Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)

[Dene]

Big quote

I think what is more relevant than asking about the original idea of the Rubik's cube, is to ask "does it conform to what people think of when they think of a Rubik's Cube?" In this case the answer could be very different.

 

[Tim Major]

I have to agree with Dene. Why consider Erno's definition. Seems he'd have quite a biased anti-change viewpoint.

Rubik's cube has supposedly sold 350million units, the only noncubers who have cubes seem to have $2 cubes, not Rubik's.

I like the previous definition, with no inherent visual advantage over a typical Rubik's cube, such as a cube allowing you to see extra stickers. Also obviously banning cubes that make new moves possible, or anything automated.

 

[qqwref]

I feel like the root of (X)'s argument is just that he doesn't want things to change. He likes to compete with the current equipment and thinks that better equipment would somehow ruin the sport. But that's not true, and cubes have clearly improved over time. When I started the best you could get was a Rubik's DIY (unless you were willing to get expensive cubes from Hungary or find a 1980s cube on eBay), and then later the Type F introduced good corner cutting, and nowadays the variety of really good cubes is just staggering. Even if stickerless cubes do provide enough of an advantage that people will need to use them to compete (and I really don't think they do), it is just another hardware improvement of the same type we have continuously seen since 2003. Stickerless cubes, among other types, ought to be considered just another hardware option - after all, isn't the point of all these options to let people use the cube they are best with, within reason?

Essentially, I'd say there's no reason to artificially try to hold that process back. Technological improvement has happened in many sports, and cubing is no different. In tennis, professionals used wooden rackets until the 70s/80s when metal and alloy frames started to take over, and now you'd be laughed at for using a wooden one. Should they have forbidden metal rackets because they provided an advantage (and violated the idea of what a racket is), or is it good that they allowed them and thus let the sport move forward?

 

[Stefan]

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...

Essentially, I'd say there's no reason to artificially try to hold that process back. Technological improvement has happened in many sports, and cubing is no different. In tennis, professionals used wooden rackets until the 70s/80s when metal and alloy frames started to take over, and now you'd be laughed at for using a wooden one. Should they have forbidden metal rackets because they provided an advantage (and violated the idea of what a racket is), or is it good that they allowed them and thus let the sport move forward?

Just to also show an example of technology giving a 2% advantage being banned:

"the [LZR Racer swimsuit] reportedly can lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent. This and other high performance body suits have since been banned from FINA competitions."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

 

[Sebastien]

To come back to topic, here is a proposal to fix the problems with 3d4 of the initial proposal:

3d4) The faces of a puzzle must not have any deviation in colour among each other besides the coloured stickers, coloured tiles, painted colours or coloured plastic used to define the colours of the faces.

or (same, but written differently):

3d4) The faces of a puzzle must not have any deviation in colour among each other besides their different colours, defined by either coloured stickers, coloured tiles, painted colours or coloured plastic (see 3d).

This clearly allows all uniform variants of differently coloured cube bodies, i.e. differently coloured center pieces, a cube with black edges and white corners or the Fansghi Illusion - everything you can't gain advantage from. Meanwhile, stuff like white cubes with black LL pieces etc. is clearly forbidden.

I proposed this a while back on the delegate mailing list already, but I was told, that this wouldn't fix the problem. I can't see why though. If I am missing something, please help me out.

 

[Clarkeeyyy]

Just to also show an example of technology giving a 2% advantage being banned:

"the [LZR Racer swimsuit] reportedly can lower racing times for a competitor by 1.9 to 2.2 percent. This and other high performance body suits have since been banned from FINA competitions."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer

Although this is a perfectly good example of a 2% advantage being banned, people should keep in mind that it wasn't the suit which caused the ban.

"The combined effects of the LZR both compressing the body and trapping air for buoyancy led to many competitors who used the LZR wearing two or more suits for an increased effect. This led to some claiming that the LZR was in effect 'technological doping.'"

This shows that it was banned due to competitors abusing the suit by wearing multiple and compressing their own bodies.

 

[Stefan]

This shows that it was banned due to competitors abusing the suit by wearing multiple and compressing their own bodies.

Then why didn't they just ban wearing multiple?

 

[Clarkeeyyy]

Then why didn't they just ban wearing multiple?

I don't know, I just wanted to add this to the discussion.

 

[Jaysammey777]

New Technology can make us better, so why not use it? Do you wish to hinder what humans are possible of doing? not using technological advancements is like having matches, but take an hour to make a fire the long way. Just pointless.

 

[Stefan]

Weird (that video). If those body suits introduced in 2008 are "the most significant speed skating advancement to date", then why hasn't the world record been broken since 2007?

 

[Erik]

To come back to topic, here is a proposal to fix the problems with 3d4 of the initial proposal:



or (same, but written differently):



This clearly allows all uniform variants of differently coloured cube bodies, i.e. differently coloured center pieces, a cube with black edges and white corners or the Fansghi Illusion - everything you can't gain advantage from. Meanwhile, stuff like white cubes with black LL pieces etc. is clearly forbidden.

I proposed this a while back on the delegate mailing list already, but I was told, that this wouldn't fix the problem. I can't see why though. If I am missing something, please help me out.

Thanks for looking more into this and actually contributing to what Lucas' goal of this thread was. Obviously by specifically stating colour you might still get some touchy cubes (which I dont have a problem with, but I think the majority does).

@Stefan: I don't think this one of a million example where a change was not allowed actually has any significant meaning in this discussion at all. I do think it was a bad decision to ban them.

 

[Methuselah96]

Thanks for looking more into this and actually contributing to what Lucas' goal of this thread was. Obviously by specifically stating colour you might still get some touchy cubes (which I dont have a problem with, but I think the majority does).

@Stefan: I don't think this one of a million example where a change was not allowed actually has any significant meaning in this discussion at all. I do think it was a bad decision to ban them.

Do you approve of performance-enhancing drugs?

 

[Dene]

I think a look at Formula 1 is a much better case for hardware-performance regulations. Anyone that even vaguely keeps up would know that things are constantly being banned for a range of reasons. It isn't about hindering progress - it's about choosing which limitations you wish to impose on a sport.

For example, why not have a football which magnetises towards the goal box? Well, that's obvious: because the ball would score itself, and this kind of defeats the purpose right?

Limitations are necessary not to prevent progress, but to define a sport.

 

[mark49152]

Visibility of face colours on the inside surface of edges is an artifact of the construction of stickerless cubes, not a design feature.

Just curious, but if the question was whether it should be permitted on a uniform colour cube to deliberately mark the inside surface of edges to match face colours, e.g. by painting, would people's opnions be the same?

 

[Sebastien]

you might still get some touchy cubes

could you elaborate on this? I simply don't understand what you're refering to.

 

[Erik]

could you elaborate on this? I simply don't understand what you're refering to.

Sure:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-Brainstorming&p=950193&viewfull=1#post950193

#15 #16 #20 #26 #28 #30 goes against 3d2: 3d2) The colours of puzzles must be solid, with uniform texture and one uniform colour per face. Each colour on the puzzle must be clearly distinct from the other colours. Exception: a logo (see [Regulation 3l](regulations:regulation:3l)). #26 depends on how you see a 'face'. #28 because you could argue that texture refers to 'feeling a difference' which would be possible here. If you want to enforce 'no feeling' I suggest adding the words 'size and shape' and also 'a uniform colour and feel' or something like that to a few of the regulations.

Reading the proposal (including and excluding your additions) I think it's not clear that the puzzle itself must have a uniform form. The only thing that has to be uniform according to the proposal is "the colours of puzzles". Like in my quote I suggest adding words like 'size and shape' and/or 'uniform colour or feel' or something like that. Would seal the deal on a few puzzel variants

 

[Sebastien]

Ok, got it. No, in contrast, I'm explicitely in favour of ignoring Shape. Our current regulations do in theory disallow many puzzles (which are generally still allowed in practise, violating the regulations) because of minor marking that distinguish similar pieces from each other.

 

[(X)]

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?

 

[cubernya]

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?

This thread (AFAIK). I am sure there are discussions among the delegates as well, but that is not for us to be part of

 

[Lucas Garron]

Is there anywhere to actually discuss if the issue of whether to introduce these rules into the regulations or not, or has that already been decided?

There has not been. This is just the process of trying to see what the community has to say/contribute.

(Personally, I do not support this change as-is, but I think the general idea has merit given community preference.)