• 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!

One-Answer WCA Competition and Regulations Question Thread

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
Bump. I know this is more of a discussion thing than question, but this is the best thread I can find. Doesn’t the DNF corner twist rule seem a bit dumb? I mean, you get punished more for something tot have almost no control over (corner twisting) than making a mistake (1 move off is +2).

@ProStar
 
Last edited:

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
1,075
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
I know this is more of a discussion thing than question, but this is the best thread I can find. Doesn’t the DNF corner twist rule seem a bit dumb? I mean, you get punished more for something tot have almost no control over (corner twisting) than making a mistake (1 move off is +2).
Well, a corner twist is kind of your own fault, because you could have your cube a little tighter, or not grip the cube in a way that made it corner twist. Plus, if the cube can never be solved (because of the corner twist) it should be a DNF.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
Well, a corner twist is kind of your own fault, because you could have your cube a little tighter, or not grip the cube in a way that made it corner twist. Plus, if the cube can never be solved (because of the corner twist) it should be a DNF.
Yes, kind of your fault. Someone should just get punished more because they like looser cubes? Also, it's way easier to not over/under rotate but it should be punished less intensely?
 

kubesolver

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
189
Someone should just get punished more because they like looser cubes?
Bike falls apart during a race. Should someone be punished because they like looser bikes?
Shoe falls off half-way during marathon. Should someone be punished because they like untied shoes?
The tensions breaks in the middle of a tennis exchange. Should someone be punished because they like super tight tensions?

Choosing a cube/lube/tensions is part of your solution and you're responsible for consequences of your choices.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
Bike falls apart during a race. Should someone be punished because they like looser bikes?
Shoe falls off half-way during marathon. Should someone be punished because they like untied shoes?
Umm.... There is no reason to have untied shoes during a marathon. Same thing with a loose bike.
The tensions breaks in the middle of a tennis exchange. Should someone be punished because they like super tight tensions?
This one I agree with. Different tensions can change the performance and are personal preference. The thing is, the punishment is way less devestating; the opponent just gets a point and you get a new racket.
Choosing a cube/lube/tensions is part of your solution and you're responsible for consequences of your choices.
That's just limiting the opinions that are "viable". And I think a +2 is a perfectly reasonable punishment.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,898
Bump. I know this is more of a discussion thing than question, but this is the best thread I can find. Doesn’t the DNF corner twist rule seem a bit dumb? I mean, you get punished more for something tot have almost no control over (corner twisting) than making a mistake (1 move off is +2).[/SIZE]
Whoops. I meant +2. Does the original post make sense now?
The way I see it is: it's not the judge's job to decide whether something is solvable or not, only whether the puzzle you have in front of you is solved. (I am not a delegate, have never organised a competition, have never judged, and am not well versed in the history of the regulations. This is my take, which may or may not be the actual reason for why the regs are the way they are.)

With a puzzle state that's one move off from being solved, it's (usually) clear to anyone that it's one move off. (Exception: square-1.) It happens to be true that if you have a corner twist, that's unsolvable, but judges need not be cubers themselves and even if they are, they need not be aware of whether such states are unsolvable.

What if, during a 444 solve, you suddenly forget how to do OLL parity and you finish with a flipped edge pair? A judge unfamiliar with big cubes might mistakenly assume that it's unsolvable, but that's not a decision they should be concerned with anyway—they should only be looking at whether the puzzle is solved (more precisely, whether it's solvable in one move), and it's evidently not. That's a much easier decision to make.

(Most cubers don't even know why the unsolvable puzzle states (e.g. single corner twist / single edge flip on 333) are unsolvable anyway, at best having heard a partial explanation from someone else. How would you convince someone that a corner twist is unsolvable, versus being just a legal position that you haven't learnt how to solve? There are puzzles where a twist of a single piece can be solvable (e.g. pyraminx).)
 
Last edited:

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
The way I see it is: it's not the judge's job to decide whether something is solvable or not, only whether the puzzle you have in front of you is solved. (I am not a delegate, have never organised a competition, have never judged, and am not well versed in the history of the regulations. This is my take, which may or may not be the actual reason for why the regs are the way they are.)

With a puzzle state that's one move off from being solved, it's (usually) clear to anyone that it's one move off. (Exception: square-1.) It happens to be true that if you have a corner twist, that's unsolvable, but judges need not be cubers themselves and even if they are, they need not be aware of whether such states are unsolvable.

What if, during a 444 solve, you suddenly forget how to do OLL parity and you finish with a flipped edge pair? A judge unfamiliar with big cubes might mistakenly assume that it's unsolvable, but that's not a decision they should be concerned with anyway—they should only be looking at whether the puzzle is solved (more precisely, whether it's solvable in one move), and it's evidently not. That's a much easier decision to make.

(Most cubers don't even know why the unsolvable puzzle states (e.g. single corner twist / single edge flip on 333) are unsolvable anyway, at best having heard a partial explanation from someone else. How would you convince someone that a corner twist is unsolvable, versus being just a legal position that you haven't learnt how to solve? There are puzzles where a twist of a single piece can be solvable (e.g. pyraminx).)
Well, it would just take some simple guidelines to figure out if it should be +2 or DNF. If one single piece is flipped or twisted, it is unsolvable. This would make OLL parity solvable because it's two different pieces that swap places.
 

Aristotle

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2020
Messages
4
I was just wondering if there are any online comps around now near the bay area. Thanks in advance.
 
Top