Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?

[peterbone]

If Dayan could somehow develop a stickerless cube with uncoloured and coloured parts then I think it would become the preferred cube for speedcubing in general. It may be as simple as modifying the current parts to add a recess that coloured tiles fit into, but that are flush with the face of the pieces.

 

[Bapao]

If Dayan could somehow develop a stickerless cube with uncoloured and coloured parts then I think it would become the preferred cube for speedcubing in general. It may be as simple as modifying the current parts to add a recess that coloured tiles fit into, but that are flush with the face of the pieces.

The guys that make the GANS 3x3x3s tried that, it was the first GANS. And there's also the c4u and MHZ cubes with interchangeable tiles. But those all still have bezels around the colours. Other than preferring the feel of stickerless cubes, I also prefer the fact that there isn't a common base colour on all sides.

 

[MostEd]

the parts have the "sticker thing" being plastic colored and the insides being black or white

 

[Bapao]

the parts have the "sticker thing" being plastic colored and the insides being black or white

That's what I thought that peterbone was getting at. If you want to retain the overall look of a stickerless DaYan type cube, then you would need to use caps. But caps would also make the piece colours visible in B when you turn the layers. Or maybe I'm missing his point altogether ...

 

[skeletonboy]

You quoted UnAbusador, so it makes sense he would think you were talking to him >_<

Ah, I see. Sorry, didn't see that. >.<

 

[Pyjam]

Stupid regulation. There's no unfair advantage to use a stickerless cube since everybody can buy one.

 

[Noahaha]

Stupid regulation. There's no unfair advantage to use a stickerless cube since everybody can buy one.

You could make that argument about literally every regulation...

 

[CubeRoots]

whaaat this rule sucks! never knew it til now. It should be removed - if there is such an advantage then go get a stickerless. Wca should encourage people to use whatever cube they feel comfortable with so people get faster times.

 

[MalusDB]

whaaat this rule sucks! never knew it til now. It should be removed - if there is such an advantage then go get a stickerless. Wca should encourage people to use whatever cube they feel comfortable with so people get faster times.

By your logic a self "helping" cube would be allowed. Thats not a great reason to allow the cube. The fact is that it doesn't actually give any advantage to the solver other than the cube itself "feels" better, or recognition is better because of the sold colour on the tileside. It makes it alot easier to discern pieces at a faster rate. I have tried and failed to even utilise the advantage of the 45 degree turn at a slow pace, its not that informative anyway. A cube rotation is probably quicker for most people anyway, and people at the top level can already predict pieces based on the position of others that they CAN see without having this. It literally serves no purpose. I don't care about using the cubes in competition, but I feel that there should be no reason that they couldn't be. Ask yourselves honestly, would you feel as though you were at a genuine unfair advantage if somebody used a stickerless cube in competition against you?

 

[Pyjam]

You're perfectly right. I will quote you and open a poll.

You could make that argument about literally every regulation...

Correct. I should have said that I don't even consider it cheating (quick glance while slightly rotating R). There's no proof that it's better than rotating the whole cube. And if so, everybody can buy this cube and do it. It would not revolutionize the world of competition.

 

[Pyjam]

Should stickerless cubes be allowed in competition? Your opinion?

I would like to use my stickerless Zanchi in competition. It's by far the best cube I ever owned.

MalusDB gave a perfect argument.

[...]
The fact is that it doesn't actually give any advantage to the solver other than the cube itself "feels" better, or recognition is better because of the sold colour on the tileside. It makes it alot easier to discern pieces at a faster rate. I have tried and failed to even utilise the advantage of the 45 degree turn at a slow pace, its not that informative anyway. A cube rotation is probably quicker for most people anyway, and people at the top level can already predict pieces based on the position of others that they CAN see without having this. It literally serves no purpose. I don't care about using the cubes in competition, but I feel that there should be no reason that they couldn't be. Ask yourselves honestly, would you feel as though you were at a genuine unfair advantage if somebody used a stickerless cube in competition against you?

Correct. I should have said that I don't even consider it cheating (quick glance while slightly rotating R). There's no proof that it's better than rotating the whole cube. And if so, everybody can buy this cube and do it. It would not revolutionize the world of competition.

 

[Kirjava]

Not many people disagree with this.

 

[Vincents]

I would like to use my stickerless Zanchi in competition. It's by far the best cube I ever owned.

MalusDB gave a perfect argument.


Correct. I should have said that I don't even consider it cheating (quick glance while slightly rotating R). There's no proof that it's better than rotating the whole cube. And if so, everybody can buy this cube and do it. It would not revolutionize the world of competition.

Proof in this case is rather hard to obtain. I'd like to see how a study of stickerless vs. normal cubes could even be designed with elimination of confounding factors in mind.

We do not set regulations to apply to only the highest level of competition. Regulations are meant to create a fair, equitable environment for people to compete in, regardless of skill level. Just because you personally do not see an advantage to the demonstrated extra capabilities of the stickerless cubes (by the way, I notice you do not dispute, and even admit to the fact that there is some difference in the cubes which enables new strategies to be employed), does not mean that it is fair.

If you are so eager to use a uniformly colored cubie face for better recognition, you are welcome to design a stickerless cube where only the normally exposed faces offer information as to the piece's orientation and colors.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

I've always heard the arguments against them as "if you are allowed to use them you will have an unfair advantage over everyone else who will also be allowed to use them", and I've never understood it personally.

 

[Godmil]

If there is a distinct advantage to having a stickerless, then everyone will feel like they have to use one.
I'm wondering if an analogy could be in sporting events where steroids are banned... you could say why not allow them then everyone can use them. But I think there have to be some cut offs some where, not allowing cubes which let you to see things on them that aren't possible on standard cubes seems like a fair cut off. (having said that the colourless is my main, and I would love to take it to a comp someday, but I'm ok with not being able to do that).

 

[Dene]

I always thought the issue is that the cube then becomes something different from the original, intended use of the puzzle. I don't know whether or not this is particularly a large issue, but I don't really see a problem with stickerless cubes at this stage.

 

[Bob]

Are you suggesting to modify 3h?

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

Note that this puzzle is a clear violation of this rule in that you can see additional pieces without the need of rotating. For example, I see blue on the bottom of this puzzle.

 

[qqwref]

I think you could definitely argue that being able to see more pieces/stickers doesn't enhance the basic concept of the puzzle. Outside of WCA competitions, it was never really considered unnatural - there were really no debates as to whether using pillowed or stickerless cubes for unofficial times was unfair, and nobody has complained about the many computer cube programs over the years which show parts of 4-6 faces. All of those versions were considered to be the same puzzle as the original. This "modification" can be done without changing the puzzle anyway - someone could position a mirror to allow them to see the left and back sides of the puzzle, for instance, although I'm sure that would take a while to get used to. I'm not sure whether I'd consider the mirror strategy unfair.

I suppose I'd modify the rule as follows:
3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states. Note: the number of visible stickers is not considered part of the basic concept of a puzzle.

 

[Noahaha]

Note that this puzzle is a clear violation of this rule in that you can see additional pieces without the need of rotating. For example, I see blue on the bottom of this puzzle.

The problem with this argument for the regulation is that it would apply to BLD as well.

 

[Escher]

I don't think it provides a distinct advantage at all for speedsolving...

Although, I do feel that one of the skills within cubing is being able to recognise a sticker of a piece and have the skill to know which piece it belongs to, through lookahead or logic.

Although the cube itself is a game of complete information, human limitations make it incomplete, and thus anything external to human skill that increases the information available is an 'advantage', regardless of exploitable it is.

I think it should just be up to the delegate as to whether they allow stickerless cubes in a competition or not, and no regulation should specifically regard the use of them.