Twisted Corner in Competition?

[Dene]

This just means you turn slow.

1. Tightening a cube generally makes performance significantly worse.
2. We turn properly, but at high TPS, corner twists are bound to happen once in a while.
3. When you are trying to gogo after PLL, you pretty much just AUF and then slam the timer. If you twist a corner during AUF or PLL there isn't much you can do about it if you're already slamming your hands down.

I may not be the fastest person around, but I turn fast from time to time.
1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.
2) If you turn properly a corner twist is impossible, so don't blatantly lie to me.
3) That's the risk you take if you choose not to be careful with a loose cube. I don't see how you can blame this on anyone but yourself.

 

[kcl]

I may not be the fastest person around, but I turn fast from time to time.
1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.
2) If you turn properly a corner twist is impossible, so don't blatantly lie to me.
3) That's the risk you take if you choose not to be careful with a loose cube. I don't see how you can blame this on anyone but yourself.

1. Means nothing to me? He's a really accurate turner, I'm not surprised.
2. I'm not lying in the slightest. When you're attempting to turn your fastest you are generally inaccurate, thus why cubes cut corners. If we press hard on a corner trying to turn it fast, they will twist sometimes. It's just how cubes work.
3. Granted, but you can make the same argument towards a +2 for a layer misalignment. Why would a corner twist not fall into this category? A standard +2 is the solvers fault for being too hasty, a corner twist is the same concept.

 

[porkynator]

This is non sense.
A corner twist is just like a pop.
If during a blind solve I am not sure if I had two corners left to twist or if I had solved everything I could just twist one of the two corners and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF.

 

[Dene]

2. I'm not lying in the slightest. When you're attempting to turn your fastest you are generally inaccurate, thus why cubes cut corners. If we press hard on a corner trying to turn it fast, they will twist sometimes. It's just how cubes work.
3. Granted, but you can make the same argument towards a +2 for a layer misalignment. Why would a corner twist not fall into this category? A standard +2 is the solvers fault for being too hasty, a corner twist is the same concept.

2) That's not what you said before
3) I agree entirely; layer misalignment should be a DNF.

 

[Dane man]

This is non sense.
A corner twist is just like a pop.
If during a blind solve I am not sure if I had two corners left to twist or if I had solved everything I could just twist one of the two corners and get a +2 instead of a possible DNF.

Actually, that would fall under the case that I stated before. If a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to correct an incorrectly twisted corner, and the cube still ends up with a twisted corner, then that should be DNF. But if the cuber only solves it normally, and gets a twisted corner in the end, then that should count as solved (with a possible +2).

 

[porkynator]

Actually, that would fall under the case that I stated before. If a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to correct an incorrectly twisted corner, and the cube still ends up with a twisted corner, then that should be DNF. But if the cuber only solves it normally, and gets a twisted corner in the end, then that should count as solved (with a possible +2).

So if one of those two corners accidentaly twists during the solve and I forget I had to twist them I get a +2 instead of a DNF?

 

[Dane man]

So if one of those two corners accidentaly twists during the solve and I forget I had to twist them I get a +2 instead of a DNF?

That would be a very unlikely combo (for one corner to twist itself to end up correct while the other ends up wrong), and a very lucky one, but yes you would.

 

[Villyer]

You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity, and do the corner twist, then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched. And say you just turn one corner with a normal OLL in order to skip OLL and end up with a twisted corner. If you perform a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still end up with a twisted corner, then this case can be dismissed as DNF. Intentional corner twists are very visible. I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.

I believe the original example was referring to a person who, after f2l, is in a case where all that has to be done is a pure double corner twist (like a U-OLL correctly permuted). The solver could just twist one corner intentionally instead of solving the last layer as normal and take +2 for a lower final time.

 

[Dane man]

I believe the original example was referring to a person who, after f2l, is in a case where all that has to be done is a pure double corner twist (like a U-OLL correctly permuted). The solver could just twist one corner intentionally instead of solving the last layer as normal and take +2 for a lower final time.

That what I was talking about as well. That's why I suggest that if a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still ends up with a twisted corner, then this case should be dismissed as DNF (not +2). The same as I said to porkynator.

 

[Villyer]

That what I was talking about as well. That's why I suggest that if a cuber performs a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still ends up with a twisted corner, then this case should be dismissed as DNF (not +2). The same as I said to porkynator.

What do you think about an unnoticed accidental corner twist during a PLL, where the competitor stops the clock with a corner twisted?

 

[Future Cuber]

So I can start the timer, twist a corner, and then stop the timer. The cube cannot be solved with any number of moves therefore is not DNF? I'm not convinced by your definition

Comming to think of it you're actually right........and why not say that the cube has to be at a considerably solved state

 

[Tim Major]

I don't know why so many people have problems with corner twists. I always move onto the latest popular cubes, and I very very rarely corner twist. I think people should;
2) Learn to turn properly

2. We turn properly, but at high TPS, corner twists are bound to happen once in a while.

1) Just so you know, faz gets comparable times on my 3x3.

1. Means nothing to me? He's a really accurate turner, I'm not surprised.

Case closed.

Anyway I agree with Dene, Jay and Ben. Turn properly, tension your cube properly. If we added this regulation there would be new solved states due to options in untwisting it. And when I occasionally get corner twists scrambling (usually on Richie Lim's Megaminx...) I instantly know, as there's a small click and catch. Why do you think the corner twists? Because it get's caught on another piece due to inaccurate turning. The only way it'd be possible to not feel a corner twist, is if your cube is SO loose that it happens easily.

 

[Dane man]

Anyway I agree with Dene, Jay and Ben. Turn properly, tension your cube properly. If we added this regulation there would be new solved states due to options in untwisting it. And when I occasionally get corner twists scrambling (usually on Richie Lim's Megaminx...) I instantly know, as there's a small click and catch. Why do you think the corner twists? Because it get's caught on another piece due to inaccurate turning. The only way it'd be possible to not feel a corner twist, is if your cube is SO loose that it happens easily.

Some people like their cubes loose. Some people perform better with loose cubes. There is no such thing as turning "properly" or tensioning "properly". It's personal preference. And if personal preference makes corner twists possible, then that shouldn't be held against them when it happens. Have them redo the solve, or give +2, or whatever, but DNF is unfair and unacceptable to hold against a cuber simply because they like to cube with loose cubes, or they turn a certain way.

What do you think about an unnoticed accidental corner twist during a PLL, where the competitor stops the clock with a corner twisted?

It shouldn't be DNF. It's not the cuber's fault, and it's obviously and accident (because it's in an impossible state).

 

[guysensei1]

It shouldn't be DNF. It's not the cuber's fault, and it's obviously and accident.

What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others...

If not I could just say it was an accident that I didn't do a U to AUF.

 

[Dane man]

What's obvious to you may not be obvious to others...

If not I could just say it was an accident that I didn't do a U to AUF.

No you couldn't. If there is one corner twisted on a cube, then the cube is in an impossible state. Anything you do normally will affect two or more pieces, not simply one. If only one piece is affected, then it's in an impossible state, ergo an accident.

There is a difference between a mistake and an accident (in this context). A mistake is the fault of someone (the cuber), an accident isn't.

 

[Dene]

but DNF is unfair and unacceptable to hold against a cuber simply because they like to cube with loose cubes, or they turn a certain way.

"It's unfair and unacceptable to give a penalty in football simply because I like to defend with my arms flailing out all over the place. It's not my fault that I like to defend this way and the ball hits my arm".


My point? We have to set parameters somewhere.

 

[Dane man]

"It's unfair and unacceptable to give a penalty in football simply because I like to defend with my arms flailing out all over the place. It's not my fault that I like to defend this way and the ball hits my arm".
My point? We have to set parameters somewhere.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get penalized for "liking to leave the cube unsolved by one move". I'm saying that they shouldn't have a solve completely dumped simply because something natural and common occurred as a side effect of their cube preferences. I understand that there needs to be a line somewhere, and that line needs to be somewhere reasonable. Not too closed (DNF a twisted corner or a 45 degree turned side), and not too open (no penalty for a cube that needs one or more moves left to be solved).

There is a difference between stylistic choice, and intentional disregard of the spirit of the sport. Turn style and cube tension is stylistic choice.

 

[pewpewrawr]

It's not a sport it's a freaking puzzle, if it's not solved then you Did Not Finish it. It's your fault if you can't control your cube, it doesn't matter what your "stylistic choice" is lol.

 

[goodatthis]

Cutting from other thread.


You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity, and do the corner twist, then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched. And say you just turn one corner with a normal OLL in order to skip OLL and end up with a twisted corner. If you perform a corner twist in a supposed attempt to fix the cube, and then still end up with a twisted corner, then this case can be dismissed as DNF. Intentional corner twists are very visible. I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.

What? Do you know anything about cube mechanics?

You will never get a corner twist OLL with only one corner twisted. If you do because of some weird non-3x3 parity

Obviously you will never get a single corner twist OLL, but you can most definitely get 2. And there is no sort of OLL parity on any cubic WCA puzzle that has to do with corners.

then you'll solve the cube to an impossible state where there are two pieces switched

Did you really just say that twisting a corner switches two pieces? Heres what I want you to do. Twist 2 corners in your cube in opposite directions (on a solved cube). Try solving it. It is solvable. Now do it again on a solved cube, then fix one corner. It's unsolvable. But the corner is permuted correctly. Two pieces are not switched. Any sort of OLL parity is completely independent of PLL parity. Please learn a bit about cube theory before you try to make ridiculous claims like that.

Intentional corner twists are very visible.

Yes, but there are also very clueless judges out there. Like those 11 year olds who want to judge really fast people.

I also find it likely that you'll end up with an impossible PLL in doing this, thus having to do an OLL first anyway.

You might find it likely, but the entire fundamental laws of the cube don't. And why would you have to do an OLL first? That makes zero sense. OLL and PLL are two completely different, independent things. You can have an OLL where every edge and corner is permuted correctly, yet just flipped or twisted in its place, being misoriented.

That would be a very unlikely combo (for one corner to twist itself to end up correct while the other ends up wrong), and a very lucky one, but yes you would.

Well world records (or national and contintental records) are unlikely occurrences, but they still happen. And it seems like blindsolving world records have a history of cheating behind them, too.


Anyway, please take a look at this page, it might help you. http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/cube_laws.html

 

[Kit Clement]

Over the years, the regulations have gotten harder and harder on competitors in terms of the stability of cubes. As late as 2006, extra attempts were awarded in some case for any puzzle defect. Since then, it has become the competitor's responsibility to deal with puzzle defects. Handling pops was especially important in 3x3 until 2011 or so when the Dayan cubes were released and started using torpedos to prevent pops. Now with the way cubes are made, corner twisting is the major puzzle defect.

As always, it's the competitor's responsibility to prevent puzzle defects, whether that means practicing your style of turning to prevent corner twists, or tightening the cube to make corner twisting less prevalent. If competitors had to manage their older equipment to prevent popping, competitors today should have to mange their equipment to prevent corner twisting.

Getting corner twists as a result of scrambling is a whole separate issue, however, and I hope that in the future, scramble sheets will highlight certain stickers to have scramblers check both that the scramble is correct and that no corners are twisted.