Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?

[Radu]

If you ever have similar questions you can post them on WCA forum.
For this particular thread the answer is here:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=889&p=4957#p4957 . So they are not allowed due to the 45 degrees issue.

 

[Stefan]

There are other cubes, which have been mentioned in this topic, which bend the rules a little, yet they are still legal.

Example?

 

[ElectricDoodie]

There are other cubes, which have been mentioned in this topic, which bend the rules a little, yet they are still legal.

Example?

You don't like to read, do you?
Just a little bit of reading, and you can find the answer yourself.

 

[clarubik]

It's not allowed because you can see the other colors when you turn a layer.

 

[jiggy]

An accidental corner twist on a loose cube would be considered a pop/puzzle defect. You would be allowed to fix it and finish your solve, but only by taking out an edge piece and fixing the corner from there (the way you would normally correct a cube after a pop). If you attempt to fix it by twisting the corner in place, then you get a DNF.

This...confuses the heck out of me. Why is this the case?

If a centre cap flies off in one of my solves, would you like me to take an edge out while I fix that too? (I kid, I kid)

 

[emg]

It's not allowed because you can see the other colors when you turn a layer.

But this is true for the Rubik's Deluxe and Rubik's Game cubes which are WCA legal... (they are still WCA legal right?)

 

[Erik]

Damn I didn't realize you could see the colours during a turn. I sadly ordered it and thought it'd be nice for recognition since the whole face is the same colour.
After seeing the pictures it is clearly not competition legal according to the rules, however, I think it should be legal.

 

[esquimalt1]

It doesn't give the person a huge advantage, I have it and I like it a lot so it's sad that it can't be competed with. It's probably quicker to tilt the cube a bit to see the colour than turn the top layer 45º.

 

[oprah62]

It doesn't give the person a huge advantage, I have it and I like it a lot so it's sad that it can't be competed with. It's probably quicker to tilt the cube a bit to see the colour than turn the top layer 45º.

It's mainly about people having any "advantage" over any other cuber by using it. However, I agree. It should be legal IMO.

 

[flan]

it'd be nice for recognition since the whole face is the same colour.

Thats why i want one and why i dont like F-II

Also Surely it would be legal if you took a permanent marker to the illegal bits. I dont know how long it would last even if it works at all but if done right before a comp then it would surfice.

 

[ThePuzzler96]

it makes recognition easier, giving you an advantage. Should DIY's be illegal cuz they have an advantage over rubik's brands? Of course not!So i see no reason in this cube being illegal.

 

[iasimp1997]

If you painted the sides of the edges over, would it be legal? I mean the parts that let you see what the back/left/right sides are.

 

[ElectricDoodie]

If you painted the sides of the edges over, would it be legal? I mean the parts that let you see what the back/left/right sides are.

The reason why I'd want that cube, is because it looks the way it does.
By painting it like a normal cube, it would ruin the reason why I bought. So, to me, there wouldn't be a point in buying it, if I'm gonna paint it like a normal guHong anyway.
Just my reasoning.

 

[scotzbhoy]

I don't see what would be wrong. The regulations say:
"The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours."
It certainly meets this criteria.
The only issue would be:
"Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours."
For all intents and purposes, this cube might as well have tiles/paints. It certainly isn't a matter of being able to feel the slight raise of stickers or paints, because DS's are legal, and they would be no different if the paint on them was actually the colour of the plastic.

 

[iasimp1997]

I don't see what would be wrong. The regulations say:
"The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours."
It certainly meets this criteria.
The only issue would be:
"Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours."
For all intents and purposes, this cube might as well have tiles/paints. It certainly isn't a matter of being able to feel the slight raise of stickers or paints, because DS's are legal, and they would be no different if the paint on them was actually the colour of the plastic.

Read all the other posts in this thread. There clearly is look-ahead advantage when using this cube. That's why it's illegal.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I could argue the look ahead concept (especially with TPS as fast as rowe / feliks), but yeah, the reason why it's illegal is because if you do a half U/U' you'll see two colors on edge pieces.

 

[Erzz]

What if you put stickers on it that weren't on the right color? (Like you put blue stickers on the orange face.)

 

[hawkmp4]

I could argue the look ahead concept (especially with TPS as fast as rowe / feliks), but yeah, the reason why it's illegal is because if you do a half U/U' you'll see two colors on edge pieces.

Doesn't matter whether it actually gives you an advantage. It breaks a WCA rule.

What if you put stickers on it that weren't on the right color? (Like you put blue stickers on the orange face.)

You could still, in theory, determine the colour of the sticker from the colour of the piece. It would still break the rule.

 

[Erzz]

What if you scrambled the cube, then put stickers on it? (So the stickers are on random colours)

 

[Stefan]

What's the point of that cube, then?