Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?

[ThomasJE]

Ah, now that I re-read the email thread I had with Ron and Tyson last month, the change is going into effect for the next set of regulations. For some reason, I thought they made the change effective immediately. My mistake.

It was a mistake for it to be allowed in the first place, though. It is inconsistent with the speedsolving regulations and was only allowed because of an oversight.

Stickerless cubes give an advantage IF you can see the colours. Obviously, in BLD, you can't.

If the test shows a bias, you can't prove it is because the cubers use the stickerless "advantage".
It could be because the stickerless cubes are mechanically better (mine is), or they took advantage of the vivider colors or of the larger colored surface.

If the plastic is better on stickerless cubes, then why don't they use the same plastic for standard cubes? And as for the vivider colours thing, the same effect could be acheived if the stickers were larger and covered virtually the whole face.

 

[Kirjava]

Not at all.

You're going to have to explain.

 

[Bob]

Stickerless cubes give an advantage IF you can see the colours. Obviously, in BLD, you the wan't.

You CAN see the colors. Obviously, you don't know what obvious means. Explain to me why you wouldn't be able to see colors on the back face during inspection? I can see several from this picture. I see colors on five different faces.

 

[ThomasJE]

You CAN see the colors. Obviously, you don't know what obvious means. Explain to me why you wouldn't be able to see stickers on the back face during inspection? I can see several from this picture. I see stickers on five different faces.

Spoiler: Image

But could you recognise the colour at the back quickly and easily? I'd think not unless you have amazing eyesight.

 

[Rpotts]

ThomasJE - should stickerless cubes be allowed then except for people with 20/15 vision or better? You can clearly see additional stickers with or without turning the puzzle. The regulations should be consistent.

 

[Kirjava]

No.

Please leave this thread if you're going to act in this way.

 

[Pyjam]

I'm not. The information introduced to the cuber by the stickerless cubes is the same as the information introduced to the cuber by using the sticker scheme I posted.

If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.

 

[Kirjava]

If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.

red and white

 

[ThomasJE]

If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.

red and white

It's obvious since the cube is in a checkerboard pattern.

 

[Pyjam]

red and white

In this order? Why these two edges would not be swapped?

It's obvious since the cube is in a checkerboard pattern.

Only on the visible faces. You have no proof regarding the hidden parts.

 

[Kirjava]

I was making fun of you.

I can't see in that picture, but that doesn't mean you can never see those colours on a stickerless cube.

 

[ThomasJE]

In this order? Why these two edges would not be swapped?

You asked for LF and DF. The sticker we're talking about is represented by the first letter of the edge. Then, the stickers are specified in a clockwise direction (that only really matters for corners, but the same principal applies to edges). Because L and D were first, then the sticker on the L and D faces are the stickers we are talking about.

 

[Pyjam]

I was making fun of you.

I can't see in that picture, but that doesn't mean you can never see those colours on a stickerless cube.

I think you deserve your own reply :

Please leave this thread if you're going to act in this way.

Goodbye.

You asked for LF and DF. The sticker we're talking about is represented by the first letter of the edge. Then, the stickers are specified in a clockwise direction (that only really matters for corners, but the same principal applies to edges). Because L and D were first, then the sticker on the L and D faces are the stickers we are talking about.

I know that, Thomas. It's not the point.

 

[Kirjava]

I think you deserve your own reply :

Goodbye.

I'm not the one who refuses to answer when he realises that he's wrong

 

[megaminxwin]

This is getting ridiculous. There's no reason to get rid of this part of the regulations unless someone can prove, without any doubt, that stickerless cubes do not help you get faster.

Now can we PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY. Ugh.

 

[qqwref]

I don't think being able to slightly see "around" the cube is a big deal, or even something that goes against the spirit of the cube at all. Cubes with thicker tiles (e.g. Rubik's Game, Mefferts Megaminx) have allowed this for ages - and by using a small enough cube I can basically see 4 sides at once anyway. The amount of modification we are talking here to the "original idea" of the cube is about the same as that of corner cutting, loose cubes whose corners can be turned, or cubes with nonstandard coloring. It's not a drastic change from a normal DIY by any means - the cube still moves the same way, a solve would still look the same to an observer, and I'm willing to bet most people will get statistically identical times (given identically good cubes).

Now can we PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY. Ugh.

What, because you don't like it?

 

[Kirjava]

I don't think being able to slightly see "around" the cube is a big dea

Would you be happy to allow the sticker scheme I posted earlier in this thread? (ignoring the centres)

It amounts to essentially the same thing.

 

[megaminxwin]

What, because you don't like it?

Because the thread is getting far too long when the answer should've been obvious ages ago. If there isn't any proof that it doesn't help you get faster, there's no good reason to change it. I'm surprised this wasn't posted earlier, actually, but whatever.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

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.

I disagree here, actually. Not sure if people will agree with my opinion on this, but here is my reasoning:

Let's look at this in terms of an edge piece for now as it makes the explanation easier, but I apply the principal to corners too. Take an edge piece on a stickered cube and split it in half (while you can do this physically on a Dayan cube, for example, I'm talking theoretically here and referring to other 3x3x3s in general too), with one sticker on each half. I would say that each of these halves 'belongs' to a particular face, rather than just the sticker 'belonging' to the face. I therefore have no problem with the information for the sticker being anywhere on that half of the piece. On the cube you posted, information about the 'main' sticker colour of each half of an edge is present on the other half of the edge piece, which should only have information about it's sticker.

In other words, each half of an edge should only contain information about the face it belongs to, and not where the other half of the edge belongs.

Hopefully it is clear enough what I mean by this, and why I think stickerless cubes are fine, but the cube Kir posted isn't. As it happens, I have the cube in the picture, and it turns so badly, but that is beside the point.

 

[samchoochiu]

I'm going to say this again.
What is wrong with a black or white dayan cube?