WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013

[whauk]

a twisted corner is DNF because rule 5b5 applies and says we are allowed to repair the puzzle (and take the worst possible result that one can get applying the reapirs in 5b3). so obviously the cube is unsolvable and can be made solvable by twisting a single corner (so 5b3c applies here). notice that the regulations talk about "a corner" and not about "the corner that...(has been twisted or sth)". so the cube can be made solvable by twisting any corner in the direction that the already twisted corner is not twisted in. (e.g. URF is twisted clockwise, so we can twist URF and any other corner ccw and the cube becomes solvable).

this procedure leads to 8 possible repairs - 7 of them are DNF and one is solved. the worst possible repair therefore leads to a DNF so the position is considered as one.

 

[Stefan]

so the cube can be made solvable by twisting any corner in the direction that the already twisted corner is not twisted in. (e.g. URF is twisted clockwise, so we can twist URF and any other corner ccw and the cube becomes solvable).

I once thought about that as well, but I think it violates

5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he must repair only the defective pieces

 

[whauk]

this might seem ridiculous but the rules do not state anywhere that the twisted corner is a defective piece. it only says that a puzzle defect exists when a corner is twisted...
and in actual situations it might be really hard to find out which corner had been twisted by the competitor.

 

[Stefan]

the rules do not state anywhere that the twisted corner is a defective piece. it only says that a puzzle defect exists when a corner is twisted...

I think you're misrepresenting this one:

”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”

That doesn't say a twisted corner means there's a puzzle defect. The twisted corner *is* the defect.

 

[whauk]

”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”

That doesn't say a twisted corner means there's a puzzle defect. The twisted corner *is* the defect.

puzzle defect ≠ defective piece
you wouldn't say that a corner is a puzzle, would you?

 

[Stefan]

you wouldn't say that a corner is a puzzle, would you?

Did I say "The twisted corner *is* the puzzle"? No, I said "The twisted corner *is* the defect". Those words look rather different, no idea how you misread that. The rule is also quite clear and calls it a puzzle defect:

”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”

puzzle defect ≠ defective piece

If it's just one piece, then the rules seem to disagree with you. And what do you think the rules do mean with "defective pieces"? You seem to think perfectly solved pieces are defective, which is a rather weird viewpoint.

 

[ThomasJE]

How is a stopwatch meant to be used by the judge during an attempt, I think I've found a slight discrepancy in the regulations. The ones in question: A3b2 and A1b.
According to A1b, a stopwatch should be used if the time limit for the event is over 10 minutes. So let's assume you have a round of 7x7 where the time limit is 11 minutes. In this example, the stopwatch would be started once the puzzle is uncovered, in accordance with A3b2, but if the solve lasts for over 10 minutes (e.g. 10:35) then the time is read from the stopwatch, which would then add on the amount of time the competitor has used for inspection to the time of the solve, meaning that the time recorded would be up to 15 seconds over the solve time.
This would not be a problem for BLD events, where there is no inspection, but if a speedsolve event is held with the time limit over 10 minutes (OK, it's a rare occurrence, I know) then this would potentially cause problems.

I would start the stopwatch at 10 minutes (so after the stackmat is switched off), and add 10 minutes to the stopwatch time.

 

[okayama]

I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).

B4c3) If the judge and competitor agree beforehand, the competitor may choose to place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase.

Is it possible for organizers to force competitors to use a music stand (instead of inserting a paper)?
For example, if organizers say

You have to use a music stand if you want to compete in.
Your registration means that you agree to this regulation.

must competitors use a music stand?

In the registration page of Kansai Open 2013, this statement is written,
but is such an indirect enforcement accepted?

http://jrca.cc/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=43

 

[Vincents]

I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).

Is it possible for organizers to force competitors to use a music stand (instead of inserting a paper)?
For example, if organizers say

must competitors use a music stand?

In the registration page of Kansai Open 2013, this statement is written,
but is such an indirect enforcement accepted?

http://jrca.cc/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=43

I believe the Board has specifically approved music stands for this particular competition.

 

[Vincents]

The intention of the new defective puzzle regulations are:

It is the competitor's responsibility to provide a working puzzle. Any issues with that puzzle are the competitor's problem. We are not completely unforgiving; we could treat a piece pop as an auto-DNF and take out the puzzle defects article entirely (and define it as a move the original Rubik's Cube was not meant to make), but we wrote this gigantic thing instead.

The spirit of this regulation is: At the end of your solve, your puzzle may have pieces strewn over the floor. I ask someone who doesn't understand the concept of a cubic puzzle, and who is oblivious to colors, to attempt to reassemble your cube. He is allowed to put any pieces that fit together, together (as long as it is reasonable; we don't want this hypothetical person taking a drill to your cube to make a piece fit where it shouldn't). We are assuming rudimentary intelligence. He does NOT know the original puzzle is a cube/dodecahedron/etc.; he simply knows that some pieces seem to fit, and some don't. He does NOT know that the colors have to match because he doesn't notice the colors at all. Purely from a mechanical perspective, consider all possible states of a fully reassembled puzzle. What's the worst state this hypothetical person could come up with? Whatever that state is is the result of the solve.

I hope I have communicated the idea across. We're sorry that this is unclear to people; instead of attempting to poke holes all over it - all of you should consider a career in law, by the way - consider what Lucas, Sebastien, Clement, Shelley, and I were TRYING to do, and please let us know how to improve it.

Of course, this could all be fixed if you just repaired your puzzle before stopping the timer. The only times this comes into play are when your puzzle pops or becomes defective from you slamming it into the table too hard while you stop the timer, or if you suffer an accident earlier in the solve and consciously make the choice to continue solving, thinking you might save time by doing so.

 

[whauk]

Did I say "The twisted corner *is* the puzzle"? No, I said "The twisted corner *is* the defect". Those words look rather different, no idea how you misread that. The rule is also quite clear and calls it a puzzle defect:

”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”

so we have a rule that allows us to repair only "defective pieces" and another rule that says a piece twisted in place is an example for a puzzle defect. i cannot read anywhere that only the twisted corner is a defective piece. 5a only tells me that a puzzle with pieces twisted in place happens to be a puzzle defect.

If it's just one piece, then the rules seem to disagree with you. And what do you think the rules do mean with "defective pieces"? You seem to think perfectly solved pieces are defective, which is a rather weird viewpoint.

lets take the following example: URF and URB are both twisted clockwise. the puzzle is unsolvable and can be made solvable by twisting only one corner piece so obviously 5b3c applies here. in order to make the cube solvable again i can twist ULB clockwise although this piece is already solved. maybe this is even the defective piece because i accidently twisted exactly this corner earlier. (defective piece as "the one that caused all the trouble") but i already said that this might be hard to tell (for the judge) in practical situations.
"solved piece" is also only a matter of choosing a viewpoint. you could also pop an edge and declare it as solved but somehow the whole rest of the cube popped away. or in my earlier example: maybe URF is solved but the whole cube is twisted?!
in fact, no i have no problems calling a "solved" piece defective.

 

[Stefan]

so we have a rule that allows us to repair only "defective pieces" and another rule that says a piece twisted in place is an example for a puzzle defect. i cannot read anywhere that only the twisted corner is a defective piece.

Well, "defective piece" is never defined, 5a calling certain things "puzzle defects" is the only thing we have, so that's gotta be it.

5a only tells me that a puzzle with pieces twisted in place happens to be a puzzle defect.

No it doesn't. Puzzle isn't listed, only puzzle parts are:
”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”

lets take the following example: URF and URB are both twisted clockwise. [...] maybe URF is solved but the whole cube is twisted?!

Now what is URF? Twisted or solved? Both? The rules have to be used, so we actually have to decide. What would you declare it?

in fact, no i have no problems calling a "solved" piece defective.

I still find that unreasonable. And with your view where you consider *everything* defective, please explain why we have this rule at all:

"5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he must repair only the defective pieces."

 

[Stefan]

The spirit of this regulation is: At the end of your solve, your puzzle may have pieces strewn over the floor. I ask someone who doesn't understand the concept of a cubic puzzle, and who is oblivious to colors, to attempt to reassemble your cube. He is allowed to put any pieces that fit together, together (as long as it is reasonable; we don't want this hypothetical person taking a drill to your cube to make a piece fit where it shouldn't). We are assuming rudimentary intelligence. He does NOT know the original puzzle is a cube/dodecahedron/etc.; he simply knows that some pieces seem to fit, and some don't. He does NOT know that the colors have to match because he doesn't notice the colors at all. Purely from a mechanical perspective, consider all possible states of a fully reassembled puzzle. What's the worst state this hypothetical person could come up with? Whatever that state is is the result of the solve.

I think someone who messes this up doesn't possess rudimentary intelligence:

Spoiler

And if you do let him mess that up, you allow him to move stuff around. Which you're not allowing in other cases, so that would be inconsistent.

I'd say you're again implying this should be considered solved, not DNF.

I hope I have communicated the idea across. We're sorry that this is unclear to people; instead of attempting to poke holes all over it - all of you should consider a career in law, by the way - consider what Lucas, Sebastien, Clement, Shelley, and I were TRYING to do, and please let us know how to improve it.

Yeah, sorry. Though in some cases it's actually not clear what you were trying to do, and I think our hole-poking at least points them out.

 

[AvGalen]

"5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he must repair only the defective pieces."

How would that work in reality? During a solve I hear something that MIGHT be a corner twist, but I don't know if it really twisted 120 degrees or if it twisted 50 degrees but then nicely snapped back the way it should be. Actually, let's say that happens twice. Now I reach the end of the solve with just 2 corners twisted.
Can I just twist both of them into the solved state?
Should I twist a third or maybe even a fourth one and then solve all unsolved pieces?
Should I twist one of the two unsolved cornes so that the cube can be solved but isn't yet?

And are we going to train judges to actually understand all of this when we don't even agree on it on this forum of experts?

I also don't like the new rule for centercaps. In the old rules caps were not considered funtional pieces and the result of 2 caps falling of was different from now. I don't like it when new rules change the result of a solve compared to the past. But I have no opinion on which rule is better, old or new

 

[Dene]

I don't like it when new rules change the result of a solve compared to the past.

Even for the sake of progress? (not referring to the centre cap issue specifically)

 

[AvGalen]

Even for the sake of progress? (not referring to the centre cap issue specifically)

There haven't been many rule changes that actually change a result. The biggest one that comes to mind is multiblind where my old National Record (2 out of 2 in 26 minutes) would have been a DNF under the new rules. That rule change turned out very nicely.
Of course I liked rule changes like "don't put back the cup after inspection" as well.

Determining if a cube is solved or not has always been a very tough job and is actually the most important job for a judge. But these new rules really seem to be 'lawyer material' while I don't think there was anything wrong with the old rules.

A +2 rule for Clock, that would be something I would like to see though

 

[cubernya]

A +2 rule for Clock, that would be something I would like to see though

I agree. there is all this controversy about consistency in the regs, then there is no +2 in clock.

On a side note: What if the clock does not have inserts? Which way is solved?

 

[Bob]

I agree. there is all this controversy about consistency in the regs, then there is no +2 in clock.

On a side note: What if the clock does not have inserts? Which way is solved?

It would not be a legal puzzle.

 

[okayama]

I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).

B4c3) If the judge and competitor agree beforehand, the competitor may choose to place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase.
​

Is it possible for organizers to force competitors to use a music stand (instead of inserting a paper)?
For example, if organizers say

You have to use a music stand if you want to compete in.
Your registration means that you agree to this regulation.
​

must competitors use a music stand?

In the registration page of Kansai Open 2013, this statement is written,
but is such an indirect enforcement accepted?

http://jrca.cc/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=43

I believe the Board has specifically approved music stands for this particular competition.

I don't think so, because the organizer said that this enforcement was ok in his personal understanding.
So I would like to confirm whether it is true or not.

In my opinion that is not good. The regulation B4c3) says the competitor may choose which one to use,
and not the organizer.

If such an enforcement is ok, for example, do you accept the following statement?

You have to start your solve with no inspection time for any puzzle.
Your registration means that you agree to this regulation.
​

I think it's not good. The competitor should decide when to start. Not the organizer.

 

[cubernya]

I don't think so, because the organizer said that this enforcement was ok in his personal understanding.
So I would like to confirm whether it is true or not.

In my opinion that is not good. The regulation says the competitor may choose which one to use,
and not the organizer.

The competitor was notified, so they chose to use the music stand when they registered