• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?

PatrickJameson

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
996
Location
Buffalo, NY
WCA
2007JAME01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Huh. I just remembered that the usually-annual discussion of this on the WCA forums hasn't happened this year. I guess there isn't really as much to discuss compared to previous years, except for what qq just posted, and possibly magic regulations.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
Visit Channel

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't have any significant ones, although I'd like pyraminx to be changed to optimal scrambles and the square-1 scrambler to be changed to one with images.
I hope all puzzles will be treated as similar as realistically possible. That means:

- average of 5 solves for Megaminx. I really think this is possible now that scrambling is fast and competitors are getting faster.
- normal "+2" regulations for Magics. So no more "2 tiles high" but 1 move away from solved is +2, half a move away (90 Degrees) from solved is ok.
- normal "+2" regulations for Clock. So 1 move away from solved (turning 1 wheel) is +2 and no longer DNF. I don't see a need for defining "half a move away"

I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.

I would like to do averages of 5 for bigcubes, but I don't think competitions will have enough time for this.
I would also like allowing (all the moves on inverse scramble)' as a valid notation for FMC. This prevents unimportant "translation" and writing down errors for competitors and makes checking a solution more obvious. I can see many people not liking this one.

But I don't have time to write these all down in a more formal way so I will just ***** about them every competition in 2010 ;)
 

Olivér Perge

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
922
WCA
2007PERG01
YouTube
Visit Channel
- normal "+2" regulations for Magics. So no more "2 tiles high" but 1 move away from solved is +2, half a move away (90 Degrees) from solved is ok.
Second that. But it left us with a few questions, like: How would you measure? Only by looking on it?

- normal "+2" regulations for Clock. So 1 move away from solved (turning 1 wheel) is +2 and no longer DNF. I don't see a need for defining "half a move away"
Sounds good. I think it should go like: If you can solve the clock with one move (turning one wheel) after you stopped the timer, with the position of the pins you left (almost everytime it's 4 pins up), it should be a +2.
 

esquimalt1

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
183
Location
Canada
WCA
2008VAJG01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.

I would like to do averages of 5 for bigcubes, but I don't think competitions will have enough time for this.
Yes, the stuff about the logos and the stickers isn't going to give you any advantage in a speed solve.

Mean of 3 ruined my 6x6x6 average because of a POP at Vancouver Open. :p
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,911
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I would like the issue that I brought up with +2 on Square-1 to be addressed. I had actually noticed that the annual regulations discussion hadn't happened on the WCA forums (I have checked a couple of times recently).
 

antros

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
105
Location
Grudziadz, Poland
WCA
2008PRYK01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Penalty!
+2 in Magic and +2 in the 6x6 is not fair in my opinion.
Proposes +20% of the solving time.

Penalty in Magic!
"G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top."
Other puzzle have Limits of misalignment: half-turn wall.
Proposes: Solved = no penalty in Magic when Misalignment <= 45°.
 

Olivér Perge

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
922
WCA
2007PERG01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)

We should learn to solve the puzzles. Correct me if I'm wrong but for example in the final of the World Championship there were no or only a few +2-s, because the competitors focused on their solves enough to avoid this penalty case.

Last but not least it would solve the case of: Giving +2 for a magic solve and for a 7x7x7 solve is unfair...
 

Lucas Garron

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,556
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.
Yes, the stuff about the logos and the stickers isn't going to give you any advantage in a speed solve.
This is just false, and I don't like strong unsubstantiated statements like that.

Why did we not use to hold up covers for BLD? Because it's not too easy to peek under a blindfold unsuspiciously, and no one would bother to cheat.

I remember seeing Dan and qq have a discussion; Dan had a worn 4x4x4 wing sticker that he had gotten used to, so didn't have to look at the other side of it. Cheating is on the rise, and we shouldn't permit anything that clearly allows "cheating." That said, I'd like to see the specific regulations relaxed, and I believe the delegate should have the leniency to decide about cubes that don't clearly follow the rules.
 

Ryanrex116

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
464
WCA
2008JEWR01
I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while. Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.
 
Top