Puzzle defect in competition, solved or not?

[Toire-Dakku]

I'd just like to clear this up, I really feel this is important now that we have more puzzles with different designs like that F-II with edge caps. Basically it's just about different kinds of pieces popping after the solve, and if they should be DNF or not.

5b5) If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)

This video on PestVic's channel seems to explain part of the rule. skip to 5:27 for Tyson's explanation on edge caps.

Some questions that might need answers:

1.)Eastsheen 4x4 center caps are functional or non-functional?
If an Eastsheen 4x4 is solved, and 2-4 center caps of the same color pop, it's still solved? would that be unambiguous since they're the same color anyway? But if two differently colored center caps pop, it's a DNF?

2.)If two edge caps come off a F-II 3x3, and it is unambiguous considering the rule that the cube shouldn't end up having two edge pieces of the same color, it is solved. But, if again two caps come off, and with respect to the previous rule that the cube must not end up having two edges of the same color, but it is ambiguous in a way that it may create parity on the 3x3. Is it considered solved or not? Note that it's impossible on a normal cube unless two edges popped and swapped places. I was thinking it could be considered solved IF the cube didn't pop whole cubies during solving.

3.) Rule 5b5 confuses me, but it might be just me.

If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) OR not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot)

Is it talking about the corner centerpiece of the V-Cube 5x5? and is it saying that the piece is non-functional? I think it is functional.

 

[miniGOINGS]

About the twisted corner center, it's saying that if the piece is in it's spot, but "not fully rotated" it is still considered solved.

 

[Jake Gouldon]

I think the 5x5 part refers mainly to rubik's brand 5x5's.

 

[Toire-Dakku]

About the twisted corner center, it's saying that if the piece is in it's spot, but "not fully rotated" it is still considered solved.

Yeah, I think that's a much clearer way to say it.

 

[masterofthebass]

Some questions that might need answers:

1.)Eastsheen 4x4 center caps are functional or non-functional?
If an Eastsheen 4x4 is solved, and 2-4 center caps of the same color pop, it's still solved? would that be unambiguous since they're the same color anyway? But if two differently colored center caps pop, it's a DNF?

you are correct.

2.)If two edge caps come off a F-II 3x3, and it is unambiguous considering the rule that the cube shouldn't end up having two edge pieces of the same color, it is solved. But, if again two caps come off, and with respect to the previous rule that the cube must not end up having two edges of the same color, but it is ambiguous in a way that it may create parity on the 3x3. Is it considered solved or not? Note that it's impossible on a normal cube unless two edges popped and swapped places. I was thinking it could be considered solved IF the cube didn't pop whole cubies during solving.

When you stop the timer, whatever position the cube is in at that moment is considered the final position. Since parity is not a naturally occurring thing on the 3x3, that possibility isn't taken into account when looking at it. So, if edge caps fall out, they are assumed to be fallen out of the correct spots.

3.) Rule 5b5 confuses me, but it might be just me.

If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) OR not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot)

Is it talking about the corner centerpiece of the V-Cube 5x5? and is it saying that the piece is non-functional? I think it is functional.

That wording is a little incorrect. a 5x5 center is functional, but as long as its in the correct position, it doesn't matter if its rotated. I can't seem to think of another situation where that would happen, since the rule was made in response to xcenter twists.

I think the 5x5 part refers mainly to rubik's brand 5x5's.

V-cubes do that too...

 

[Cyrus C.]

I think the 5x5 part refers mainly to rubik's brand 5x5's.

Your post count was 555 when you made that.

 

[Kxg]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

 

[AvidCuber]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

I think it should be, as that's an impossible situation and so long as the piece is in the right place and only the one corner is twisted, it should probably be okay. My cube is like that too, so I've tried solving with one corner piece misoriented (just for fun) and it completely threw off my last layer stuff.

 

[Kxg]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

I think it should be, as that's an impossible situation and so long as the piece is in the right place and only the one corner is twisted, it should probably be okay. My cube is like that too, so I've tried solving with one corner piece misoriented (just for fun) and it completely threw off my last layer stuff.

Shouldn't all positions with a number of same direction twists, which cannot be expressed as 3^n, where n is a positive integer, be considered solved as it is an impossible position?

 

[Jake Gouldon]

I think the 5x5 part refers mainly to rubik's brand 5x5's.

V-cubes do that too...[/QUOTE]

I know, but it is rare, much more rare than on rubik's brand 5x5's and I find it happens more during edges than during the 3x3 stage.

 

[Toire-Dakku]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

You might wanna tighten that cube a bit.

 

[Kxg]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

You might wanna tighten that cube a bit.

It is not something that enhances performance. Neither are piece pops, caps falling off and stuff like that.

 

[miniGOINGS]

About the twisted corner center, it's saying that if the piece is in it's spot, but "not fully rotated" it is still considered solved.

Yeah, I think that's a much clearer way to say it.

Mhm, it's worded a little strange, but it makes sense.

 

[Toire-Dakku]

What about a twisted corner of 3x3? Since my cube is rather loose, I sometimes accidentally twist a corner during the solve. Since that is not a possible position, would it be necessary to rotate the corner correctly, or would it be considered solved?

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

You might wanna tighten that cube a bit.

It is not something that enhances performance. Neither are piece pops, caps falling off and stuff like that.

It may enhance performance if the corners were twisted intentionally, like one could do some OLLs by treating the corners like Pyraminx tips. Could be a faster way.

But performance isn't the point. The point is your cube can do moves a normal Rubik's cube can't.

You might think pops are no different from the twisting corners, but I think it is different.

I don't think twisting corners can be allowed and then be regulated the same way pops are. Intentional piece popping or cap swapping can easily be caught by a judge, But intentional corner twisting might be hard to see. Troublesome for the judge. It may even happen without the competitor knowing.

BTW I'm off to sleep, I'll reply tomorrow. And thanks for the answers, Dan.