WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013

[Dene]

The difference being, no matter how many times you turn the layer one piece at a time, the original piece is going to go back in the same spot. On a Square-1, the piece can be restored to any spot. Perhaps that would be a better word...


But I really shouldn't get involved in this discussion XD . I won't be able to stop now

 

[hcfong]

I noticed people are still talking about 'unambiguously solved'. While this was part of the old regulations, there is no mention of it in the current regulations. Even though it may be what the WRC meant, but worded in a different way, we can't be sure of that.

anyway, I think the underlying idea should be that the competitor is responsible for the state of his puzzle. If a puzzle pops, it's the competitor's responsibility. If the solve is ended with pieces not fully in place or detached from the puzzle, it's the competitor's responsibility. In short, if the competitor, when stopping the timer fails to present to the judge a fully solved and operational puzzle, you shouldn't expect the judge to put time into working out whether if he repaired the cube, he would have done it in such a way that it would have been solved. To expect something like that from the judge, would be the same as when a student forgets to answer a question in a test, expecting the teacher marking it to consider whether he would have answered it correctly if he did answer it.

I think the approach to 5b5 should be: Can the puzzle be reasonably repaired in such a way that it results in an unsolved cube? If yes, DNF. If no, can the puzzle be reasonably repaired that it results in a +2 state. If yes, +2, otherwise solved.

By 'reasonably', I mean that the repair can be done without intentionally manipulating the puzzle. On a Square-1, the pieces can move freely within a layer. If you drop a Square-1 on the mat to stop the timer, it is very likely that the gap resulting from the pop, would move to another place within the layer due to the impact of the drop, so the piece can be put back in any place in that layer. On a 4x4, you would have to intentionally and physically manipulate the puzzle by moving pieces around to achieve states described by Stefan and DrKorbin.

 

[Vincents]

I noticed people are still talking about 'unambiguously solved'. While this was part of the old regulations, there is no mention of it in the current regulations. Even though it may be what the WRC meant, but worded in a different way, we can't be sure of that.

anyway, I think the underlying idea should be that the competitor is responsible for the state of his puzzle. If a puzzle pops, it's the competitor's responsibility. If the solve is ended with pieces not fully in place or detached from the puzzle, it's the competitor's responsibility. In short, if the competitor, when stopping the timer fails to present to the judge a fully solved and operational puzzle, you shouldn't expect the judge to put time into working out whether if he repaired the cube, he would have done it in such a way that it would have been solved. To expect something like that from the judge, would be the same as when a student forgets to answer a question in a test, expecting the teacher marking it to consider whether he would have answered it correctly if he did answer it.

I think the approach to 5b5 should be: Can the puzzle be reasonably repaired in such a way that it results in an unsolved cube? If yes, DNF. If no, can the puzzle be reasonably repaired that it results in a +2 state. If yes, +2, otherwise solved.

By 'reasonably', I mean that the repair can be done without intentionally manipulating the puzzle. On a Square-1, the pieces can move freely within a layer. If you drop a Square-1 on the mat to stop the timer, it is very likely that the gap resulting from the pop, would move to another place within the layer due to the impact of the drop, so the piece can be put back in any place in that layer. On a 4x4, you would have to intentionally and physically manipulate the puzzle by moving pieces around to achieve states described by Stefan and DrKorbin.

hcfong for working purposes is correct. Of course, there's no way we'd ever put "reasonably repair" into regulations, because then we'd have to define "reasonably". We are ignoring universes and other things. Another way to think about it is: if you were tasked with reassembling the puzzle, but you could not see any of the stickers/colors, what would be the worst thing that could happen?

But to clarify some commonly cited examples:
- 2 popped center caps = DNF. I can switch their positions when I replace them, which would result in an unsolved state. Intelligence has no part in this; it doesn't matter that I "know" that white is opposite yellow (for all I know on your cube, you have a custom color scheme).
- Popped/detached square-1 piece: DNF. I can insert that piece anywhere I want on the layer it belongs.
- Edge cap pop (e.g. on an FII type cube): Can I reasonably cram all the caps that popped back in such that an unsolved position is possible (i.e. I'm not taking a hammer to the cube to cram a cap into a space that it wasn't designed to fit in)? If so, DNF. If only yellow caps popped, there would be no penalty.

A side effect of this is that people may trust certain cubes with differing mechanisms more than others.

 

[Pedro]

Maybe write it like:

5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by reassembling the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3).

I still don't agree that 2 center caps off should be DNFed, but that's not the main point...

 

[Sebastien]

Maybe write it like:

5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by reassembling the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3).

Reading this I think I like this better. We will think about that.

I still don't agree that 2 center caps off should be DNFed, but that's not the main point...

With the former version of the regulation up to 4 center caps off were judged solved while 1 center piece out on a big cube was always DNF. I guess that you agree that this is not really consistent.

Overall the new rule is way more lenient and consistent as the old one. It amuses me that many people are still only complaining about the only point where this rule is stricter than before.

 

[Stefan]

If you drop a Square-1 on the mat to stop the timer, it is very likely that the gap resulting from the pop, would move to another place within the layer due to the impact of the drop, so the piece can be put back in any place in that layer.

Very likely the gap moves due to the drop? What does likelihood matter? It either does move or it doesn't. If it does, then I agree, popping the piece back in results in DNF. But if it doesn't, if the piece just pops and the gap doesn't move, why the hell would the repairer move *other* pieces, which - again - isn't even permitted (see 5b3 for what is permitted)? That is NOT reasonable. In my opinion, you should pop the piece right into the gap and judge the resulting state.

- Popped/detached square-1 piece: DNF. I can insert that piece anywhere I want on the layer it belongs.

Same question. Why would any reasonable person not simply put the piece right into the gap? Why would someone be *actively* dumb on purpose, and how is that even permitted?

Also, what's the difference between "popped" and "detached" pieces?

 

[uberCuber]

5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by reassembling the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3).

"Reassembling" doesn't even apply to twisted corners or flipped edges at all. Is this intentional?

(for all I know on your cube, you have a custom color scheme)

which is shown just as clearly by the corners as by the centers, just saying. You don't have to *know* a cube's color scheme to see that it is clearly solved.


Anyway, I have to ask whoever was involved in writing these, what was the actual intention for twisted corners and flipped edges as far as DNF/solved after the timer was stopped? Most people here seem to be assuming that a single twisted corner is a DNF but a flipped edge is not. Is this the intention? Because it is not what your current wording states. At the risk of repeating what everyone knows, 5b5) says "...the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3)." It references 5b3, so the exact definitions of repair used to judge 5b5 must be pulled directly from 5b3.

For the case of a corner twisted in place: we look at 5b3 for applicable repairs. 5b3a doesn't apply because all pieces are already attached. 5b3b doesn't apply, yes because disassembling is unnecessary due to the existence of 5b3c, but also because 5b3b specifically says "after repairing the puzzle but before the end of the attempt". So we only have 5b3c to apply to 5b5. 5b3c 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. Notice the word "correct." People keep saying a twisted corner is DNF because you can "repair" it by twisting it the wrong way, but in fact, 5b3 never lists twisting it the wrong way as a possible repair. 5b3 specifically lists that correcting the corner is the only possible repair. Conclusion: a twisted corner is not a DNF by 5b5.

For the case of a flipped edge (most likely due to earlier incorrect reassembling after a pop): We look to 5b3 for applicable repairs. 5b3a doesn't apply because all pieces are assembled. Obviously 5b3c doesn't apply because it specifically mentions corners. But most importantly, 5b3b doesn't apply because, again, it says "before the end of the attempt", something that 5b3c never said for twisting corners. So no repairs (as defined in 5b3) are possible, conclusion: a flipped edge is a DNF.

 

[TMOY]

Another way to think about it is: if you were tasked with reassembling the puzzle, but you could not see any of the stickers/colors, what would be the worst thing that could happen?
(...)
- Popped/detached square-1 piece: DNF. I can insert that piece anywhere I want on the layer it belongs.

Except that out of the seven possible gaps, only one is located between twp corners (or between two edges if the popped piece is a corner), and that's the correct one. Even blindfolded, I can't go wrong. So by your own logic this is not a DNF.

 

[clement]

Very likely the gap moves due to the drop? What does likelihood matter? It either does move or it doesn't. If it does, then I agree, popping the piece back in results in DNF. But if it doesn't, if the piece just pops and the gap doesn't move, why the hell would the repairer move *other* pieces, which - again - isn't even permitted (see 5b3 for what is permitted)? That is NOT reasonable. In my opinion, you should pop the piece right into the gap and judge the resulting state.

Same question. Why would any reasonable person not simply put the piece right into the gap? Why would someone be *actively* dumb on purpose, and how is that even permitted?

Ok, but where is the limit ? How do you judge if the gap is big enough so that you only consider putting it back in that location ? You want to introduce the term 'reasonable' in the regulations ?

Except that out of the seven possible gaps, only one is located between twp corners (or between two edges if the popped piece is a corner), and that's the correct one. Even blindfolded, I can't go wrong. So by your own logic this is not a DNF.

Vincent said that the task is to reassemble the puzzle, not to reassemble the puzzle while trying to get the solved position.

 

[uberCuber]

Vincent said that the task is to reassemble the puzzle, not to reassemble the puzzle while trying to get the solved position.

He said, "if you were tasked with reassembling the puzzle, but you could not see any of the stickers/colors, what would be the worst thing that could happen?"
And if I was tasked with reassembling the puzzle without looking, I would do so such that it remained in cube shape. The "worst thing that could happen" is actually the solved state, because I would never even consider doing it in any other way

 

[Stefan]

Ok, but where is the limit ? How do you judge if the gap is big enough so that you only consider putting it back in that location ? You want to introduce the term 'reasonable' in the regulations ?

Maybe largest gap? Don't really know, but I do think that the regulations consider a solved Square-1 except a cleanly popped edge as solved, not DNF.

The word choice wasn't mine but came from the post I replied to:

I think the approach to 5b5 should be: Can the puzzle be reasonably repaired in such a way that it results in an unsolved cube? If yes, DNF. If no, can the puzzle be reasonably repaired that it results in a +2 state. If yes, +2, otherwise solved.

By 'reasonably', I mean that the repair can be done without intentionally manipulating the puzzle.

 

[DrKorbin]

Ok, here is another point of view.

Suppose I have two center caps popped on 3x3x3, white and green. A judge says: "It is a DNF, because I can place them in the wrong way". But I read 5b3a, which states: "If any pieces have fallen out or moved out of place, the competitor may place them back". Therefore when repairing, you cannot place white cap on the green face. You can only place it back, that is, on the white face. So two popped caps must lead to no penalties.

Same thing with square-1. Suppose I have a popped edge, and there are several gaps. You say it is DNF? But you must place popped edge back. A judge didn't notice where did it pop from? Sorry, not my problem. So a popped edge is no penalties if it popped from solved state.

 

[uberCuber]

Suppose I have two center caps popped on 3x3x3, white and green. A judge says: "It is a DNF, because I can place them in the wrong way". But I read 5b3a, which states: "If any pieces have fallen out or moved out of place, the competitor may place them back". Therefore when repairing, you cannot place white cap on the green face. You can only place it back, that is, on the white face. So two popped caps must lead to no penalties.

I feel like I should have noticed this. Very nice. :tu
I do feel like this argument is somewhat stronger for the center caps than for the square-1 though. For the center caps, there can't be any doubt at all where the caps came from (and therefore where they need to go back to), but for square-1 there could be, because of the fact that it is possible to have the whole thing solved except for having like one edge and one corner switched. Not that I think a judge would try to argue that in competition, but it is possible unlike the case with center caps.

 

[hcfong]

Many people here seem to believe that in applying 5b5, the judge should only consider the options listed in 5b3 in strictly and literally. If that is what is meant by the WRC, wouldn't that make 5b5 itself redundant? As far as I can see, any strict application of 5b3 at the end of the solve, would result in a solved puzzle. Because:

5b3a: pieces fallen out or moved out of place may be placed back. Let's assume that the puzzle was solved when the timer was stopped and the pop occurred. As you also appealed to common sense, we can safely ignore all the possibilities where the timer is stopped before the puzzle is fully solved, because that's just daft. A strict application of this regulation on 5b5, would always result in the puzzle being considered solved.

5b3b: If after repair but before end of solve, puzzle is found unsolvable, you may dis- and reassemble a maximum of 4 pieces to make it solvable. Again, assuming that the puzzle is solved apart from the pieces that make it unsolvable, because stopping the timer otherwise would be silly and no sensible person would do such thing, dis- and reassembling the pieces would always result in a solved state. Of course, you could also place them back to create a cool PLL, but we're sensible people, and sensible people don't do that. As I read it, the 'before the end of the solve' bit refers to the observation that the puzzle is unsolvable and not necessarily to dis- and reassembly of the pieces. Taking all this into account, the only possible outcome is a solved puzzle.

5b3c: If puzzle is unsolvable and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner, then the competitor may rotate that corner to make it solvable. Note that 5b1 says you may only repair the defective piece. As it's the end of the solve, we can safely assume that as sensible people we would only stop the timer and ending the solve when we have a solved cube and the twist occured then, the only way to rotate the corner to make it solvable, as is required by 53b3, is to rotate it to a solved state. Therefore, a strict application of 5b3c at the end of the solve, will always result in a solved state.

My conclusion therefore is: If 5b5 intends that the judge only considers the options listed in 5b3 and that these should be applied in the strictest sense possible as some of you say, and considering that we are all sensible people, 5b5 itself would be redundant because a repair of any situation described in 5b5, with a strict application of 5b3 and common sense could lead to no other possibility but a solved puzzle. Therefore in applying 5b5, the judge should consider all possiblities, whether permitted by regulations or not or sensible or not, that don't require the competitor to manipulate the puzzle itself (which would violate 5b1 and therefore automatically an DNF) to determine the worst state obtainable.

 

[Michael Womack]

As of going to 6 comps within the past 3 years I have seen some judges not watching the competitor do the entire solve sometimes they would look at someone else's solves. Maybe there should be a rule that fixes that.

 

[TMOY]

Vincent said that the task is to reassemble the puzzle, not to reassemble the puzzle while trying to get the solved position.

Vincent spoke about reassenbling the puzzle without seeing the colors. That was the part I was answering to.

And if you really want to be silly: the worst thing that can happen while repairing your puzzle is putting back a similar piece from another puzzle by mistake, which is always a DNF. So all kinds of popped pieces at the end of the solves should be DNFs. QED

 

[Michael Womack]

Vincent spoke about reassenbling the puzzle without seeing the colors. That was the part I was answering to.

And if you really want to be silly: the worst thing that can happen while repairing your puzzle is putting back a similar piece from another puzzle by mistake, which is always a DNF. So all kinds of popped pieces at the end of the solves should be DNFs. QED

I agree it would make DNFs less but I would see it as "Oh that DNF what DNF It was a POP"

 

[DrKorbin]

Many people here seem to believe that in applying 5b5, the judge should only consider the options listed in 5b3 in strictly and literally.

Probably they believe because 5b5 explicitly refers to 5b3.

My conclusion therefore is: If 5b5 intends that the judge only considers the options listed in 5b3 and that these should be applied in the strictest sense possible as some of you say, and considering that we are all sensible people, 5b5 itself would be redundant because a repair of any situation described in 5b5, with a strict application of 5b3 and common sense could lead to no other possibility but a solved puzzle.

Yeah. Well, I got a suspicion WCA Board meant something else, but that is what follows from wording of the rules.

 

[hcfong]

Ok, here is another point of view.

Same thing with square-1. Suppose I have a popped edge, and there are several gaps. You say it is DNF? But you must place popped edge back. A judge didn't notice where did it pop from? Sorry, not my problem. So a popped edge is no penalties if it popped from solved state.

Actually, it is your problem. Your puzzle, your solve, your responsibility to make sure it doesn't pop or to make sure that you can present a fully solved and functional puzzle at the end of your solve. If I was judging you and your square-1 popped an edge from a solved state at the end of the solve, I couldn't care less where it came from. I would simply apply 10d, refer to 5b5 for exceptions and rule it a DNF. If you don't agree, you can refer it to a delegate. As for for argument for placing the piece back, ever considered the possibility that it means placing it back on the puzzle, rather than in the exact spot it came from?

If it does mean, as you seem to suggest, that the popped piece must be placed back in the exact spot it came from, then 5b3b would be redundant, because if you put everything back in the exact spot in came from, you would always have a solvable puzzle. An unsolvable puzzle after repair is always the result of putting the pieces back in a different place from where it came. Therefore, in your interpretation of 5b3, with regards to placing the popped piece back, a unsolvable cube after is always a DNF, because a violation of 5b3a has occured.

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

How is a stopwatch meant to be used by the judge during an attempt, I think I've found a slight discrepancy in the regulations. The ones in question: A3b2 and A1b.
According to A1b, a stopwatch should be used if the time limit for the event is over 10 minutes. So let's assume you have a round of 7x7 where the time limit is 11 minutes. In this example, the stopwatch would be started once the puzzle is uncovered, in accordance with A3b2, but if the solve lasts for over 10 minutes (e.g. 10:35) then the time is read from the stopwatch, which would then add on the amount of time the competitor has used for inspection to the time of the solve, meaning that the time recorded would be up to 15 seconds over the solve time.
This would not be a problem for BLD events, where there is no inspection, but if a speedsolve event is held with the time limit over 10 minutes (OK, it's a rare occurrence, I know) then this would potentially cause problems.