Twisted Corner in Competition?

[Dane man]

Over the years, the regulations have gotten harder and harder on competitors in terms of the stability of cubes. ... If competitors had to manage their older equipment to prevent popping, competitors today should have to manage their equipment to prevent corner twisting.

Understood. This makes sense, but the difference between a pop and a corner twist is that pops are now less likely if not completely eliminated with the new hardware, and yet corner twists remain a real possibility for anyone with any turning style. Another difference is that with popping, there is no real way to know whether the cuber had been solving correctly or not, and with a corner twist, you can know because everything else will be solved. I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true. Just my two cents.

What? Do you know anything about cube mechanics?

Please try to understand what I am saying before attacking it. The words 'switched', 'twisted', rotated', etc sometimes are used interchangeably by me. I also paraphrase my own thoughts for succinctness sometimes. Allow me to clarify what I meant to say. If you have an already twisted corner, and you twist another, there will be two twisted corners. And if you twist it in the wrong direction, you'll have an impossible state. Let's also say you have an OLL with all the pieces correctly permuted, and only two corners that are twisted. If you twist one, then stop the timer, you would get DNF because you twisted a corner and still had a twisted corner left. That's all.

Yes, but there are also very clueless judges out there.

While true, it doesn't dismiss my statement.

You can have an OLL where every edge and corner is permuted correctly, yet just flipped or twisted in its place, being misoriented.

Also true, but have you tried doing PLL before OLL? How often do you start with all the pieces in a permutation that can be solved using only 21 PLL algs?

And please, calm down, this isn't something to get riled up over. I'm sorry if I'm coming across abrasively, I don't intend to.

 

[goodatthis]

How often do you start with all the pieces in a permutation that can be solved using only 21 PLL algs?

From any given last layer position, you can always permute all the pieces with only 21 algs. So, 100% of the time.

Again, orientation and permutation are two entirely independent things.

Also, I'm sorry if I came across abrasively as well, I just have a low tolerance for certain things.

 

[Dene]

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

And there is a difference between stopping the timer with a solved puzzle, and stopping the timer with an unsolved puzzle. The purpose of what we do is pretty clear; the puzzle should be solved.

I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true.

It simply always is (assuming the corner twisted accidentally during the solving process, not scrambling (or deliberately)). Unless you can demonstrate that it is physically possible for an inanimate object to manipulate itself.

 

[kcl]

And there is a difference between stopping the timer with a solved puzzle, and stopping the timer with an unsolved puzzle. The purpose of what we do is pretty clear; the puzzle should be solved.



It simply always is (assuming the corner twisted accidentally during the solving process, not scrambling (or deliberately)). Unless you can demonstrate that it is physically possible for an inanimate object to manipulate itself.

You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?

 

[Villyer]

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.

I feel like this raises really good points. When pops were common, the rule was (and still is) if there is a popped piece at the end of the solve, it is a DNF (to an extent, I understand there are cases where if the piece is only able to be put back in one way and then it is considered solved). The responsibility was on the cuber before, and it should still be now.

Understood. This makes sense, but the difference between a pop and a corner twist is that pops are now less likely if not completely eliminated with the new hardware, and yet corner twists remain a real possibility for anyone with any turning style. Another difference is that with popping, there is no real way to know whether the cuber had been solving correctly or not, and with a corner twist, you can know because everything else will be solved. I understand the common sentiment here that it's the cuber's fault if a corner twist occurs, but that simply isn't always true. Just my two cents.

While the issue is sometimes that the scrambler is the one who twisted a corner, and it definitely sucks if that happens, the solver still has the ability to twist the corner back when he realizes that it was twisted. It should be an assumed risk when using an easily twistable cube that there is potential for a twist to happen during scrambling. And yes pops are no longer an issue, but at one point they were and the way they were handled then sets a good precedent for how corner twists should be handled now, ie with placing the accountability on the cuber (and possibly better enforcement of ensuring proper scramble).

 

[Dane man]

Well, from what I'm seeing, it appears that everyone is leaning towards "Let's put the responsibility of a corner twist on the cuber and if they accidentally get a corner twist, be it their fault or not, that's just too bad." If that's how it'll be done, then that's that. I've presented a case for the cubers that like loose cubes, or have slightly over-eager or sloppy turn styles, and there isn't much else I can say.

My work here is done. Good job team.

PS: I don't have a corner turn problem (it happens every once in a long while), but someone has to present the other side of the issue. ;P

 

[Kit Clement]

You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?

Personally, if the "instant replay" shows the entire scramble as part of inspection, I would consider it.

 

[Dene]

I feel like this raises really good points. When pops were common, the rule was (and still is) if there is a popped piece at the end of the solve, it is a DNF (to an extent, I understand there are cases where if the piece is only able to be put back in one way and then it is considered solved). The responsibility was on the cuber before, and it should still be now.

Actually the rules used to be a resolve for a POP.

You're a delegate, so I have a question now. If I do a solve and I know I didn't twist a corner, but I get a twist at the end, can I use video evidence to back that up? Like if you can see the corner does not match the scramble sheet during inspection, would that be worthy of a resolve?

Absolutely, and in fact this has been done on more than one occasion by delegates around the world.

 

[Kirjava]

Actually the rules used to be a resolve for a POP.

Briefly, until we realised that it was a terible terrible idea.

 

[mark49152]

Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?

 

[kcl]

Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?

It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha.
I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.

 

[DeeDubb]

It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha.
I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.

Next up, video evidence is gonna cost someone a WR and then my thread will be relevant

 

[kcl]

Next up, video evidence is gonna cost someone a WR and then my thread will be relevant

I don't see your thread being completely viable. If we see a video of a WR single with an oblivious judge where the solver is blatantly cheating, are we wrong to take away that record based on the video?

 

[DeeDubb]

I don't see your thread being completely viable. If we see a video of a WR single with an oblivious judge where the solver is blatantly cheating, are we wrong to take away that record based on the video?

Haha, I'm not gonna derail this with my case against video evidence. I presented it in my thread. I was just thinking it would be funny/ironic if someone lost a WR because of something like an illegal timer stop or something minor like that.

 

[kcl]

Haha, I'm not gonna derail this with my case against video evidence. I presented it in my thread. I was just thinking it would be funny/ironic if someone lost a WR because of something like an illegal timer stop or something minor like that.

Of course. That would be extremely ironic though (and one heck of a coincidence!)

 

[Dane man]

Reading this thread is pretty interesting given Feliks's 5.33 DNF corner twist at the weekend. Has anyone changed their view?

I don't think so. The corner twist isn't so much of a problem as much as it is simply annoying. While I'm sure Feliks would have loved that WR, he also knows that he's gonna get it one day. Competitors for which a corner twist could actually matter are already good enough that the corner twist only delays their success rather than preventing it. That, and when it comes to averages, the DNF is already excluded (if it's the only one).

So, even though there was a major event relating to what we were talking about, I think it probably gave more clarity rather than controversy.

It's kind of an amusing coincidence, we were just debating about this and then he goes and does that haha.
I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.

I agree with this. +2 seems just right.

 

[Dene]

I still feel like it should be a +2, it falls under the same category as a misalignment.

I didn't bother to say anything last time, mostly because I think they should both be DNF, but could you clarify what you mean by "same category"? Because I don't see how those two things are the same at all (other than the fact that the puzzle still isn't solved).

 

[Kit Clement]

+2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.

 

[BrianJ]

+2s are awarded for procedure infractions and misalignments. Never have we given a +2 penalty for a puzzle defect. Seems like totally different categories to me.

This is exactly what I have been thinking. I use the Aolong, and barely ever get corner twists. Plus, I have a pretty rough turning style. If people don't want corner twists, fix your puzzle, or get a different one.

 

[JediJupiter]

I guess we should just wait until someone has a LL of a single corner twist in comp to break a NR or something similar. I'm sure everyone would be OK with it if that happened.

Heh heh