• 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!

Should +2's be switched to DNF's officially?

Should +2's be switched to DNF's?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 6.8%
  • No

    Votes: 109 93.2%

  • Total voters
    117

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,686
? That's just ~1/2 an E turn away.
Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?

The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a simple rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM when partial layer turns are allowed. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.

(*) … but is it actually that straightforward? have a think about this.
 

Ronxu

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
622
Location
Kirkkonummi, Finland
WCA
2010RONK01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Half an E turn away from a state that isn't fully solved either. That might not have been the best example, anyhow—what about Kit's example from page 2 of this thread?

The problem isn't just about coming up with a rule; the problem is coming up with a simple rule (a complicated rule is likely to be misapplied/misunderstood) that captures what we intuitively think of being one turn off in STM when partial layer turns are allowed. In an ideal world where everything is an exact multiple of 90 degrees, it's very straightforward to change the rules to use STM for penalties. (*) In reality, there are weird in-between cases (like the linked example) where different people could have different intuitive expectations of whether it should be no-penalty versus +2 versus DNF.

(*) … but is it actually that straightforward? have a think about this.
It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.
 

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,407
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
It's a great example. It perfectly captures the mindset of anyone suggesting STM. Literally too lazy to pick up a cube to try and figure out what's wrong.
Agreed - the middle slice is now 30 degrees from the outside layer that we did not adjust, but 60 degrees from the other. What do we use as a reference point in this case to determine how far the slice is misaligned? One says solved, the other says +2.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
331
Location
Inside a Confidential Russian Potato
False. It requires one slice move of 90 degrees to bring it to a solved position (as well as other adjustments <45 degrees not shown below). Only +2.


Did this exact same question in 2016, and another person fell for the trap. Judging these misalignments would become incredibly painful, and there's no good way to come up with easily understood and easily applied rules for allowing slice misalignments. Our rules work well because they use the next innermost slice as a guideline for whether it is misaligned or not. Slices on a 3x3x3 have no other place to look to, and you get weird crap like this.
I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.
 

weatherman223

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
457
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
I know this is old but can you stop posting that? The 45 degree rule is only for how the cube was dropped. For the judging, you think of the cube as if it where perfectly cube. Your the one giving us weird crap.
Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence

(P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
331
Location
Inside a Confidential Russian Potato
Mate, what are you smoking? I can’t even understand a single word of your sentence

(P.S:Oh also Kit is a senior delegate so he probably knows what he’s talking about)
I have no idea what I was saying. Sometimes, my brain just doesn’t work (Also I have ADHD which can make words hard to form and string together).
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,207
WCA
2016STEE01
We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.
In all fairness there is no "amount of moves" that should be allowed for it to be in a solved state. Either it is solved (where each color it where is should be) or it is not.
 
Last edited:

Kit Clement

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,407
Location
Portland, OR
WCA
2008CLEM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Well instead of just laughing at us behind a screen what would say?
Your supersonic hearing must be faulty, I don't find any of this humorous.

We’re trying to determine how many moves away the current state is from solved.
Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.

These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.
 
Last edited:

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
331
Location
Inside a Confidential Russian Potato
Sure, but in order to determine that, we need to define what a move is, and what an acceptable misalignment is. In the image of mine that you quoted, you have to perform 1 slice move and two acceptable misalignments in order to bring the puzzle to solved. So in a world where we accept slice moves as recognized by WCA for determining the solved state, you would call this a +2, but in my experience, this is not how one would intuitively interpret the state of that puzzle.

These complications are why you'll never see the WCA accept slice moves as +2, and why I'd honestly prefer removing all misalignment +2s entirely if we want to have a level playing field regardless of method used. I'm okay with the current rules to allow for cases where the puzzle is misaligned once dropped due to impact, especially for events like MBLD where cubes often turn due to the way they pile up in large attempts.
I think a with a bit of brain work it could be made simple.

Your example could quite easily be broken if the WCA defined “1 move away” as “One 90 degree move”.
 
Last edited:

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top