WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013

[Michael Womack]

Just tried it with one cube (Zhanchi), I can directly twist an edge in place, don't even need a 45 degree misalignment

Was just an example anyway, I picked it for the short name. Imagine you get a scramble that results in some corner in the correct place but twisted (like the URF corner after the "scramble" R U). That's called a puzzle defect then.

HOW?!?! Video might be helpful.

 

[Stefan]

HOW?!?! Video might be helpful.

Yeah, you'd make a 20 minutes video out of this.

I just grab and turn it. Duh.

 

[uberCuber]

Yes, it's just you. It clearly says "the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle". There's no mention of solvable state.

...

Again, whether the puzzle is solvable after the repair is irrelevant.

In the case of a corner being twisted in place, how can twisting it again so that it is still incorrect be counted as a "repair"? It fixes absolutely nothing. That's not what the word repair even means.
In any case, ignoring the common sense argument, possible repairs are defined in 5b3). Out of the three listed, the only one that applies to twisting corners in place is 5b3c), which says "If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle." So the regulation that lists possible repairs specifically considers correcting a twisted corner as a repair. For 5b5 then, "the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle" when a single corner is twisted should in fact be the solved state, because 5b3) lists this as the only possible repair.

 

[DrKorbin]

1) So if after F2L I have finished OLL with 1 twisted corner, can I twist it so I will have OLL skip? Or this action will be considered as "giving the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle"?

2) In BLD section penalties for starting the solve are explicitly written (B2b, B2c), but penalties for stopping the solve are not. Does this mean there are no penalties for stopping? Or they are inherited from standard speed solving procedures?
The former kinda makes sense because a competitor can't see his timer so he can accidentally stop it with his wrists.

 

[hcfong]

1) So if after F2L I have finished OLL with 1 twisted corner, can I twist it so I will have OLL skip? Or this action will be considered as "giving the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle"?

2) In BLD section penalties for starting the solve are explicitly written (B2b, B2c), but penalties for stopping the solve are not. Does this mean there are no penalties for stopping? Or they are inherited from standard speed solving procedures?
The former kinda makes sense because a competitor can't see his timer so he can accidentally stop it with his wrists.

1. I think you'll be fine in this case. I could be wrong here, but I think that the "giving the competitor any advantage" applies in cases when you manipulate pieces that have been unaffected by the defect. For example you swap pieces around that are still attached to the puzzle to get an easier OLL. In this case you described, you can either twist the twisted corner back so you have your LL oriented, or you can twist another corner. The regulations don't say that they repair should result in the least favourable state, so why would you.

2. Unless stated otherwise, Article A applies.

 

[Ranzha]

1. I think you'll be fine in this case. I could be wrong here, but I think that the "giving the competitor any advantage" applies in cases when you manipulate pieces that have been unaffected by the defect. For example you swap pieces around that are still attached to the puzzle to get an easier OLL. In this case you described, you can either twist the twisted corner back so you have your LL oriented, or you can twist another corner. The regulations don't say that they repair should result in the least favourable state, so why would you.

I sincerely doubt any judge would in their right mind call twisting a single corner to obtain an OLL skip an unfair advantage. If anything, the amount of time taken to recognise the corner and twist it would be of a similar timeframe to performing OLL.

 

[Dene]

Imagine you get a scramble that results in some corner in the correct place but twisted (like the URF corner after the "scramble" R U). That's called a puzzle defect then.

I would disagree on the grounds that the piece hasn't been twisted. It has been manipulated by proper function of the puzzle to be correctly permuted but incorrectly oriented.

I guess my emphasis is on the word twist. Specifically, I think definition 3e is the correct one to apply, and this emphasises a turning motion, which to me this suggests turning in place.

It does seem like a grey area in the regulations though, or at least, if you want to get super technical about it.

 

[Vincents]

1) So if after F2L I have finished OLL with 1 twisted corner, can I twist it so I will have OLL skip? Or this action will be considered as "giving the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle"?

2) In BLD section penalties for starting the solve are explicitly written (B2b, B2c), but penalties for stopping the solve are not. Does this mean there are no penalties for stopping? Or they are inherited from standard speed solving procedures?
The former kinda makes sense because a competitor can't see his timer so he can accidentally stop it with his wrists.

1. If a puzzle defect has occurred, and the single corner twist brings the cube from an unsolvable state to a solvable state, it would be allowed. "Ease" is up for interpretation, as is "intentionally". The delegates have full authority to make the judgment call.

2. I believe the BLD section is prefaced by saying that all regulations for Speedsolving apply, except where specifically modified. So stopping penalties all apply.

 

[TheNextFeliks]

Sorry if this was asked but do you have to replace a center cap if it pops off.

 

[Noahaha]

Sorry if this was asked but do you have to replace a center cap if it pops off.

If it's only one or two, then no, since the cube would still be unambiguously solved.

 

[Stefan]

I would disagree on the grounds that the piece hasn't been twisted. It has been manipulated by proper function of the puzzle to be correctly permuted but incorrectly oriented.

Ok but then if you arrive at OLL and realize a corner has been twisted, how do you know which one? That's important because you're only allowed to repair that one (5b1).

 

[Sebastien]

If it's only one or two, then no, since the cube would still be unambiguously solved.

No, 2 caps of a different colour fallen off when stopped is DNF.

 

[uberCuber]

No, 2 caps of a different colour fallen off when stopped is DNF.

What? Why? As long as two adjacent center caps are on, the rest are irrelevant because the cube is unambiguously solved.

 

[Dene]

Ok but then if you arrive at OLL and realize a corner has been twisted, how do you know which one? That's important because you're only allowed to repair that one (5b1).

Completely different issue . You'd have to ask the WRC for an exact answer. As a delegate using my discretion, I would say you can take any action necessary to make the puzzle solvable again (while adhering to 5b2).

 

[Julian]

No, 2 caps of a different colour fallen off when stopped is DNF.

I've never understood this issue. IMO as long as there are at least 2 adjacent center caps still on, the state of the cube is unambiguous.

 

[hcfong]

I've never understood this issue. IMO as long as there are at least 2 adjacent center caps still on, the state of the cube is unambiguous.

No, it isn't. When two center caps of a different colour fall off, it's still physically possible to put them back in the wrong place. Of course, if you had the chance to repair it before you stopped the timer, you probably would do it right, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a possibility to place the center camps on the wrong face and that's a DNF. The regulations assume the worst state obtainable by repairing the repair to determine if it's solved, +2 or DNF. People seem to think it means worst solvable state or what you would have done if you had the chance to repair it before stopping the timer or even whether the rest of the puzzle is solved. The regulation itself is quite clear. It's when people starting to read things into it, that aren't there, when it goes wrong. Just some examples on how I would judge various situations with comments. Not that they're in any way authoritative, but they might be helpful to understand 5b5.

3x3 one center cap off: Solved. The center cap can only be put back on one center, which is the correct one.
3x3 two center caps off: DNF. The center caps can either be put back in the correct face or each other's face. The latter is the worst obtainable state and therefore determines the result. DNF.
3x3 edge off: DNF. Edges can be placed in 2 ways. Correctly or flipped wrongly.
3x3 corner off: DNF. Corners can be placed in 3 ways. 1 correctly and 2 flipped wrongly.
4x4 and higher cubes 2+ center caps of the same colour off: Solved. Whichever way you put them back, it will result in a solved cube.
Pyraminx tip off: +2. Tip can only be placed back in the correct place, but can be aligned incorrectly.
Square-1 any piece(s) off: DNF. Although pieces can only be placed in one orientation, corners and edges are interchangeable with each other.

 

[Julian]

[...]

Hmm, yeah, I see what you're saying. I was working on the assumption that if two centers pop out, the cube should be considered solved because they can only have come out one way (basing your colour scheme on the corners). I guess that doesn't really count.

 

[Pedro]

Yeah, maybe the word "repair" is not used very correctly on that regulation, but I can see what they meant.

As for the center caps, it doesn't make sense now that I think about it. I could solve the cube having only 2 center caps on (as opposed to a void cube, which can have a parity problem) every time. Of course it's not the fastest way, but it can be unambiguously solved. If 2 center caps fall when the cube hits the table as I stop the timer, and the rest of the cube is solved, I don't see the point in making it a DNF.

 

[Stefan]

Square-1 any piece(s) off: DNF. Although pieces can only be placed in one orientation, corners and edges are interchangeable with each other.

What does that interchangeability matter if there's just one gap?

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

What does that interchangeability matter if there's just one gap?

Since the gap could move to any place on the layer from which the piece popped, it can be placed anywhere in that layer. Where as on a 3x3, the gap would be stuck between 2 edges or corners, and since they can't interchange freely, the gap remains in the same relative place. Since it can be placed anywhere, the worst case would be a DNF, even though the orientation is fixed.