@Teemu:
I was profoundly moved by your beautiful solution, Teemu. In your start, L B2 R2 U R D, the 5th move R might be a great inserted move. I checked your solution and found your insertion is optimal. Congratulations!
@irontwig:
Isn't that pre-move "related to the scramble" though? Not that I personally think that your solution should have been disqualified, but that's still pretty much what the regulations state.
You mean the following regulation, right?
E2e) The solution of the competitor must not be in any way related to the scrambling algorithm. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
I'm not sure that scrambling algorithm == scramble, but if so, the statement has room for improvement. Here are some of my opinions:
1. For any solution
Strictly speaking, all, any solution should be related to the given scramble because it solves the scramble.
2. Solution with premoves
If a normal solution (any technique isn't used in it) is approved by the regulation, a solution with a premove should be approved, too.
(proof)
a) Advanced, trained FMC players can recognize a pseudo block without a premove actually, so it is equal to a normal solution. Teemu's solution above is a good example. "B F" should be treated as premoves but "B" is skipped in his explanation. Another good example is Guus' linear solution in
FMC #329/speed. He solved it without the premove "D".
b) If a solution with one-move premove is approved, then a solution with any-moves premove should be approved by the inductive method.
EDIT:
Non-premove means that "I will go (from the given state) to the solved state".
Premove X means that "I will go to the state that can reach the solved state by moving X". In other words, "I
regard such a state (reaches the solved state by moving X) as the
final goal".
Premoves X Y means that "I will go to the state that can reach the solved state by moving X Y".
Premoves X Y Z means that "I will go to the state that can reach the solved state by moving X Y Z".
The difference between these solutions is just a viewpoint/thinking, and there is no cheat.
And conversely, any normal solution, say "a b c d e", can be regarded as a solution "a b c d" with a premove "e", or "a b c" with premoves "d e", or like that. So if premove-used-solution is disqualified, any normal solution should also be disqualified.
3. (Additional) Solution for a inverse scramble
If a solution with any-moves premove is approved, then a solution for a inverse scramble should be approved.
(proof)
a) Just treat it as a solution with premoves (and no-move to solve) for a regular scramble.
4. (Additional) Solution with NISS
(proof)
Clear from the proofs above.
Aside from this logic, these techniques should not be treated as a cheat but as an elegant way to solve this puzzle, Rubik's cube. From a mathematical point of view, these techniques just rewrite a given problem to an equivalent, but easily recognizable problem. If the regulation does not permit these techniques, the regulation should be improved, I think.