the final state?

This also got no response. Does anyone think that this would be reasonable? Didn't some people complain about computer cube simulators that allowed this?



There are a number of points in favor of changing this rule that never got a counter argument. Two I would like to point out again are in BLD.

One multiBLD competitor attempts 20 cubes, finishing with each off by one turn. Another competitor attempts 20 cubes with 19 solved and one off by one turn. Who performed better?

One 3BLD competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move mid-solve, finishing his attempt with eight pieces unsolved. Another competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move at the end of the solve, finishing his attempt with one layer unsolved. A third competitor incorrectly undoes a setup move mid-solve when the eight pieces involved just happen to be from the same layer, finishing his attempt with one layer unsolved. Who performed better?

Now four big posts from me on this page (oops, not the same page anymore). I look forward to responses.

 

[Kirjava]

Subjective

Yet generally accepted.

No. M is one move period.

Subjective

It's just that the current WCa regulations count it as if it was two.

Exactly, and I don't think we'll be changing FMC to use STM any time soon, so why even attempt to use that argument?

 

[Pedro]

Why not change to STM? Many people use M-driven methods now, and they execute M moves as one move...

 

[Kirjava]

Why not change to STM? Many people use M-driven methods now, and they execute M moves as one move...

Because we use HTM for FMC and there is no real reason to change it.

Antislice turns can be executed as one move, but this doesn't mean that we should use ATM.