Kirjava
Colourful
It introduces the same issue the stickerless cubes have.
You don't realise that you can use a specific example to demonstrate a more general idea?
Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?
- Thread starter WitEden
- Start date
-
- Tags
- stickerless
It introduces the same issue the stickerless cubes have.
You don't realise that you can use a specific example to demonstrate a more general idea?
Godmil
Premium Member
I don't see how it is so controversial to think of being able to see the typically unseen faces as being a significant variation from the existing puzzle as it was when the WCA was formed. Say you could have a mirror behind the cube, so you could see almost every piece just by moving your eyes. The way you'd 'think' about the puzzle would be different, you'd focus on different things, there would be more emphasis on mentally connecting the two images of the cube, less emphasis on tracking pieces in your mind, less emphasis on deducing the 3rd unseen face of a corner, instead of concentrating on 2side pll recog it would be easier to spot key PLL patterns. The actual mental process of solving would be different, enough that it's essentially a different puzzle.
Now, I know the mental process is different for different methods in a standard solve, however there is nothing to stop a Fridrich solver learning Roux, but there would be something to stop a standard solver from getting key information about the cube that a mirror solver would have, the only way they could evenly compete would be for everyone to use mirrors.
There isn't any proof that being able to see the unseen faces without rotating the cube would make you faster, because I presume nobody is practicing it as a skill, however it is an extra option that someone with a stickerless cube could use, that wouldn't be available to someone without a stickerless cube.
Now, I know the mental process is different for different methods in a standard solve, however there is nothing to stop a Fridrich solver learning Roux, but there would be something to stop a standard solver from getting key information about the cube that a mirror solver would have, the only way they could evenly compete would be for everyone to use mirrors.
There isn't any proof that being able to see the unseen faces without rotating the cube would make you faster, because I presume nobody is practicing it as a skill, however it is an extra option that someone with a stickerless cube could use, that wouldn't be available to someone without a stickerless cube.
Winball
Regular
I would no be able to take advantage of these cubes, but Id guess someone with fast recognition would be able too (sub12?)
Pyjam
Premium Member
…and much more.
With stickerless cubes you still have to slightly rotate one face to see ONE facet behind. There's no possible comparison with your extreme example.
And I guess he doesn't need that.
Kirjava
Colourful
Not at all. It's exactly the same issue, just more apparent. You can't draw a line and say that this addition is only allowed if it's only there a little bit. It's either allowed or not.
Pyjam
Premium Member
I think you're wrong. Or the same principle could be applied to stickers: you can't draw a line between acceptable stickers and stickers with little marks.
Kirjava
Colourful
I'm not. The information introduced to the cuber by the stickerless cubes is the same as the information introduced to the cuber by using the sticker scheme I posted.
Ickathu
Veteran
How about we test it.
How many of you watched CBCs video comparing cube colors?
Send out a colored cube of their choice to each of the top 10 avg cubers (Top ten on this list) and give them a while to get used to it, lube it, break it in, etc.
Then each one can do an ao100 with each and see if it makes a significant difference. If there is a 10% time decrease (faster) on the colored cubes for >6 of them, keep stickerless illegal. If it doesn't make >6 of them 10% faster, then let them be legal.
That would work, wouldn't it?
How many of you watched CBCs video comparing cube colors?
Send out a colored cube of their choice to each of the top 10 avg cubers (Top ten on this list) and give them a while to get used to it, lube it, break it in, etc.
Then each one can do an ao100 with each and see if it makes a significant difference. If there is a 10% time decrease (faster) on the colored cubes for >6 of them, keep stickerless illegal. If it doesn't make >6 of them 10% faster, then let them be legal.
That would work, wouldn't it?
Kirjava
Colourful
No, because those statistics prove nothing.
Ickathu
Veteran
Wouldn't it show if the fast cubers are able to utilize the stickerless "advantage"? I've tried both and I am not any faster at one or the other. I feel like this is the same for most other 15+ cubers. How about we do that to the top 100 people in the world? More people would be a better representation.
Kirjava
Colourful
That's just all really silly.
Ickathu
Veteran
It's better than
"Allow them"
"One person doesn't change the regulations"
"Just saying my opinion"
"I think they make people faster"
"what qualifies as an enhancement"
"Corner cutting"
"No more dayans"
"Should be allowed"
"no"
"yes"
etc
That's really silly too. We're nowhere closer to deciding than we were 2 years ago when this thread was first created.
"Allow them"
"One person doesn't change the regulations"
"Just saying my opinion"
"I think they make people faster"
"what qualifies as an enhancement"
"Corner cutting"
"No more dayans"
"Should be allowed"
"no"
"yes"
etc
That's really silly too. We're nowhere closer to deciding than we were 2 years ago when this thread was first created.
Kirjava
Colourful
Just because a punch in the face is better than a bullet to the head, it doesn't make it good.
Pyjam
Premium Member
Not at all.
Bob
Premium Member
Somehow I think you lack even basic understanding of statistics. A sample size of 10? Requiring >6 to be faster? If you're trying to show that there is increased recognition and that it can be applied to speedsolving, you should use a much larger sample size. You should also be looking for statistical significance, not some arbitrary number of your own choice. You also should not limit it to the top 10 cubers. What about somebody who averages 2 minutes? Do we not care if it gives them an advantage? I think it would give them the MOST advantage, actually, because they have less experience recognizing in general.
They're not.
Ickathu
Veteran
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob
Premium Member
and that puzzle is not allowed in competition. If it were up to me, the solve would be a DNF, because I think it is clear in the regulations that stickerluss Guhongs are not permitted. But it's not up to me.
I believe the reason people were allowing them in BLD was because they thought the only difference it makes is that when making a turn, you can see by looking at internal parts of pieces what color is on a hidden side. In a blindfolded sovle, you cannot do this. But they did not realize that you can also tell by NOT making turns (hence, during inspection). I'm speculating here as I do not know the actual reason they were permitted for BLD in some competitions by some delegates since I was not one who allowed them. Maybe somebody else can chime in with why it was allowed.
Last edited by a moderator:
DrKorbin
Veteran
Bob
Premium Member
Ah, now that I re-read the email thread I had with Ron and Tyson last month, the change is going into effect for the next set of regulations. For some reason, I thought they made the change effective immediately. My mistake.
It was a mistake for it to be allowed in the first place, though. It is inconsistent with the speedsolving regulations and was only allowed because of an oversight.
Last edited:
Pyjam
Premium Member
If the test shows a bias, you can't prove it is because the cubers use the stickerless "advantage".
It could be because the stickerless cubes are mechanically better (mine is), or they took advantage of the vivider colors or of the larger colored surface.
For whatever reason, I had better times with my stickerless ZanChi and I don't cheat.
Similar threads
