Should we ban pillowed 7x7x7s?

[InfiniCuber]

I keep seeing stickerless cubes being mentioned as a comparison. But what about the pillowed V-Cube 2? That one is not competition legal.

I think they should be legal, just a stickerless and pillowed should be, for everything. But if we are going to argue the pillowed V-Cube 2 as having an advantage, well, it is so small, it really isn't a big deal. Then again nothing about pillowed and stickerless should be a big deal.

 

[Michael Womack]

If we do it's like saying that the Rubik's brand 3x3 never existed cause it started all this cubing stuff.

 

[rubixwiz031]

If we do it's like saying that the Rubik's brand 3x3 never existed cause it started all this cubing stuff.

No its not.

 

[Meep]

I recall that when this topic was brought up before, because the pillowed 7x7 was the first one that was widely available, it became the datum to compare other 7x7 cubes to.

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.

Since the first widely available 3x3 was cubic and the other sides weren't visible when viewing a side directly, enhancing the basic concept of the 3x3 was measured relative to that (Thus stickerless cubes shouldn't be allowed). In the case of the 7x7, it would be measured relative to the pillowed 7x7 (Thus both pillowed and cubic 7x7s would be allowed).

That's just one interpretation of the regulations, though.

To those constantly using the stickerless 3x3 'ban' as reasoning to remove pillowed 7x7s, the 'ban' was more so clarifying the regulations on something that should have never been allowed. The pillowed 7x7 case is discussing the removal of something that always has been allowed.

 

[StephenC]

more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible

Does anybody other than me think that that part of the regulation has nothing to do with "the basic concept of a puzzle"? Would simply removing that from the regulations allow any puzzles that would be totally unacceptable? I would be interested to see what people come up with. Anyway, if there is no problem with removing it, then I think that we should.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Does anybody other than me think that that part of the regulation has nothing to do with "the basic concept of a puzzle"? Would simply removing that from the regulations allow any puzzles that would be totally unacceptable? I would be interested to see what people come up with. Anyway, if there is no problem with removing it, then I think that we should.

For example, there are cubes made of transparent plastic, which allow you to see the sticker colour of the opposite faces. This would be extremely helpful in finding pieces, as you don't need to rotate the cube.

 

[Kirjava]

For example, there are cubes made of transparent plastic, which allow you to see the sticker colour of the opposite faces. This would be extremely helpful in finding pieces, as you don't need to rotate the cube.

This would be total hax for Roux step 4C.

 

[StephenC]

And the ability to see pieces on back means that the solve was fake? Were you not solving the same type of puzzle?

You are still solving the same pieces, in the same way, but you know were some more of them are. I don't understand what the problem with that is.

 

[samchoochiu]

And the ability to see pieces on back means that the solve was fake? Were you not solving the same type of puzzle?

You are still solving the same pieces, in the same way, but you know were some more of them are. I don't understand what the problem with that is.

Because you see colors that you shouldn't be seeing, hence the "basic concept" of the puzzle is altered. Its like you're changing the definition of a Rubik's Cube.

 

[StephenC]

Because you see colors that you shouldn't be seeing, hence the "basic concept" of the puzzle is altered. Its like you're changing the definition of a Rubik's Cube.

I disagree.

 

[InfiniCuber]

I disagree.

I agree that you disagree. Just as i said a while ago, it is up to the cuber to decide what he wants in his/her cube as an advantage, like the type of cube, mod, or lube. According to samchoochiu and everyone else, well, an original rubik's cube did not have lube. This is "altering" the basic concept. Soon enough everything is going to be band, which is what everyone is saying...

 

[Meep]

I agree that you disagree. Just as i said a while ago, it is up to the cuber to decide what he wants in his/her cube as an advantage, like the type of cube, mod, or lube. According to samchoochiu and everyone else, well, an original rubik's cube did not have lube. This is "altering" the basic concept. Soon enough everything is going to be band, which is what everyone is saying...

Lubrication does not alter the basic concept of the puzzle. It reduces the friction between the moving parts, and having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.

Also: 3g) Puzzles may be made smoother internally by sanding or using any lubricant.

 

[Michael Womack]

No its not.

Without Ernő Rubik making the 3x3 our hobby would not exist.

Also go with Verdes making the 7x7 then this would never happen and the SS 7x7 would never existed.

 

[Cheese11]

Before reading any other posts, I'm going to say no. Simply because there are only 2 "Good" 7x7's on the market right now, and one of them is pillowed.

 

[jonlin]

I disagree.

You disagree? I reject that.
It enhances the basic concept in that 'more pieces are visible' as they directly state in the regulations. Clearly in this manner, the stickerless is illegal. The only way they would be legal is if the regulations would be changed/altered.

 

[qqwref]

having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.

I don't think "you can only see 3 faces at a time" is an part of the puzzle's design either. It's a side effect of the way the first generations of Rubik's Cubes were constructed, but so is high friction. Rubik definitely intended for people to look at all of the faces, but I doubt he ever thought people would be speedsolving his puzzle consistently in under 15 seconds, so I can't imagine he cared how many faces you can see at once when he came up with the idea. And don't forget the official Rubik's company has itself produced a transparent puzzle (a 2x2x2), and their website used to have a cube simulator where you could see every sticker at once. If we're just discussing the concept of the puzzle, I don't think the number of stickers you can see is an intentional part of it at all.

I don't have a problem with outlawing transparent/stickerless/pillowed cubes, but let's be honest about it. We're outlawing those things because we've decided on a 'canonical speedcube' and those provide an advantage over it, not because the number of visible stickers has always been an essential part of what a Rubik's Cube is.

 

[InfiniCuber]

Lubrication does not alter the basic concept of the puzzle. It reduces the friction between the moving parts, and having a specific amount of friction present is not part of the puzzle's design.

Also: 3g) Puzzles may be made smoother internally by sanding or using any lubricant.

Well sanding does, modding and so forth. They have just made exceptions. IMO, they should get rid of the rule all together. If they are making exceptions for little things (and some big) they should allow pillowed 7x7's. I also agree with qqwref on her previous post.

 

[The Bloody Talon]

This will be a never ending discussion. Both sides have a good point.
I think someone should make a study of how are pillowed cubes better than non-pillowed cubes.

 

[Meep]

Well sanding does, modding and so forth. They have just made exceptions. IMO, they should get rid of the rule all together. If they are making exceptions for little things (and some big) they should allow pillowed 7x7's. I also agree with qqwref on her previous post.

Sanding and modding is only allowed to make it internally smoother (Reducing friction by reducing contact area, etc.), which achieves the same goal as lubrication. Only external modifications that give an advantage (making more of the puzzle visible than the 'canonical speedcube,' etc.) would alter the basic concept of the puzzle as described by the regulations. So it's not too much of an exception.

I do agree with qq though. The 'basic concept' of the puzzle is just some decided standard puzzle with more regards to a competitive aspect than Rubik had intended. The regulations perhaps need a detailed definition of what the 'basic concept's features are for comparison, as it's somewhat ambiguous and has regularly been interpreted differently.

 

[Kirjava]

qqwref: Do you think adding pochmann-esque supercube stickers to corners and edges so that you can see what the other edge piece colour is when only looking at one half of them should be allowed?

I don't want to have to use this advantage because it's available then have recognition problems when I go back to using a normal cube.