Towards "Anything Goes" (WCA Puzzle Policy)

[AvGalen]

I really see no reason for all this debate about unfair advantages. If anyone can buy/create/use that puzzle it is not unfair!
In my opinion we should allow all puzzles as long as the concept for solving them is the same as the original. I know this is vague, but I really don't think it needs any other explanation because we also have the "competitors should behave in good spirit" rule. Leave all those rules behind and let common sense and delegates handle the rest. Yes, that means some arbitrary decisions will be made so results will not be 100% comparable but that really shouldn't stop us from having fun at competitions.

If someone can make a 3x3x3 "compatible" puzzle that allows the solver to feel the colors, rotate almost frictionless with the flick of a finger without ever popping and nicely aligns while allowing extreme cornercutting, and even somehow allows you to see all pieces all the time I don't think that would be a problem. I think that would be great and would be progress for our hobby/sport. All equipment in other sports change all the time and so should our puzzles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clap_skate

Unlike in traditional skates where the blade is rigidly fixed to the boot, clap skates have the blade attached to the boot by a hinge at the front. The clap skate was used first in the 1984/1985 skating season. It was, however, not until the late 1990s that the idea was taken seriously. In the 1996/1997 season, the Dutch women's team started using the skates with great success. The rest of the skating world soon followed suit, causing a torrent of world records to be broken in the following seasons, including the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan.

However, a bicycle should stay a bicycle and not become a motorbike. And a discuss should not change shape and weight to become a spear. These are elementary concepts that everyone understands would change a sport too fundamentally.

So that is that, all that is left is to worry about blindfolded

 

[AmazingCuber]

I totally agree with the last post. I believe that the WCA faces a very crucial decision regarding the future of the organization. Should we stay strictly with the original Rubik's design, or shall we allow variances and advancement in the technology behind this sport? These variances may have advantages, but doesn't everyone have access to them? Doesn't a competitor who uses a Zhanchi have an advantage over someone using a Rubik's brand? This advantage is exactly the same principle as the ones we are discussing now, but the only difference is that a Zhanchi still looks like a Rubik's brand, while a stickerless cube does not. There haunts the question of how we will allow for development beyond the original cube, especially in this very fast growing sport in this modern era. There are of course pros and cons for this developing mindset, but here are some thoughts of mine.

First of all, I believe that existing speedcubers would benefit from anything goes. Of course we will need regulations to keep a cube a cube, but who doesn't like the practicability of never having to replace stickers (except sticker shops)? Also, with many events coming to their limits, hardware changes are needed to bring fresh wind into the top competitors (this is very debatable, but frankly, it's like this in many other sports).

There are possible cons to this though. An example: when I used a pillowed cube as my main and cubed in front of other people, there were always comments about the pillowedness – things like "In my childhood the cubes were totally different". While this is very two-sided and may cause interest, I believe it detracts from the public appeal of speedcubing. It won't be the puzzle that everyone has already failed at and knows about, but something "weirdish". This might lower the interest in starting to cube, which could be very catastrophic to such a developing sport.

Overall, I believe that a change in mindset is needed to accomplish further development to this sport. This switch can't just be done quickly though. We need thorough thought on how we can deal with some problems that may trouble the decision, such as maintaining the public appeal of speedcubing. There also must be found the very thin line of what cubes to allow and what not, even in "anything goes" (such as ones with servo motors, etc., we will need to think into the future and how far we will go).
I sincerely hope that this very interesting discussion will continue. I would be very glad on input from others on this question of mindset.

Thanks!

 

[AvGalen]

I just checked the rules for running a marathon. As for equipment they basically said "no weels" and that was that. If someone would come on blades or stelts that would immediately get noticed by others and prohibited under a "unfair sportmenship" rule. This is a sport where the skills of the person are MUCH more important than the equipment, so quite comparable with cubing.
Formula 1 is the opposite. There are details for everything and although technical advancements are a big stated goal of F1 there is a very fine line for what is actually allowed. This is a sport where the skills of the person are important (of course), but the equipment is even more important, so not really comparable with cubing.
If someone would like to participate with this megaminx I would want to allow it. And if someone can make it better than the original I would celebrate that inventor and buy one myself, get motivated to practise and improve myself. Sports get better because of this cycle and as long as the products are "generally available", or selfmade, and don't violate the "unfair sportmanship" rule it is all fine by me

 

[tim]

I just checked the rules for running a marathon. As for equipment they basically said "no weels" and that was that.

Could you please provide a link?

I found this:

Athletes may compete barefoot or with footwear on one or both feet.
The purpose of shoes for competition is to give protection and
stability to the feet and a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes,
however, must not be constructed so as to give an athlete any unfair
additional assistance, including by the incorporation of any
technology which will give the wearer any unfair advantage. A shoe
strap over the instep is permitted. All types of competition shoes must
be approved by IAAF.

at http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/rules-regulations (IAAF Competition Rules 2014-2015).

That's even stricter than any puzzle regulation we ever had.

 

[AvGalen]

Could you please provide a link?
...
That's even stricter than any puzzle regulation we ever had.

The link you asked for : http://www.marathonkuching.com/rules-regulations, rule 11.

From another link they basically link to the IAAF rules that you post, but also say:
* Article 4 The Participant must run along the track set out by the Organiser in a manner that is usual for track and field events. He must be recognisable as a Participant.
* Article 6 The Participants must comply with instructions from the Organiser, and/or persons who, based on their clothing or other physical characteristics, appear to belong to the organisation of the Organiser.
* Article 7 The Organiser is entitled to disqualify a Participant and/or take a Participant out of the competition if he does not comply with these competition regulations or displays unsporting or improper behaviour or if it is deemed necessary on medical grounds or for an orderly progression of the Event.
* Article 27 In all cases for which these regulations do not provide the Organiser will make the final decision.

I also like the IAAF rule about assistance:
the use of any technology or appliance that provides the user with an advantage which he would not have obtained using the equipment specified in the Rules.
The rules about shoes seem very short and precise and could be compared to our rules about cubes.
However I don't like the IAAF rules about spikes, they seem to be EXTREMELY detailed for no good reason, just like our rules about stickers/tiles.
(These IAAF rules are interesting because they also cover multiple different, but partly overlapping events, just like the WCA)

 

[IRNjuggle28]

I do not have a problem with the idea of stickerless cubes allowing better lookahead. Or transparent cubes, if that helped. Or using a mirror to see the back. (Yes, it's a terrible idea in practice, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making) The puzzle element of cubes is knowing how to manipulate the pieces well. I have no problem with someone saving themself an occasional peek on B, because I don't think that's part of what the puzzle should be. The thing restricting your speed should be your solving skill, not your physical inability to look at the entire puzzle at once.

That said, the idea of a stickerless cube improving lookahead is pretty silly. For example, the second image in Lucas's list showing the theoretical advantage given by stickerless cubes really is not going to help anyone. The perspective shown in that picture is not one applicable to speedcubing. The picture shows nothing but the U face. Nobody solves looking at the U face only. Instead, we solve looking at U, F, and either a bit or R or L. The only circumstance where we're discussing the stickerless cube presenting an advantage is one where the solver would be disadvantaged by too many other things for it to be worth it.

In summary,

• The only advantage stickerless cubes could provide is one that solvers SHOULD be allowed to have.
• Everyone will have equal opportunity to use the cubes to their advantage. No single person is unfairly advantaged.
• And none of it matters because they DON'T provide an advantage.

 

[AvGalen]

...
In summary,

• The only advantage stickerless cubes could provide is one that solvers SHOULD be allowed to have.
• Everyone will have equal opportunity to use the cubes to their advantage. No single person is unfairly advantaged.
• And none of it matters because they DON'T provide an advantage.

and the thing that everyone keeps forgetting: We are looking at the cube with 2 eyes, so if you use a small enough cube (legal) you can see 4 faces anyway (L U F R). I think it is entirely clear that all the cons are hypothetical and all the pros are real

 

[Michael Womack]

They save money on stickers.

No piece can be distinguish by touch.

New competitors who arrive at a competition who's only speed cube is a stickerless can actually use them.
(I know people are meant to read the regs before going to their 1st comp but that situation does occur)


The only reason not to allow them seems to be, 'It goes against Ernö's original idea of what a Rubik's cube is'.

Is that a good reason? He never put any thought into how the design could be optimised to produce the fastest times. It was just an engineering project and spacial awareness challenge iirc.



So people who like stickerless cubes have to wait for a good cube which looks like the new Rubik's brand speed cube?

This process also adds to the production cost which we would see amplified by the time it gets to the consumer. I believe C4U released an expensive cube just like the new Rubik's about 4 years ago.

The reason why company's make stickerless cubes is because they sell well and almost cost the same to produce. If that cost goes up it's likely sales will drop and they will stop producing them.

This is obviously pure speculation but fairly logical IMO.

I agree with you. Also there are many young cubers who are ages 7-12 who buy a stickerless cube as there first true speedcube but didn't know that there not allowed in comps. Plus those young cubers don't have much money to buy a new cube once it's time to compete same goes with the stickers. When I first started I didn't really buy stickers for my cubes and my first speedcube was a stickerless guhong v1. But now with a good majority of the new speedcubes that comes out there will most likely be a stickerless version if the design of the cube allows it.

 

[DeeDubb]

I was wondering something about people who have cubes with chipped stickers. Don't they have the ability to recognize what piece they are looking at just by seeing the chip in the sticker without having to see the other side (either consciously or subconsciously)? Isn't that much more of an advantage than any stickerless cube gives with recognition?

 

[Michael Womack]

I was wondering something about people who have cubes with chipped stickers. Don't they have the ability to recognize what piece they are looking at just by seeing the chip in the sticker without having to see the other side (either consciously or subconsciously)? Isn't that much more of an advantage than any stickerless cube gives with recognition?

For me that's not a problem. Also for someone like Feliks or Mat's since there super fast when they are turning the colors/stickers pass by there eyes in a fraction of a second so it's not a problem for them.

 

[maps600]

For me that's not a problem. Also for someone like Feliks or Mat's since there super fast when they are turning the colors/stickers pass by there eyes in a fraction of a second so it's not a problem for them.

There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.

 

[Michael Womack]

There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.

Exactly my point. So it's not going to be a big issue.

 

[DeeDubb]

There is a limit to how different the stickers can each be on a competitor's cube. However, trying to remember each sticker and the colors behind it while solving would probably take longer than just looking at the whole piece, itself.

If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.

 

[AmazingCuber]

If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.

And that is why it's not allowed! There is a regulation saying that stickers must be in good condition. It makes much sense to read the current regulations before complaining about them, or even proposing new ones!

 

[DeeDubb]

And that is why it's not allowed! There is a regulation saying that stickers must be in good condition. It makes much sense to read the current regulations before complaining about them, or even proposing new ones!

I know it's in the regs, but the language is vague, and I've seen plenty of videos of comps with cubers using quite chipped stickers.

EDIT:

Here it is from the regs:

3j) Puzzles must be clean, and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, damage, or other differences that significantly distinguish any piece from a similar piece. Exception: a logo (see Regulation 3l).
3j1) Puzzles are permitted to have reasonable wear, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.
3j2) Definition: Two pieces are similar to each other if they are identical in shape and size, or mirrored in shape and identical in size.
3j3) Corrugated/textured parts which allow the orientation of pieces to be distinguished by feel are not permitted for blindfolded events.

Tough to really say how much wear is "reasonable", and how distinguishable is "significant", so that's up to the discretion of the judges, I suppose, but some of the puzzles that have been allowed in comps definitely have considerably chipped stickers that could allow for them to be distinguishable.

 

[Michael Womack]

I know it's in the regs, but the language is vague, and I've seen plenty of videos of comps with cubers using quite chipped stickers.

It really depends on how badly the stickers are.

 

[Kit Clement]

Tough to really say how much wear is "reasonable", and how distinguishable is "significant", so that's up to the discretion of the judges, I suppose, but some of the puzzles that have been allowed in comps definitely have considerably chipped stickers that could allow for them to be distinguishable.

As you said, it's a judgment call, and every delegate has their own level of judgment. Also, sometimes the delegate isn't at the scrambling table when puzzles get taken up, and can't check every single puzzle. Personally, I tend to be a bit conservative when it comes to permissible sticker wear. And as you said, this is arguably equivalent to the advantages of a stickerless cube - this is among the reasons we concluded that the potential advantages of a stickerless puzzle aren't so significant.

 

[Future Cuber]

If you solve thousands of times and you know the edge piece with the green sticker chipped has red on the other side, that would become pretty automatic, I think. It seems like it would be much more of an advantage than the peeks a stickerless cube might give.

The sticker chips more if you do a 1000 solves & again to memorise
you do a 1000 solves and sticker chips
LOL