WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013

[Lucas Garron]

"Multiple Outer Slice Moves" will be renamed to "Outer Block Moves": https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/9

Slice moves were taken out because they never had an official use, except to confuse competitors and graders during FMC. (Big cube slice moves definitely never had any use.)

As for big cube notation, I'm a big fan of SiGN (I'm the one who came up with the name!). But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.
I've used it to scramble cubes at a competition, and it didn't slow me down compared to any other big cube notation I've used.

 

[Mikel]

As for big cube notation, I'm a big fan of SiGN (I'm the one who came up with the name!). But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.
I've used it to scramble cubes at a competition, and it didn't slow me down compared to any other big cube notation I've used.

I am against SiGN notation. I don't understand why anyone uses it.

1) It isn't clear whether you should turn just the inner slice move (r,l,b,d,f,u) or turn both layers like you would an Rw,Lw,Dw,Fw,Uw

2) The use of the lowercase letters in SiGN is extremely ugly annoying to read.

 

[qqwref]

But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.

That shouldn't matter. It's a new way of doing things, nobody has seen monstrosities like "3Rw2" before, so they'll have to learn it just like with every previous change in notation (not that that ever takes a long time) Why do we even need the w, anyway? Doesn't it just signify that the 3 you just looked at is indeed more than 1? You might as well use the "Rxw" (R extra wide) joke notation someone came up with years ago. I really can't see the benefits of this extra-long new way of writing moves.
also I still think TNoodle is a bad name and a bad idea

1) It isn't clear whether you should turn just the inner slice move (r,l,b,d,f,u) or turn both layers like you would an Rw,Lw,Dw,Fw,Uw

An uppercase letter is always one layer, a lowercase letter is always multiple layers.

2) The use of the lowercase letters in SiGN is extremely ugly annoying to read.

The use of lowercase letters in your post is extremely ugly and annoying to read. PLEASE TALK LIKE THIS FROM NOW ON. THANK YOU.

 

[Lucas Garron]

That shouldn't matter. It's a new way of doing things, nobody has seen monstrosities like "3Rw2" before, so they'll have to learn it just like with every previous change in notation (not that that ever takes a long time) Why do we even need the w, anyway? Doesn't it just signify that the 3 you just looked at is indeed more than 1? You might as well use the "Rxw" (R extra wide) joke notation someone came up with years ago. I really can't see the benefits of this extra-long new way of writing moves.
also I still think TNoodle is a bad name and a bad idea.

Well, the most important part is that it doesn't contradict any widely used definition. In particular, it is compatible with SiGN.
Adding a w becomes a synonym for lowercase.

WCA notation has always been a bit of an unfortunate thing, but I think we're at a sane, stable point. Maybe it's more verbose now, but it's effective.
Nobody else has really complained about the notation, and I havent heard of any trouble scrambling with it.

(Also, it's TNoodle unless/until someone comes up with something else. I appreciate that you care, but we need something reliable and usable.)

 

[antoineccantin]

Quick question:
Are you allowed to slightly mod the bottom of your clock to make it more square so that it sits level when you put it in "standing position"?

 

[Michael Womack]

Since Fangshi is releaseing a Mini 44.6mm 3x3 that is not all black or all white like this one http://www.toysbuying.com/546cm-fangshiâ„¢-shuang-ren-funs-puzzle-3x3-magic-cube-p-486.html Would it still be competition legal?

 

[qqwref]

Quick question:
Are you allowed to slightly mod the bottom of your clock to make it more square so that it sits level when you put it in "standing position"?

I can't see any reason why this would be forbidden.

Since Fangshi is releaseing a Mini 44.6mm 3x3 that is not all black or all white like this one http://www.toysbuying.com/546cm-fangshiâ„¢-shuang-ren-funs-puzzle-3x3-magic-cube-p-486.html Would it still be competition legal?

Yes, since the coloring doesn't give you any extra information about which piece is which.

 

[Yoheicube]

And I want to add oldest solver and youngest solver.
Haruo Aoki, he is 77 years old, enjoyed looking these data and these data gave his power.

 

[okayama]

I have a question about corner pivoting.

In the world champs, 3x3 first round, 4th solve of Akihiro Ishida:

Corner pivoting occurred during the F2L, and he fixed it by twisting
the corner, without twisting apart the adjacent edge. However, the
judge said that "In order to fix the corner, you have to remove the
adjacent edge before twisting the corner. Twisting the corner
directly is not allowed. So this solve is DNF."

That was the slowest time among Akihiro's five solves, so he did
not mind it. But is that true? In order to fix the corner pivoting,
must the competitor remove the adjacent edge before twisting
the corner?

 

[JasonK]

I have a question about corner pivoting.

In the world champs, 3x3 first round, 4th solve of Akihiro Ishida:

Corner pivoting occurred during the F2L, and he fixed it by twisting
the corner, without twisting apart the adjacent edge. However, the
judge said that "In order to fix the corner, you have to remove the
adjacent edge before twisting the corner. Twisting the corner
directly is not allowed. So this solve is DNF."

That was the slowest time among Akihiro's five solves, so he did
not mind it. But is that true? In order to fix the corner pivoting,
must the competitor remove the adjacent edge before twisting
the corner?

That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?

EDIT: 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.

 

[okayama]

That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?

EDIT: 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.

Thank you so much. So the judge was wrong.

 

[TMOY]

That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?

This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.

 

[Michael Womack]

This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.

Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.

 

[Sebastien]

Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.

Because the cube wasn't solved?! That's also not was TMOY said. :fp

 

[JasonK]

This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.

Lucky you. It was definitely being DNF'ed in some places, and there was discussion on here about it last year, so at the very least it was inconsistent between competitions/judges.

Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.

We were talking about twisting the corner during the solve, not finishing the solve with a corner twisted. That is obviously a DNF.

 

[antoineccantin]

At Worlds this year, I did an OH solve in which I had a twisted corner and I'm 100% sure I didn't twist any corners, so in must have been done during scrambling. Since it was on video, would it have been possible to get an other attempt if I was able to prove I didn't do it using the video evidence?

PS: I can upload the video if you'd like to see it.

 

[Sa967St]

At Worlds this year, I did an OH solve in which I had a twisted corner and I'm 100% sure I didn't twist any corners, so in must have been done during scrambling. Since it was on video, would it have been possible to get an other attempt if I was able to prove I didn't do it using the video evidence?

PS: I can upload the video if you'd like to see it.

The same thing happened to someone else at Worlds, except with megaminx. I had a discussion about that with Vincent and some other people. He said that you can't (or it's very hard to) prove that you didn't accidentally twist the corner during your solve, so shouldn't be given an extra attempt. Even if it was the scrambler's mistake, it shouldn't be an extra attempt unless there's evidence that the scrambler was purposely sabotaging your puzzle. The easy solution would be to not use a puzzle with easily twistable corners.

Note: I was originally arguing that the competitor should be given an extra attempt when it's *clear* that it's not his/her fault, but Vincent convinced me otherwise.

Edit: Since you can actually prove that the scramble you received was off by a corner twist, if you brought it up at the competition right after you solved, you might have been given an extra attempt.

 

[Emily Wang]

Edit: Since you can actually prove that the scramble you received was off by a corner twist, if you brought it up at the competition right after you solved, you might have been given an extra attempt.

wait how can you prove that the twist happened during scrambling and not solving?

 

[Stefan]

He said that you can't (or it's very hard to) prove that you didn't accidentally twist the corner during your solve

Was he thinking about watching the solve and looking for accidental twists? If you instead just check the start state (if that's visible on camera), it should be quite easy.

Even if it was the scrambler's mistake, it shouldn't be an extra attempt unless there's evidence that the scrambler was purposely sabotaging your puzzle.

So if a mistake happens, it's totally not the fault of the person handling the puzzle? I shall remember that when we talk about removing +2 again.

 

[Sa967St]

wait how can you prove that the twist happened during scrambling and not solving?

A careful reconstruction? Or checking if the scramble given matched the original scramble except for one corner.

Was he thinking about watching the solve and looking for accidental twists? If you instead just check the start state (if that's visible on camera), it should be quite easy.

The incident we were talking about wasn't caught on video.

So if a mistake happens, it's totally not the fault of the person handling the puzzle? I shall remember that when we talk about removing +2 again.

*Waits for Vincent to reply.*

I don't like this either, but how can you tell whose fault it is when the solver insists that he/she didn't twist a corner during the solve (when it's not on video)? What do you suggest?