WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013

[Dene]

Yea sorry I was writing that on my phone while in transit and couldn't be bothered to be more detailed.

Before going into detail I'll quickly reinforce what we all know: we attempt to achieve fairness for all competitors by giving them the same scrambles as often as possible.

Now what I meant by "meaningful"...
Ok so the scramble is just bunch of turns with no particular scrambled state being aimed for, therefore any random turns would be sufficient to achieve what we need, i.e. a well scrambled puzzle. I believe we also do the same for 4x4 through to 7x7(?). The current regulations already put 6x6 and 7x7 to the side, and the reason for this I guess is because screwing them up is easy, and dealing with that is impractical. However in saying that, if the risk of a competitor gaining an unfair advantage was significantly increased by not using the same scramble, I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed, as fairness is the ultimate target (although we supposedly have to remain method neutral... that's a whole different can of worms I'm not going to open). With 4x4 and 5x5, the chance of fairness coming out of balance is much greater, as a different start could have a strong influence on the overall solve, and the practicability of avoiding this by re-scrambling one done improperly isn't an issue.

So coming back to what I meant by "meaningful"... I don't think there is much space for an "easy" scramble on megaminx. That is, I don't think a different scramble is going to result, in any obvious way, in a significant change in the final result. Couple this with the fact that the scramble itself is just a bunch of turns with no specified goal, and I think there is no "meaning" or "justification" for enforcing the exact scramble (because fairness is not significantly compromised, but practicability is).


I guess I'm not really remaining "method neutral" like I should be, although I haven't tried to and I don't really care

 

[Stefan]

Ah, ok. So the real point was neither that we don't reach all possible cases (I really didn't see how that mattered) nor that we don't have a pre-picked goal state (we do have a goal state once we have the scramble, though), but that a mistake in megaminx scrambling doesn't matter much. Don't know how true that is, but if the mistake was skipping a scramble line or two, that could make the scramble easier. We do use a certain number of turns to reach "enough randomness", after all, so shouldn't use fewer.

 

[Pedro]

I think Dene's point is not about fewer/more moves, but instead he's saying that if you check the megaminx and the picture, and they look different*, but you've applied the correct number of moves and confused a ++ with a --, it's not necessary to solve and rescramble, the same way we do for 6x6 and 7x7 now.
And I agree with him, with the obvious exception of a popped piece or something like that.

*This is already complicated to check, since people have all sorts of color schemes on megaminxes

 

[Stefan]

I think Dene's point is not about fewer/more moves, but instead he's saying that if you check the megaminx and the picture, and they look different*, but you've applied the correct number of moves and confused a ++ with a --, it's not necessary to solve and rescramble, the same way we do for 6x6 and 7x7 now.

Yeah, the fewer moves is *my* point. The question is: How do you know you just confused a ++ with a -- and didn't skip a scramble line?

 

[CubeRoots]

I think that it's pretty shitty that you just ignore mis-scrambled megas, Bob. The regs are clear on it. You are supposed to set an example, but you are you are displaying complete contempt for the regulations you are supposed to be enforcing. What gives you the right to break regs so openly like that? ...over other delegates and other regs...

 

[Bob]

I think that it's pretty shitty that you just ignore mis-scrambled megas, Bob. The regs are clear on it. You are supposed to set an example, but you are you are displaying complete contempt for the regulations you are supposed to be enforcing. What gives you the right to break regs so openly like that? ...over other delegates and other regs...

Guess how much I care what you think.

We had to get through the Megaminx round at a pace of nearly 200 puzzles per hour. If I thought that the integrity of a solve was being compromised, I'd have it rescrambled, as was the case when judges twisted corners or popped pieces. But verifying a puzzle when there are so many variations in color scheme is tedious and impractical and therefore just a waste of time.

 

[CubeRoots]

Guess how much I care what you think.

We had to get through the Megaminx round at a pace of nearly 200 puzzles per hour. If I thought that the integrity of a solve was being compromised, I'd have it rescrambled, as was the case when judges twisted corners or popped pieces. But verifying a puzzle when there are so many variations in color scheme is tedious and impractical and therefore just a waste of time.

probably as much as you care about the regs.

 

[Ranzha]

Which should be more important in competition--correct procedure, or time efficiency? The regs are rather time neutral off-stage, so it seems like 4g is fairly included, but we all know that 4g gets forgotten when it's meant to be applied because of time.

 

[CubeRoots]

it's not even about integrity of the solve. It's about fairness. And the shitty example a delegate is setting. Maybe i'll hand scramble some 3x3x3s next comp - i'll just make sure that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the solve.

And if theres such an issue with scrambling a mega properly. Maybe you should... hmmm, i don't know... change the regs?!

 

[Ranzha]

it's not even about integrity of the solve. It's about fairness. And the shitty example a delegate is setting. Maybe i'll hand scramble some 3x3x3s next comp - i'll just make sure that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the solve.

And if theres such an issue with scrambling a mega properly. Maybe you should... hmmm, i don't know... change the regs?!

Do you have a solution in mind? I think that if you had, people would take you more seriously.

 

[CubeRoots]

the solution is at the end of my last post. Change the regs.

 

[uberCuber]

the solution is at the end of my last post. Change the regs.

How very specific.

 

[CubeRoots]

How very specific.

whatever. You are a moron if you can't figure out the specific change. Where it says with the exception of 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 which can be approved by a delegate blah blah blah... just add the word mega into the list of puzzles which can be scrambled incorrectly.

 

[Stefan]

I think that if you had, people would take you more seriously.

I take him quite seriously and agree with him. While I think Bob's solution was reasonable, it does violate the letter of the regulations. CubeRoots' "maybe I'll hand scramble" example also isn't that far-fetched, given that exactly that has just recently actually happened. I mailed the WRC about the issue (megaminx and in general) with proposals, among them the obvious one of including megaminx in 4g1.

 

[Ranzha]

I take him quite seriously and agree with him. While I think Bob's solution was reasonable, it does violate the letter of the regulations. CubeRoots' "maybe I'll hand scramble" example also isn't that far-fetched, given that exactly that has just recently actually happened. I mailed the WRC about the issue (megaminx and in general) with proposals, among them the obvious one of including megaminx in 4g1.

I think his point is good, but the delivery is far from it. Adding mega to 4g1 would solve the megaminx problem, but it still doesn't solve the 4g application problem overall.

 

[DrKorbin]

Can a misscrambled megaminx lead to an advantage? I mean if one competitor has all white (for example) edges near the white layer, and other competitors have white edges near the opposite layer, then a competitor can win a couple of seconds (dunno how fast do they solve a cross though). Of course you can object that a solved centers' bar in misscrambled 6x6 and 7x7 can also save a couple of seconds, but at least a bar is more noticeable than an edge adjacent to a layer in mega (in my opinion).

 

[Bob]

I think his point is good, but the delivery is far from it. Adding mega to 4g1 would solve the megaminx problem, but it still doesn't solve the 4g application problem overall.

Indeed I don't think anybody is going to verify the position of all 132 stickers on the minx.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Can a misscrambled megaminx lead to an advantage? I mean if one competitor has all white (for example) edges near the white layer, and other competitors have white edges near the opposite layer, then a competitor can win a couple of seconds (dunno how fast do they solve a cross though). Of course you can object that a solved centers' bar in misscrambled 6x6 and 7x7 can also save a couple of seconds, but at least a bar is more noticeable than an edge adjacent to a layer in mega (in my opinion).

Deciding if a misscrambled mega is fair is tricky, though checking white edges deals with most people. I reckon it won't make a lot of difference and the regs should be changed for 'resonably scrambled' megaminxes to be allowed if misscrambling occurs, in the rare chance it is also spotted as a misscramble. I personally start on light blue with a weird colour scheme, so nobody is going to realistically check that. Also, at my last comp I'm pretty sure I got a corner twisted during scrambling twice on mega, and I didn't really care, partly because I hadn't practiced enough, and partly because it didn't waste a lot of time to fix.

I eagerly await puzzles designed to eliminate corner twists.

 

[Bob]

Deciding if a misscrambled mega is fair is tricky, though checking white edges deals with most people. I reckon it won't make a lot of difference and the regs should be changed for 'resonably scrambled' megaminxes to be allowed if misscrambling occurs, in the rare chance it is also spotted as a misscramble. I personally start on light blue with a weird colour scheme, so nobody is going to realistically check that. Also, at my last comp I'm pretty sure I got a corner twisted during scrambling twice on mega, and I didn't really care, partly because I hadn't practiced enough, and partly because it didn't waste a lot of time to fix.

I eagerly await puzzles designed to eliminate corner twists.

This is part of my point. It is unrealistic to check all 132 stickers. It's even too big of a pain to verify all of the corners. In general my policy regarding corners is that if I think I may have twisted a corner, I either check all corners (on cubic puzzles, for example) or hand scramble the puzzle and give it the competitor to solve and then rescramble.

If you want a puzzle that doesn't allow corner twists, try a Rubik's brand 3x3. Twisting a corner on those is damn near impossible.

 

[Dene]

whatever. You are a moron if you can't figure out the specific change. Where it says with the exception of 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 which can be approved by a delegate blah blah blah... just add the word mega into the list of puzzles which can be scrambled incorrectly.

You're a moron if you think clear deductions can be made from vague statements. I suggest you start talking smart and stop trying to be such a smartass if you want to get anywhere around here. -1000 respect points for you.