# Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes



## esquimalt1 (Jan 4, 2011)

Well it's that time of year again where the regulations get redone so I figured we could address some ideas here.

Random Ideas:

SKEWB ADDED (lol)

Clarification for 4d: "Cube puzzles must be scrambled with the white (or the lightest colour by default) face on top and green (or the darkest adjacent face by default) on the front." 
What if someone has a white cube with black stickers instead of white?

Can organizers not approve a cube because it's a knock off?

FMC clarification on how the scramble should not be related to the solution.



Discuss!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 4, 2011)

Although I don't think it would be done, I would LOVE slice turns to be counted as equal moves to face turns.
(when I did FMC, it was quite often done with Roux.)


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

Just a reminder that this is going to be a serious thread for serious discussion.


----------



## y3k9 (Jan 4, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Just a reminder that this is going to be a serious thread for serious discussion.


I was posting an edit.

Ok here is my idea for the KO's.:
A KO should be allowed as long as the internal mech. is in no way tampered with so that it cheats (I don't know how someone would do that but...). I also think that wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

y3k9 said:


> I was posting an edit.



What I said still applies.



y3k9 said:


> Ok here is my idea for the KO's.:
> A KO should be allowed as long as the internal mech. is in no way tampered with so that it cheats (I don't know how someone would do that but...). I also think that wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.


 
This is already covered in the current regulations.


A3d1) The puzzle must rest on the mat, not on the timer part of the Stackmat.

should be clarified to:

A3d1) The puzzle must rest on the mat, not on the timer part of the Stackmat. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

Or whatever the intended penalty is. To be honest I don't think this regulation should even exist. I feel like it was put in place with the intention of removing an unfair advantage. However, placing the puzzle on the timer is a _fair_ advantage, since anyone can do it.


----------



## y3k9 (Jan 4, 2011)

F3a) After the inspection the competitor places the puzzle onto the Stackmat in a standing position.

Does it matter if they're standing?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

It means the clock is in a standing position.


----------



## y3k9 (Jan 4, 2011)

Oh right, sorry.

B1b1) Competitors must bring their own blindfold.
This may allow cheating, as Stefan says on his site.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm in favor of Skewb eventually being added, but I think it would be better to have a year of testing of potential regulations first, to avoid another situation where we have to change standards partway through a puzzle lifespan.

-edit- This has already happened, right?


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 4, 2011)

1. Add skewb.
2. Perhaps allow colored cubes, as in the plastic is colored and does not require stickers to be solved.
3. Perhaps allow the competitor suggest how the puzzle is oriented for the scramble? 
4. In regards to the Blindfold issue, as Stefan's site suggests, maybe have a certain brand of blindfolds that are certified to be cheat-proof?


----------



## y3k9 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> 2. Perhaps allow colored cubes, as in the plastic is colored and does not require stickers to be solved.


I'm pretty sure they don't allow this because you can see the corner tips henceforth giving you an advantage.


Tyjet66 said:


> 3. Perhaps allow the competitor suggest how the puzzle is oriented for the scramble?


This would probably overruled because it allows an advantage. But I don't know.


Tyjet66 said:


> 4. In regards to the Blindfold issue, as Stefan's site suggests, maybe have a certain brand of blindfolds that are certified to be cheat-proof?


This is a good idea.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 4, 2011)

y3k9 said:


> Oh right, sorry.
> 
> B1b1) Competitors must bring their own blindfold.
> This may allow cheating, as Stefan says on his site.


 
please stop posting in this thread. You are obviously not familiar enough with the regulations to suggest changes. It states that the main judge is supposed to check blindfolds for the possibility of cheating.


----------



## y3k9 (Jan 4, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> please stop posting in this thread. You are obviously not familiar enough with the regulations to suggest changes. It states that the main judge is supposed to check blindfolds for the possibility of cheating.


I will lurk after this post. You can still cheat even if your blindfold is checked.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 4, 2011)

y3k9 said:


> I'm pretty sure they don't allow this because you can see the corner tips henceforth giving you an advantage.
> 
> This would probably overruled because it allows an advantage. But I don't know.
> 
> This is a good idea.


 
Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 4, 2011)

There's lots of ways to cheat. There's always a way to cheat in everything. Thats the nature of sports.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 4, 2011)

I brought this up at Dayton Open with the delegate, but I suppose I'll bring this up here in case he forgot 

Should we be allowed to have tools to help fix puzzle issues? This was specifically thought about as bringing a screwdriver to the table with you in case you get a 2x2 internal pop. this could be expanded to other puzzles as well though.

I remember hearing that somebody at nationals this past year had to super glue something on their 7x7 during a solve, but I'm not sure. This rule would have to be worded carefully though as you could argue that cube explorer is a "tool."


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 4, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> I brought this up at Dayton Open with the delegate, but I suppose I'll bring this up here in case he forgot
> 
> Should we be allowed to have tools to help fix puzzle issues? This was specifically thought about as bringing a screwdriver to the table with you in case you get a 2x2 internal pop. this could be expanded to other puzzles as well though.
> 
> I remember hearing that somebody at nationals this past year had to super glue something on their 7x7 during a solve, but I'm not sure. This rule would have to be worded carefully though as you could argue that cube explorer is a "tool."


 
You are allowed to bring tools in the case that a malfunction occurs with your puzzle; these tools may not, however, be used to assist you in solving your puzzle in any way.

Is that worded carefully enough?


----------



## Tall5001 (Jan 4, 2011)

I say add skewb that would awesome! also i dont think that people solve slow enough to see the corner piece on a colored Gu Hong in now way shape or form does it give me an advantage especially if you turn the cube 18 turns per second (or what ever). and for the blindfold i say let people bring their own (not sure on the rule) have the judge inspect it and then still hold the paper infront of the cube


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 4, 2011)

By the way you worded it, you just said that I can't use a tool to fix my puzzle, because that just "helped" me solve it (it was in an unsolvable state, now it's solvable).


----------



## Specs112 (Jan 4, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> By the way you worded it, you just said that I can't use a tool to fix my puzzle, because that just "helped" me solve it (it was in an unsolvable state, now it's solvable).


 
May not assist with solving other than by replacing pieces affected by the malfunction?

Is that any more clear?


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jan 4, 2011)

A problem with the coloured Guhong was that when you turned the U layer 45 degrees, you can see what colour is on the LF and the RF edges where on a stickered cube it would be harder.

It's not a huge advantage but it sort of is one.


----------



## Tall5001 (Jan 4, 2011)

esquimalt1 said:


> A problem with the coloured Guhong was that when you turned the U layer 45 degrees, you can see what colour is on the LF and the RF edges where on a stickered cube it would be harder.
> 
> It's not a huge advantage but it sort of is one.


 
Yeah i understand why they say it is an advantage but when you use the Colored Gu Hong does that really help you solve it? i turn to fast to even catch a glimpse of the color on the corner


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 4, 2011)

y3k9 said:


> I will lurk after this post. You can still cheat even if your blindfold is checked.


 
That's why there is the added safety of a piece of paper held between you and the cube by the judge. And it is a really good thing to have that based on my experience. I have a small-ish and tight-ish blindfold and in competition I can't be bothered enough to properly pull it down so it's comfortable and totally cover my eyes (I close my eyes anyway so I dunno if I can actually see =p)


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jan 4, 2011)

Tall5001 said:


> Yeah i understand why they say it is an advantage but when you use the Colored Gu Hong does that really help you solve it? i turn to fast to even catch a glimpse of the color on the corner


 See this thread for that whole debate.


----------



## noedgesoriented (Jan 4, 2011)

Make head to head official. I < 3 it.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jan 4, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
> How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.


 
Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."

Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."


also, that reg would just be a total pain to organizers and scramblers.



Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm not sure, but I think it used to be that you could choose your orientation, then it got changed to how it is now.

And just to pull a technicality, just because competitor A had easy green scramble, doesn't mean you put green on U  If anything, given to how we normally scramble, you'd want blue on U


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 4, 2011)

Skewb should wait for a year. There need to be applied trial regulations to see how things run.
Oh, and what would scrambling orientation be for puzzles whose faces don't turn, such as the Skewb? (This is assuming that the URLB notation is used.)

Keep a consistent orientation for scrambling. The competition is based on solving what you're given. The way you solve determines your times. If you had an easy solve on white cross for a particular scramble, you can't expect a Roux solver to have the same amount of luck as you, vice versa et al.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 4, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?


 
From what I understand a +2 penalty is simply to represent the time it takes for you to fix whatever gave you that penalty.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jan 4, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Skewb should wait for a year. There need to be applied trial regulations to see how things run.
> Oh, and what would scrambling orientation be for puzzles whose faces don't turn, such as the Skewb? (This is assuming that the URLB notation is used.)


 
You can always use notation that highlights the turning vertex. On a face turning cube for example, we'd use UDRLBF, with an edge turning puzzle (helicopter cube) you could use UF, UR, FB, etc, and with a corner turning puzzle you just need some way of identifying all fixed corners, like Bryan Logan did here.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jan 4, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."
> 
> Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."
> 
> ...


 
Addressing your scenario, the regulations already state to scramble with white top, green front, which applies to Competitor A and B. Once A says what he says, B will know and lookout for it.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 4, 2011)

I say again like I said last year: *remove the +2 penalty*. I think it should be either solved state or DNF. Yes, it would definitely change the competitions as we know them but in a good way. People would start to learn how to finish the solve properly. As we know from Lars Vandenbergh's video, rushing the end of your solve not really saving that many time (around 0.16 seconds). 

For those who say that knowing that the penalty can only be a DNF and that causes stress, I say: either do not make a penalty or choose a less stressful hobby. I remember missing a WR average on a DNF. Yeah, I was nervous, but I didn't blame the rules for the DNF, I blamed myself.

For those who say the +2 should remain, since it's a nice safety net to have, I say 45° is nice enough. I don't know what is the background story of the +2, why was it created in the first place, why is it 2 seconds, but I think we should remove it at all. 

Also it would solve the problem of having the same penalty for magic and 7x7x7. 

Last point (and this is the less important): it would finally make it clear for the non cubers and for the media if our cube was solved or not. Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.



Ethan Rosen said:


> Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."


 
This should not happen in the first place.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

What should happen and what does and will happen are often two different things.

Skewb does not need a trial period, as it is just another speedsolving event. It's not like adding teamBLD, or speedBLD, or head to head where you need an entirely new subset of rules. 
- Random state (optimal limit+1 moves) scrambles, white top green front with URLB fixed corner notation. 
- Set 60 degrees as the limit for +2.

OMG so difficult. Adding skewb should be just as easy as adding 6x6 and 7x7.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 4, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> - Random state (optimal limit+1 moves) scrambles, white top green front with URLB fixed corner notation.


Why suboptimal scrambles? At home it makes sense, as you are the scrambler, but in competition there is no advantage over having the scrambler, scramble optimally.


amostay2004 said:


> From what I understand a +2 penalty is simply to represent the time it takes for you to fix whatever gave you that penalty.


Dene took a +2 penalty in feet to save time (iirc, though it may've been someone else)
Some competitors may take longer than 2 seconds at some puzzle to AUF.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 4, 2011)

I agree with all of Olivér's arguments for removing +2. 

There is also some strange things allowed under current regulations that would be fixed by removing +2.

There is +2 in all events but fewest moves, even in BLD. If a competitor are unsure if he has made the last M2 in a solve he could just do a R2 at take the +2. And that's in an event about memory.

Note:
Remember if your suggestions are serious to post in the WCA forum when the "official" discussion begins.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Why suboptimal scrambles? At home it makes sense, as you are the scrambler, but in competition there is no advantage over having the scrambler, scramble optimally.


 
Damage control. Some people may accidentally or intentionally see the scramble sheet and notice a short scramble. They may see or hear the scrambler only doing a few moves. I believe Bryan did this with 2x2 at Cubetcha and I thought it was a good move.

Actually we could change the regs for pyra and 2x2 to be optimal limit+1 as well, the 2x2 scrambler already has that functionality and it shouldn't be too hard to implement in the pyra scrambler.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 4, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Damage control. Some people may accidentally or intentionally see the scramble sheet and notice a short scramble. They may see or hear the scrambler only doing a few moves.
> Actually we could change the regs for pyra and 2x2 to be optimal limit+1 as well, the 2x2 scrambler already has that functionality and it shouldn't be too hard to implement in the pyra scrambler.


I understand. Of course if the regs were made that way for Skewb, it would have to be implicated into 2x2 and Pyraminx as well, otherwise it would be a bad inconsistency. There was discussion awhile ago, is optimal limit+1 possible to reach all positions? The 32 positions that take 12 moves, can they all be solved in 13?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2011)

esquimalt1 said:


> FMC clarification on how the scramble should not be related to the solution.



You mean you'd like a precise definition so you can circumvent it and submit a solution related to the scramble in a different way?



y3k9 said:


> wca shouldn't care who produces the cube that you use.



It doesn't.



Ethan Rosen said:


> Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."
> 
> Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with *green on U please*."



You mean _"white on F please"_ (if white is your preferred cross color).



Olivér Perge said:


> Trying to explain for every different person why *a cube with two moves off is valid* is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.



Since when is two moves off valid?

10e3) If *one move* is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a *penalty of 2 seconds*.
10e4) If *more than one move* is needed, the solve is ruled *DNF*.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 4, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Since when is two moves off valid?
> 
> 10e3) If *one move* is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a *penalty of 2 seconds*.
> 10e4) If *more than one move* is needed, the solve is ruled *DNF*.


 
I am familiar with the regulations.  

I was not clear enough. I was trying to look it from a non cuber point of view. By move I meant turning any side of the cube with any degree. For average, non cuber persons that is a move on a cube. Many of them think that even a less than 45° turn is not solved, so for them this (at 0:16) not seem to be solved, even thought by the WCA regulations it is a +2 right now. But literally you need 2 moves to solve the cube.


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?


 
The thing is, doing an extra face turn during a 2x2 solve has a much larger effect proportional to the finishing solve time than doing an extra face turn on a 7x7. Which basically brings us back to what is supposedly the point of the rule, that 2 seconds is "the time it takes to do that turn", or more like "the time it takes to do that turn plus a bit of a punishment for not doing it".


----------



## Karth (Jan 4, 2011)

I don't see a reason to remove +2 penalty all together, some might argue that a +2 penalty weighs so much more in a 2x2 solve than a 7x7x7, like Dene said:


Dene said:


> "the time it takes to do that turn plus a bit of a punishment for not doing it".



On the other hand like hr.mohr pointed out a +2 penalty in a BLD event is rather strange. I've come to this situation a few times while doing BLD at home and everytime I just thought this should've been a DNF.


hr.mohr said:


> There is also some strange things allowed under current regulations that would be fixed by removing +2.
> 
> There is +2 in all events but fewest moves, even in BLD. If a competitor are unsure if he has made the last M2 in a solve he could just do a R2 at take the +2. And that's in an event about memory.


 
So IMO +2 should stay, except in BLD where it should be removed.


----------



## (X) (Jan 4, 2011)

I think the guhong 6colored cube should be legal to use in competitions.
At the moment you are allowed to use cubes with tiles, which can give you just the same advantage.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 4, 2011)

Karth said:


> I don't see a reason to remove +2 penalty all together



So you don't think that Olivér has some valid arguments?

Other sports have changed their rules to improve competition like banning of the incredible Speedo swimsuit that has been used to set so many records in swimming. So we could also see it as a way of improving the level of competition by making each solve count more.



(X) said:


> I think the guhong 6colored cube should be legal to use in competitions.
> At the moment you are allowed to use cubes with tiles, which can give you just the same advantage.


 
There is a limit on how thick a tile can be (1.5mm) and I don't think that gives the same advantage as the colored GuHong.


----------



## Erik (Jan 4, 2011)

My suggestions for new regulations or keeping regulations:

*- +2 rule:* Keep the +2 rule, it's a good rule which has been around for a long time now. Removing it would be unfair to the results of the past, plus it just happens. It's like a yellow card in football or a time penalty at ice-hockey. Though for BLD I would support removing it, as for feet: you are just a n00b if one move takes longer than 2 seconds...
*- KO policy* Keep it the way it is (all puzzles allowed), the WCA is not the police, it's cool that you can even make your own puzzle and compete with it. 

*- Team BLD* As I recall, the suggestion was not approved last year because of lack of testing and for an incomplete set of rules. I think we did enough testing this year and had some discussion about the rules. To keep cubing a diverse sport I support Team BLD a LOT (social!). I don't have anything against Skewb but it's just another twisty puzzle.

*- Removal of a BLD event* Competitions have a very full program these days, as well for the organizers as for the delegate and competitors. I think the 3 big BLD events (4BLD 5BLD and multi BLD) are a bit too much. Having a total of 4 BLD events which are all memory sport events and not really Speedcubing events is a bit overdone in my opinion. I'm not saying BLD shouldn't be a part of Speedcubing, but 4 BLD events.... if you like memory sports that much I'd say start memorizing cards (which is a very impressive skill!)

*- Removal of the obliged certificate* I think it should be free for the organizers to chose their prizes, mostly certificates just cost a lot of ink and paper. Even if you want certificates lets just make one certificate per person with the achievements on it, saves money and also saves the environment...

*Display problem*
An additional suggestion for the community (I don't have knowledge enough of this) is to ask if someone knows a solution for the *stackmat displays*, they costs hundreds of $ or € worth of *batteries*. I think if we can find a solution (different displays, plug them into the powernet?) we save a lot of money which could be spend better as prize money, drinks/food, reduction of registration money, nicer venues, etc.

I think not everyone is aware of this problem.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 4, 2011)

For the display, you just need to rig in a 12V DC power supply if you don't want to use batteries. Its been done on some displays in the US before.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 4, 2011)

Erik said:


> *- +2 rule:* Keep the +2 rule, it's a good rule which has been around for a long time now. Removing it would be unfair to the results of the past, plus it just happens. It's like a yellow card in football or a time penalty at ice-hockey. Though for BLD I would support removing it, as for feet: you are just a n00b if one move takes longer than 2 seconds...



I see what you mean, but: Changing the regulations shouldn't be that big of a problem. We are always trying to improve, move from the present to a better future. For the record, moving from best of 1 to mean of 3 and moving from mean of 3 to average of 5 was a lot bigger change and yet we made it. The time penalty/yellow card example is good but DNF can apply to them as well.

I don't really get the _plus it just happens_ part. What I am trying to achive is to remove a rule which allows you to be either lazy or _just a noob._ If someone who fails to do a move with his feet in less than 2 seconds is just a noob, than a professional cuber who risks to get a +2 on a possible 9-10 seconds solve is a what?  As I said before it would improve cubing in the eye of a lot of non-cubers (let's face it, there are more non-cubers than cubers), and in my opinion it would be a big milestone in the road of becoming a recognized sport someday. 

Letting us finish the solves with "whatever move" we want seems unprofessional. Believe me, if you wanted to avoid the +2 than you would. I remember you failing on getting the WR average like 3 times, and I have to say (no offence, I still do love you! ) that you could get that average with some proper finishes. I also remember someone commenting on your +2 solve: "Too bad. But +2 is only like 60% your fault..." I have to ask: who is reponsible for the rest 40%?



Erik said:


> *- Team BLD* As I recall, the suggestion was not approved last year because of lack of testing and for an incomplete set of rules. I think we did enough testing this year and had some discussion about the rules. To keep cubing a diverse sport *I support Team BLD a LOT (social!)*.



I couldn't agree more on this one. This is also one thing that we should improve in cubing. Becoming more social and showing everyone that cubing is fun and we are not only nerds who can't even communicate to each other.



Erik said:


> *- Removal of the obliged certificate* I think it should be free for the organizers to chose their prizes, mostly certificates just cost a lot of ink and paper. Even if you want certificates lets just make one certificate per person with the achievements on it, saves money and also saves the environment...


 
I still think that for many cubers the first (and maybe only) certificate is a really big memory! We shouldn't steal that from them. I know, any other presents could be given to the winners, but for you that would be too much of that too. I think we should make certificates optional. The person giving them should simply ask: do you need it? Also, the personal certificate sounds great!


----------



## Karth (Jan 4, 2011)

hr.mohr said:


> So you don't think that Olivér has some valid arguments?



His arguments are good, of course the safety net should stay if the +2 penalty would be removed.

But I just think it's rather harsh to give a DNF for a solve that's only one turn from being solved. A +2 penalty is more resonable and that high no one could use it to their benefit.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 4, 2011)

Karth said:


> But I just think it's rather harsh to give a DNF for a solve that's only one turn from being solved.


 
It would be harsh if would not have the high level of competitive speedcubing that we have. 4-5 tps is now normal for an average cuber, which means that one move could be done properly in like 0.2 seconds. You decide: spend an extra 0.2 seconds on a solve or get a DNF. Not really a hard choice for me.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 4, 2011)

Many suggestions have already been listed in this thread..but I agree with Oliver on removing the +2 penalty. I never did like it. I agree that it looks pretty bad when you get a +2 penalty and the puzzle isn't even solved and it is accepted as a successful solve attempt.

To be honest +2 penalty is also stupid in BLD, earlier in this thread someone mentioned that someone who is M2 off, and can't remember, can just do R2 and take the penalty. If they can't remember what to do in their solve in its' entirety then they deserve the DNF!

I disagree with Erik in reference to the BLD events. I actually hope to see 6x6x6 BLD happen, and that added as an event (though I don't see that happening anytime in the near future, as not many people are capable of it).

In regards to Erik mentioning certificates, perhaps a way to combine all events won by someone (such as Dan Cohen who wins many events per competition) into one paper would be good, as mentioned it would save paper and more ink!

Just my take on it.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 4, 2011)

Erik said:


> *- Removal of a BLD event* Competitions have a very full program these days, as well for the organizers as for the delegate and competitors. I think the 3 big BLD events (4BLD 5BLD and multi BLD) are a bit too much. Having a total of 4 BLD events which are all memory sport events and not really Speedcubing events is a bit overdone in my opinion. I'm not saying BLD shouldn't be a part of Speedcubing, but 4 BLD events.... if you like memory sports that much I'd say start memorizing cards (which is a very impressive skill!)


 
I disagree. While memorisation is a very important part in big cubes/multi BLD, there is still the solving part which definitely requires speed (which is why there are so many solving methods and people constantly try to find faster algs). And after all, the factor that is used to measure performance is still the solve time, which means it is still a speed event. If we're talking about the old multi BLD event where there is no time limit, I agree that is very dependant on memory rather than any speed. Also, it is the World CUBE Association after all, and not the World SPEEDCUBING Association, why must it only be about speedcubing?

As for taking up too much time in competitions, well, the simple solution is to not have that event if there is no time or resources for it, which is already being done seeing how many competitions do not have big cubes BLD as events.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 4, 2011)

Erik said:


> *- Team BLD* As I recall, the suggestion was not approved last year because of lack of testing and for an incomplete set of rules. I think we did enough testing this year and had some discussion about the rules. To keep cubing a diverse sport I support Team BLD a LOT (social!). I don't have anything against Skewb but it's just another twisty puzzle.
> 
> *- Removal of the obliged certificate* I think it should be free for the organizers to chose their prizes, mostly certificates just cost a lot of ink and paper. Even if you want certificates lets just make one certificate per person with the achievements on it, saves money and also saves the environment...


 
Can you point to some set of proposed regulations for TeamBLD? The biggest issue I've seen is making sure the solver can't see with a cardboard sheet while the caller still can. In most competitions, it's been on the honor system because it's unofficial, so it doesn't matter.

I agree with the certificates. I proposed a lot of unnecessary regulations be removed on this thread: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=899


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> I don't really get the _plus it just happens_ part. What I am trying to achive is to remove a rule which allows you to be either lazy or _just a noob._ If someone who fails to do a move with his feet in less than 2 seconds is just a noob, than a professional cuber who risks to get a +2 on a possible 9-10 seconds solve is a what?  As I said before it would improve cubing in the eye of a lot of non-cubers (let's face it, there are more non-cubers than cubers), and in my opinion it would be a big milestone in the road of becoming a recognized sport someday.



Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPIVafgSkhA#t=39


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 4, 2011)

Erik said:


> My suggestions for new regulations or keeping regulations:
> 
> *- Removal of a BLD event* Competitions have a very full program these days, as well for the organizers as for the delegate and competitors. I think the 3 big BLD events (4BLD 5BLD and multi BLD) are a bit too much. Having a total of 4 BLD events which are all memory sport events and not really Speedcubing events is a bit overdone in my opinion. I'm not saying BLD shouldn't be a part of Speedcubing, but 4 BLD events.... if you like memory sports that much I'd say start memorizing cards (which is a very impressive skill!)


 
I think the side I take here is probably no surprise to anyone. As some others have said I disagree here. What makes 4 BLD events too much? Why aren't 3 events too much? Or 2? Or 1? As a matter of perspective a lot of current BLD cubers probably think 4 is _too few_.

I understand the sentiment, and I know some others probably share it. To be honest, if blindcubing events were trimmed enough times I probably would take your suggestion and move over to memory sports competitions. I think that the blindcubing side of speedcubing is the _more_ interesting part of cubing to be honest. I realize that most people would disagree with this, but it is what keeps me currently passionate about it.

So the question remains, what is the compromise? Obviously adding another event is out of the question, but can the community as a whole be happy with 4 BLD events? I think it is a healthy compromise, but I am obviously biased very strongly to one side.

Erik, you know that I respect you, and you are a very great person and you are gracious to the others who are not as elite as you. However, just know that to us BLD cubers this:


> ...if you like memory sports that much I'd say start memorizing cards (which is a very impressive skill!)



sounds a lot like


> If you really like memory sports that much I'd say to gtfo and go to memory sports competitions instead.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 4, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> I say again like I said last year: *remove the +2 penalty*. I think it should be either solved state or DNF.


I disagree that this is a good idea, because I've had a 2x2x2 that was loose enough that dropping it from even 10-20 cm would often (about half the time!) cause it to misalign. I didn't know that would happen because I don't normally drop my 2x2 every solve in practice, and by the time I realized it would ruin my average it was too late to find another one. I think it's unfair to give someone a DNF average just because they have a cube that has problems when it is dropped (and keep in mind dropping is *not* a normal function in speedsolving - it's an artificial practice that we have started to make stackmat timing easier). And sure, I could have wasted 0.2 seconds per solve, but why should I have to spend extra time in order to not come in last place?



Olivér Perge said:


> Last point (and this is the less important): it would finally make it clear for the non cubers and for the media if our cube was solved or not. Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.


I agree with this, however.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 4, 2011)

But qq, at my last competition, I had a good chance of getting a good result on my last solve. I went and did the solve fairly fast (for me at least), but almost stopped the timer with a U2 off. I quickly realized this, and went and fixed the puzzle. Of course this made my time a little slower, but I avoided the +2 penalty, keeping my average as a comp PB (raising my rank ~70 spots). Its part of the solving, making sure that the cube is _actually_solved. If you can't account for the state at the end of the solve, then are you really solving it?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 4, 2011)

masterofthebass: Er, if the cube is in a solved state when you let go, you ARE solving it. Absolutely no question there. But we don't look at it when you let go, we look at it when it stops moving, and that is why we have the +2 rule. Misalignments happen, it's just bad luck, and it's ridiculous to give a DNF for bad luck.

One possible solution would be to have the judge try to figure out (in non-Magic events) whether the cube was solved or not when the competitor let go. So you could say that, if the cube ends up misaligned and was also misaligned when the competitor let go, it's the competitor's fault and thus DNF, but if the cube ends up misaligned but was solved when the competitor let go, it's bad luck and thus +2.




Erik said:


> *- Removal of the obliged certificate* I think it should be free for the organizers to chose their prizes, mostly certificates just cost a lot of ink and paper. Even if you want certificates lets just make one certificate per person with the achievements on it, saves money and also saves the environment...


Making one certificate per person is more difficult because it requires having a printer at the event. If you can do this, great, but it's impractical for many competitions. If you give a separate certificate for each event/placement you can preprint them and then just write the names on them before the awards ceremony.



Erik said:


> *- Removal of a BLD event* Competitions have a very full program these days, as well for the organizers as for the delegate and competitors. I think the 3 big BLD events (4BLD 5BLD and multi BLD) are a bit too much. Having a total of 4 BLD events which are all memory sport events and not really Speedcubing events is a bit overdone in my opinion. I'm not saying BLD shouldn't be a part of Speedcubing, but 4 BLD events.... if you like memory sports that much I'd say start memorizing cards (which is a very impressive skill!)


This is kind of why I think 5x5 BLD should be removed. For me, though, it's not that there are too many BLD events, but rather that 4x4 BLD and 5x5 BLD are very similar - the techniques used are almost the same, and the people who are good at 5x5 BLD are listed in the 4x4 BLD rankings in almost the same order. For competition purposes, I see 5x5 BLD as a version of 4x4 BLD that takes longer and requires a bit more consistency, and I don't really see a need for it any more than there is a need for a 2-cube BLD relay, or a "10 3x3 cubes" speed relay.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 4, 2011)

qqwref said:


> This is kind of why I think 5x5 BLD should be removed. For me, though, it's not that there are too many BLD events, but rather that 4x4 BLD and 5x5 BLD are very similar - the techniques used are almost the same, and the people who are good at 5x5 BLD are listed in the 4x4 BLD rankings in almost the same order. For competition purposes, I see 5x5 BLD as a version of 4x4 BLD that takes longer and requires a bit more consistency, and I don't really see a need for it any more than there is a need for a 2-cube BLD relay, or a "10 3x3 cubes" speed relay.


 
Yes, but for those of us who like the differences between 4BLD and 5BLD, why should it be removed? Look at my ranking in 4BLD and 5LD, they are very different both in number and in terms of being in the top n-th percentile. I use the same method for both cubes, but it is a very different memory event to do 4BLD compared to 5BLD.

Would those who want the BLD events on the chopping block agree to a different compromise? I personally always do this in competitions I compete in as a courtesy to the speedcubers, but perhaps it should become mandatory. I always do very few speedcubing events, as having organized a few competitions with Andrew Kang and Hadley Sheffield I do know how difficult it can be to run the bigger cube BLD events (but worth it!). If competing in the bigger cubes BLD meant that you were restricted from competing in some or many of the speedcubing events to ease the stress on the organizers, then would that be a healthy compromise? I can guarantee that many of us big cubes BLD people would certainly agree to something like this in order to continue doing the events.

As to the argument that bigger cubes BLD, even if those competitors are not doing speed events, *still* requires more judges, remember that I have organized these events at competitions too. Andrew, Hadley and I have not always held a full big cube BLD complement for this very reason. In events where there are not _enough_ judges to accommodate this, then don't hold as many (or any) of the bigger cube BLD events.

This solution also allows for the possibility of competing in 2x2-7x7 BLD if the competitor is given the restriction that s/he may compete in NO speedcubing events at all (hey I can dream right?)


----------



## Toad (Jan 4, 2011)

I had a thought about how to run certain events in the competition I might be running:

Sort of running a two track system. Big BLD events at the same time as some side events (Sq1, Pyra etc.) and each competitor can only compete in one track of events. The challenge I thought with this would be judging the BLD events but then I thought that each person doing Big BLD could pair up with another and they could judge each other.

What do others reckon for this as a compromise on this?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 4, 2011)

I remember that at some point a while ago, Erik was advocating for removing at least one of the BLD events (as he has done repeatedly for several years), and someone else (I can't remember who - I searched, but couldn't find the exchange) said they would form a separate BLD organization if it ever happened. Erik responded by saying something to the effect of that he thought that was a great idea, since it would allow us BLD cubers to have more fun.

I admit that the thought of having more control to do more BLD events is enticing, but I'm responding to this exchange primarily because I wanted to point out that most of us BLD solvers still think of ourselves as speedcubers (although in some cases, such as mine, particularly bad ones), and we really enjoy going to speedcubing competitions. Chris is actually somewhat fast at 3x3x3, so it applies even more to him. (And then there are people like Ville, who are really fantastic at both.) The social aspect would be terrible if we had to split off - it's much more fun being a part of the regular speedcubing community. And let's face it, memory sports are very different from BLD solving. I've tried memorizing decks of cards, and while I can do it (not very well, but I can do it), it's nowhere near as fun for me as getting to solve a cube when I'm done memorizing. The memory sports that currently exist really don't appeal much to me.

So I really hope we can stay together with some sort of happy compromise. 4x4x4 BLD and 5x5x5 BLD are really every bit as different as 4x4x4 speed and 5x5x5 speed. There's an extra set of commutators you need to know, and the way the memorization and solving interact are a little different. Also, the pacing is so different, typically. BLD solvers don't have that many events still, and it would be nice to keep the ones we have, at least. If we can do some of the compromise things that Chris suggests, can we keep them please?

If I had to give up some events to compete in others, I admit I would be a little disappointed (because I really love doing all of the events!), but I would be willing to compromise. There might be times when I would choose to do speedsolving events instead of BLD events, if I thought it wouldn't hurt BLD cubing and I thought I could really significantly improve my personal bests at speedsolving events on that particular day but not BLD events. But I would probably opt for the BLD events most of the time if I had to choose.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 4, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> Last point (and this is the less important): it would finally make it clear for the non cubers and for the media if our cube was solved or not. Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional.


 
I've said before that no decision should ever be made for the benefit of the media or bystanders. Pretty much every professional sport has some rules that don't really make sense to me, but I accept them because the governing body of that sport says that's how it should be. Cubing should be the same way. You are also assuming that everyone wants cubing to be widely recognized, or that it is somehow beneficial. The WCA is not a profit-seeking organization like NFL, MLB, etc. so I fail to see the incentive to increase exposure so badly. Yes, more sponsors means more competitions, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the integrity of our sport and pander to the ignorant public/media in order to get there.


----------



## TMOY (Jan 4, 2011)

randomtoad said:


> I had a thought about how to run certain events in the competition I might be running:
> 
> Sort of running a two track system. Big BLD events at the same time as some side events (Sq1, Pyra etc.) and each competitor can only compete in one track of events. The challenge I thought with this would be judging the BLD events but then I thought that each person doing Big BLD could pair up with another and they could judge each other.
> 
> What do others reckon for this as a compromise on this?


 Sorry but that kind of pairing doesn't work. You can't judge a big BLD attempt if you're competing too and haven't done your own attempt yet.

Besides, I really wouldn't like to be forced to choose between Square-1 and 4BLD. I think the usual way of holding big BLDs as side events (you have a whole afternoon to do your attempts, you choose the moment when you want to do them (and eventually which speed events you may sacrifice for them)) works much better.


----------



## Toad (Jan 4, 2011)

TMOY said:


> Sorry but that kind of pairing doesn't work. *You can't judge a big BLD attempt if you're competing too and haven't done your own attempt yet.*
> 
> Besides, I really wouldn't like to be forced to choose between Square-1 and 4BLD. I think the usual way of holding big BLDs as side events (you have a whole afternoon to do your attempts, you choose the moment when you want to do them (and eventually which speed events you may sacrifice for them)) works much better.


 
That's pretty obvious, I'm a muppet :fp


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Jan 4, 2011)

People are all complaining about cheating with a blindfold. But the comps I attended The judge of the solve was responsible for holding a paper between the solver and the cube?


----------



## Zarxrax (Jan 4, 2011)

For the +2 penalty, I think it should remain (except for bld), but one of the big issues I see is that as some have said, applying the same penalty across all puzzles doesn't seem fair.
I would propose that for the smaller, quicker puzzles (2x2x2, pyraminx, magic), there should be a +1 penalty instead. 1 second is still a rather significant penalty for those events, but it wont kill averages quite so badly.


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Jan 4, 2011)

Zarxrax said:


> For the +2 penalty, I think it should remain (except for bld), but one of the big issues I see is that as some have said, applying the same penalty across all puzzles doesn't seem fair.
> I would propose that for the smaller, quicker puzzles (2x2x2, pyraminx, magic), there should be a +1 penalty instead. 1 second is still a rather significant penalty for those events, but it wont kill averages quite so badly.


 Could be a possibility but penalties are made for being nasty though. If you change them you keep changing and making exceptions for penalties although I like your idea.


----------



## Slash (Jan 4, 2011)

I've been thinking a lot about the +2 issue. On the one hand, you should solve the puzzle so it'd seem to be ok to simply delete this regulation and judge everything that was a +2 as a DNF. Although, this wouldn't be fair at the locked-up solves. So, I suggest the following:
Every turn that is bigger then 45 but smaller than 90 degrees should be +2, and turns bigger than 90 degrees should be counted as a DNF 'causet you haven't done a move, which if was during the solve would also be a DNF (hope you understand...)
+2 maybe should be reduced to +1, I'm not sure about that. It should be the time in which the move can _certainly_ be done, even if the competitor's best time is 8 minutes. And I think this is rather 2 seconds than 1.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 4, 2011)

Slash said:


> +2 maybe should be reduced to +1, I'm not sure about that. It should be the time in which the move can _certainly_ be done, even if the competitor's best time is 8 minutes. And I think this is rather 2 seconds than 1.


 




That fix probably took just barely under 1 second but it's close enough to prove 1 second is not a long enough penalty


----------



## Hodari (Jan 4, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
> How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.


 
I just started cubing about 1.5 months go and never done any competitions, so could be wrong on this but..
I'm guessing it's not so much that a different orientation might give an advantage but rather the position was standardized simply to make it easier for the judge inspecting the cubes to ensure they are all scrambled the same way.

Also, I had an unusual situation occur last night and not entirely sure if the current rules cover it. While solving my cube(Guhong), during the final algorithm, one of the corner pieces somehow got twisted in its place without actually popping out so that at the end, everything else was correctly solved except that one corner which was rotated 90 degrees. In an actual competition, would this be considered a DNF if it was not fixed or would this fall under rule 5b5) and be considered a successful solve? Again, note the following:
1. The cube was 100% correctly solved prior to scrambling.
2. No pops occurred during scrambling or solving the cube.
3. At the end of the solve, all pieces were in the correct position and only this single corner was oriented incorrectly.

If needed, maybe the rules could be clarified to address this situation, though I'm guessing it's rather rare that this would actually occur.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 4, 2011)

In regards to the +2 issue I would also be fine with removing this from BLD events and just calling it a DNF.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 4, 2011)

Hodari said:


> While solving my cube(Guhong), during the final algorithm, one of the corner pieces somehow got twisted in its place without actually popping out so that at the end, everything else was correctly solved except that one corner which was rotated 90 degrees. In an actual competition, would this be considered a DNF if it was not fixed or would this fall under rule 5b5) and be considered a successful solve? Again, note the following:


It is considered as a puzzle defect and you can fix it, otherwise would be a DNF; You have already solved it and there is no way you can put the pieces in a more favorable position.


----------



## Radu (Jan 4, 2011)

Wouldn't it be better to discuss the change proposals here: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=918e386497489a403e6d1bb607019164?
And with a separate thread for each idea so that we can keep track of every opinion easier.


----------



## Erik (Jan 4, 2011)

I can't quote everyone so I'll just reply like this:

Masterofthebass: that's a great idea! I will ask some main organizing people soon about the possibility to utilize this here too.

Olivér: loose cubes are fast cubes, if you drop a cube straight on a table with the white face down even calmly, it will still flip over a LOT of the times. With a loose cube this can mean that a side will turn no matter how precise you are at twisting. Luckily the cubes are improving, for instance the 2x2's with springs make that I +2 much less. That was my other few percents ;-)

Chris H.: I love you  I really do. Don't understand me wrong, I deeply admire the memorization of cards, that's why I added it in the hope nobody would get me wrong. I have the same admiration for 4 and 5 BLD. To my pride I actually can solve a 4x4 BLD now  I am still convinced though that especially the 3 big BLD events (not big-cube events ;-) are more memory sport than cubing (or SPEEDcubing). Because it is so far away from my aspect of 'speedcubing' I think 3 of those events are just too many.

Mike Hughey: thanks for mentioning that, it shows my intentions better than I wrote them down here.

Bryan: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...eam-BLD-discussion-thread!&highlight=Team+BLD

qqwref: I did not think about this because I never saw a competition without a printer. If you do not have a printer it is indeed easier to print the certificates on forehand!

pablobaluba: it would, but sadly that forum has very few members so a discussion with the full community is impossible


----------



## Julian (Jan 4, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Competitor A comes back from his solves and joins a table with a bunch of competitors. "Man, that scramble was so easy, I'm so glad I do cross on green."
> 
> Competitor B to scrambler: "I'd like you to scramble with green on U please."


Consider this similar case: Competitor A gets a much better than normal 2x2 or pyraminx solve (say he gets half what he averages). Competitor B, who is very good at this event and is in the same heat as Competitor A, is on the lookout for a one-look solve. Thus an unfair advantage.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 4, 2011)

Erik said:


> Bryan: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...eam-BLD-discussion-thread!&highlight=Team+BLD


 
And they seem to be avoiding the big issue (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ussion-thread!&p=497098&viewfull=1#post497098), so perhaps you can share how they've handled that in Europe.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 4, 2011)

Julian said:


> Consider this similar case: Competitor A gets a much better than normal 2x2 or pyraminx solve (say he gets half what he averages). Competitor B, who is very good at this event and is in the same heat as Competitor A, is on the lookout for a one-look solve. Thus an unfair advantage.


 
Nothing we can do about it, I think.
Maybe have timing stations separated, like the people on a call center, so nobody can see the other people's times.
Yeah, probably not a good idea 

About the +2...it may be a good idea for the audience, but I think it should stay, because of the mentioned loose cubes (specially 2x2x2).

About the big cubes bld, if you don't like/have time for it, just don't hold it. It's not like it will damage you in any way (as a competitor or organizer).


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2011)

Reinier Schippers said:


> People are all complaining about cheating with a blindfold. But the comps I attended The judge of the solve was responsible for holding a paper between the solver and the cube?


 
I did not see anyone complaining about this. And yes the judge is responsible for holding a paper between the face of the solver and the cube.


----------



## hatter (Jan 4, 2011)

I think that _reducing _the +2 penalty is kind of silly. Not too long ago (before our WRs were so low), 2 seconds wasn't as big of a percentage as it is now (obviously). We can't continually reduce the penalty because people are getting better, so we might as well not reduce it at all. Does that make sense?


----------



## Julian (Jan 4, 2011)

Regarding +2: It's nice the way it is, but the impact of the penalty on a 2x2 solve is, as mentioned, substantial. I like the +1 idea for faster to solve puzzles, except the people could get better at a particular puzzle, and that puzzle would have to be included in the +1 realm. I like the idea of a proportional penalty, except that it would only work for 2x2. Imagine doing a 7x7 solve, and finishing with a +40 or something.

Regarding +2 in BLD: I do think that it's an unfair advantage to the average BLD solver that they can R2 to avoid a DNF when they haven't fully memorised. This convinced me that there shouldn't be +2 in BLD... for a while. For the elite BLD solvers (Alejandro, etc.) BLD is more of a speedsolving sport than a memory sport. These people are much more likely to accidentally mess up the last turn while stopping the timer, which would lead to an undeserved DNF.

Thoughts?


----------



## HelpCube (Jan 4, 2011)

1. add skewb. I dont understand why we would need another year, its just like adding any other event like 4x4 or 5x5, you can apply the same rules.
2. thoughts on BLD: 
It's hard to find a blindfold which will completely cover up your eyes, which is obviously the reason for the paper. I think the judge should look at it, and just make sure its not see-through or something like that, but be required to use the paper. (i understand that this is already in the rules, im just helping out with the debate on here)


----------



## riffz (Jan 5, 2011)

In regards to removing any of the current BLD events, I strongly believe that we should keep them all. I like the idea of allowing competitors to choose whether to compete in those or other side events because there is often not enough time at competitions.

But for those of you who are saying that 4 events is too much and that 4BLD is very similar to 5BLD, I am somewhat puzzled that you are not also suggesting that the 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7 speed events also be removed, as they are all very similar to the 4x4.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2011)

riffz said:


> But for those of you who are saying that 4 events is too much and that 4BLD is very similar to 5BLD, I am somewhat puzzled that you are not also suggesting that the 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7 speed events also be removed, as they are all very similar to the 4x4.


As someone with a lot of experience in bigcubes, 4x4 and 5x5 are extremely different in terms of speedsolving methods and the feel of the solve, once you get good. The centers and edge pairing are substantially different, and the parities on 4x4 have a big impact too. As an example of the difference, Hsuan Chang is ranked 5th in 5x5 and 89th (!) in 4x4.

6x6 and 7x7 are pretty similar to each other, but they are also pretty different from the 5x5 because of more complicated edge and center stages. And yet, Chujian Gan is ranked 3rd in 7x7 and 85th in 6x6. I'd personally say we don't really need both events, but they are both far shorter than 5BLD, and in addition having them both official makes V-Cubes more likely to continue supporting the community.


----------



## riffz (Jan 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> As someone with a lot of experience in bigcubes, 4x4 and 5x5 are extremely different in terms of speedsolving methods and the feel of the solve, once you get good. The centers and edge pairing are substantially different, and the parities on 4x4 have a big impact too. As an example of the difference, Hsuan Chang is ranked 5th in 5x5 and 89th (!) in 4x4.
> 
> 6x6 and 7x7 are pretty similar to each other, but they are also pretty different from the 5x5 because of more complicated edge and center stages. And yet, Chujian Gan is ranked 3rd in 7x7 and 85th in 6x6. I'd personally say we don't really need both events, but they are both far shorter than 5BLD, and in addition having them both official makes V-Cubes more likely to continue supporting the community.


 
And I agree with you. But some could also argue the differences between 4BLD and 5BLD in a similar manner, which was my point. I realize that 7x7 is still faster than 4BLD, but it's up to the organizer to hold it anyway, so I don't really see the problem.


----------



## Cubing321 (Jan 5, 2011)

For knock-offs, aslong as it has 6 sides and 6 colors I dont think it should matter about the internals...


----------



## Shack (Jan 5, 2011)

Erik said:


> Chris H.: I love you  I really do. Don't understand me wrong, I deeply admire the memorization of cards, that's why I added it in the hope nobody would get me wrong. I have the same admiration for 4 and 5 BLD. *To my pride I actually can solve a 4x4 BLD now * I am still convinced though that especially the 3 big BLD events (not big-cube events ;-) are more memory sport than cubing (or SPEEDcubing). Because it is so far away from my aspect of 'speedcubing' I think 3 of those events are just too many.


 
I somehow find it really funny that your official 4x4 BLD is with a +2 ^^


----------



## Erik (Jan 5, 2011)

That wasn't my only 'success'


----------



## Stefan (Jan 5, 2011)

riffz said:


> I realize that 7x7 is still faster than 4BLD


 
7x7) 3:45.27 + 3:27.34 + 3:28.27 + three 7x7 scrambles
4bBLD) 4:42.34 + one 4x4 scramble


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> 7x7) 3:45.27 + 3:27.34 + 3:28.27 + three 7x7 scrambles
> 4bBLD) 4:42.34 + one 4x4 scramble


 
Yes, and with typical scrambling times by typical scramblers, three 7x7x7 speedsolves at WR speed would take longer than *three* 4x4x4 BLD solves at WR speed.


----------



## riffz (Jan 5, 2011)

Good point.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 5, 2011)

Not to forget that 7x7x7 is usually splitted into 2 groups instead of 1 for 4x4x4 BLD.

Considering other topics:

displays: I have no idea why people discuss topics here, which are not even mentioned in the regulations.

certificates: 



> 6d)	Organisation teams of competitions *should* have (at least) certificates for all category winners, signed by the leader of the organisation team and by the WCA delegate.



Obviously the regulations allow the organisaers to do whatever they want. Certificates are no "must have" and also they don't say anything about a certificate per category.

Team BLD: Team BLD is really fun. But that's it. It's a typical fun event. We will never be able to ensure regulations sufficiently on a standard competition for this event.
Considering the "social" argument: Why searching for social events as we already have so much sociality in every competition? Also thats no argument for making it official. Still Team BLD can be held as unofficial event on every competition.


----------



## Erik (Jan 5, 2011)

Where is it mentioned that displays are something within the regulations? I pointed it out as an inefficiency during most competitions. Don't you like the suggestion?

I think 6d is not clear enough about the certificates since you and me read the regulation and both understood something different, and reading the other reactions we are not the only ones. Besides this... again: don't you like this as a suggestion?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 5, 2011)

One really big point against TeamBLD being official:
A lot of newcomers (you know those ones that average 1min for 3x3 at their first competition...) tend to not know the rules. While they really should bother to look over things, I've seen people not know how +2s are measured much too frequently. Most rules are fairly standard between events (all cubic puzzles go by nearly the same rules)

With TeamBLD, fairly complex rules will have to be made; ones that newcomers probably won't bother to read.

What I fear is that this event would have quite the number of teams who have NO idea what they're doing, breaking rules that they didn't know existed.

-statue


----------



## Erik (Jan 5, 2011)

Stachu: that's a very irrelevant argument in my opinion. If you compete you should know the rules. How can you sign up for an event if you don't know the rules? Every competitor is expected to know the official regulations anyway, if people really compete without knowing the rules its their own fault. I agree with some other arguments against Team BLD but not this one.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 5, 2011)

Yeah I love DNFing people who don't bother to read the regulations, it's what they get for being lazy.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 5, 2011)

Erik:
While that's a pretty way to look at it, I'm trying to be realistic. As much as we say "don't register if you don't know the rules," people will still do it.
I'm worried about competition time being wasted, not teaching some 12 year olds that they need to read.


----------



## Erik (Jan 5, 2011)

Stachu: what complex rules do you see? It are the same rules as BLD plus normal cubing combined. The only rule you have is who can touch the puzzle. If you are really worried about people not knowing the rules you can just do a demo solve before starting the event. That is been done sometimes at competitions with newcomers just for 3x3. I think it would work very well for team BLD too.
And like said before, if people don't know the rules it's their own fault. If you get a DNF because of it, you learned it anyway. After that you have the next attempt and have learned the rule you didn't before..


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2011)

Stefan said:


> 7x7) 3:45.27 + 3:27.34 + 3:28.27 + three 7x7 scrambles
> 4bBLD) 4:42.34 + one 4x4 scramble


It is worth noting that all good 7x7 competitors (that is, lots of people) will be under twice the WR time, while only a few 4BLD competitors in the world will. The spread for big BLD events is far greater because of the low number of solves people do before competing. (4BLD solves are much harder, obviously, but this point holds). And 5BLD is about 3 times as long with the same spread.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2011)

Question: to everyone who enjoys DNFing people who don't know the regulations, are you sure that all competitions where you did this were:
- clearly announced as WCA-official and pursuant to WCA regulations, for those who do not already follow such things in the community?
- in a venue with internet access, or else in a venue with at least one available printed copy of the regulations?


I think team BLD is a very good example of an event that really needs a trial period before it can be official. We have to iron some things out (regulation details, organization issues such as deciding whether to let someone be in more than one team so they can be a caller AND a solver, training some judges) before it becomes a real event, if it will become one, and I don't think we've satisfactorily done that yet.


----------



## emolover (Jan 5, 2011)

They need to add relays. Like the 2-5 and 2-4.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 5, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> I'm worried about competition time being wasted


 
And that's one thing with TeamBLD, is one of the people doesn't even need to know how to solve. I did TeamBLD with my mom at Cubetcha and we got a 9:00.25 (granted, she screwed up and lied to me which cost us a bunch of time). Yes, I know you can implement time limits. But even then, you get people who sign up anyway and DNF the first solve because they go over the limit. Maybe I'll try TeamBLD with my 4-year-old sometime.....


----------



## TMOY (Jan 5, 2011)

emolover said:


> They need to add relays. Like the 2-5 and 2-4.


The problems with such relays is the lack of balance between the different skills required; the winner will usually be the fastest at the biggest cube, not the most skilled cuber overall.
They are fun to do as unofficial events but they don't deserve to be official for that reason.


----------



## Erik (Jan 5, 2011)

I think the problem with relays is more that:
- they don't add anything new
- they take LONG
- but also the balance thing yeah


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 5, 2011)

I think there should be a reform in the one handed solving section, allowing to have contact with the table in order to do slice moves.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2011)

TiLiMayor said:


> I think there should be a reform in the one handed solving section, allowing to have contact with the table in order to do slice moves.


Table contact is already allowed.........

C1b) During the solve no other body part or any object other than the surface must touch the puzzle.


----------



## IamWEB (Jan 6, 2011)

Add Mirror Blocks. Rarely ever will there be enough people at a competition to do it, but should it happen there will be MB as an event.
If only that would actually happen. o.o


----------



## da25centz (Jan 6, 2011)

IamWEB said:


> Add Mirror Blocks. Rarely ever will there be enough people at a competition to do it, but should it happen there will be MB as an event.
> If only that would actually happen. o.o


 
I dont think Mirror Blocks should be an event. Maybe for the forum comps, MAYBE, but not at actually comps. Its just a weird looking 3x3 that takes longer to solve. Not worth wasting comp time to do it


----------



## IamWEB (Jan 6, 2011)

Forum competitions, great.
No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Seriously, I'm not.


Stop highlighting.



Seriously.


----------



## da25centz (Jan 6, 2011)

IamWEB said:


> Forum competitions, great.
> No, I'm not being sarcastic.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not.
> ...


 
lol.
talk to mike


----------



## aronpm (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> I think 6d is not clear enough about the certificates since you and me read the regulation and both understood something different, and reading the other reactions we are not the only ones. Besides this... again: don't you like this as a suggestion?


 
6d isn't unclear in my opinion. It simply says that organizers "should" give certificates as awards. "Should" is well defined in the WCA regulations, because at the start of the document it states:


> The use of the words 'must', 'must not', 'should', 'should not' and 'may' comply with RFC 2119.



RFC 2119 states:


> SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.



So certificates are "recommended" but they are not required.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 6, 2011)

As the guy who sells puzzles in my country organized a comp, a suggested event was mirror blocks, I thought there was not going to be as it we were applying wca rules but turned out as a 3 12year old kid competing.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 6, 2011)

the only mirror blocks event I could see being added is mirror blocks BLD (no inspection). That would warrant a new event, but I doubt there's enough interest for it to happen.


----------



## whauk (Jan 6, 2011)

i think *4x4 OH *would be fun. but i am probably alone 

con: noobs would probably compete and need like 10 mins and its hard to fit in the timetable....

pro: we have 4 blind events with ALWAYS only a few people competing (at 4bld and 5bld) and only one OH event (which is probably as famous as 3bld). so why shouldnt we just make more OH events? there could be a time limit of maybe 4 mins and format could be mean of 3 (or even best of 1 or 2 or sth). we could test it one year using best of 1 and see whether it gains much interest... and srsly we all want to see faz making sub1 

yeah just considering... you know im an OH-lover


----------



## da25centz (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> the only mirror blocks event I could see being added is mirror blocks BLD (no inspection). That would warrant a new event, but I doubt there's enough interest for it to happen.


 
that would be very fun, trying to solve it only by feel. Well, fun the first few times, but again, only good as a forum comp because theres not enough interest


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> the only mirror blocks event I could see being added is mirror blocks BLD (no inspection). That would warrant a new event, but I doubt there's enough interest for it to happen.


Yeah, I could see this being a new event in the future. It's clearly different from both 3speed and 3BLD and could be quite interesting. Plus, blind people can compete with no disadvantage!

I don't think any puzzles that are basically pure 3x3 variations (mirror blocks, sudocube, mastermorphix, void cube, etc.) will or should be added as new events. The solving technique would be very similar to the normal 3x3, and then it would just revolve around how fast you can recognize and turn an oddly shaped or badly turning 3x3. Not very interesting IMO.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> the only mirror blocks event I could see being added is mirror blocks BLD (no inspection). That would warrant a new event, but I doubt there's enough interest for it to happen.


I have done it and its not that bad, I mean pretty interesting thing to do but not to be considered as an oficial event, kinda live solving sq-1 cube shape blindfolded.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 6, 2011)

whauk said:


> i think *4x4 OH *would be fun. but i am probably alone
> 
> con: noobs would probably compete and need like 10 mins and its hard to fit in the timetable....
> 
> ...


 
I would suggest instead 2BLD or 2x2 OH it has been done as unofficial in chile.

But still both will be so fast, kinda like magic and mmagic.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 6, 2011)

TiLiMayor said:


> I have done it and its not that bad, I mean pretty interesting thing to do but not to be considered as an oficial event, kinda live solving sq-1 cube shape blindfolded.


 
except sq1 shape BLD is a maximum of 7 moves.


----------



## RCTACameron (Jan 6, 2011)

I agree with having less BLD events, not because of the time they take, but because of the fact that DNFs are more common than successes. At the last competition I went to, there were only 2 people out of 7 who got any successes in 3BLD, and only 1 out of 4 who got successes in MultiBLD. At the last competition I went to with BigBLD, no one out of the 4 people competing in 4BLD had successes. I don't think it's really worth sacrificing speedcubing events for hours when no one gets successes. I think that it would be logical to remove 5BLD.

I support adding Skewb, because it's just another speedsolving events, so the rules are simple, it doesn't take much time (less than 3x3 for some people) and it has a reasonable amount of interest behind it.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 6, 2011)

RCTACameron said:


> I agree with having less BLD events, not because of the time they take, but because of the fact that DNFs are more common than successes. At the last competition I went to, there were only 2 people out of 7 who got any successes in 3BLD, and only 1 out of 4 who got successes in MultiBLD. At the last competition I went to with BigBLD, no one out of the 4 people competing in 4BLD had successes. I don't think it's really worth sacrificing speedcubing events for hours when no one gets successes. I think that it would be logical to remove 5BLD.
> 
> I support adding Skewb, because it's just another speedsolving events, so the rules are simple, it doesn't take much time (less than 3x3 for some people) and it has a reasonable amount of interest behind it.



Gtfo, just because there are a lot of nubs out there - doesn't mean you remove it for the people that are very good at it.
That's like banning cars because there are a small proportion of idiots out there that get drunk and go drag racing or whatever.


----------



## aronpm (Jan 6, 2011)

There is no reason to _remove_ any events. If an event takes too much time, just don't host it.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> except sq1 shape BLD is a maximum of 7 moves.


Then I guess I have a lot practice pending.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

2x2BLD won't (and shouldn't) be added because there is too much variation in solve difficulty - unlike 2x2 speedsolving, where a very easy solution might cut the time in half, a very easy 2BLD might cut the time to 1/5 of normal for all but the fastest competitors. So it will be like 2x2 single but worse - if you got an easy enough scramble, even if you might normally average 40+, you will almost certainly have a 10 or better. You could hold it as an average event too, but the single WR would still exist, and the average event would be pretty difficult for all but the best to get a result in.


----------



## Kian (Jan 6, 2011)

aronpm said:


> There is no reason to _remove_ any events. If an event takes too much time, just don't host it.


 
I agree with this 100%.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 6, 2011)

aronpm said:


> There is no reason to _remove_ any events. If an event takes too much time,* just don't host it*.


 
Except for Worlds. Since every official event has to have a world champion, adding loads of events and not removing any would end up with a week-long World Championship. I see no problem with removing something that has been official for a while. I remember 3x3x3 speedblind being official and than they removed it. 

Plus if a large margin of the community votes for that to happen, than why not?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> I remember 3x3x3 speedblind being official and than they removed it.


False. When it came to decide what was "official" in 2006, speed blind didn't make the cut. Before that, nothing was technically an "official event."


----------



## Dene (Jan 6, 2011)

aronpm said:


> There is no reason to _remove_ any events. If an event takes too much time, just don't host it.


 
There is plenty of reason to remove events. For example, Magic is stupid (as a puzzle). Everyone agrees. I have no idea how it remains an official event other than the fact that some bored people spent a little bit of time getting "good" at it.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 6, 2011)

Dene said:


> There is plenty of reason to remove events. For example, *Magic is stupid* (as a puzzle). Everyone agrees. I have no idea how it remains an official event other than the fact that some bored people spent a little bit of time getting "good" at it.


 
Finally I can agree with that! Now I can't see how it became an official event other than it is a Rubik's product.

Lucas: Thanks!


----------



## Radu (Jan 6, 2011)

As I mentioned on WCA forum too...I don't see any reason to keep:
-MasterMagic - it's plain boring and just a matter of skill. (I'd vote for Magic too, but that's an event that is easy to learn and might bring new people into cubing, but otherwise I'd remove these both. Also, as it is still a popular event, maybe it should be announced 1 year in advance, so that people get used to the idea it will be removed)
-3x3 with feet - it makes speedcubing look like circus and is a waste of time.


----------



## Erik (Jan 6, 2011)

with feet:
- media love it, it makes cubing look like a sport where the impossible can be done. Not once have they made the association with circus, goofy or dirty. Only impressive.
- waste of time? It is quite a fast event, mostly only best of 1 or a mean of 3 for the faster guys. The only thing that needs to be done is to put the stackmat on the ground.
- its funny and gives a good laugh to watch people POP-ing or failing at PLL's, I never hear people laugh during other events...

Mastermagic: I wouldn't mind seeing it go either. Magic is indeed a nice event for beginners where newcomers have a lot of fun doing it. It's a 'ball in hat' game, mastermagic is a 'put the ball in the hat and take it' game, which doesn't add that much new to the 'ball in hat'. Still I don't have anything against keeping it either, it's a fast event.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 6, 2011)

I think magic is a stupid event but I'm not against it being held in competitions. I think it's kind of a warm up event in most competitions where it's the first event of the day and people are just getting used to the environment, warming up etc. Also this gives chance for people coming from far away to turn up later for their main events. And, like Erik said, it's really fast


----------



## Slash (Jan 6, 2011)

amostay2004 said:


> [video...]
> That fix probably took just barely under 1 second but it's close enough to prove 1 second is not a long enough penalty



ok youre right.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> with feet:
> - *media love it*, it makes cubing look like a sport where the impossible can be done. Not once have they made the association with circus, goofy or dirty. Only impressive.


 
I don't know what media sources you have but all I heard from media is that feet solving is a joke. That is the only and good reason for them to ridcule us. It is a typical Guinnes World Record event where they keep records of people eating M&M with straws or something like that. 

In my opinion feet is not serious enough and it did not develop to a serious event here too. It has been here for 6 years and yet only 248 person competed in it out of the raughly 11000. Of course you can say that 4x4x4 blind and 5x5x5 blind has even fewer competitor, but they are much more harder than just solving a cube with less than 1 tps in average. 

Not to mention the growing hygenic problem, which makes it even more harder to organize. (Ron has 4 stack mats just for feet.)

I think one-handed is the perfect dexterity event, I would not mind removing feet. 

Even Anssi said at his World Champion video: Don't take this too seriously!



Erik said:


> - its funny and gives a good laugh to watch people POP-ing or failing at PLL's, I never hear people laugh during other events...



There is a difference between laughing with you and laughing at you.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 6, 2011)

The media over here simply loves feet cubing. Rafael Cinoto has been in a lot of TV shows only because he can do the cube with his feet (in less than a minute, so it doesn't take too much tv time, but still...).

But it has just a few people doing it and I wouldn't really mind removing it. Sometimes it takes up to half an hour for 2 or 3 people to compete.


----------



## Erik (Jan 6, 2011)

Olivér, do you want me to name all media that interviewed or wrote about me being involved in feet-solving and thought it was impressive (100%)? Or shall I expand to the others as well... -.-

And about POP-ing: I laughed at myself too 
I agree that it isn't very popular, that would actually be the only big reason that I have. Like you said fairly: 4 and 5 BLD has less competitors. The fact that those are more difficult explains why it is less, but does not change the fact that indeed those two events are less popular.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2011)

Olivér Perge said:


> Since every official event has to have a world champion, adding loads of events and not removing any would end up with a *week-long World Championship*



Awesome!



pablobaluba said:


> -MasterMagic - it's plain boring and *just a matter of skill*.



Uh... what?! So are *all* events.


----------



## MAHTI-ANSSI (Jan 6, 2011)

If feet stays official the format should be changed to average of 5. The WRs are faster than 5x5 and Megaminx for example and I don't think POPs are funny when they can ruin a mean so easily.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 6, 2011)

MAHTI-ANSSI said:


> If feet stays official the format should be changed to average of 5. The WRs are faster than 5x5 and Megaminx for example and I don't think POPs are funny when they can ruin a mean so easily.


 
The WR time is not the issue. If you look at the top 30 feet and the top 30 5x5, you can see that even relatively high ranked people at feet are getting slower and slower. The average solving time for a random person doing feet is way higher than that of 5x5. Combine that with the fact that a lot of competitions don't even hold mean of 3, I really don't see a reason for this.


----------



## blakedacuber (Jan 6, 2011)

keep magic for 2 rasons its an easy event for new comers
and like some have said it is a warm event and is useful for people who have to travel incase they are late(hapened to me )


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> Where is it mentioned that displays are something within the regulations? I pointed it out as an inefficiency during most competitions. Don't you like the suggestion?
> 
> I think 6d is not clear enough about the certificates since you and me read the regulation and both understood something different, and reading the other reactions we are not the only ones. Besides this... again: don't you like this as a suggestion?



I'm not questionning the suggestion, I'm just questionning why it is made in a thread called "Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes", because this basically doesnt make any sense.

I have no problems with the current displays and batteries. Of course I would prefer cheaper versions, but I cannot see how anyone of us would be able to realise that. Also I prefer the batteries to having cables all over the stages.



aronpm said:


> 6d isn't unclear in my opinion. It simply says that organizers "should" give certificates as awards. "Should" is well defined in the WCA regulations, because at the start of the document it states:
> 
> 
> RFC 2119 states:
> ...



Thank you.



MAHTI-ANSSI said:


> If feet stays official the format should be changed to average of 5. The WRs are faster than 5x5 and Megaminx for example and I don't think POPs are funny when they can ruin a mean so easily.


 
I support this 100%. We had exactly the same reasonning for Megaminx last year.



aronpm said:


> There is no reason to _remove_ any events. If an event takes too much time, just don't host it.


 
Totally true.


----------



## Henrik (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> Olivér, do you want me to name all media that interviewed or wrote about me being involved in feet-solving and thought it was impressive (100%)? Or shall I expand to the others as well... -.-
> 
> And about POP-ing: I laughed at myself too
> I agree that it isn't very popular, that would actually be the only big reason that I have. Like you said fairly: 4 and 5 BLD has less competitors. The fact that those are more difficult explains why it is less, but does not change the fact that indeed those two events are less popular.


 
I would like to keep feet.
It gives a break in competitions for relaxation for other competitors, also something to look at and maybe laugh about.
It eases the sometimes tense mood and concentration from others.

I like to watch feet, and as I recall and see, feet might even have the 2nd most audience after 3x3 finals.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> If you look at the top 30 feet and the top 30 5x5



Do you find it fair to compare the top 1.4% of one event with the top 12.1% of another?

Edit: 1,000,000,000,000th post, woot.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 6, 2011)

When schedules aren't based on percentage of people who have ever competed in an event, and instead on how many people show up, I think so.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> When schedules aren't based on percentage of people who have ever competed in an event, and instead on *how many people show up*, I think so.



Well, many more people show up for 5x5x5 than for feet. Top 3:

115, 'USNationals2010'
111, 'Euro2010'
101, 'WC2009'
vs
22, 'Euro2010'
21, 'WC2009'
20, 'HungarianOpen2009'

But anyway... I don't think it's the fast people who take the most time, but the slow people. So let's compare the *slowest* 30 of each (fair, right?):

5x5x5) 8:08.85 to 18:48.00
Feet) 5:41.23 to 15:30.00 (and that's an exception, next fastest is 9:39.52 already)


----------



## Erik (Jan 6, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> I'm not questionning the suggestion, I'm just questionning why it is made in a thread called "Possible 2011 WCA Regulations Changes", because this basically doesnt make any sense.
> 
> I have no problems with the current displays and batteries. Of course I would prefer cheaper versions, but I cannot see how anyone of us would be able to realise that. Also I prefer the batteries to having cables all over the stages.


 
The annual new regulations thread is the time of the year we think about how to improve the way things are going, in the process I thought of this to help improving the things they are now. The remark was more on-topic than most posts around this forum.

Back to the issue:
We have the luxury in Germany that batteries are refunded sometimes. For others this isn't the case, so for them the high costs can be a big problem.
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=915&sid=e4a0ce8d34a116181c72596deb1b6358 
Here is the WCA-forum discussion about the displays. I've been told (Arnaud?) that they don't have wires, but run on normal AA batteries.
Still there is indeed not much we can do, Thailand is not very nearby.

Certificates: I must've misunderstood the regulations then, can happen if English isn't your mother-tongue.

To Stefan: don't the slowest times say something about the organizers too? I mean the slowest 3x3 times are also getting me sleepy...Time limits can influence a lot. 5x5 mostly has (very) strict time limits nowadays.


----------



## Radu (Jan 6, 2011)

Stefan said:


> > Originally Posted by pablobaluba View Post
> > -MasterMagic - it's plain boring and just a matter of skill.
> 
> 
> Uh... what?! So are *all* events.


I said "it's *just* a matter of skill.".
I consider that the NxNxN cubes, for example, are also a matter of thinking, not only skill and how fast you are. Maybe we have different definitions for the word "skill", but I guess you know what I meant.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2011)

pablobaluba said:


> are also a matter of thinking, not only skill and how fast you are.


 
Thinking is a skill.

I knew what you meant, but skill is one of my favorite words (I hate "gifted"... "skilled" is so much better) and I don't like to see it misrepresented.


----------



## da25centz (Jan 6, 2011)

pablobaluba said:


> I said "it's *just* a matter of skill.".
> I consider that the NxNxN cubes, for example, are also a matter of thinking, not only skill and how fast you are. Maybe we have different definitions for the word "skill", but I guess you know what I meant.


 
I think a better argument against Master Magic is that its nearly the exact same thing as magic, which could be said aout pretty much any cube shaped puzzle, except that magic and master magic only need to be learned once, then you just do the exact same thing as fast as humanly possible. I dont think two events are really needed to judge this, but i dont really take up much exstra time as they are usually done in the same tim slot in a comp. it doesnt really matter, I would just leave it alone


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> - media love it, it makes cubing look like a sport where the impossible can be done. Not once have they made the association with circus, goofy or dirty. Only impressive.


I think as far as most people are concerned it is more of a sarcastic "they even do it with feet! LOL NERDS" than a reverential "OMG, they can do it with their feet... amazing... *bows down*".

EDIT: In the minesweeper community we know someone who has solved it with his feet, and we think it is a very silly thing to have tried 



Erik said:


> - its funny and gives a good laugh to watch people POP-ing or failing at PLL's, I never hear people laugh during other events...


I think people can laugh because (a) for the most part they don't care about the event as much as the others, and (b) it goes so slowly (in turns/sec) that it's hard to concentrate on it and easy to make mistakes.


----------



## Holger (Jan 6, 2011)

I would like to see a cubing version of decathlon added to the events. 

The event wouldn't take any time to hold at a competetion, since the results from the normal rounds could be used. For example participation in 4x4x4 would trigger a number of points in decathlon depending on the result.
It would give a nice way to measure and reward overall cubing skills.

It is not very likely to see this added in the 2011 regulations, but I think it can be added in 2012, if someone figure out a format and point system.

I think relays are a bad idea in general, since they require a lot of time and don't really add anything.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 6, 2011)

Holger said:


> The event wouldn't take any time to hold at a competetion, since the results from the normal rounds could be used. For example participation in 4x4x4 would trigger a number of points in decathlon depending on the result.
> It would give a nice way to measure and reward overall cubing skills.
> 
> It is not very likely to see this added in the 2011 regulations, but I think it can be added in 2012, if someone figure out a format and point system.


 
It already exists: 6a)Awards, prizes or honours may be given to competitors according to the announcement of the competition.

I would think something like this wouldn't be in the regulations, because different places would weight things differently. But al you need to do is announce that the scores will be weighted a certain way and let people see the results.


----------



## Holger (Jan 6, 2011)

Bryan said:


> It already exists: 6a)Awards, prizes or honours may be given to competitors according to the announcement of the competition.


You could use that argument against adding any events



Bryan said:


> I would think something like this wouldn't be in the regulations, because different places would weight things differently.


They would weigh things differently as long as there is no regulation for it. The scores should be given on the result and not on the placement, just like in athletic. For example 13.5 sec = 100 points, not 2. place = 100 points.


----------



## Erik (Jan 6, 2011)

QQ: 
About the media: no, hasn't been done once on me (and I know when I'm being ridiculed). The ZOMGZ NERD reactions are actually less than on normal cubing I'd say.

About the laugh: I find your reasons for possible laughter a bit weird... Why would someone laugh because they don't care about the event? Making mistakes is always funny (and sad at the same time).


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

Holger said:


> Bryan said:
> 
> 
> > It already exists: 6a)Awards, prizes or honours may be given to competitors according to the announcement of the competition.
> ...


No, you can't. Your proposal was an "event" that doesn't require any new solves but just calculates a ranking based on how people perform in some set of the existing events. But that's not a real event, just a new ranking idea, similar to the things on the "Statistics" page on the WCA site. Bryan was pointing out that you have always been able to calculate your decathlon and give out prizes for it, if you want. It's not a bad idea, but it's not an event, and I wouldn't want to give an official WR for it any more than I'd want to give an official WR to the person with best all-events average sum, or the person with the most successes in one competition, or the oldest BLD solver.

It would be kinda nice to have some kind of objective weighting of how well you did in a competition, but unfortunately I think most competitions wouldn't have enough events to qualify, and it would be too hard to figure out a weighting that would make the same number of points equally hard to get in each part.





Erik said:


> QQ:
> About the media: no, hasn't been done once on me (and I know when I'm being ridiculed). The ZOMGZ NERD reactions are actually less than on normal cubing I'd say.


I don't think they would ridicule you to your face. But (at least in the news programs I've seen) even normal and BLD solvers get treated in a way that implies they are kind of a joke - someone who spends their time doing something crazy that amuses the viewers, not somebody who is incredibly skilled and amazing.



Erik said:


> About the laugh: I find your reasons for possible laughter a bit weird... Why would someone laugh because they don't care about the event? Making mistakes is always funny (and sad at the same time).


If you really care about an event, and you make a big mistake, you will be annoyed, even angry. Your mistake could have cost you a good time or a good average. But if you don't care about an event, and you make a big mistake, you can laugh at yourself, because it doesn't matter to you.


----------



## Erik (Jan 6, 2011)

QQ:
Media: so if they didn't ridicule in my face when did they do it then? In the articles? I've read them. And on both TV appearances they didn't ridicule me either. And since when is it automatically a joke when someone does something crazy? Most things like throwing cards or whatever is mostly appreciated more as skill than something to laugh at. Then again crazy stuff can be impressive and funny at the same time. What is so negative about this? 
I really don't get what you are trying to prove here. I said media appreciate the skill of feet-solving and pointed out that in my experience this has always been the case. The 'evidence' if you like, where is the ridiculing?

Mistakes: mistakes can also be very funny even if you care about it, I remember numerous hilarious moments of me and others making mistakes at serious events.


----------



## Holger (Jan 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> No, you can't. Your proposal was an "event" that doesn't require any new solves but just calculates a ranking based on how people perform in some set of the existing events. But that's not a real event, just a new ranking idea, similar to the things on the "Statistics" page on the WCA site. Bryan was pointing out that you have always been able to calculate your decathlon and give out prizes for it, if you want.


I guess that you could call it a new ranking system, I see it as an event since it is something you can participate and compete in. In my opinion it doesn't make something less an event just because it only requires a calculator or the WCA score sheet. 




qqwref said:


> It's not a bad idea, but it's not an event, and I wouldn't want to give an official WR for it any more than I'd want to give an official WR to the person with best all-events average sum, or the person with the most successes in one competition, or the oldest BLD solver.


I think this is where we actually disagree. I would like to have an official title and ranking to some kind of best overall cuber, you would not. I do realise that unless all events are added, it wouldn't give the actually best overall cuber. But i do believe that this would be a good approximation to the best overall cuber.



qqwref said:


> It would be kinda nice to have some kind of objective weighting of how well you did in a competition, but unfortunately I think most competitions wouldn't have enough events to qualify, ...


I do not have the copy of the WCA-database, but I would claim that at least 30% of the competition in 2010 had more than 10 events. And if not, the "event" could simply only contain 7 events and be called something differently.

I agree that it is very difficult to find a good scoring system that compares different types of events, but they did it in athletic. And as I said, I don't expect to see this in 2011.


Edit: I wondered if the reason you didn't like that i called decathlon an event, was because I as a Dane did not understand the term correctly.

I tried define: event, and among other things I got:


> Each sport and discipline has at least one event. An event is defined by the IOC as “a competition in an Olympic sport or in one of its disciplines and resulting in a ranking, (which) gives rise to the award of medals and diplomas.


If I am right, that means that anything we choose to compete in would be an event, according to the definition.

I couldn't find any definition in the WCA regulations, but I just searched on "define".


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

Erik said:


> I really don't get what you are trying to prove here. I said media appreciate the skill of feet-solving and pointed out that in my experience this has always been the case. The 'evidence' if you like, where is the ridiculing?


Okay, first, I'm not trying to "prove" something, just showing you what I see when I see cubing in the news and see non-cubers' reactions to it. I generally see news reports that are not really serious about cubing (especially 'specialty events') like they would be about a top sportsperson or musician, and I think that generally implies that cubing skills shouldn't be taken as seriously. Maybe it's totally different in the Netherlands - I could never know that. Second, you were the first to use the word "ridicule", and I don't think that word is appropriate at all, because nobody is being blatantly made fun of. The media will show someone who has a skill, and then it is up to the audience to interpret it how they like. 



Erik said:


> Mistakes: mistakes can also be very funny even if you care about it, I remember numerous hilarious moments of me and others making mistakes at serious events.


I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. But you don't think it's funnier to make a mistake when competing in something you find silly, than to make a mistake when competing in the event you've been practicing your ass off at for the last few months?



Holger said:


> I do not have the copy of the WCA-database, but I would claim that at least 30% of the competition in 2010 had more than 10 events. And if not, the "event" could simply only contain 7 events and be called something differently.


Ah, but if you wanted to do the decathlon, you'd have to do those 10 events, not just any 10. So it would end up pretty constraining for organizers, and I don't think most competitions could manage it.


----------



## Holger (Jan 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Ah, but if you wanted to do the decathlon, you'd have to do those 10 events, not just any 10. So it would end up pretty constraining for organizers, and I don't think most competitions could manage it.


 Again, this is not really the issue. If 10 is a bad number, then let the discipline contain 5,6 or maybe 7 events and call it "Hutelihut".


----------



## TMOY (Jan 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Ah, but if you wanted to do the decathlon, you'd have to do those 10 events, not just any 10. So it would end up pretty constraining for organizers, and I don't think most competitions could manage it.



Depends on where you live. In Europe, most competitions are 2-day long and host a lot of events. And if you consider the top 10 most popular events (according to the stats page: 3^3, 2^3, 4^3, OH, Magic, 5^3, Pyraminx, 3BLD, Megaminx and Square-1), all 10 of them are there anyway in general.


----------



## Erik (Jan 7, 2011)

QQ: whatever dude, this is going nowhere. You say 'making fun of' then I'm saying 'ridicule' which according to my knowledge is the same. If you already start picking on these kind of small things the discussion is pointless. Things are not different in the Netherlands either, it seems to me you are fishing for stuff here. My media appearances with feet are not limited to the Netherlands anyway.
About the laughing: whatever, people laughing is good. I don't give a crap about the reason. I'd like to have fun at competitions.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 7, 2011)

Holger said:


> Again, this is not really the issue. If 10 is a bad number, then let the discipline contain 5,6 or maybe 7 events and call it "Hutelihut".


You misunderstand me, the number 10 is irrelevant. My point is that if you decide a new statistic based on participating in a set group of events is important enough to be given real regional records, then all the good cubers will insist that each competition has those events. And this would be even more constraining for organizers, because they generally want to do the events that people will enjoy the most. (What is "Hutelihut"?)



TMOY said:


> Depends on where you live. In Europe, most competitions are 2-day long and host a lot of events. And if you consider the top 10 most popular events (according to the stats page: 3^3, 2^3, 4^3, OH, Magic, 5^3, Pyraminx, 3BLD, Megaminx and Square-1), all 10 of them are there anyway in general.


Not everyone lives in Europe, though. In America we generally have a lot of people at each competition, so depending on the venue and location it can be very difficult to hold a lot of events. In other places where the organizers don't have much experience, or in places that hold "specialty competitions", it might be even harder to hold all the events for the however-many-athlon. I don't think I like the idea of adding a new event if we expect it will be much easier to compete in it in Europe than in other places.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> (What is "Hutelihut"?)


 
An arbitrary name.

It originates from a Danish sportscaster that used it in '92 when Denmark won the European Championship in soccer. It's not a real word but he used it just like yahoo or yeehaw.


----------



## Holger (Jan 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> ..., then all the good cubers will insist that each competition has those events. And this would be even more constraining for organizers, because they generally want to do the events that people will enjoy the most. (What is "Hutelihut"?)


I agree, and therefor if we have to have an event like this the number should reflect two things
1. There should be events enough to make it a good way to measure overall cubing skill.
2. There should not be so many events, that it would be a major problem for the organizers

I don't see this as a major obstacle, maybe because I have only been to competitions in the northern Europe.



qqwref said:


> I don't think I like the idea of adding a new event if we expect it will be much easier to compete in it in Europe than in other places.
> For a while I think


I think we should judge the event by several parameters:
1. Is it a good/fun event
2. Would people compete in it
3. Is it possible for organizers to hold the event

If an event lives up to these three parameters, i would expect to see it a competition around the world. I guess there will always be a tendency where some events are more popular in some parts of the world, and therefor make it easier to compete in. I don't have any statistics to back-up this claim.

Edit:
4. Is it an fair event, meaning is it possible to compare results with eachother.

I think 4 is where the real problem is for this sort of event.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 7, 2011)

I know this is days late, but I've been gone for a couple days and caught up:




qqwref said:


> Question: to everyone who enjoys DNFing people who don't know the regulations, are you sure that all competitions where you did this were:
> - clearly announced as WCA-official and pursuant to WCA regulations, for those who do not already follow such things in the community?
> - in a venue with internet access, or else in a venue with at least one available printed copy of the regulations?


 
How could the first option be true (pursuant to WCA regulations) if the second is not? Rule 1b2 says the organization team is responsible for making at least one printed or electronic copy of the WCA regulations available.

Media coverage:
The only media coverage I have seen (in the US, anyhow) is when Tyson Mow was on the Anderson Cooper show. Is there anything you have specifically in mind, qqwref? While I can agree that a lot of times people who see me cubing a lot will throw "nerd jokes" at me, it's a completely different issue than media coverage (and I do realize that you can establish the difference between the two as well).


----------



## fastcubesolver (Jan 7, 2011)

I was wondering a while back if you can use a cube that you have modded for yourself, is that already a rule?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 7, 2011)

You can use a cube modded by yourself, almost everyone does.


----------



## Pendragon (Jan 7, 2011)

1) I *dream* that they will add the 2x2x2 BLD: it will be a lot quicker than the big cubes blind, there will be less DNFs and i think that more people will do it.
2) I support team blind: i know a lot of peoplebecome official again, i think it's impossible to take advantage from them, like no-stickers cubes.... <_< (since some months i can't use my transparent maru 4x4...! )


----------



## qqwref (Jan 7, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> How could the first option be true (pursuant to WCA regulations) if the second is not? Rule 1b2 says the organization team is responsible for making at least one printed or electronic copy of the WCA regulations available.


Well, I'm not sure rule 1b2 is always followed. I've been to a whole bunch of competitions with no printed copy available and no in-room computers, and I doubt they all had free internet. (But even if they don't, what if someone doesn't have any wireless internet-capable devices with them?) I'm not really worried for the top cubers, but rather for people who ask "wait, we have to abide by the WCA regulations, what exactly are they?" and can't get a precise enough answer.



fatboyxpc said:


> Is there anything you have specifically in mind, qqwref?


Nope, I'm just talking from my general feel of the thing. I haven't been in the news for cubing, but I've seen a lot of short interviews and segments.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I'm not really worried for the top cubers, but rather for people who ask "wait, we have to abide by the WCA regulations, what exactly are they?" and can't get a precise enough answer.



I completely agree, but I think the fact that the rule may not be always followed is somewhat of a problem. It's not like it's hard to keep a copy with that. At the very least I'd suspect the delegate has a copy with them. I always have questions about the rules at the worst of times, so I usually benefit from a rule such as that.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't think I have ever had a problem with 1b2 not being followed at any competition I have been to.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 8, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> I don't think I have ever had a problem with 1b2 not being followed at any competition I have been to.


 
Honestly, I don't know if anyone's ever asked me for regulations. Mostly it's newbies who want the general rules, but no one who wants to analyze the wording. I'll sometimes take it out and reference it and show it to the competitor.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 8, 2011)

Well, even if 1b2 is followed and people don't ask to see the regulations, I still think it would be helpful to everyone to make them even more visible. If I help organize a competition again I think I'll try to put up a copy of the regulations on a wall or table for easy viewing.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 8, 2011)

I certainly agree with that, qq.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 9, 2011)

Add 2x2x2 blind, but make it 3/5 not best.

- Yes, the single would be on a lucky solve, but the same is true for the current 2x2x2 single and still it is held by the best and not some random person that got lucky.

- Only the best of the best could succesfully speedblind it 4 out of 5 times and they would deserve the WR for that in my book

- It would introduce more beginners into blindfolded solving

- It would get the better solvers to focus on not DNF-ing so often

For everyone that thinks Magic and Master Magic are basically the same thing, I would like to ask why! Magic is solved in the air, Master Magic on the table by most people and none of the moves are the same. I think these events should have never existed, but now that we have them we should keep them


----------



## Zarxrax (Jan 9, 2011)

I like the idea of 2x2x2 blind, because 3x3x3 blind is a bit too intimidating for me.
But, couldn't really good solvers just end up using their normal speedsolving method? So would it really even differ from normal 2x2x2 event at high levels?


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jan 9, 2011)

2x2 BLD. Everything else is made BLD, why not 2x2?


----------



## oprah62 (Jan 9, 2011)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Everything else is made BLD


 
Lol.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 9, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> Add 2x2x2 blind, but make it 3/5 not best.


If 2x2 BLD was to ever become official, I agree with this.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> - Yes, the single would be on a lucky solve, but the same is true for the current 2x2x2 single and still it is held by the best and not some random person that got lucky


I'm not just concerned about the WR, this would also affect the overall ranking and every regional record. It's silly to have people who normally get 7 seconds get a 3 second solve, but it's ludicrous to have people who normally get 50 seconds get a 10 second solve.

If 2BLD is ever official I agree it should be an average, but the fact that there must be a single ranking is a huge detriment to the idea.


----------



## TMOY (Jan 9, 2011)

Zarxrax said:


> I like the idea of 2x2x2 blind, because 3x3x3 blind is a bit too intimidating for me.
> But, couldn't really good solvers just end up using their normal speedsolving method? So would it really even differ from normal 2x2x2 event at high levels?


 
Yes and it's the main reason why it should IMHO never been made official. A fast 2^3 speedsolver would be able to win the 2BLD event without even needing to have a clue about how BLD actually works in general. This would not be a real BLD event but a relay 2^3 - putting your blindfold on, which is just silly.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

So, i finally had time for this.

*Events*
I accept, everyone has a favourite event and wants to compete in it more times, but there probably won't be any changes in the list of the events until the whole community claims to remove or add an event (like 6x6 and 7x7). BigBLDs are speedsolving events too, memory is a very important thing, but don't forget you still have to solve the cube (good example for this is István's slow execution, his memo is world class, but he solves the cube very slow, which makes his times 'just good'). 2x2BLD is a stupid idea, because luck counts more than skill, and the same method would be used as in the 2x2 speedsolve.
But why would you like to remove events? Just organise a competition and don't hold it.

*+2 penalty*
I think +2 is an acceptable rule. There are other sports too, where the almost finished competitors counts as finishers (like in F1 the racers who have done the x% of the race are finishers). And it didn't become +2 because the WCA Board was in that mood, on face off is +2 because everybody is able to turn one on the cube (or magic) in 2 seconds!

*Starting the timer*
A4b) The competitor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down.
We had some arguments because of this rule last year (i heard Brúnó got a penalty for this or Max's 8.05 was questioned too). I think competitors should be allowed to start the solve the same position as they finish it, until their hands are flat and do not touch the cube. There's no advantages or disadvantages of the two styles, but now every third cuber could be punished because of this rule.

*+2s in multiBLD*
Please clarify the rule of +2s in multiBLD. What happens if there is one or more +2, and when does the solve end (like 6 cubes with one +2 it ends at 59:58, or the time will be 1:00:02?).

*Averages*
There are several cases, where the rounding of the averages caused wrongful order like:
-the 3x3 final of the TCA Championship, where Peerawich Hiranpaphakorn's average was better than Piti Pichedpan's, but Piti had a better single so he won
-Patrick Jameson was the first who had a sub0.9 magic average. His time was 0.8966666, it was a WR (0.90). And Tang Yiu Chun held the WR too with a 0.9033333 average. Is it the same?
-of course there are a lot more cases
My idea is if some competitors have the same minutes, seconds and first two hundredth of their average than just count one more digit of the averages (0, 3, or 7) instead of making the order based on their singles.
And no, the answer is not 'just solve the cube a bit faster' which i have heard once.

I hope you will find my ideas helpful and i could help to make the WCA regulations a bit more clear.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

I think rounding is rounding. If the result is displayed with 2 decimal places of accuracy, I don't think you can rank it by anything but that. It stinks that some averages are .001 from being better than another, but thats the nature of speed. They weren't quite fast enough for it to count as a different result.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> I think rounding is rounding. If the result is displayed with 2 decimal places of accuracy, I don't think you can rank it by anything but that. It stinks that some averages are .001 from being better than another, but thats the nature of speed. They weren't quite fast enough for it to count as a different result.


 
it's just luck. At 10.396666 vs 10.400000 they weren't fast enough but at 10.333333 vs 10.666666 the difference is big enough? the equal result is given by the division by 3. if we just sum the 3 counting times we get the difference.
maybe we should multiply the times by 0 and everybody would win.


----------



## Vinny (Jan 9, 2011)

Ethan Rosen said:


> Anyway, I'd once again call for the changing of the +2 penalty to either be proportionate to the solve or dependent on the puzzle. 2 seconds is nearly 100% of the current 2x2 average WR. This is ridiculous when you consider how a +2 is hardly a punishment at all on any big cube. One of the original challenges to this idea was that it would be a pain for judges to keep track of, but why not just have them write "13.02+p" or something else to indicate a penalty, and the computer takes care of it?


 
That's a good point. I think that what they should do is that a +2 should add something like 25% of your solve for 2x2-3x3, and 10% or your solve for 4x4 and up... That would be logical.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

Vinny said:


> That's a good point. I think that what they should do is that a +2 should add something like 25% of your solve for 2x2-3x3, and 10% or your solve for 4x4 and up... That would be logical.


 
ooooooor just check my post


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.


----------



## Vinny (Jan 9, 2011)

Benyó said:


> ooooooor just check my post


 
Yes, I saw your post. My opinion is different.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.


 
sorry, 10.33333 and 10.336666, my mistake, but the others are true i was just confused
and why do we have to measure by stackmat the average?
there is a finishing photo in running or swimming too to decide who crossed the line first even if their times are the same, where differece couldn't be measured in time. but the difference in cubing can be measured!


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

Because in running and swimming, you are measuring 1 instance of a solve. You aren't using a photo finish for the average of who won.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

no, but instead of counting exactly the average, we just use a totally indifferent number from the point of the average, the best time. Than use the sum of the times, and there will be the difference.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

The point here is that we don't shouldn't really consider the average to anything other than a number that is 2 decimal places, because that is how precise we actually measure the solves. So unless you want to change to truncation (which would be totally dumb), rounding the average of 3 counting times to 2 decimal places results in the final number which is attributed as the average. Looking at anything more precise shouldn't be done, because we aren't even measuring the individual times to that amount.

--edit--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (thanks pj)


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 9, 2011)

Sig Figs anyone?


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 9, 2011)

Perhaps what Benyo is saying is that if two competitors have the same average in a magic event, then something similar to the following should be done:
1) The competitor with the lowest *sum* for all five times obtains the higher ranking
1a) If the sum is the same, then the competitor with the quicker fastest solve (quicker 2nd fastest, 3rd fastest, etc. for ties) obtains the higher rank.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

I don't think thats fair though, because the average result isn't the sum. It is the result of rounding the average of the 3 counting times, and since we would be ranking everyone else by average time, I don't think we should do anything different because of a tie.


----------



## Benyó (Jan 9, 2011)

the average time isn't the sum, but the average time isn't the best time either. so we have to agree in a way we rank the results, it could be the best time or the sum too.
but i know we won't convince each other.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Jan 9, 2011)

I agree with Y3k9 on the issue of KO cubes. Personally I don't see the issue with them being used as long as they don't give the competitor an unfair advantage.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

Benyó said:


> the average time isn't the sum, but the average time isn't the best time either. so we have to agree in a way we rank the results, it could be the best time or the sum too.
> but i know we won't convince each other.


 
but at least the best time is counted somewhere. The sum is this new figure that isn't used for anything else. It seems silly to create a new number thats used for only specific occasions, and then confuse the results when you look at them. Just by looking at the 3x3 rankings from TCA, it can be derived why Piti won. If we used the sum, then there wouldn't be an easy way to tell, unless you knew to sum the 3 middle solves.


----------



## flan (Jan 9, 2011)

iasimp1997 said:


> I agree with Y3k9 on the issue of KO cubes. Personally I don't see the issue with them being used as long as they don't give the competitor an unfair advantage.


The wca agrees with you and y3k9. KO's do not give an unfair advantage and they ARE allowed. The WCA quite rightly does not care where your cube came from, just as long as it doesn't change the basic object of the puzzle etc.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 9, 2011)

Benyó said:


> There's no advantages or disadvantages of the two styles, but now every third cuber could be punished because of this rule.


 
So two thirds are not punished then? That sounds like a good reason for not changing the rule...

I agree that if there is no advantage over how you start the timer, then it would be a good idea to simplify the regulations on this rule.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> I don't see how you want to take on how math works. Times are measured and recorded with 2 decimal places of accuracy, and so the standard rules for rounding are applied. There is a big difference between 10.33 and 10.67 (I'm really not following your logic here), but the difference in time between 10.396 and 10.400 accounts for .04s per counting solve different, which cannot even be measured by the stackmat. This is how rounding works, and I don't think its our job to change math.


uhhhhhhhhhhhhh :fp

Bence isn't trying to "change math" or "take on how math works". He's suggesting that we - shockingly! - round to the thousandth place instead of the hundredth place if more accuracy is needed. The only problem is the complaints from people who don't fully understand the theory behind significant figures. So hey, how about this, to deal with people like Dan who think they know everything about arithmetic, let's rank people in competitions by the SUM of the three counting times. Crazy! (Hey, the ranking would be exactly the same as now, except for ties.) The averages would still be recorded, but we wouldn't be losing any information by rounding it.

In similar news, I'd really like to change to a timer with perfect 100 Hz timing resolution.




hr.mohr said:


> So two thirds are not punished then? That sounds like a good reason for not changing the rule...
> 
> I agree that if there is no advantage over how you start the timer, then it would be a good idea to simplify the regulations on this rule.


I think he meant that 1/3 of people break this rule by accident and 2/3 don't, but that it's a silly rule and we shouldn't punish one of those two groups.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> In similar news, I'd really like to change to a timer with perfect 100 Hz timing resolution.



I completely agree on this. I feel that the flaws in the Stackmat timer are probably one of the most severe things that should be changed whenever is feasible to do so. Even if that means we can't do it this year, I still think it should be done whenever an opportunity presents itself.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> uhhhhhhhhhhhhh :fp
> 
> Bence isn't trying to "change math" or "take on how math works". He's suggesting that we - shockingly! - round to the thousandth place instead of the hundredth place if more accuracy is needed.


 
But why would it be appropriate to round to the 3 decimal places if we are only measuring the solves in 2. Unless we decide to change the entire ranking system by using 3 decimal places, this doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if you read the rest of the discussion, it was clear what the point I was trying to make was.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I think he meant that 1/3 of people break this rule by accident and 2/3 don't, but that it's a silly rule and we shouldn't punish one of those two groups.


 
I know that. I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to use random numbers as arguments for anything.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 9, 2011)

There is no difference between ranking by sum and ranking by average to the thousandths place, I don't see why people seem to be distinguishing them.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> But why would it be appropriate to round to the 3 decimal places if we are only measuring the solves in 2. Unless we decide to change the entire ranking system by using 3 decimal places, this doesn't make sense to me.


You agree that it's right to keep the sum to two places, and not immediately round it to the nearest .03, right? So when we divide by the integer 3 (it's important that this is an exact number, there's no uncertainty in that one) keeping a 0, 3, or 7 in the thousandths place is just continuing to keep track of the same amount of information. The point about 3 being exact is that a sum-of-3 of 31.19 and a mean-of-3 of 10.397 are equally accurate as long as you know that the .xx7 is meant as one of 3 possibilities (not 10).


----------



## maggot (Jan 10, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I completely agree on this. I feel that the flaws in the Stackmat timer are probably one of the most severe things that should be changed whenever is feasible to do so. Even if that means we can't do it this year, I still think it should be done whenever an opportunity presents itself.



I also think this will solve all the issues if they arise. What is appealing to the speedsolving community is probably even more appealing to the WSSA. To my knowledge, none of the events that they have take more than 1 minute (hence 10min dead time). Also, many of their events are much like 2x2 or magic, in which the variances of .xx is sometimes significant. I wonder if we were to request this to the Speedstacks company, since they are also well aware that we use the same timer, if they would be willing to make a new timer. I see the WSSA benefiting more than the WCA for .xxx or even .xxxx, but I'm sure adding 10:00+ would not be difficult either. Not only would it be welcomed with open arms by any sport to have a more accurate timer, but also to have a timer that would nearly eliminate the issue of idential times. Or, we could develop our own timers. I also wonder if some company (QJ?) would be interested in creating a timer for the cubing community if presented with a schematic or even better, a prototype.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 10, 2011)

@Dan: who would win this according to the WCA rules, and who should win according to logic?
Person that has the best 3/5; 1.01 1.33 1.33 .133 1.99
Person that has the fastest single; 1.00 1.34 1.33 1.33 1.99
So simply said: Base ranking on sum of total 3/5 first, and only when still equal on fastest solve

About 2x2x2 blind: I already stated that I think almost nobody can do 2x2x2 speedblind succesfully with getting a maximum of 1 DNF, especially because there is no inspection time. So no, 2x2x2 would not be the same as normal 2x2x2. And if somebody can do it, he deserves the WR.
@Michael: For single 2x2x2 I have a 1.xx single and 6.xx average. Should we stop doing 2x2x2 for that reason? I already stated that the single 2x2x2 WR is still held by the best and I expect the same for 2x2x2 single blind. It might be held by a lucky (guess) solve for a while, but so has the 2x2x2 single WR been. I have adressed all of this before, why are you giving arguments that have already been countered?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 10, 2011)

The thing is, take those 2 averages and separate them. Looking at the average result of 1.33, you would consider that to be correct, wouldn't you? Now why should we add another number into the equation, when we are only looking at the final average result calculated when rounding the average of the counting times? When looking at an average result, the individual counting times technically do not matter, or even have to be considered as relevant. I would consider them more as a "fun fact" when looking through results. When you look at a world record, you don't think about the individual times necessarily (other than perhaps the fastest), so why should that change when comparing two averages next to each other.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 10, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> @Michael: For single 2x2x2 I have a 1.xx single and 6.xx average. Should we stop doing 2x2x2 for that reason? I already stated that the single 2x2x2 WR is still held by the best and I expect the same for 2x2x2 single blind. It might be held by a lucky (guess) solve for a while, but so has the 2x2x2 single WR been. I have adressed all of this before, why are you giving arguments that have already been countered?


I'm saying that 2BLD would have the same problem as 2x2 already does, but it would be *even worse*. And I don't think we need to augment problems like this. Maybe you get as low as 1/4 of your regular average on 2x2 speed, but on a similar scramble on 2BLD it is not hard at all to imagine someone getting 1/10 of their average. I might take 40 seconds to do a normal BLD solve, but if I immediately see a 4- or 5-move speed BLD solution I'm going to go for it.

EDIT:


masterofthebass said:


> The thing is, take those 2 averages and separate them. Looking at the average result of 1.33, you would consider that to be correct, wouldn't you? Now why should we add another number into the equation, when we are only looking at the final average result calculated when rounding the average of the counting times? When looking at an average result, the individual counting times technically do not matter, or even have to be considered as relevant. I would consider them more as a "fun fact" when looking through results. When you look at a world record, you don't think about the individual times necessarily (other than perhaps the fastest), so why should that change when comparing two averages next to each other.


What is the difference in saying that the difference in two means-of-three of 31.19/3 and 31.20/3 does not matter, and saying that the difference in two single times of 0.80 and 0.81 does not matter? If we can measure them both, they are both valid differences in time.


----------



## Radu (Jan 10, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I completely agree on this. I feel that the flaws in the Stackmat timer are probably one of the most severe things that should be changed whenever is feasible to do so. Even if that means we can't do it this year, I still think it should be done whenever an opportunity presents itself.


I can't agree more on that! And the same goes for displays too...it's embarassing to use such an obsolete and heavy display, which uses 8 type D batteries in the year 2011, when we have such great technologies. One can make a better display at home with a few LEDs. I posted actually about this, here a few weeks ago: http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=915&sid=294d8419bf03f3aee55955a8fa9358dc

Besides that, they are quite expensive for what they do... I just hope the Chinese industry will come quickly with something that will help us all.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 10, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I'm saying that 2BLD would have the same problem as 2x2 already does, but it would be *even worse*. And I don't think we need to augment problems like this. Maybe you get as low as 1/4 of your regular average on 2x2 speed, but on a similar scramble on 2BLD it is not hard at all to imagine someone getting 1/10 of their average. I might take 40 seconds to do a normal BLD solve, but if I immediately see a 4- or 5-move speed BLD solution I'm going to go for it.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> What is the difference in saying that the difference in two means-of-three of 31.19/3 and 31.20/3 does not matter, and saying that the difference in two single times of 0.80 and 0.81 does not matter? If we can measure them both, they are both valid differences in time.


I can do a real 2x2x2 blind in about 45 seconds, but I have never done a speedblind in 11.25 seconds (1/4) let alone 4.5 second (1/1). You are forgetting that there is no inspection time for blindfolded, that a DNF is very likely and that predicting an entire solve is MUCH harder than seeing a skip and stopping the timer quickly? Did you ever see anyone do a speedblind on a 4 or 5 move scramble in real life? And even if all of these arguments of mine could be countered, that would still just mean that 2x2x2 blind is about average and that the single shouldn't be taken too seriously. It isn't a reason not to have the event.

As for the rounding problem: 3/5 (and other averages) should be COUNTED as the sum of the middle values, but DISPLAYED rounded. If the sum of the middle values is identical the fastest solve should count to determine the winner, but not if there is already a winner based on the counting solves. I really don't see a reason not to do this


----------



## qqwref (Jan 10, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> I can do a real 2x2x2 blind in about 45 seconds, but I have never done a speedblind in 11.25 seconds (1/4) let alone 4.5 second (1/1). You are forgetting that there is no inspection time for blindfolded, that a DNF is very likely and that predicting an entire solve is MUCH harder than seeing a skip and stopping the timer quickly? Did you ever see anyone do a speedblind on a 4 or 5 move scramble in real life?


I'm not forgetting anything - I've tried it. I tried some 4-5 move BLD solves earlier today and all of them were in the 4-9 second range (if I could solve it at all, which did happen most of the time). Same event, but an easy scramble makes a big difference. I can't speedblind hard scrambles, so if I tried a real BLD solve on most scrambles it would take about as long as you.



AvGalen said:


> And even if all of these arguments of mine could be countered, that would still just mean that 2x2x2 blind is about average and that the single shouldn't be taken too seriously. It isn't a reason not to have the event.


Fair enough, but I disagree


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 10, 2011)

On the subect of adding events, What do people feel about adding maybe the Gigaminx or Pyramorphix?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 10, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I'm not forgetting anything - I've tried it. I tried some 4-5 move BLD solves earlier today and all of them were in the 4-9 second range (if I could solve it at all, which did happen most of the time). Same event, but an easy scramble makes a big difference. I can't speedblind hard scrambles, so if I tried a real BLD solve on most scrambles it would take about as long as you.


 
If I recall correctly, Faz was practicing this a while ago (like before he broke any world records or something), and he could consistently do sub-10, with almost no DNFs ever. Well, except for the fact that he always did a +2 - he never bothered to figure out the AUF at the end. At the time, he would have had no problem at all doing averages of 5 successfully sub-10.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 10, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> If I recall correctly, Faz was practicing this a while ago (like before he broke any world records or something), and he could consistently do sub-10, with almost no DNFs ever. Well, except for the fact that he always did a +2 - he never bothered to figure out the AUF at the end. At the time, he would have had no problem at all doing averages of 5 successfully sub-10.


 
Well, Faz IS the best of the best, and if 3x3x3 is about 30 seconds with a normal blindfolded method, I think sub 10 for 2x2x2 with a normal blindfolded method should also be possible (7 pieces instead of 20 is about 1/3).

And it would be interesting to determine a strategy: 
-Spend first 2 seconds to see if speedblind is a good idea, then find a solution, then execute
-or just start with a regular blind method to save 2 seconds, but need more time for memo and execution
-or somehow even a hybrid between speedblind and regular blind?

Michael, your test seems to not take into account that you HAVE to get 4 out of 5 solves correct AND that you don't know if the scramble can be speedsolved. Also, 4 or 5 move solutions are RARE. I have never encountered 1 while using the WCA 2x2x2 optimal scrambler


----------



## Pedro (Jan 10, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> On the subect of adding events, What do people feel about adding maybe the Gigaminx or Pyramorphix?


 
Gigaminx takes too long. And I never really saw someone practicing pyramorphix.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jan 10, 2011)

Inspecting with hands for 3x3 with Feet should be allowed. If you can inspect with 2 hands for one-handed, then you should be allowed to inspect with hands for Feet. 

For OH, I propose that the tabling/surfacing move be made illegal or limited to a certain amount (maybe 3) per solve with any more such moves being counted negatively towards the competitor's time.


----------



## keemy (Jan 10, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> For OH, I propose that the tabling/surfacing move be made illegal or limited to a certain amount (maybe 3) per solve with any more such moves being counted negatively towards the competitor's time.



no


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 10, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Inspecting with hands for 3x3 with Feet should be allowed. If you can inspect with 2 hands for one-handed, then you should be allowed to inspect with hands for Feet.
> 
> For OH, I propose that the tabling/surfacing move be made illegal or limited to a certain amount (maybe 3) per solve with any more such moves being counted negatively towards the competitor's time.


yes

I agree about feet. This just makes sense from a consistency point of view and wouldn't be difficult or unfair to change.
I don't know why the table/mat is allowed to be used, but we should either allow it or prohibit it. Because prohibiting seems impossible (a cube could fall out of the hands and then has to be picked up) I would say: Don't change this


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 10, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> Well, Faz IS the best of the best, and if 3x3x3 is about 30 seconds with a normal blindfolded method, I think sub 10 for 2x2x2 with a normal blindfolded method should also be possible (7 pieces instead of 20 is about 1/3).


Considering I can go sub-20 on a good solve and sub-25 on a good average, it seems likely that sub-10 for someone who's actually fast is very likely with a normal blindfolded method, yes. I do think it would be an interesting event. I sympathize with qq's perspective about singles being meaningless, but the averages really would be pretty interesting. It would be kind of fun to have an event where two such very different strategies were often competing to find a winner.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 10, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> Michael, your test seems to not take into account that you HAVE to get 4 out of 5 solves correct AND that you don't know if the scramble can be speedsolved. Also, 4 or 5 move solutions are RARE. I have never encountered 1 while using the WCA 2x2x2 optimal scrambler


1) Why do you think I would be trying for an average in competition? Considering I'm bad at BLD already (enough that I doubt I could consistently get 4+/5 with normal 2x2 BLD solves) I would certainly be trying for the best single solve I could get.
2) 4 or 5 move solutions are common enough that many people have encountered them in 2x2 speed rounds...


----------



## Stefan (Jan 11, 2011)

Was curious and did some calculations (hope they're right):
- One in 300 positions for 2x2x2 can be solved in five or fewer moves.
- One in 9095 averages of five has more than one such position.
- There have been 845 rounds of 2x2x2 in WCA competitions (819 were average of five).


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't get why people are differentiating speedbld and "regular BLD" methods for 2x2. "speedbld" is just cycling more pieces at once. Think of it as 8OP


----------



## camcuber (Jan 11, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
> How would a different orientation give some sort of advantage? You wouldn't be able to predict what the scramble would give you regardless.


 
I don't know if this is a good idea because for example, if two cubers use white cross and one has the white scrambled on top and one has it scrambled with white on bottom one competitor could have an easier case than the other making it unfair. This is just my opinion though.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 11, 2011)

camcuber said:


> Tyjet66 said:
> 
> 
> > Alright, I understand the stickerless cubes.
> ...


 
:fp
There's no reason to change the rule, except to cheat. If someone sees a colour neutral cuber do say, green cross, a white cross user would want white to be at the front (instead of green) to have the best available cross. It's your own fault if you're not colour neutral.
Tyjet66: why would you want this rule to be changed? To cheat is the only way I'm seeing.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 11, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Was curious and did some calculations (hope they're right):
> - One in 300 positions for 2x2x2 can be solved in five or fewer moves.
> - One in 9095 averages of five has more than one such position.
> - There have been 845 rounds of 2x2x2 in WCA competitions (819 were average of five).


 
About 1927 (1+6+24+96+384+1416) out of 3674160 so 1 in 1907 unless I misread http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/cube2.htm or forget something. But I don't care about the exact number. I just based my "rare" on all the random scrambles I have created for the weekly competitions (never seen a 5 move or shorter one). So if qqref wants to go to 50 or 400 competitions to continuously fail 222blind just to get a good single (it won't be WR because somebody else will have already got it with a "legitimate" speedsolve), often not making it through the (recommended by me) cut-off that you have to get 1 of the first 2 succesful.........then I am not going to stop him from making a complete fool of himself at all those competitions. And I certainly won't deny hundreds of others a nice new event because of this.
(and just to be clear, I do agree with qqref that the single won't have MUCH meaning at all)

and that is very likely the last I have to say about this. I highly recommend adding 222blind 3/5 for all the reasons I stated in my first post about it. Nothing I have read seemed to provide a good argument against it


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 11, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Was curious and did some calculations (hope they're right):
> - One in 300 positions for 2x2x2 can be solved in five or fewer moves.
> - One in 9095 averages of five has more than one such position.
> - There have been 845 rounds of 2x2x2 in WCA competitions (819 were average of five).


 
About 1927 (1+6+24+96+384+1416) out of 3674160 so 1 in 1907 unless I misread http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/cube2.htm or forget something. But I don't care about the exact number. I just based my "rare" on all the random scrambles I have created for the weekly competitions (never seen a 5 move or shorter one). So if qqref wants to go to 50 or 400 competitions to continuously fail 222blind just to get a good single (it won't be WR because somebody else will have already got it with a "legitimate" speedsolve), often not making it through the (recommended by me) cut-off that you have to get 1 of the first 2 succesful.........then I am not going to stop him from making a complete fool of himself at all those competitions. And I certainly won't deny hundreds of others a nice new event because of this.
(and just to be clear, I do agree with qqref that the single won't have MUCH meaning at all)

and that is very likely the last I have to say about this. I highly recommend adding 222blind 3/5 for all the reasons I stated in my first post about it. Nothing I have read seemed to provide a good argument against it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 11, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> I don't get why people are differentiating speedbld and "regular BLD" methods for 2x2. "speedbld" is just cycling more pieces at once. Think of it as 8OP


 
I like that perspective!


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 11, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I like that perspective!


 
I'm not trying to be cute either. Once you start thinking of stuff like R U R' as a 4-cycle rather than a one-piece insert, prediction becomes a lot easier. Maybe if I wrote it as [R: (U)]?


----------



## hr.mohr (Jan 11, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> I don't know why the table/mat is allowed to be used, but we should either allow it or prohibit it.



It's allowed for consistency because most people solve the master magic on the table. Some people also uses the table when doing LL on the Megaminx.

One of the charms of feet solving for me is that you also inspect with feet. For me it's mostly a novelty event, so I would like to keep the current way of inspecting.


----------



## David Zemdegs (Jan 11, 2011)

Am I totally out of my depth when I think there should be a blind feet solving master magic?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 12, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> About 1927 (1+6+24+96+384+1416) out of 3674160 so 1 in 1907 unless I misread http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/cube2.htm



You did misread.


----------



## endofdaworld (Jan 13, 2011)

*OH Events...*

I reckon we should add 4x4 and 5x5 OH events to competitions...What is everyone's opinion?


----------



## darkerarceus (Jan 13, 2011)

Hm... While that would be cool seeing Faz just go crazy with one hand I really don't think it would really be a good event especially with inner slice turns with one hand.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 13, 2011)

No.


----------



## RCTACameron (Jan 13, 2011)

You might want to suggest it here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?26549-Possible-2011-WCA-Regulations-Changes.


----------



## endofdaworld (Jan 13, 2011)

Should add Rubik's Snake (Twist) into competitions and OH 2x2


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 13, 2011)

No.


----------



## Billbowser (Jan 13, 2011)

Maybe a regulation for Laser,flashlight,or flash camera.


----------



## Henrik (Jan 13, 2011)

Billbowser said:


> Maybe a regulation for Laser,flashlight,or flash camera.


 
All of us who know how distracting it can be to have a camera flash go off, try to tell the audience not to use flash and such.
But spectators are not familiar to the regulations, so writing it in the regulations would not help much, I think.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 13, 2011)

endofdaworld said:


> Should add Rubik's Snake (Twist) into competitions and OH 2x2


Why? I mean we already have magic and mmagic, but I support 2OH and 2BLD, they are fairly short and the rules are already written down.

For 3OH I would like to propose one hand inspection, and the hand you inspect with, would be the one of the solve.


----------



## a small kitten (Jan 13, 2011)

No.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 13, 2011)

Hello.
I'm against it.
Have a good day.
Goodbye.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 13, 2011)

It's been said many times (though not in this thread) but I believe magic could be a really good event/puzzle if it was to solve it from scambled, I don't understand why this was never the case.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 13, 2011)

No. Do you realize that new people would try to compete and take 20 minutes? Only but the elite would be able to even possibly finish in a respectable time.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> It's been said many times (though not in this thread) but I believe magic could be a really good event/puzzle if it was to solve it from scambled, I don't understand why this was never the case.


 
It would not be a good event. The amount to cases that would be lucky and skew the results would be way worse than 2x2 is now.


----------



## whauk (Jan 13, 2011)

5x5 no just takes too long and even with vcubes its ****
4x4 yes thats funny. i think sub1:30 avg is not so hard. but it will probably become an event just like feet that nobody does srsly.
2x2 stupid. but i think thats not part of this discussion.

edit: this is about other cubes OH btw. the threads got merged.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 13, 2011)

after US nationals last year I was pretty frustrated with the current FMC format. right now, the way FMC is done rewards luck far more than it does skill. anyone can hop into the event, get lucky, and set a record regardless of how good they are at solving the cube efficiently. I suggest that the format be changed. I have already thought of a pretty good way to do it that will reward skilled solvers and will minimize the luck most people relay on to win. 

my idea is that each competitor is given TWO scrambles and then, within one hour, must find TWO solutions. then their score is the average of both solutions. first, since it's an average it makes FMC more like the rest of the events. imagine how bad 3x3 would be if we only based your score off of one solve no matter how lucky or unlucky you were. finding two solutions in one hour also decreases the amount luck needed to win. now that there is less time to work on a single solve you have less time to find the lucky cases. if someone DNFs one of the solutions there score will be DNF. there is no excuse to have a DNF in FMC. you are given so much time to carefully check your solution and make sure it works. getting one solution in 30 minutes is also not very hard since more people can solve in <20 seconds. 

the scores and move counts people get from this format will be larger than the ones people get today but I'd rather have bad scores where the better solvers win than good scores where lucky solvers win. 

what do you guys think?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 13, 2011)

ErikJ said:


> after US nationals last year I was pretty frustrated with the current FMC format. right now, the way FMC is done rewards luck far more than it does skill. anyone can hop into the event, get lucky, and set a record regardless of how good they are at solving the cube efficiently. I suggest that the format be changed. I have already thought of a pretty good way to do it that will reward skilled solvers and will minimize the luck most people relay on to win.
> 
> my idea is that each competitor is given TWO scrambles and then, within one hour, must find TWO solutions. then their score is the average of both solutions. first, since it's an average it makes FMC more like the rest of the events. imagine how bad 3x3 would be if we only based your score off of one solve no matter how lucky or unlucky you were. finding two solutions in one hour also decreases the amount luck needed to win. now that there is less time to work on a single solve you have less time to find the lucky cases. if someone DNFs one of the solutions there score will be DNF. there is no excuse to have a DNF in FMC. you are given so much time to carefully check your solution and make sure it works. getting one solution in 30 minutes is also not very hard since more people can solve in <20 seconds.
> 
> ...


 
When I first read your idea, I thought it sounds quite good.
But when thinking about it, doesn't that make the current/past records kind of unequal compared to possible new ones?

A possible solution to that problem could be to have single AND average (mean of 2) for FMC and the average would decide on the rankings at competitions.
Pro: It would make the event less luck-based
Con: The really good FMCers even have problems with finding a solution, that they are happy with, within the given hour.
I think many people would just try to get a good solution for one scramble and just don't care about the other one at all.


----------



## Radu (Jan 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> It's been said many times (though not in this thread) but I believe magic could be a really good event/puzzle if it was to solve it from scambled, I don't understand why this was never the case.


I am for removing magics and feet. If not...at least master magic and feet.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 13, 2011)

Yes said:


> But when thinking about it, doesn't that make the current/past records kind of unequal compared to possible new ones?



yes it does. just like when they changed multi BLD. 



Yes said:


> The really good FMCers even have problems with finding a solution, that they are happy with, within the given hour.


 
this is exactly the problem with the current format though. most of the people who get good move counts just try over and over and over again doing steps of the solve differently until they get something lucky. that's all FMC is right now. who ever can find the luckiest thing wins. it has nothing to do with skill at all. 

have you ever heard someone say "I couldn't find anything" after a round of FMC? does this mean they couldn't solve the scramble? or does it mean that they couldn't find anything lucky?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 13, 2011)

ErikJ said:


> yes it does. just like when they changed multi BLD.


Just because an unfair thing happened once, it shouldn't happen a second time.
Also, the multi BLD sence made more sence (IMO ofc) than this would.



ErikJ said:


> this is exactly the problem with the current format though. *most of the people who get good move counts just try over and over and over again doing steps of the solve differently until they get something lucky*. that's all FMC is right now. who ever can find the luckiest thing wins. it has nothing to do with skill at all.
> 
> have you ever heard someone say "I couldn't find anything" after a round of FMC? does this mean they couldn't solve the scramble? or does it mean that they couldn't find anything lucky?



So? What's the problem with that? Everyone has the same conditions.
Srsly, _who_ doesn't search for lucky stuff on FMC?
Imho, finding e.g. a sub-30 moves solution with a skip is still a good effort. But that might be just me.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 13, 2011)

Yes said:


> So? What's the problem with that? Everyone has the same conditions.
> Srsly, _who_ doesn't search for lucky stuff on FMC?
> Imho, finding e.g. a sub-30 moves solution with a skip is still a good effort. But that might be just me.


 
I think you think that I'm frustrated I didn't win FMC at natinonals. I'm not. but I do think other people should have won. look at the results the top several people either have DNFs or VERY inconsistent move counts. should they be rewarded for their luck in one solve? 

you can still search for lucky stuff. I'm not saying it's not allowed. it's just going to be harder to do given a shorter time.

it's not about the effort. it's about skill. it takes no skill to get a PLL skip.


----------



## MrData (Jan 13, 2011)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Inspecting with hands for 3x3 with Feet should be allowed. If you can inspect with 2 hands for one-handed, then you should be allowed to inspect with hands for Feet.


This needs to happen.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 13, 2011)

Erik, I think you are missing the goal for a lot of good FMCers. They do not care about getting a mediocre result. Finding a 33-35ish move solution is pretty simple for them, but instead they don't bother spending any time on something like that because it doesn't get a good result. Its the same in speedsolving (somewhat). I can easily get a 2 minute 5x5 solve, but if I don't get something close to what I am aiming to get, there's really no point in me finishing a solve (obviously this doesn't happen in speedsolving too often).


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 13, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> Erik, I think you are missing the goal for a lot of good FMCers. They do not care about getting a mediocre result. Finding a 33-35ish move solution is pretty simple for them, but instead they don't bother spending any time on something like that because it doesn't get a good result. Its the same in speedsolving (somewhat). I can easily get a 2 minute 5x5 solve, but if I don't get something close to what I am aiming to get, there's really no point in me finishing a solve (obviously this doesn't happen in speedsolving too often).


 
5x5 is an event where the scores are calculated with averages. if 5x5 was based on single solve and I got a PLL skip and beat you (ha) would you feel like I deserved to win? that's what FMC is like. it should be done as an average somehow. the problem is that making fmc a two hour event for 2 solves would make it hard to do in competition.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 13, 2011)

Kewl, now people get to chose between 4BLD and 5DLB or 4OH and 5OH, if theres any other competitor of course.


whauk said:


> 5x5 no just takes too long and even with vcubes its ****
> 4x4 yes thats funny. i think sub1:30 avg is not so hard. but it will probably become an event just like feet that nobody does srsly.
> 2x2 stupid. but i think thats not part of this discussion.


I got the double the lolz with your sig, cool solve btw.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 13, 2011)

Erik, when I read your proposal, I thought, "Gee, someone wants to make it easier for me to do well at FMC!" Then I looked at your WCA results and realized your stats are almost exactly like mine. You have a slightly lower move count average than me, but I don't have any DNFs, where you have one.  And in fairness to me, for a couple of my attempts, I was doing two events at once - perhaps big cubes BLD and fewest moves - and so I had just 15 to 20 minutes to come up with solutions a couple of times, which explains some of my high numbers. (My 39 move first place was one of those where I only spent 15 to 20 minutes on the solution - if I recall correctly, I did that and the 10/10 multiBLD in a total of about 1 hour and 10 minutes.)

But honestly, the level at which you and I are competing is simply not as good as what the experts do. Like Dan says, an expert can always get 33 to 35 moves, which is a decent solution for you and I. But the expert won't even bother with those solutions, because they want a good one, which by definition is sub-30. The fact that we're not sub-30 yet shows that we're really not good enough to be choosing rules for this event, in my opinion.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 13, 2011)

That sounds like a great idea!!!

Just kidding, no.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 13, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> But the expert won't even bother with those solutions, because they want a good one, which by definition is sub-30.



when they keep looking for better solutions all they are doing is trying to find the luckiest case. i have had several sub 30 solves back in the day of dan's FMC
most of which were lucky. 

I don't understand why no one sees what I'm saying: in a competitive environment winners should be selected by skill not a dice roll or coin toss (luck). there is no way to totally remove luck from any event including FMC. but there are ways to reduce it such as doing averages of 5 where the best and worst solves are taken out. the format I have suggested will not prevent the better solvers from winning. they will win. and they will do it with skill instead of luck. 

the winners of nationals in 09 both had OLL skips. they won because they got lucky. I personally feel that chris hardwick should have won FMC last year because of his consistency. all of the competitors above him had one really good solve and a really bad one or DNF. 

back in armonk in 2008 bob beat me by 5 moves because he had the 6 move OLL and a PLL skip while I did a fancy petrus trick to cancel moves with COLL. he won because he was lucky not because he was better than me.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 13, 2011)

ErikJ said:


> I personally feel that chris hardwick should have won FMC last year because of his consistency. all of the competitors above him had one really good solve and a really bad one or DNF.


Yeah, but Clément had exactly the same average as Chris; I think it's pretty safe to say that even with your perspective, Clément should have beaten Chris, since they had the exact same average and Clément had the better single. (And Clément is pretty consistently decent at fewest moves; he's a very deserving winner.)

I do understand what you're saying; I'm just not sure it really helps a lot. If it acts as a motivator to guarantee the experts will always get a success and never DNF, I suppose that's a nice result. But that assumes the experts actually care; most of them now seem to want to go for the really great solve instead of going for nice averages.

The way I look at it is that there are really only a handful of real fewest move experts out there; the rest of us just have fun with it.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 13, 2011)

I would prefer to replace FMC with a mean of 3 than a mean of 2. It's even better as far as consistency and rewarding blockbuilding/FMC skill over pure luck. And because mean of 3 is already an established average-type format, the single solve would remain in the rankings.

Here's the catch in my proposal: like Erik's setup, instead of 3 sequential solves, this would be a single event. We could choose a time limit such as one hour (20 minutes per cube) or 1.5 hours (30 minutes per cube) but the point is that you can choose how to spend your time on the 3 scrambles. You can ignore the average and spend all the time on the easiest-feeling scramble; you can jot down quick blockbuilding solutions and improve the worst ones first; and so on. There would be a lot of new strategy and it would be a much more interesting event.

The current ranking would NOT be removed because it would be converted into a single solve ranking, with a new average ranking being created. So the ranking in a competition would be average first, then best single for those with 1-2 DNFs. People doing the new event are actually not disadvantaged in the single solve ranking, so we don't need to wipe it. If you want to go for single solve, you can still spend a full hour on one scramble (and you get to choose the easiest of the 3, too), but if you spend time on each of the scrambles you basically get 3 attempts at a good single.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 13, 2011)

ErikJ said:


> winners should be selected by skill not a dice roll or coin toss (luck).


 
Why? That's a serious question. Why should it not be won by luck?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 13, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Why? That's a serious question. Why should it not be won by luck?


 
WR 3x3x3 OH single. Pure luck.

This goes along with your point. Luck is a factor.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 13, 2011)

Well, I admit it would be fun! And it definitely favors my style, so it doesn't hurt me at all.

I guess I'm wondering what the people who have traditionally always loved fewest moves think of this. If they're for it, it might be a good idea. It does seem like it might create more interest in fewest moves as an event.


----------



## Julian (Jan 13, 2011)

TiLiMayor said:


> 5DLB


----------



## Vishal (Jan 13, 2011)

This is serious and not a joke. I would really like the WCA to allow the use of headphones during our solves. It makes me concentrate alot more.


----------



## Erik (Jan 13, 2011)

About FMC:
1. Luck is not a crime
2. 'Trying over and over until they get lucky' is not the same as a n00b getting skips, forcing 'luck' and getting lucky is not the same.
3. In 30 minutes I find something between 45 and 33 moves as safety solution, that's a big margin. After one hour my results are more consistent, and therefore I think it is not that bad the way it is. Best would be a mean of 2 or 3, but then also a total time of 2 or 3 hours... don't see that happen really. Maybe we are not ready for FMC with 30 minutes per cube yet, but at the moment I don't really like the idea to rush even more. The challenging thing about FMC is to find something really good since you have an hour, finding 2 whatever-solutions is not really satisfactory I think..
4. Its the nature of the cube to be unpredictable, an occasional skip for a n00b might happen. Still the average move count for a normal solve is about 55, with a PLL skip this is like 43 moves, which is a very lousy FMC result. With some additional 3 move pairs (assuming CFOP) the n00b can get maybe a 36? 
Chances of this last example are already very small, I don't consider myself to be among the top-FMC cubers but if I don't find something better than that 36 I know I just messed up myself...
5. Maybe Erik's way should be tried out at the weekly contest here? The idea and intentions are good for sure!


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 13, 2011)

I have agree with Erik here, I thought part of the point of FMC was trying to find lucky continuations. I thought that was the whole point of NISS as a solving strategy, at least that's how I use it. When I am at a point where I have many continuation options, say at the 2x2x3 with all oriented edges, then I will try each promising continuation AND I will use NISS on each of these continuations as well. I thought the whole point was to find the set of turns that gives you the best possible continuation. What better way to do this than to double your number of continuations at every step with a strategy like NISS? Now I don't consider myself an FMC expert; I've only gotten sub-30 once and that was not in official competition. But still, finding a lucky or overly easy continuation for each step is *always* what I am looking for when faced with a decision in FMC. Does that mean that since I strive to maximize my "luck" that I am, in fact, not an FMC solver?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 13, 2011)

What the hell? People are talking as if advocates of a mean-type FMC think that is the True Fewest Moves Style and that all FMCers should immediately like it. This is ridiculous.

Here's the thing: single FMC in an hour, and doing two or three FMCs in an hour or 90 minutes or whatever, are very different events in terms of strategy and feel. In fact this is the whole point of arguing for a change - it wouldn't be interesting to change it if the differences were minimal. Comparing who would do well on each event, the old one favors:
- knowing lots of techniques (having lots of stuff to try)
- more complex techniques that might take a while
- being lucky
whereas the new one favors:
- consistency
- blockbuilding ability
- speed (in all aspects of the FM event)

I haven't yet really gotten to the point where an hour feels like not enough time, but I'd say you can try a lot of stuff in an hour. If you optimize your approach (as far as how to write stuff down, how to use stickers and the 3 cubes to maximum effect, etc) you can really get a lot done in 60 and even 30 minutes, and I wouldn't say spending only 30 minutes on a solution means it will be bad. How many times have I heard someone with an amazing FMC result tell me "yeah, I found this in 5/10/15 minutes, and couldn't get anything better"? If that happened in the mean style, instead of sitting there for 45 minutes brute-forcing other possibilities (or simply handing in your solution and walking out), you'd realize you were done with that scramble and be able to spend extra time on the other scrambles. Maybe you'll find that you need it.

I also kinda feel that it would be more interesting to have 3 things to work on for 90-120 (say) minutes would be more interesting than working on one thing for an hour. I remember that in math contests having three problems to work on was really nice because if you got stuck or bored on one you could switch to another and see if you could make any headway on that. There were also opportunities to optimize your approach, like deciding whether to go all-out on one problem and write up the solution when it came, or whether to try to get as far on each as you could and then spend the last half hour writing. Of course, I also really like the idea of having more attempts - a best of 2 or 3 round in FMC (or multiple rounds) is impractical in most competitions, and would be longer than a single 90-minute round.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 14, 2011)

I think the part that people are having trouble swallowing is the fact the the move counts will probably not be sub 30 given only 30 minutes per cube.

although I like the idea about having less time, it is arguable that it would make it too difficult for some people to get solutions. but if FMC became a mean of 2 or 3 then it would become impossible to do in competition because it would be a 2-3 hour event. I think that 2 solutions in 90 minutes is entirely reasonable if 60 minutes is not enough time. 

something should definitely be done though because the rest of the WCA events are based on averages or means.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 14, 2011)

I DON'T spend 45 minutes on finding a lucky ending. I spent 45 minutes on finding a GREAT (often optimal) beginning. That beginning can be a 2x2x3 block, an "all edges solved and some corners as well", an "all corners solved and some edges as well". If you are doing cross/f2l/oll/pll with a skip you are doing FMC wrong. Pre-moves, inverse scramble/NISS, insertions and adding 1 or 2 moves inside the start to orient/permute a few of the unsolved pieces all require more time than just inserting a few pairs differently to try to get a skip. Shortening the time for FMC would actually favor the ones trying to get lucky cases.

There are at least 4 ways of getting good FMC results: Luck, Brute-forcing, Knowing lots of cases/algs, advanced tricks like described above. And of course a combination of all of the above will lead to the best result in general.
I DO like the idea of doing an average of 3 or even mean 3/5 as it will allow for more tactical choices and results better representing skill. Single results will not be comparable with current results though just because giving someone multiple scrambles will already add an unfair advantage for new results. This sounds like something that could be perfectly tested with a few forum competitions. I will think about it for a bit more and then post a "Trial for new FMCs" thread in the forum competitions thread

Scrambling Magics 2D will result in a very limited amount of possibilities. Scrambling Magics in 3D is an idea that I have thought about and discussed with several other people that actually DO know how to solve really randomly scrambled Magics (fast), but we never could come up with a notation. The only thing we agreed upon was that it would be interesting to allow going from scrambled state to either 1 of the 2 solved states so tactic would be involved instead of just "get it 2D, get it 2 by 4/6", solve"

Inspecting OH with only 1 hand was done in the past and was changed because it wasn't a good idea. No way is that going to be changed back. Doing other puzzles OH I have no problems with at all, but I DO think we are thinking about adding too many events. As noted before that is not a problem in general (just don't host an event if there is no time), but it would be a problem for a Worlds or other HUGE tournament (Euro/Asia/US) 

@Stefan: Could you PM or publicly explain what I misunderstood about the numbers from Jaaps 2x2x2 possibilities page?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 14, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> Shortening the time for FMC would actually favor the ones trying to get lucky cases.


Actually, I think it would favor the ones who are skillful enough to find a good solve relatively quickly, at least in the average ranking. If you don't have the skill to get a nice solve on 2 of the scrambles with no luck, you won't have enough time to get 3 lucky solves.



AvGalen said:


> Single results will not be comparable with current results though just because giving someone multiple scrambles will already add an unfair advantage for new results.


The only unfair advantage I see is that if you have more than an hour overall someone could spend the whole time and run with it. If you think 3 scrambles is an unfair advantage to the single rank, I'll point out that it's clearly worse than having 3 FMC rounds/solves right now, which would give you a full hour for each, and that this is quite possible to do in a competition right now. I guess my point was not really that there is no way to benefit from the mean-of-3 round, but rather that any advantage is small enough that we don't need to throw out the old results.



AvGalen said:


> @Stefan: Could you PM or publicly explain what I misunderstood about the numbers from Jaaps 2x2x2 possibilities page?


I believe the problem was that you forgot to add in the number of 5-move cases.


----------



## TMOY (Jan 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I believe the problem was that you forgot to add in the number of 5-move cases.


 
The problem is that Arnaud took only in consideration the cases which are n moves away from solved in both HTM and QTM metrics at the same time, for n=0...5.


----------



## Radu (Jan 14, 2011)

The only change I would add to the FMC format is that the 80 moves limit should be lowered to 70. I would say even lower, like 60 or, but as a first moves drop it might sound too harsh.
The reason is that it will make life of organizers and delegates easier. It's not that easy to check a 70 moves solution...not to mention that the writing of the competitor might be awful sometimes. I think anyone can get a sub 60 solution with normal Fridrich.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't actually see a reason for a limit at all - if a competition wants to judge a 100+ move solution they should be allowed to, and if they want to make a cutoff of 60 or even lower they should be allowed to do that too.

The procedure for checking FMC solutions is not officially codified but it should ideally run something like this:
- Give the scramble to a specialized computer program.
- For each solution:
- - Go through the list of moves and type each one into the program. If you can't figure out one of the moves for certain, do your best to guess.
- - The program will tell you whether the solution is valid, and also the number of moves (HTM).
- - If the solution is not valid, sorry, it's DNF. Move on.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 14, 2011)

Changing to a 3-in-an-hour mean for FMC is like removing inspection for 2x2- it totally changes the approach people would have to take. You'd see a lot less inverse scrambling and less insertions, as both of these are rather time-consuming. And fyi both of my DNFs have been because I already had a 27 and didn't beat it/get sub30, so it wasn't worth writing down.


----------



## irontwig (Jan 14, 2011)

I would say keep 1h limit for FMC and add the possible format "Median of 3" to "Best of x", as I feel mean is too unforgiving and "Best of x" too luck-based and Avg5 impractical.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 14, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> WR 3x3x3 OH single. Pure luck.


And doing F2L in 11s has nothing to do with it right?
>__<


----------



## Vishal (Jan 14, 2011)

What about slowing headphones?


----------



## Bryan (Jan 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I don't actually see a reason for a limit at all - if a competition wants to judge a 100+ move solution they should be allowed to, and if they want to make a cutoff of 60 or even lower they should be allowed to do that too.
> 
> The procedure for checking FMC solutions is not officially codified but it should ideally run something like this:
> - Give the scramble to a specialized computer program.
> ...


 
But I think a default limit should be assumed, and it's up to the organizer to change it. Just like events have a 10 minute limit unless otherwise defined. That way if a competition does want to allow 100, they can. If they want to allow 800, then they must state that.

I like the idea of having the computer validate. But I would change one thing, "If you can't figure out one of the moves for certain, DNF" People should write clearly.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 14, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> And doing F2L in 11s has nothing to do with it right?
> >__<


 
Let me get this straight, you think LL skips *in comp* aren't lucky? Ok. Go calculate the odds of that.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 14, 2011)

irontwig said:


> I would say keep 1h limit for FMC and add the possible format "Median of 3" to "Best of x", as I feel mean is too unforgiving and "Best of x" too luck-based and Avg5 impractical.


 
I am having the same problem
1/1 = current
Median of 3: Allows "cheating" by ignoring 1 cube (1 DNF)
Best of x: Allows "cheating" by ignoring ALL but 1 cube (x-1 DNF's)
Mean of 3 in 1 hour seems to short of time per cube
Average of 5 too impractical indeed (time)

So I have to agree with the original idea of doing "average of 2". But then the difference with the current event is very small. A first round with a cut-off (best 4, only sub 40, best 25%, etc) would be better in my opinion, requiring two good solves for the winner but no changes to the event. The idea of having LESS than 60 minutes for FMC simply doesn't work for me. I often have a really good start and a good idea for a finish but I need more than 60 minutes to find the best insertion(s) so I skimp on that under the pressure of a real competition. Sorry, no new solution for FMC from me

(and thanks for the corrections on 2x2x2)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 14, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> And fyi both of my DNFs have been because I already had a 27 and didn't beat it/get sub30, so it wasn't worth writing down.



I suspect you're far from being the only one who did that. I've just never done it because I have a silly thing about minimizing DNFs. Lots of the DNFs that happen in competition are because people have solutions that they don't think are worth writing down.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 14, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I suspect you're far from being the only one who did that. I've just never done it because I have a silly thing about minimizing DNFs. Lots of the DNFs that happen in competition are because people have solutions that they don't think are worth writing down.


 
Guus and I were competing for the Dutch National title. We both found a start that led to a 35 move solution quickly but didn't bother to write it down because it was still early. I found a crazy good start (15 moves, just a few misoriented corners left) and Guus already had found a 33 and was still improving. I found that start a few times but couldn't find a way to finish it nicely, then I couldn't find it anymore and I hadn't written it down anywhere. I ran out of time without any good solution on paper, Guus had a move written incorrectly and Erik won with 37. Guus and I felt really stupid and Erik felt like "the third dog that got the bone because the other 2 dogs were fighting over it" (als 2 honden vechten om 1 been, gaat een 3e ermee heen. Dutch expression)


----------



## qqwref (Jan 14, 2011)

Bryan said:


> But I think a default limit should be assumed, and it's up to the organizer to change it. Just like events have a 10 minute limit unless otherwise defined. That way if a competition does want to allow 100, they can. If they want to allow 800, then they must state that.


Sure, but here's how the current regulations specify the 10 minute rule:
"The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event."
And here's how they specify the 80 moves rule:
"The maximum length of a solution is 80 (moves and rotations)."
Even if you ignore the additional "moves AND rotations" issue, this is a much stricter rule because it doesn't allow the competition to announce a different limit. Considering that a higher limit doesn't provide any more advantage in FMC than it does in speedsolving, we ought to change the regulation to:
"The maximum length of a solution is 80 moves, or less/higher if announced before the event."



Bryan said:


> I like the idea of having the computer validate. But I would change one thing, "If you can't figure out one of the moves for certain, DNF" People should write clearly.


You don't think that's a bit harsh? If you would say "this looks like an F' but I am only 99% sure because it could be an R" then it's not really fair to automatically DNF the person for that - I think it would be a lot more reasonable to just go with your best guess, and if the sequence doesn't end up solving the cube, it's not your problem. That way you at least give someone the benefit of the doubt if their handwriting is on the edge.

Incidentally, instead of the black underlines in the current "FMC sheets" going around in the US, I'd really prefer a light gray grid or a bunch of light gray boxes. That way it would still be clear where the moves go, but without having a dark bit covering the bottom of some letters.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 14, 2011)

If you can't write clearly enough, you shouldn't be trying to compete. Take a little time, and make it so you clearly have a solution.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> You don't think that's a bit harsh? If you would say "this looks like an F' but I am only 99% sure because it could be an R" then it's not really fair to automatically DNF the person for that


 
I'm not talking about 99%, I'm talking about 50%. If I'm confused between 3 of your moves, I'm not going to check all permutations to see if one works.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2011)

masterofthebass: The problem is that it isn't a black-and-white deal. Different people have different handwriting-reading abilities. One person might be able to speedread their way through cursive capitals and another person might be totally baffled by them. Plus, different countries have slightly different standards in the way they teach various letters (see: the way French people write numerals). What I'm saying is that, just because some judge isn't 100% sure about your letters, doesn't mean you have objectively terrible handwriting and should make sure to avoid any kind of competition involving handwritten words.

Bryan: I don't think you SHOULD check all possibilities. But I do think you should check *one*, and that it would be extremely strict to not even do that.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 15, 2011)

qq: This could all be avoided if we provide a type font on the WCA regulations page to show how we want the letters to look, and show some examples of clear/unclear handwriting (much like with the axis of misalignment pictures). I'm unsure of how practical it is though, as it would take up more space. I suppose a link to bring up another window of examples would suffice. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but it will at least let people know if their handwriting is within the regulations.

Has this been much of an issue (or any issue at all) outside of poor penmanship (such as qq was saying about French numerals)?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 15, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> qq: This could all be avoided if we provide a type font on the WCA regulations page to show how we want the letters to look, and show some examples of clear/unclear handwriting (much like with the axis of misalignment pictures). I'm unsure of how practical it is though, as it would take up more space. I suppose a link to bring up another window of examples would suffice. I mean, it seems pretty self-explanatory, but it will at least let people know if their handwriting is within the regulations.
> 
> Has this been much of an issue (or any issue at all) outside of poor penmanship (such as qq was saying about French numerals)?


hand-writing within regulations? I thought the event was about solving a cube in as few moves as possible. There IS such a thing as overregulating!
I check FMC with a second person. If a solution works it goes on the "good pile". If it doesn't work it goes on the "let the other person check it as well" pile. If it doesn't work for that person it is a DNF


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2011)

We could make it easier for people by using lowercase (the letters f r u b l d all look much more distinct than the letters F R B do) or by using one of those horrid Scantron-type bubbling sheets. Maybe there are some other ways too.

AvG: we will certainly need handwriting regulations if some people are refusing to even try out a solution they have trouble reading...


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 15, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> If a solution works it goes on the "good pile". If it doesn't work it goes on the "let the other person check it as well" pile. If it doesn't work for that person it is a DNF


 
Now you are checking some solutions twice, which is a waste of time (in my opinion). It's probably not the best comparison, but it's sort of like procedural code vs object oriented. Write a bit more now, save time later.

qq: What if people want to use double layer turns? AvG did make it clear though to double check a solution that doesn't work.


----------



## Radu (Jan 15, 2011)

Wtf people..? Arnaud posted everything so simple and clearly and you come with all kind of dumb observations and ideas. 
If one cannot write letters in a decent way, so that they can be read by everyone, he shouldn't compete. It's a matter of respect shown to organizers and judges to write as clearly as possible and make their lifes easier. I don't think it's that hard. We don't need new fonts, letters or I don't know what.

The double-check of the solution he mentioned is the best and easiest way to do. But I think we're getting off topic...


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 15, 2011)

The way I interpreted qq's post was that it was more to do with writing differences from other countries, rather than poor penmanship. I think (at least hope) we can all agree that if you get DNF'd by poor penmanship it _is_ your fault. If you however write differently because of a cultural difference (and it would be clear to one of the same culture), the blame can't really be pointed.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 15, 2011)

fatboyxpc said:


> The way I interpreted qq's post was that it was more to do with writing differences from other countries, rather than poor penmanship. I think (at least hope) we can all agree that if you get DNF'd by poor penmanship it _is_ your fault. If you however write differently because of a cultural difference (and it would be clear to one of the same culture), the blame can't really be pointed.


 
The only writing differences that I know of are in the number 1, 4 and 7 and in the letter r and a. None of those seem possible to me to cause any confusion though. Having a second person check "possible DNF's" is saving time in reality. If I get a DNF I have to recheck it anyway to see if I wasn't the one making a mistake. If another person cannot make the solution work it should be a DNF. Only in very rare cases do I ask a competitor to explain his solution.

Adding regulations about handwriting is REALLY overdoing it. Some things just don't need to be explained. Making the regulations that detailed would just result in nobody reading them anymore. I already think there are too many


----------



## Bryan (Jan 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> if some people are refusing to even try out a solution they have trouble reading...


 
You're making it sound as if I'm going to throw away the thing if it's not written in ANSI block script. Again, I could give it something, but I'm not going to put a bunch of effort into it (dealing with permutations) and I want to avoid having the competitor complain later.

I'd be more concerned about how to figure out if an apostrophe is present or not, especially if they try to erase. I'd be like looking for hanging chads.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 15, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> The only writing differences that I know of are in the number 1, 4 and 7 and in the letter r and a. None of those seem possible to me to cause any confusion though. Having a second person check "possible DNF's" is saving time in reality. If I get a DNF I have to recheck it anyway to see if I wasn't the one making a mistake. If another person cannot make the solution work it should be a DNF. Only in very rare cases do I ask a competitor to explain his solution.
> 
> Adding regulations about handwriting is REALLY overdoing it. Some things just don't need to be explained. Making the regulations that detailed would just result in nobody reading them anymore. I already think there are too many


 
Did you specifically mean the lower case of those letters (I don't want to assume here, but figured you would have capitalized them if you meant them to be the upper-case form of them)? I guess that one could say if I wanted to use an r move in my solution (the double layer turn) and there are differences then that could cause an issue.

I already stated that putting regulations about handwriting might not be practical. I do agree that it should be self-explanatory, but (I probably shouldn't say this without a good handful of links readily available) I've seen rules in sports that seem like it's over the top. I think the sole purpose of writing such a regulation about handwriting would be to just provide a set standard that would eliminate any sort of confusion. You most certainly wouldn't have to ask the competitor anymore what they meant by a move, if they erased, etc.

I know that in the hour you are to have your solution written down. Do you think we could extend a given time period (probably less than one minute) to clarify the written solution? You aren't allowed to touch your cube at all, just copy down your solution to a cleaner area of the paper. The purpose of this is so that if you erased some things, there won't be confusion (in reference to Bryan's post). I guess the organizer could say that you get 59m and then you aren't allowed to touch the cube anymore, and write the solution. Would that be a good solution?


----------



## Rpotts (Jan 15, 2011)

I thought FMC solutions had to be written in RLUDFB notation, so lowercase letters wouldn't apply.


----------



## Toad (Jan 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> I thought FMC solutions had to be written in RLUDFB notation, so lowercase letters wouldn't apply.


 
FMC solutions must follow this notation scheme, lower case letters are permitted.

EDIT: It seems like a bit of a grey area as to whether or not lower case letters would be permitted for 3x3 according to the regulations. It's not an important matter though, judges would not / should not disqualify someone based on this IMO.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 15, 2011)

Would this be better for a FMC write-down:

1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:

U=W
F=G
L=O
R=R
B=B
D=Y

And then I write my whole solution in [WGORBY][ '2] notation. No rotations to worry about. The "solution checker" program at the end handles the mapping.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 15, 2011)

qqwref said:


> "The maximum length of a solution is 80 (moves and rotations)."
> Even if you ignore the additional "moves AND rotations" issue, this is a much stricter rule because it doesn't allow the competition to announce a different limit.



Then how is it that there are 4 official results that are more than 80 moves, two of them being several hundred moves long? (Note, this is curiosity, not rude cynicism)


----------



## Holger (Jan 15, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Then how is it that there are 4 official results that are more than 80 moves, two of them being several hundred moves long? (Note, this is curiosity, not rude cynicism)


Three of them were entered before the regulation, I guess the fourth is because someone is nice and flexible


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2011)

Bryan said:


> Would this be better for a FMC write-down:
> 
> 1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:
> 
> ...


 
An even more generalized idea:
- Give a spread-out cube layout with 6 openings (with another one showing RUFLDB like normal).
- Competitors have a few minutes before they start to fill in those openings with 6 letters, symbols, etc. which they will then use for the solution. It's their fault if they are too similar. If they write nothing or if they fill in RUFLDB like normal then they will be using normal notation.

So someone might want to replace UFLRBD with WGORBY, but they might also want to replace it with [email protected] I guess this might make it trickier to judge some solutions, but it would allow unambiguous stuff so that even if people have terrible handwriting they can still be easily understood.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 16, 2011)

Bryan said:


> Would this be better for a FMC write-down:
> 
> 1) I write my "mapping" of my cube:
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I would love this. Only problem is wide turns, and middle slices (not my issue, I never use them). In fmc I don't hold the cube in a fixed orientation a lot of the time. I convert "white prime" to U' already. I believe others do this too, or they make R mean Red. I'm all for this, and can't believe I didn't work it out for myself. Obviously M' = R' O' in the new notation. Maybe brackets could we used for wide turns...


----------



## Carlos (Jan 22, 2011)

I don't know if this question has already been discussed here, but I never understood why did the rules changed to allow touching the cube intentionally at the table at the OH event.

People say: but who is fast doesn't need the table. 
Feliks clearly used it at the current average WR. 
Also, the OH event exists with the porpouse to make harder to solve the cube, so if it's called OH, it gets to be "OH" in my opinion, not "OHandicapped".

Also, if someone who is considered sub15 by WCA goes to a tv show, for example, he may say "I need a table to get a sub15 time, please" ? It makes no sense at all.
I can't make myself more obvious than this.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 22, 2011)

Carlos said:


> I don't know if this question has already been discussed here, but I never understood why did the rules changed to allow touching the cube intentionally at the table at the OH event.
> 
> People say: but who is fast doesn't need the table.
> Feliks clearly used it at the current average WR.
> ...


 
I completely agree. using the table defeats the purpose of solving with one hand. there should be a rule that says something like "while the cube is being held it may not touch any other part of the body (otherhand, chest, leg etc.) or object."


----------



## Radu (Jan 22, 2011)

Carlos said:


> Also, if someone who is considered sub15 by WCA goes to a tv show, for example, he may say "I need a table to get a sub15 time, please" ? It makes no sense at all.I can't make myself more obvious than this.


Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.

We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".


----------



## Carlos (Jan 22, 2011)

pablobaluba said:


> Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
> But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.
> 
> We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".


 
That's why I used the word "intentionally" at my first paragraph. The judge and everybody around can easily tell, when the cube drops more than once, if looks like that the cuber is doing that on porpouse. I can't imagine how the cube can fall with legitmacy and the cuber get an advantage of it.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jan 22, 2011)

Carlos said:


> That's why I used the word "intentionally" at my first paragraph. The judge and everybody around can easily tell, when the cube drops more than once, if looks like that the cuber is doing that on porpouse. I can't imagine how the cube can fall with legitmacy and the cuber get an advantage of it.


 The cube could have been dropped intentionally in order to try to align the sides, which could be considered an advantage.


----------



## mr. giggums (Jan 22, 2011)

pablobaluba said:


> Your example is very good in my opinion! Nice point of view. I somehow agree with your thoughts.
> But what if the competitor drops the cube from his hand? It happens sometime. I think this is the reason why the "surface" may be used. It's difficult and subjective to judge between "has used the table because dropped the cube" or "has used it to create an advantage". At first sight, it may sound stupid, but in time, cubers will find solutions using the table and claiming that the cube was dropped.
> 
> We can make a rule though, like: "a cuber may not drop the cube during the solve. Penalty DNF". It may sound harsh, but it's the only realistic solution I see, if we want to get rid of the "table use".



Also if someone drops the cube on their hand even by accident that is a DNF by the current rules. Although this isn't as likely but it still would not be fair for the person if it's an accident.


----------



## Carlos (Jan 23, 2011)

rickcube said:


> The cube could have been dropped intentionally in order to try to align the sides, which could be considered an advantage.


 
With "falling with legitmacy" I mean "drop accidentally". Please read my post again with this in mind.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 23, 2011)

While I don't disagree with disallowing intentional table use, I think it will be a very hard rule to enforce. Some accidental cube drops may look intentional, and is very dependent on how the judge sees it, or how strict he/she wants to be. It will also increase chances of disputes between competitors and judges should they argue about this after a solve.

Also a 15s solve on TV to non-cubers doesn't look any less amusing than a 14s solve, so there's no need to care about outside spectators


----------



## Julian (Jan 23, 2011)

Because it's impossible to know a competitor's intent, I propose a +2 penalty should the cube touch the table, regardless of intent or gained advantage.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2011)

I think we had an old rule which was something like this: the cube may touch the surface, but all moves must be done without the assistance of the surface. It wasn't perfect to enforce, but I did like it that way.

I think I remember that allowing full usage of the surface was to help out total beginners in the event who may accidentally break that rule or may have trouble doing turns with one hand in the air. But I still think it is pretty silly to be able to use one hand plus the table, because about half of the challenge of OH (and much more than half on larger and more complex puzzles) is that you have to hold the cube and turn it at the same time.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 23, 2011)

Solving it with feet is also done to "make it more difficult". Nobody argues that you can't use the surface for with feet.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2011)

People would argue that if it was *possible* to not use the surface and still get reasonably decent times. As far as I know, it isn't.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Jan 23, 2011)

Julian said:


> Because it's impossible to know a competitor's intent, I propose a +2 penalty should the cube touch the table, regardless of intent or gained advantage.


 
Excellent. This gives a +2 to every single one-handed solve ever, unless the competitor throws it in the air before stopping the timer, risking a normal +2 or a pop. But then it still touched the table at the beginning of the solve, unless the competitor threw it in the air then too, for a whole second.

(I understand you don't mean to include putting the cube down, but my point is to make you think through exactly what this rule should prohibit).


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 23, 2011)

If the purpose of solving with one hand is to simulate a handicap of only having the physical use of one hand, then why should we add the additional restriction that the surface may not be used? If a person only had the physical use of one hand, and they solved faster by using the assistance of the surface, then why should we restrict them from doing so? I like the current rules where one-handed means "using any means necessary, except for the other hand." This seems the most realistic format for me.

As to the TV show example, if a person only had the use of one hand, and was faster with the assistance of the surface, then the TV show would grant them a solving surface. I see no reason why this would be an awkward or unusual request.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I like the current rules where one-handed means "using any means necessary, except for the other hand." This seems the most realistic format for me.


Then why don't we let them use other parts of the body or other objects?


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 23, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Then why don't we let them use other parts of the body or other objects?


 
That was a poor choice of wording on my part then. A better choice would be:



> C1a) During the solve the competitor must only use one hand. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
> C1b) During the solve no other body part or any object other than the surface must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.



My point, with the exact wording of the regulation in place of my previous poor choice, still stands. The current rules are a more realistic way to simulate the handicap of solving with one hand than to ban the use of the surface, in my opinion.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2011)

Right, but what I mean is, if you're aiming to emulate the solving of someone who only has the use of one hand, it would be expected that you allow use of anything other than the other hand to help the solve. Since we're not doing that (only the surface is allowed as a turning aid) I don't think the intent of the OH event is to emulate someone who can't use one hand. Personally I see it as "solving with one hand only" i.e. with one hand and as little else as possible, which in this case would ideally be no other object. I can't think of an obvious interpretation of OH that would logically allow use of the surface to make turns, but NOT allow use of other body parts or objects to make turns.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 23, 2011)

Man, I read this thread a bit late, and QQ took my question  (About using other body parts). 

I'd just like to point out that there is no "body part" type restriction in the normal speedsolving regulation (Article A).


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 23, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Right, but what I mean is, if you're aiming to emulate the solving of someone who only has the use of one hand, it would be expected that you allow use of anything other than the other hand to help the solve.



No it wouldn't. In standard speedsolving you are allowed the use of only the surface. One handed regulations should emulate the 2h regs, sans one of your hands. The procedure for a one-handed person's solves during the OH event should mirror those of their solves in the regular 2H event. This is even supported by the current regulations: "C1)	Standard procedure is followed as described in Article A (Speed Solving)."

"C1b) During the solve no other body part or any object other than the surface must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. " is basically redundant, as it is already covered by the application of C1 on to "A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve."

Without the superfluous regulation, the OH regs can exactly be summed up as "Same as 2-handed solving, but you can't touch the puzzle with one of your hands while the timer is running."

Edit: @fatboyxpc: That depends on your interpretation of "any object" in A5b. I believe other body parts falls under the category of "any object," and should be a DNF, with the theoretical exception of someone with no arms etc.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 23, 2011)

Fair enough, David. I made the mistake of assuming since it was explicitly stated for OH that it would be in "Speedsolving" as well.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 23, 2011)

Slightly off the current topic, but when will we know what the new 2011 regulations are / When they come out


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> No it wouldn't. In standard speedsolving you are allowed the use of only the surface.


I don't think other parts of your body are intended to count as "objects" in A5b. Note that they're considered different in C1b: "no other body part or any object..." It's not the two-handed event, but the anything-goes event (as long as you aren't assisted by other people/things).



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Slightly off the current topic, but when will we know what the new 2011 regulations are / When they come out


As soon as all these arguments are made once again on the WCA forum, and Ron decides which changes he agrees with. Should be in a month or so.


----------



## irontwig (Jan 26, 2011)

AvGalen said:


> Mean of 3 in 1 hour seems to short of time per cube



Yes, but that was not what I meant, what I was proposing is that FMC could be held in these three formats: Best of 1, Best of 2 (both possible under the current regulations), Median of 3 (new format and better imo for choosing continental/world champion) and each solve having the usual 1h limit.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 26, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> No it wouldn't. In standard speedsolving you are allowed the use of only the surface. One handed regulations should emulate the 2h regs, sans one of your hands. The procedure for a one-handed person's solves during the OH event should mirror those of their solves in the regular 2H event. This is even supported by the current regulations: "C1)	Standard procedure is followed as described in Article A (Speed Solving)."
> 
> "C1b) During the solve no other body part or any object other than the surface must touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. " is basically redundant, as it is already covered by the application of C1 on to "A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve."
> 
> ...



Article A doens't forbid the use of other body parts:

_A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve._


I agree that allowing the intentional use of the surface is pretty dumb. 
Chris said that the TV people may give you a table...but what if you're just walking down the street with your cube, and someone asks you to do a OH solve?
You say like: "Oh, sorry, I need a table"


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 26, 2011)

Pedro said:


> I agree that allowing the intentional use of the surface is pretty dumb.
> Chris said that the TV people may give you a table...but what if you're just walking down the street with your cube, and someone asks you to do a OH solve?
> You say like: "Oh, sorry, I need a table"


 
Well, we have to remember; are these competitions for speedcubers, or people on the street? We aren't discussing whether we should train ourselves not to use a table at all times, just in competition.


----------



## marthaurion (Jan 26, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Yes, but that was not what I meant, what I was proposing is that FMC could be held in these three formats: Best of 1, Best of 2 (both possible under the current regulations), Median of 3 (new format and better imo for choosing continental/world champion) and each solve having the usual 1h limit.


 
Isn't Median of 3 pretty much the same as Average of 3?


----------



## Rune (Jan 27, 2011)

Average of 1,2,DNF=DNF
Median of 1,2,DNF=2


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 27, 2011)

Pedro said:


> Article A doens't forbid the use of other body parts:
> 
> _A5b) While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competitor must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve._
> 
> ...


 
I would say that David has a valid point on that it isn't defined on what all is considered an object and can be interpreted in various ways.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 27, 2011)

Well, maybe he does, but I don't consider my arm/leg/belly/head as "an object"...



JonnyWhoopes said:


> Well, we have to remember; are these competitions for speedcubers, or people on the street? We aren't discussing whether we should train ourselves not to use a table at all times, just in competition.



Sure the comps are different places, where you have timers and audience and judges and stuff. But I still think it's kinda weird if I present a friend as the top OH-er around here and people ask him to do some solves, to which he replies: "oh, I need a table, please, otherwise I can't do it that fast".


----------



## Olivér Perge (Jan 27, 2011)

Pedro said:


> But I still think it's kinda weird if I present a friend as the top OH-er around here and people ask him to do some solves, to which he replies: "oh, I need a table, please, otherwise I can't do it that fast".


 
It's not weird at all. Presenting your friend to non-cubers as the best OH-er around is weird.  Or if it's not, than explaining that he needs table for that is OK too.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 27, 2011)

That's totally far from reality. Even if even top OH-Cubers use the surface sometimes to align the cube, it is foolish to assume that without doind this they would even loose half of a second in average.


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 27, 2011)

Sébastien_Auroux said:


> That's totally far from reality. Even if even top OH-Cubers use the surface sometimes to align the cube, it is foolish to assume that without doind this they would even loose half of a second in average.



some people need to use the table to get decent times (roux solvers).


there are two ways that I have seen people use the table: 

1. using the table to hold one side steady while turning other layers. 

using the table to HOLD the one side of the cube steady while turning another layer is the same as holding it with two hands but only making turns with one. it's a little bit trickier but it has the same effect. it's a one handed event so let's keep it that way.


2. using the table to realign layers. 

sometimes when you are in the middle of a solve, a layer or two may become out of alignment and require squaring off before you can continue solving (F and B slices are the most common and annoying to fix). so what they do is press the cube onto the table to flatten out the bottom side which TURNS the misaligned layers back into proper position. a lot of the really fast OH cubers do this and I think it's wrong. if you aren't good enough at turning with one hand to keep all of the layers aligned nicely then you don't deserve a fast time. 

both methods of table use employ the table as an aid to help turn the cube. all we need is a rule that says something like "only the solving hand may be touching the cube while turns are being made".


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 27, 2011)

What about me? I use the table to help with rotations. I find it faster to drop on the table and pick it back up instead of tossing it around in my hand. I actually think this would be allowed under the old regulations, would it not?


----------



## ErikJ (Jan 27, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> What about me? I use the table to help with rotations. I find it faster to drop on the table and pick it back up instead of tossing it around in my hand. I actually think this would be allowed under the old regulations, would it not?


 
it would be very hard to make a rule against that since people drop the cube by accident all the time. how would the judge know if it was intentional or not? 

as long as the table isn't helping solvers to turn the cube I'm happy.


----------



## Radu (Jan 27, 2011)

The only "solution" would be the one I mentioned above...but that would be to harsh. Once the solve has started, the cube may not touch other surfaces hand and may not be dropped. Penalty: DNF.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Feb 24, 2011)

Incase someone hasn't said. The rule that no additional objects may be used as help, we have to say if ear plugs would be allowed or not especially for big bld attempts.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Feb 26, 2011)

esquimalt1 said:


> Incase someone hasn't said. The rule that no additional objects may be used as help, we have to say if ear plugs would be allowed or not especially for big bld attempts.


 
That's like saying people can't wear jackets since it would allow the competitor to stay warm and therefore do better. Any indirect help(help that does not physically turn the cube) is/should be allowed except if it enables you to "cheat". Cheating being anything from getting algorithms or communicating with someone else in order to better your solve. Could people still cheat with what appears to be noise cancelers? Sure. But we can't prevent everything. Nor should we try to.


----------

