Twisted Corner in Competition?

[mark49152]

+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.

Accidents are penalised more harshly than infractions...?

 

[Kit Clement]

Accidents are penalised more harshly than infractions...?

Yes. Procedural infractions like stopping the timer with your wrists don't change the ultimate goal: solving the puzzle. I'd personally like to see misalignment penalties eliminated as well, but at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state. Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.

 

[mark49152]

...at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state. Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.

A puzzle with single twisted corner is also very close to a solved state, and if the competitor notices, they can legally "solve" the puzzle by twisting it back. It's quite similar to a misalignment in that one final "move" was accidentally overlooked.

To get the puzzle to the state where only one corner is twisted, the competitor still has to fully solve it. While it's true that there may be 8 different "solved" states they could reach before repairing, and that potentially they could use the situation to select an easier OLL etc., if those are deemed to be significantly advantageous it should also be illegal to repair the corner twist at the end.

 

[Renslay]

Nearly any noob would declare a single U turn as (almost) solved, that even they can solve.
Nearly none of the noobs would declare a single corner twist as (almost) solved, that even they can solve.

I'm not trying to make a point with this argument, I'm just thinking.

 

[Kit Clement]

A puzzle with single twisted corner is also very close to a solved state, and if the competitor notices, they can legally "solve" the puzzle by twisting it back. It's quite similar to a misalignment in that one final "move" was accidentally overlooked.

To get the puzzle to the state where only one corner is twisted, the competitor still has to fully solve it. While it's true that there may be 8 different "solved" states they could reach before repairing, and that potentially they could use the situation to select an easier OLL etc., if those are deemed to be significantly advantageous it should also be illegal to repair the corner twist at the end.

Maybe it's legal to do that move, only if it was indeed the corner they originally twisted. That's also not a normal move of the cube - as it stands, the puzzle has a defect and is not solvable. If a competitor popped an edge and put it back in incorrectly, that wouldn't be awarded a +2 either. It's the competitor's responsibility to provide a cube that is functional, and any puzzle with an increased potential for defects is just the risk you take.

 

[mark49152]

Maybe it's legal to do that move, only if it was indeed the corner they originally twisted. That's also not a normal move of the cube

It doesn't matter that it's not a normal move. Repairing the puzzle is allowed, and the regulations don't say it has to be the originally twisted corner.

If the competitor neglects to complete the final move of a face they're penalized +2 but if they neglect to complete the final repair of a corner twist they are penalized DNF. That seems inconsistent to me, and especially harsh given that a corner twist is not a normally anticipated event in solving.

 

[porkynator]

"3a3) Polyhedral puzzles must use a colour scheme with one unique colour per face in the solved state. Each puzzle variation must have moves, states, and solutions functionally identical to the original puzzle. "

imho, this means puzzle that allow you to twist a single corner without taking it apart are illegal.

It doesn't matter that it's not a normal move.

Yes, it does.
Since it's not a legal move, it's closer to a pop than to an actual move. If you stop the timer with an edge out of the cube, it's DNF. Or do you think that should also be a +2?

 

[kcl]

Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..

 

[mark49152]

Since it's not a legal move, it's closer to a pop than to an actual move.

Whatever you call it, the regs allow for the competitor to make a single twist to repair the puzzle, and the question is whether the penalty for overlooking that is too harsh relative to the penalty for misalignment.

 

[Kit Clement]

Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..

A little over a year ago, that would be solved. Today, that is not the case -- we allow a maximum of one piece with one sticker to pop. This is so we can apply the regulations the same way everywhere - while it is unambiguous as to where that piece goes, we had many different rulings as to what was solved and what was not due to interpretation and translation issues.

 

[10461394944000]

Alright, I take it back. As nice as it would be for corner twists to be +2, I see the reason for DNF. That being said, if you were to pop a single wing edge on 4x4 and stop the timer, would it be a DNF? It can only be replaced correctly..

as of not too long ago, its a dnf, but you used to be able to pop 27 pieces on a 7x7 with no penalty.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

Yes. Procedural infractions like stopping the timer with your wrists don't change the ultimate goal: solving the puzzle. I'd personally like to see misalignment penalties eliminated as well, but at least a misaligned cube is close to a solved state. Corner twists are a result of a puzzle defect and cannot be solved normally.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, how could that not turn into a disaster? AUF would basically be obsolete.

 

[Kit Clement]

Unless I am misunderstanding you, how could that not turn into a disaster? AUF would basically be obsolete.

I was not clear, I mean that I would prefer to give DNFs instead of the +2 misalignment penalty.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

I was not clear, I mean that I would prefer to give DNFs instead of the +2 misalignment penalty.

Ahhhh. Yeah, that's reasonable. I predict people not changing their solving style at all and DNF rates rocketing to Sarah Strong level. And that's what they should do. Taking an extra peek to make sure you didn't AUF wrong isn't a good way to solve and kills times.

 

[BaMiao]

Just a quick point because I haven't seen it mentioned:

It is very likely, in some circumstances, that twisting the corner would take longer than 2 seconds (especially in OH or Feet). I suppose choosing +2 as the penalty for misalignments makes some sense because even the slowest among us could have easily fixed it within 2 seconds. The same logic doesn't apply to corner twists. In fact, if corner twists gave +2, I probably wouldn't even attempt to fix it for OH solves. I just don't think we should be writing regulations that might encourage the solver to leave the puzzle unsolved.

 

[10461394944000]

Just a quick point because I haven't seen it mentioned:

It is very likely, in some circumstances, that twisting the corner would take longer than 2 seconds (especially in OH or Feet). I suppose choosing +2 as the penalty for misalignments makes some sense because even the slowest among us could have easily fixed it within 2 seconds. The same logic doesn't apply to corner twists. In fact, if corner twists gave +2, I probably wouldn't even attempt to fix it for OH solves. I just don't think we should be writing regulations that might encourage the solver to leave the puzzle unsolved.

last competition I got +2s on all of my feet solves because it's faster than doing a rotation and a move.

 

[BaMiao]

last competition I got +2s on all of my feet solves because it's faster than doing a rotation and a move.

Yeah, I've heard of people doing this in feet solves. It's a huge weakness in the misalignment +2 rule, and it's a good argument for getting rid of it entirely (in favor of DNFs). I really don't care enough for feet to get worked up over it, though.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I don't think many experienced cubers and Delegates would support this change.

+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.

Indeed, the cube is the competitor's responsibility. See 3h, 3h+ and 3h3.

If anything, we should be trying to *minimize* our definition of solved (no misalignments that are a full turn away, no missing parts or other unfixed defects). There isn't a great reason to be more generous, and it just forces us to have lots of unproductive discussions about little details. ("How do we interpret this on puzzle X?" "What happens if this and Y both happen?")

Regardless of how people feel about Feliks's 5.33 DNF, Feliks isn't exactly complaining that his result was unfair.

 

[kcl]

Regardless of how people feel about Feliks's 5.33 DNF, Feliks isn't exactly complaining that his result was unfair.

This is true, he did say himself the cube was too loose.

Like I said, I do realize the difference now and very much see the logic behind it.

 

[Erik]

Yeah, I've heard of people doing this in feet solves. It's a huge weakness in the misalignment +2 rule, and it's a good argument for getting rid of it entirely (in favor of DNFs). I really don't care enough for feet to get worked up over it, though.

If you really need more than 2 seconds to do a turn with feet, then you are so slow that nobody cares about your times anyway. (if you assume 70 quarter turns per solve, this would mean you are at like 2:20 and would be doing moves without ANY pauses, so realistically speaking much slower than 2:20 since looking around is usually the biggest time waster)