Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes

[AvGalen]

I would say keep 1h limit for FMC and add the possible format "Median of 3" to "Best of x", as I feel mean is too unforgiving and "Best of x" too luck-based and Avg5 impractical.

I am having the same problem
1/1 = current
Median of 3: Allows "cheating" by ignoring 1 cube (1 DNF)
Best of x: Allows "cheating" by ignoring ALL but 1 cube (x-1 DNF's)
Mean of 3 in 1 hour seems to short of time per cube
Average of 5 too impractical indeed (time)

So I have to agree with the original idea of doing "average of 2". But then the difference with the current event is very small. A first round with a cut-off (best 4, only sub 40, best 25%, etc) would be better in my opinion, requiring two good solves for the winner but no changes to the event. The idea of having LESS than 60 minutes for FMC simply doesn't work for me. I often have a really good start and a good idea for a finish but I need more than 60 minutes to find the best insertion(s) so I skimp on that under the pressure of a real competition. Sorry, no new solution for FMC from me

(and thanks for the corrections on 2x2x2)

 

[Mike Hughey]

And fyi both of my DNFs have been because I already had a 27 and didn't beat it/get sub30, so it wasn't worth writing down.

I suspect you're far from being the only one who did that. I've just never done it because I have a silly thing about minimizing DNFs. Lots of the DNFs that happen in competition are because people have solutions that they don't think are worth writing down.

 

[AvGalen]

I suspect you're far from being the only one who did that. I've just never done it because I have a silly thing about minimizing DNFs. Lots of the DNFs that happen in competition are because people have solutions that they don't think are worth writing down.

Guus and I were competing for the Dutch National title. We both found a start that led to a 35 move solution quickly but didn't bother to write it down because it was still early. I found a crazy good start (15 moves, just a few misoriented corners left) and Guus already had found a 33 and was still improving. I found that start a few times but couldn't find a way to finish it nicely, then I couldn't find it anymore and I hadn't written it down anywhere. I ran out of time without any good solution on paper, Guus had a move written incorrectly and Erik won with 37. Guus and I felt really stupid and Erik felt like "the third dog that got the bone because the other 2 dogs were fighting over it" (als 2 honden vechten om 1 been, gaat een 3e ermee heen. Dutch expression)

 

[qqwref]

But I think a default limit should be assumed, and it's up to the organizer to change it. Just like events have a 10 minute limit unless otherwise defined. That way if a competition does want to allow 100, they can. If they want to allow 800, then they must state that.

Sure, but here's how the current regulations specify the 10 minute rule:
"The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event."
And here's how they specify the 80 moves rule:
"The maximum length of a solution is 80 (moves and rotations)."
Even if you ignore the additional "moves AND rotations" issue, this is a much stricter rule because it doesn't allow the competition to announce a different limit. Considering that a higher limit doesn't provide any more advantage in FMC than it does in speedsolving, we ought to change the regulation to:
"The maximum length of a solution is 80 moves, or less/higher if announced before the event."

I like the idea of having the computer validate. But I would change one thing, "If you can't figure out one of the moves for certain, DNF" People should write clearly.

You don't think that's a bit harsh? If you would say "this looks like an F' but I am only 99% sure because it could be an R" then it's not really fair to automatically DNF the person for that - I think it would be a lot more reasonable to just go with your best guess, and if the sequence doesn't end up solving the cube, it's not your problem. That way you at least give someone the benefit of the doubt if their handwriting is on the edge.

Incidentally, instead of the black underlines in the current "FMC sheets" going around in the US, I'd really prefer a light gray grid or a bunch of light gray boxes. That way it would still be clear where the moves go, but without having a dark bit covering the bottom of some letters.

 

[masterofthebass]

If you can't write clearly enough, you shouldn't be trying to compete. Take a little time, and make it so you clearly have a solution.

 

[Bryan]

You don't think that's a bit harsh? If you would say "this looks like an F' but I am only 99% sure because it could be an R" then it's not really fair to automatically DNF the person for that

I'm not talking about 99%, I'm talking about 50%. If I'm confused between 3 of your moves, I'm not going to check all permutations to see if one works.

 

[qqwref]

masterofthebass: The problem is that it isn't a black-and-white deal. Different people have different handwriting-reading abilities. One person might be able to speedread their way through cursive capitals and another person might be totally baffled by them. Plus, different countries have slightly different standards in the way they teach various letters (see: the way French people write numerals). What I'm saying is that, just because some judge isn't 100% sure about your letters, doesn't mean you have objectively terrible handwriting and should make sure to avoid any kind of competition involving handwritten words.

Bryan: I don't think you SHOULD check all possibilities. But I do think you should check *one*, and that it would be extremely strict to not even do that.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

qq: This could all be avoided if we provide a type font on the WCA regulations page to show how we want the letters to look, and show some examples of clear/unclear handwriting (much like with the axis of misalignment pictures). I'm unsure of how practical it is though, as it would take up more space. I suppose a link to bring up another window of examples would suffice. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but it will at least let people know if their handwriting is within the regulations.

Has this been much of an issue (or any issue at all) outside of poor penmanship (such as qq was saying about French numerals)?

 

[AvGalen]

qq: This could all be avoided if we provide a type font on the WCA regulations page to show how we want the letters to look, and show some examples of clear/unclear handwriting (much like with the axis of misalignment pictures). I'm unsure of how practical it is though, as it would take up more space. I suppose a link to bring up another window of examples would suffice. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but it will at least let people know if their handwriting is within the regulations.

Has this been much of an issue (or any issue at all) outside of poor penmanship (such as qq was saying about French numerals)?

hand-writing within regulations? I thought the event was about solving a cube in as few moves as possible. There IS such a thing as overregulating!
I check FMC with a second person. If a solution works it goes on the "good pile". If it doesn't work it goes on the "let the other person check it as well" pile. If it doesn't work for that person it is a DNF

 

[qqwref]

We could make it easier for people by using lowercase (the letters f r u b l d all look much more distinct than the letters F R B do) or by using one of those horrid Scantron-type bubbling sheets. Maybe there are some other ways too.

AvG: we will certainly need handwriting regulations if some people are refusing to even try out a solution they have trouble reading...

 

[FatBoyXPC]

If a solution works it goes on the "good pile". If it doesn't work it goes on the "let the other person check it as well" pile. If it doesn't work for that person it is a DNF

Now you are checking some solutions twice, which is a waste of time (in my opinion). It's probably not the best comparison, but it's sort of like procedural code vs object oriented. Write a bit more now, save time later.

qq: What if people want to use double layer turns? AvG did make it clear though to double check a solution that doesn't work.

 

[Radu]

Wtf people..? Arnaud posted everything so simple and clearly and you come with all kind of dumb observations and ideas.
If one cannot write letters in a decent way, so that they can be read by everyone, he shouldn't compete. It's a matter of respect shown to organizers and judges to write as clearly as possible and make their lifes easier. I don't think it's that hard. We don't need new fonts, letters or I don't know what.

The double-check of the solution he mentioned is the best and easiest way to do. But I think we're getting off topic...

 

[FatBoyXPC]

The way I interpreted qq's post was that it was more to do with writing differences from other countries, rather than poor penmanship. I think (at least hope) we can all agree that if you get DNF'd by poor penmanship it is your fault. If you however write differently because of a cultural difference (and it would be clear to one of the same culture), the blame can't really be pointed.

 

[AvGalen]

The way I interpreted qq's post was that it was more to do with writing differences from other countries, rather than poor penmanship. I think (at least hope) we can all agree that if you get DNF'd by poor penmanship it is your fault. If you however write differently because of a cultural difference (and it would be clear to one of the same culture), the blame can't really be pointed.

The only writing differences that I know of are in the number 1, 4 and 7 and in the letter r and a. None of those seem possible to me to cause any confusion though. Having a second person check "possible DNF's" is saving time in reality. If I get a DNF I have to recheck it anyway to see if I wasn't the one making a mistake. If another person cannot make the solution work it should be a DNF. Only in very rare cases do I ask a competitor to explain his solution.

Adding regulations about handwriting is REALLY overdoing it. Some things just don't need to be explained. Making the regulations that detailed would just result in nobody reading them anymore. I already think there are too many

 

[Bryan]

if some people are refusing to even try out a solution they have trouble reading...

You're making it sound as if I'm going to throw away the thing if it's not written in ANSI block script. Again, I could give it something, but I'm not going to put a bunch of effort into it (dealing with permutations) and I want to avoid having the competitor complain later.

I'd be more concerned about how to figure out if an apostrophe is present or not, especially if they try to erase. I'd be like looking for hanging chads.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

The only writing differences that I know of are in the number 1, 4 and 7 and in the letter r and a. None of those seem possible to me to cause any confusion though. Having a second person check "possible DNF's" is saving time in reality. If I get a DNF I have to recheck it anyway to see if I wasn't the one making a mistake. If another person cannot make the solution work it should be a DNF. Only in very rare cases do I ask a competitor to explain his solution.

Adding regulations about handwriting is REALLY overdoing it. Some things just don't need to be explained. Making the regulations that detailed would just result in nobody reading them anymore. I already think there are too many

Did you specifically mean the lower case of those letters (I don't want to assume here, but figured you would have capitalized them if you meant them to be the upper-case form of them)? I guess that one could say if I wanted to use an r move in my solution (the double layer turn) and there are differences then that could cause an issue.

I already stated that putting regulations about handwriting might not be practical. I do agree that it should be self-explanatory, but (I probably shouldn't say this without a good handful of links readily available) I've seen rules in sports that seem like it's over the top. I think the sole purpose of writing such a regulation about handwriting would be to just provide a set standard that would eliminate any sort of confusion. You most certainly wouldn't have to ask the competitor anymore what they meant by a move, if they erased, etc.

I know that in the hour you are to have your solution written down. Do you think we could extend a given time period (probably less than one minute) to clarify the written solution? You aren't allowed to touch your cube at all, just copy down your solution to a cleaner area of the paper. The purpose of this is so that if you erased some things, there won't be confusion (in reference to Bryan's post). I guess the organizer could say that you get 59m and then you aren't allowed to touch the cube anymore, and write the solution. Would that be a good solution?

 

[Rpotts]

I thought FMC solutions had to be written in RLUDFB notation, so lowercase letters wouldn't apply.

 

[Toad]

I thought FMC solutions had to be written in RLUDFB notation, so lowercase letters wouldn't apply.

FMC solutions must follow this notation scheme, lower case letters are permitted.

EDIT: It seems like a bit of a grey area as to whether or not lower case letters would be permitted for 3x3 according to the regulations. It's not an important matter though, judges would not / should not disqualify someone based on this IMO.

 

[Bryan]

Would this be better for a FMC write-down:

1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:

U=W
F=G
L=O
R=R
B=B
D=Y

And then I write my whole solution in [WGORBY][ '2] notation. No rotations to worry about. The "solution checker" program at the end handles the mapping.

 

[uberCuber]

"The maximum length of a solution is 80 (moves and rotations)."
Even if you ignore the additional "moves AND rotations" issue, this is a much stricter rule because it doesn't allow the competition to announce a different limit.

Then how is it that there are 4 official results that are more than 80 moves, two of them being several hundred moves long? (Note, this is curiosity, not rude cynicism)