Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)

[ThomasJE]

Then why not?!?

There's so many puzzles out there that it would be realistically impossible to decide and list what ones to allow and what not to allow.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Impossible to do without disallowing many perfectly valid puzzles.

There's so many puzzles out there that it would be realistically impossible to decide and list what ones to allow and what not to allow.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of a whitelist here. It would not be about allowing *every* reasonable puzzle; it would be about approving a specific set of puzzles – with the knowledge that some might be excluded, but with the understanding that this would give us some benefits.
Many sports have the notion of approved equipment (sometimes with official suppliers).

Tyson has suggested the possibility of charging a nominal fee per WCA-approved cube. If the WCA had a revenue stream, there'd be an actual budget for big competitions, and the ability to support developing regions. It might also help with the fact that everything is volunteer based – volunteering is good, but it means that some things just don't get done if no one has the interest and time.

No matter how many puzzles would be on such a list (even if it were just Rubik's brand), it would be fair to competitors: everyone has the same opportunity to use those puzzles.
Although I don't currently support this idea, I believe this is actually *reasonable* if the list has sufficient variety, and the puzzles are low-cost enough.

However, as long as competitors bring their own puzzles (which I think should stay that way), it would be tricky to tell if a cube truly counts as approved.
In particular, we'd still have the problem of deciding whether a puzzle matches an approved model. We'd also have to tell what an approved modification is, and it's not possible to judge internal modifications from a quick look.
Since most puzzles would look obviously approved, perhaps things like chipped stickers and looser sides (which are currently relatively tame "loopholes" in puzzle consistency) might become a bigger deal.
So, even though the main intention would be to make it simple for Delegates/competitors to tell if a cube is permitted, perhaps this wouldn't work well.

Apart from that, we'd need a trustworthy set of individuals who have the time to keep up with new puzzles and maintain the list.
And we'd need to make sure the list is actually practical to use, and fair to competitors/manufacturers.

(I won't talk about a blacklist because we sort of already have one. For example, stickerless cubes serve as a blacklist illustration for interpreting the legality of any puzzles with colors visible internally.)

Whether someone should be allowed to use any "reasonable" puzzle is a philosophical point, and I believe there is no objectively correct answer.
However, this freedom has done well for our community so far.

The WRC/Board isn't a single person, so we don't have a single opinion about the whitelist, but we're amenable to the possibility if it's a sufficiently useful solution.
However, it would take a lot of discussion, and it wouldn't just suddenly happen any time soon.

EDIT: Filed issue #157 on GitHub, in case anyone wants to track future activity on this topic.

 

[Zeotor]

Although I don't currently support this idea, I believe this is actually *reasonable* if the list has sufficient variety, and the puzzles are low-cost enough.

Are you saying that this list would list specific puzzles by name ? If so, it seems better to list types of puzzles. For example, the list could just state that puzzle's body (usually plastic) must be only one color, or that puzzles with transparent plastic are not allowed. The same kind of thing could be done for stickers other accessories. Any puzzle or accessory that wasn't on the whitelist would have to be approved before it could be used in an official competition.

Doing it like that would mean that these lists wouldn't have to be continually updated as new models or brands of puzzles are released. They would probably only have to be updated when a new type of puzzle is available. For example, stickerless cubes and ones with two different colors of plastic haven't always been available.

EDIT: I hope that this doesn't take the thread off-topic.

 

[Lchu613]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the point of a whitelist here. It would not be about allowing *every* reasonable puzzle; it would be about approving a specific set of puzzles – with the knowledge that some might be excluded, but with the understanding that this would give us some benefits.

Ah, so just going back to a "category" whitelist instead of a individual whitelist.

 

[Sebastien]

"category" whitelist

in other words: Regulations.

 

[Lchu613]

Indeed. Those were my thoughts. Not exactly a new whitelist so much as a renaming.

 

[(X)]

I find it absolutely horrific that this is the direction that the WCA regulations may head in. This suggestion does not promote equal conditions for cubers with different equipment, and it can possibly lead to a similar situation as we have had with megaminxes. With megaminxes, especially before the dayan megaminx, you had to have a tiled mefferts puzzle to be able to compete at high levels. This was fair enough, but I can imagine a similar situation with 3x3 and other puzzles, where you would have to have a stickerless cube in order to get an advantage.

I find it really strange that cubers trivialize the allowing of stickerless cubes in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit. I would really hate to see stickerless cubes take over the cubing scene as I fear they will do. I firmly believe this will change the way of solving, and give unfair advantages. To get technical, look-ahead, at high speeds, is all about glimpsing the right pieces at the right time. If you glimpse more pieces/ stickers you obviously have an advantage.
I am really surprised not more people feel this is a change that takes away from the simple and classical part of the sport, which I know I appreciate very much.

To summarize, I think allowing more puzzle variation is bad and will make speedcubing more about equipment and also change the solving as we know and love it today.

EDIT: I am talking about stickerless cubes where you can spot the backside of a piece by while turning the cube. I am also against plastic tiles that are as thick as / thicker than mf8- megaminx tiles for the same reasons that are stated above.

 

[kcl]

I find it absolutely horrific that this is the direction that the WCA regulations may head in. This suggestion does not promote equal conditions for cubers with different equipment, and it can possibly lead to a similar situation as we have had with megaminxes. With megaminxes, especially before the dayan megaminx, you had to have a tiled mefferts puzzle to be able to compete at high levels. This was fair enough, but I can imagine a similar situation with 3x3 and other puzzles, where you would have to have a stickerless cube in order to get an advantage.

I find it really strange that cubers trivialize the allowing of stickerless cubes in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit. I would really hate to see stickerless cubes take over the cubing scene as I fear they will do. I firmly believe this will change the way of solving, and give unfair advantages. To get technical, look-ahead, at high speeds, is all about glimpsing the right pieces at the right time. If you glimpse more pieces/ stickers you obviously have an advantage.
I am really surprised not more people feel this is a change that takes away from the simple and classical part of the sport, which I know I appreciate very much.

To summarize, I think allowing more puzzle variation is bad and will make speedcubing more about equipment and also change the solving as we know and love it today.

EDIT: I am talking about stickerless cubes where you can spot the backside of a piece by while turning the cube. I am also against plastic tiles that are as thick as / thicker than mf8- megaminx tiles for the same reasons that are stated above.

Are you trolling? If you aren't you have clearly never topped 7 TPS. You honestly cannot see the hidden pieces at that speed. Besides that, any cuber with really good lookahead will know what those pieces are without having to stop and look.

 

[Stefan]

Are you trolling? If you aren't you have clearly never topped 7 TPS. You honestly cannot see the hidden pieces at that speed. Besides that, any cuber with really good lookahead will know what those pieces are without having to stop and look.

You might not want to talk down like that to someone who is faster than you...

 

[kcl]

You might not want to talk down like that to someone who is faster than you...

I'm not intending to talk down to him, but I find it shocking that he believes stickerless cubes can provide an advantage, especially considering his average.

 

[Methuselah96]

I'm not intending to talk down to him, but I find it shocking that he believes stickerless cubes can provide an advantage, especially considering his average.

Can you prove that stickerless cubes cannot provide an advantage?

 

[kcl]

Can you prove that stickerless cubes cannot provide an advantage?

Can you prove that they do? If they did it still would not provide an advantage due to the fact that everybody is able to use them.

I'm going to compare the "advantage" stickerless cubes provide to air friction in physics. You rarely actually bother to account for air resistance in physics, at least the type you perform in school. It's negligible, which is exactly the point I mean to make with stickerless cubes.

 

[(X)]

No, I am not trolling. I am very passionate about cubing, while I am not the most active forum member I felt I really had to address this issue.

anyway, the fact that you are not noticing the difference is not the point. I think that even if it's just a theoretical advantage (not saying that it is) stickerless cubes should still be illegal because of the possible advantage and the fact that it differs so much from the original Rubik's cube design. Here I agree with Dene on the point that a transparent 3x3 cube is in fact not the same puzzle, for speedsolving purposes, as a Rubik's cube.

I would love to see some really fast people's opinions on the matter. Even though the difference in performance may be minimal at top levels of speedsolving, a possible advantage for intermediate cubers is also a bad thing for the sport, in my opinion.

EDIT: And as I already mentioned in my original post, it's all about glimpsing the pieces at the right time (which is possible at high speeds, even if you are not aware of it yourself).

A glimpse is enough.

 

[XTowncuber]

in a sport that is so much about margins and really pushing yourself to improve even the slightest bit.

No, not really. Sure, we try our hardest to be the best, but it's not like we're desperately trying to cut off hundredths of a second by adjusting our cubes. Most of the top cubers will tell you that it's the cuber, not the cube.

You still have not addressed how a stickerless cube gives an advantage when anyone can purchase one. Heck, if you really wanted one you could probably just borrow one from another competitor.

I don't see how extreme corner cutting is ok, but this somehow wouldn't be.

 

[moralsh]

the fact that it differs so much from the original Rubik's cube design.

I personally think that Fangshi differs a lot more from the original rubik's cube than a stickerless DaYan and that the anti-popping mechanisms of the latests models pose a greater advantage for almost every cuber than the possibility of a glimpse of a piece, this is all a matter of perspective. I am way faster with my weilong than with any stickerless cube that I have.

To me, the only real advantage a stickerless cube has is that you don't have to sticker it and if they become legal and people start using them massively I'll bet it'll be because of that reason and not because of the advantage they give during the solve.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Thanks for your comments, (X). I wish more people would consider your viewpoint without criticizing it based on opinion.

The main difficulty with that argument is that it expresses a worry about something that *may or may not happen* to our sport, and unfortunately it's impossible to know. In practice, it's also likely to be subtle.

You still have not addressed how a stickerless cube gives an advantage when anyone can purchase one.

An advantage needs a standard of comparison, and we're mostly considering advantages that puzzles may have over the original manufactured versions.

If the rules are sufficiently clear, everyone enjoys the same advantages – no one has an *additional* advantage because of a loophole.
However, the current topic is about trying to decide what advantages should be officially permitted.

I have explained several times why a stickerless cube gives an advantage. The question is if this advantage is reasonable.

Also, just because something is allowed for all competitors doesn't mean we should allow it. It would be fair (or in your terms, "wouldn't give anyone advantage") to let everyone bring a printed sheet of algorithms to the solving station, but I don't think anyone would argue that we should do this.

 

[(X)]

I mostly agree with what you say Lucas, and I'm glad that someone share or at least understand my concern. However, it seems to me that some of the motivation behind wanting to allow stickerless cubes is wanting a simplification of the regulations. I do not think this is worth the price of changing, even slightly, how we speedsolve.

Also, I would really like to know more about the decision making, and maybe get in on the discussion. Is there a better channel for that, should I send a mail to delegate who participates in the discussion?

@XTowncuber
The point is that legalizing stickerless cubes in my opinion changes (even if it's not much) the way you can speedsolve a cube, and I'm against changing the nature of speedsolving from what it has been originally. I do not doubt that stickerless cubes will be easily available for everyone that would want to use one.

Also, as many fast cubers will agree on, trying to explain what you do when you look ahead is very hard. Few people can tell exactly what they are looking at at a specific time and as long as there is a possibility that you can gain an advantage I think it is not worth the risk to allow stickerless cubes.

 

[(X)]

I personally think that Fangshi differs a lot more from the original rubik's cube than a stickerless DaYan and that the anti-popping mechanisms of the latests models pose a greater advantage for almost every cuber than the possibility of a glimpse of a piece, this is all a matter of perspective. I am way faster with my weilong than with any stickerless cube that I have.

To me, the only real advantage a stickerless cube has is that you don't have to sticker it and if they become legal and people start using them massively I'll bet it'll be because of that reason and not because of the advantage they give during the solve.

I understand what you say, but the difference is that a black weilong does not differ from the original idea of a Rubik's cube. If you don't consider the twisting of corners (which I am not a big fan of) the weilong is the exactly same puzzle as the idea of the original Rubik's cube. This is not the case with either a transparent or a stickerless cube, although the advantage of those cubes may be less.

 

[uberCuber]

Thanks for your comments, (X). I wish more people would consider your viewpoint without criticizing it based on opinion.

What does that even mean? His viewpoint is also an opinion, this whole argument is over opinion, how else is one supposed to address it? At any rate, he doesn't seem any more willing to accept the other side than many people are to accept his.

 

[Erik]

This whole discussion about 'possible unfair advantages' is quite irrelevant I think. First of all the last few posts are quite off-topic since as Lucas said in this thread he was looking for ways to adjust the wording of the proposal, so not discuss the 'direction we are heading' I am a bit surprised Lucas got himself on the sidetrack here as well. I'm not a mod, but I would like to see this discussion (including this post) moved to a seperate thread.

The most discussed advantages of variants we are discussing are theoretical and unproven, and only are concidered an 'unfair advantage' because it differs from people's own definition of what is a Rubik's cube.

So the first question I would ask is: is it against the idea of an original Rubik's cube? Following my own definition I would say stickerless cubes, transparent cubes etc. most definitely are Rubik's cubes. The more interesting (but still quite irrelevant) one here is: does Ernö Rubik think stickerless cubes are not Rubik's cubes? As it is quite hard to contact the man we can only guess here. I think he already considers normal Weilong cubes as not Rubik's cubes. He really does not like anything that differs a lot from the normal cubes from Rubiks.com even if the mechanism is the same. Yes I met him a few times, he wouldn't even sign Rama's cube which had a purple side because it was different (it was a normal Rubik's brand). Of course this does not have much to do with his definition of a Rubik's cube at the time he invented it, but it gives some perspective on the irrelevant discussion. When he invented the Rubik's cube I am quite sure that because of the sheer design it was impossible or highly impractical to produce cubes with coloured plastic to recognize the faces, the same goes for transparent cubes and Weilongs. His original idea was just about a cube, with some markings on it to identify the pieces, that could move around without falling apart. How to identify which piece is which? I think at the time of the invention he really did not care at all.

To conclude the first question I'd say: probably not, but if you asked Rubik himself he would probably like to see only Rubik's brand cubes at competitions.

Then regardless of what you think about the first question, there is an important second question we have been discussing: is there an unfair advantage?
Firstly, the word advantage has been used in a couple of different ways in these discussions. An advantage compared to what or whom? As long as everyone is allowed to use the same puzzles there will never be an unfair advantage where some competitors have better conditions than others. An advantage over previously used puzzles and regulations then? Well, these have always been there. Competitors from 2003 did not have Weilongs, better organised competitions, better solving methods, more forgiving +2 regulations and did not have nice lube. On the other side they might have had longer inspection time, would only get a +2 when they are an M away from solved, less scramble filtering etc.
So what I want to say here is: there always have been and always will be changes that will influence the conditions that provide an advantage or disadvantage compared to previous competitions.

So the question about an advantage or not is quite irrelevant I think. To answer it anyway about stickerless cubes: probably not. But if it turns out they provide any advantage at all, it might as well (or even more likely) be because the 'stickers' cover 100% of the surface, which make recognizing easier because there is no base-plastic interfering, and not because of the colours on the inside of a cube (which I think you are not able to see or use anyway if you are turning faster than like 1 TPS).

But for the sake of argument: let's say stickerless cubes actually provide a 2% speed improvement and let's say this is solely because of the colours on the inside. Let's see what the cubing world then look like: the 3x3 single World Record has now improved from 5.55 to 5.44, Faz now did the 2-7 relay in 6:06, people doing BLD with stickerless cubes have even less chance of cheating by feeling and... that's about it. Big deal...