Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?

[Eazoon]

I don't really see how they can't allow this. If it gives an advantage over stickers it should be allowed.
What if we were to say that only Rubik's brand was allowed, because speedcubes have an advantage over them?

I don't see what's wrong with them anyway.

they modify the way the cube works by allowing the user to see the color on the back face during a U turn.

 

[Applejuice]

they modify the way the cube works by allowing the user to see the color on the back face during a U turn.

Allright, I see.
But does that mean it should be forbidden? Not really..

 

[Olji]

Although it violates regulation 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.

And that's what this discussion is about right now I think.

 

[Applejuice]

Although it violates regulation 3h:

And that's what this discussion is about right now I think.

Then I just think that that rule shoul be scrapped, because I still feel like it's fair. We could also have added the rule that lubricant is forbidden because it makes you move easier.

 

[Bob]

I don't really see how they can't allow this. If it gives an advantage over stickers it should be allowed.
What if we were to say that only Rubik's brand was allowed, because speedcubes have an advantage over them?

I don't see what's wrong with them anyway.

Are you suggesting that BECAUSE they are advantageous to stickers, they should be allowed? Not in spite of that? Do you also feel that if a cube was transparent with just smaller color squares such that you could see PLL by just looking at the front face, it should be allowed? It definitely gives an advantage over just stickers.

Allright, I see.
But does that mean it should be forbidden? Not really..

Yes, really..

Then I just think that that rule shoul be scrapped, because I still feel like it's fair. We could also have added the rule that lubricant is forbidden because it makes you move easier.

Oh, well then, as long as YOU think it should be scrapped and YOU feel like it's fair, then let's by all means scrap the regulation.

 

[Applejuice]

Are you suggesting that BECAUSE they are advantageous to stickers, they should be allowed? Not in spite of that? Do you also feel that if a cube was transparent with just smaller color squares such that you could see PLL by just looking at the front face, it should be allowed? It definitely gives an advantage over just stickers.



Yes, really..



Oh, well then, as long as YOU think it should be scrapped and YOU feel like it's fair, then let's by all means scrap the regulation.

I'm just sharing my opinion here, that's why I use "I".
It's awfully odd that you almost appear angry for me sharing my view. Maybe I am missing the obvious, but there's absolutely no need to yell at me.
I still can't see a reason for it not to be allowed, but meh, I'm out of this thread. I like to keep things civil.

 

[shelley]

Regulations are only changed with good reason, not because some random person feels it should be some way.

 

[Ninja Storm]

Regulations are only changed with good reason, not because some random person feels it should be some way.

This woman speaks the truth.

While my opinion may differ slightly, I don't believe the rule should be changed. Glad they're allowed for BLD though.

 

[keyan]

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle.
Anyone could buy a stickerless/transparent cube and use it, there's no question of fairness. The issue here is about the basic premise of cubing. If the cube changes enough, we're no longer solving the same cube that Erno designed back in the day. A Guhong is an upgrade from a standard Seventowns cube, but the basic premise is still the same. It turns better, but simply better of the same turning. With a transparent cube, you've (in my eyes) crossed a boundary, having functionality that Erno's cube didn't. Oscar could probably invent a cube that automatically does a T perm when you press on your last layer center piece. This would be fair, in that everyone could buy such a cube, but it would be an enormous change from the basic concept of Rubik's cube.

 

[Pyjam]

Restraining moves is also an important concept in puzzle conception. Certainly the MOST important concept. In the original concept of the cube, you are not supposed to rotate a face before the completion of the previous rotation. Corner cutting dramatically enhances the basic concept of the puzzle. So, it should be forbidden.

Luckily (for him), Mr Rubik is still alive. So, we should ask Mr Rubik if stickerless cubes are allowed in competition.

 

[Pyjam]

Consider this.

The basic concept of the cube is to solve it by rotating the faces.

With the original cube, you can cheat by removing the stickers.

With a modern cube, you can cheat by removing the stickers, or disassembling the cube.

With a stickerless cube, you can't cheat by removing the stickers.

With a stickerless cube and no corner cutting, you can't cheat at all.

So, stickerless cubes improve the basic concept of the original cube.

Do you see now why your argument is just a point of view?

 

[Godmil]

Restraining moves is also an important concept in puzzle conception. Certainly the MOST important concept. In the original concept of the cube, you are not supposed to rotate a face before the completion of the previous rotation. Corner cutting dramatically enhances the basic concept of the puzzle. So, it should be forbidden.

I don't see why? Nothing significant is changed, one turn still has to be complete before the next turn, you can't do 1/2R U 1/2R.
And you're failing to appreciate that even old school cubes could cut corners to an extent. A well used cube could cut corners better... do you think there should have been a rule about not using broken in cubes? (Worlds '82 -shudder)

Modern cubes are fundamentally similar to the original cubes... they may turn a little nicer.. and cut corners a little better, but they're still the same. A cube that lets you see things that simply could not be seen on the original, is significantly different.

 

[Pyjam]

A cube that lets you see things that simply could not be seen on the original, is significantly different.

This is metaphysics! Nothing is hidden with the original cube: you can slightly rotate the cube to see what is on the back.

Practicably, corner cutting obviously improve times. There's no proof that stickerless cubes improve time. Why the former is allowed but not the latter makes no sense to me.

I think the discussion is pointless. Arguments have been exposed and everybody stands on their position.

 

[Dene]

This is metaphysics!

I think you may misunderstand what metaphysics is.

Practicably, corner cutting obviously improve times. There's no proof that stickerless cubes improve time. Why the former is allowed but not the latter makes no sense to me.

Did you deliberately ignore what Godmil just said about original Rubik's brand cubes being able to cut corners? I used a storebought for years and it was pretty boss at cutting corners - certainly not what current cubes can do, but it could still do it.

 

[Pyjam]

I think you may misunderstand what metaphysics is.

No.

Did you deliberately ignore what Godmil just said about original Rubik's brand cubes being able to cut corners? I used a storebought for years and it was pretty boss at cutting corners - certainly not what current cubes can do, but it could still do it.

So what? Worn cubes allow corner-cutting. And worn stickers help you identifying the pieces. In both cases, it's not what was intended.

 

[Kirjava]

Do people who think that stickerless guhongs should be legit also think that this should be legit?

because it's basically allowing the same thing.

 

[Godmil]

So what? Worn cubes allow corner-cutting.....In both cases, it's not what was intended.

Hmm, just tried out a promo-rubik's brand that I've only solved about 3 times... it can cut a whole cubie effortlessly (surprisingly).
Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.

And worn stickers help you identifying the pieces

Warn stickers that help you identify pieces are also not allowed in competition. Are you saying this should be allowed too? Since you don't have a problem with stickerless cubes, do you think people should be allowed to cut away at their stickers so that it is clear from looking at one what the other stickers on the unseen faces are? (edit: oops Kirjava beat me to it )

 

[Pyjam]

Hmm, just tried out a promo-rubik's brand that I've only solved about 3 times... it can cut a whole cubie effortlessly (surprisingly).

A whole cubie effortlessly! Sure, it's surprising. Maybe it's a KO.

Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.

Do you realize it's only a point of view?
You are speaking about the essence of the Cube. Therefore it's metaphysics.
Plus, we are interested by speedcubing. Where are your proof that stickerless cubes actually help you to get better times? If you have none, it's metaphysics, not speedcubing. And even if it's real, why is it bad?

Worn stickers that help you identify pieces are also not allowed in competition. Are you saying this should be allowed too? Since you don't have a problem with stickerless cubes, do you think people should be allowed to cut away at their stickers so that it is clear from looking at one what the other stickers on the unseen faces are? (edit: oops Kirjava beat me to it )

No! I said: if worn stickers are forbidden, worn cubes (and corner-cutting) should be forbidden too.
The more I think about it, the more I think stickers should be forbidden.

Do people who think that stickerless guhongs should be legit also think that this should be legit?

•••

because it's basically allowing the same thing.

Why not? I think it's confusing, but for me the basic concept of the cube remains the same.
But, does it actually exist? Otherwise, it's metaphysics again!

 

[Kirjava]

Why not?

Because half an edge cubie should only contain a single sticker.

You shouldn't be able to identify PLL by looking at the U face only.

 

[Pyjam]

Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.

What I mean: I think there's no proof that your opinion is justified, but there's no proof that mine is better. Therefore it's sterile.

Don't forget that Mr Rubik hasn't speedcubing in mind when he designed the cube. The concept of hidden parts makes no sense when you're supposed to need weeks to solve the cube.

For the sake of clarification: of course corner-cutting is a good thing, worn stickers are bad. Stickerless cubes are better. And Kirjava's cube is too much.

You shouldn't be able to identify PLL by looking at the U face only.

Your opinion. I doubt there's any mention of a PLL in the original patent of the cube. What does it have to do with the essence of the cube?

Just kidding.
You haven't spoken about the metaphysical essence of the cube. Your only concern is speedcubing and I agree with you.