# New Ideas for 2010 WCA Regulations?



## esquimalt1 (Dec 27, 2009)

I was just curious if people had any new ideas of new puzzles or new rules that should be in the 2010 WCA regulations.


----------



## shelley (Dec 27, 2009)

This discussion would normally take place on the WCA forums.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 27, 2009)

I don't have any significant ones, although I'd like pyraminx to be changed to optimal scrambles and the square-1 scrambler to be changed to one with images.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 27, 2009)

The scramble format for "Fewest Moves" should be clarified.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 27, 2009)

Huh. I just remembered that the usually-annual discussion of this on the WCA forums hasn't happened this year. I guess there isn't really as much to discuss compared to previous years, except for what qq just posted, and possibly magic regulations.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 27, 2009)

shelley said:


> This discussion would normally take place on the WCA forums.



That makes sense, but I'm sure that you would get a better understanding of the community's feedback on this forum.


----------



## V-te (Dec 27, 2009)

If I could, I would suggest more widespread competitions for us medium town folks. But that's just me.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 27, 2009)

V-te said:


> more widespread competitions for us medium town folks.


And that belongs into the regulations?


----------



## V-te (Dec 27, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> V-te said:
> 
> 
> > more widespread competitions for us medium town folks.
> ...



Well no, I don't believe so. Forgive my post


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 27, 2009)

V-te said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > V-te said:
> ...



you also live in bakersfield, which is much closer than the majority of people are to frequent competitions. SoCal comps are quite common compared to lets say... Korean comps.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 27, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I don't have any significant ones, although I'd like pyraminx to be changed to optimal scrambles and the square-1 scrambler to be changed to one with images.


I hope all puzzles will be treated as similar as realistically possible. That means:

- average of 5 solves for Megaminx. I really think this is possible now that scrambling is fast and competitors are getting faster.
- normal "+2" regulations for Magics. So no more "2 tiles high" but 1 move away from solved is +2, half a move away (90 Degrees) from solved is ok.
- normal "+2" regulations for Clock. So 1 move away from solved (turning 1 wheel) is +2 and no longer DNF. I don't see a need for defining "half a move away"

I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.

I would like to do averages of 5 for bigcubes, but I don't think competitions will have enough time for this.
I would also like allowing (all the moves on inverse scramble)' as a valid notation for FMC. This prevents unimportant "translation" and writing down errors for competitors and makes checking a solution more obvious. I can see many people not liking this one.

But I don't have time to write these all down in a more formal way so I will just ***** about them every competition in 2010


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 27, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> - normal "+2" regulations for Magics. So no more "2 tiles high" but 1 move away from solved is +2, half a move away (90 Degrees) from solved is ok.



Second that. But it left us with a few questions, like: How would you measure? Only by looking on it?



AvGalen said:


> - normal "+2" regulations for Clock. So 1 move away from solved (turning 1 wheel) is +2 and no longer DNF. I don't see a need for defining "half a move away"



Sounds good. I think it should go like: If you can solve the clock with one move (turning one wheel) after you stopped the timer, with the position of the pins you left (almost everytime it's 4 pins up), it should be a +2.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 27, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.
> 
> I would like to do averages of 5 for bigcubes, but I don't think competitions will have enough time for this.



Yes, the stuff about the logos and the stickers isn't going to give you any advantage in a speed solve. 

Mean of 3 ruined my 6x6x6 average because of a POP at Vancouver Open.


----------



## Dene (Dec 27, 2009)

I would like the issue that I brought up with +2 on Square-1 to be addressed. I had actually noticed that the annual regulations discussion hadn't happened on the WCA forums (I have checked a couple of times recently).


----------



## antros (Dec 27, 2009)

Penalty! 
+2 in Magic and +2 in the 6x6 is not fair in my opinion.
Proposes +20% of the solving time.

Penalty in Magic!
"G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top." 
Other puzzle have Limits of misalignment: half-turn wall. 
Proposes: Solved = no penalty in Magic when Misalignment <= 45°.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 27, 2009)

20%!??!?! That's a 48s penalty on a4:00 7x7 solve. It would absolutely destroy any average that has a +2 in it. 20% of solve time is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.


----------



## Weston (Dec 27, 2009)

I think transparent cubes should be legal.
Its a rather stupid rule in my opinion.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 27, 2009)

I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)

We should learn to solve the puzzles. Correct me if I'm wrong but for example in the final of the World Championship there were no or only a few +2-s, because the competitors focused on their solves enough to avoid this penalty case.

Last but not least it would solve the case of: Giving +2 for a magic solve and for a 7x7x7 solve is unfair...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 27, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like all these nonsense regulations about "cube must have stickers or not-to-big-tiles with a maximum of 1 logo and everything in perfect condition" to be scrapped or at least not enforced for anything except blind as it is a much bigger problem for competitors than it is actually an advantage for them.
> ...


This is just false, and I don't like strong unsubstantiated statements like that.

Why did we not use to hold up covers for BLD? Because it's not too easy to peek under a blindfold unsuspiciously, and no one would bother to cheat.

I remember seeing Dan and qq have a discussion; Dan had a worn 4x4x4 wing sticker that he had gotten used to, so didn't have to look at the other side of it. Cheating is on the rise, and we shouldn't permit anything that clearly allows "cheating." That said, I'd like to see the specific regulations relaxed, and I believe the delegate should have the leniency to decide about cubes that don't clearly follow the rules.


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Dec 27, 2009)

I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while. Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.


----------



## Dene (Dec 27, 2009)

Ryanrex116 said:


> I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while. Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.



This is possible, but it would certainly put extra weight on the organisers. It would also be impossible to maintain during competitions, for competitors that don't come when called, etc.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 27, 2009)

Olivér Perge said:


> I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)
> 
> We should learn to solve the puzzles. Correct me if I'm wrong but for example in the final of the World Championship there were no or only a few +2-s, because the competitors focused on their solves enough to avoid this penalty case.


Maybe you haven't had this problem, but +2s are not all cases of "I will not bother fixing the last side, because it is just 2 seconds". I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned. It is very unfair to completely disqualify a solve just because of a mistake that may not have even been the competitor's fault.

As for the cube just turning: I have this a lot on 2x2 (Eastsheen cubes suck) and the only possible solution would be to spend an extra 0.5s carefully placing the cube down. But this is not a viable solution because 0.5s is a lot on 2x2 - it can be the difference between 3rd and 6th or 7th place. I know this problem does not come up all that often at the highest level, but it definitely does come up, and I think that giving a huge penalty (like DNF) for bad luck will just add frustration, make people slower, and make luck more of an issue as opposed to skill.

The thing is that we do not have advanced enough equipment to check the state of the cube _as it leaves a competitor's hands_. If we did then we would not need the +2 rule because a competitor who really did solve the cube would always be considered to have solved it. Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 27, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Olivér Perge said:
> 
> 
> > I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only. Almost every +2 solve is because we rush the end of the solve to get a better time, ending up with a worse one. (That's why a +2 on 7x7x7 happens rarely and happens often on a magic.)
> ...


When a golfball hits a flag, it isn't in. When a cube is not moving on the table and the timer is stopped with 1 move remaining, it is a +2.


----------



## antros (Dec 27, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> 20%!??!?! That's a 48s penalty on a4:00 7x7 solve. It would absolutely destroy any average that has a +2 in it. 20% of solve time is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.


in Magic +2 this is sometimes 200%, in 2x2 sometimes 100%, in Pyra sometimes 50% , THIS ABSOLUTELY DESTROY AVERGES!


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 27, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when *the competitor dropped it* but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned. It is very unfair to completely disqualify a solve just *because of a mistake that may not have even been the competitor's fault*.



How is that not the competitors fault? He/she was the one who dropped the cube knowing that it might turn over a bit. If it's not 100% his/her fault, you should admit that it's his/her responsibility. If you want to avoid these cases, get a better cube!



qqwref said:


> As for the cube just turning: I have this a lot on 2x2 (Eastsheen cubes suck) *and the only possible solution would be to spend an extra 0.5s carefully placing the cube down*.



Yes!

I once... (who am i kidding?) I broke my magic during an official solve so many times. It was my fault, i got a DNF.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 27, 2009)

antros said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > 20%!??!?! That's a 48s penalty on a4:00 7x7 solve. It would absolutely destroy any average that has a +2 in it. 20% of solve time is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.
> ...



If a +2 destroys an average, solve the cube and you will not get one!  Yes it sounds sarcastic, but what else you could do?


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 27, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> esquimalt1 said:
> 
> 
> > AvGalen said:
> ...



Yeah, that's a good point you brought up there. You're right.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 27, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I've seen and experienced cases where the cube was solved when the competitor dropped it but ended up a move off for some other reason; for example, maybe the cube is just too loose, or maybe it fell off the table or something and misaligned.


My favorite one: drop the cube straight-down, solved and well-aligned, and end up a U' off.

Anyhow, you're talking about cubes that _were solved_ when dropped. How about solves that weren't, but _would have been solved_ except for the peculiarities of our timing system?


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 28, 2009)

That video makes me very sad. I +1 whoever said that we should be able to use transparent cubes, they should just be looked at just in case someone is trying to cheat.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 28, 2009)

Ryanrex116 said:


> I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while.



Organizers are busy enough as it is. If the competitor can't pay attention while they are calling names then that is their problem.



> Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.



This is the fault of the organizer, and will happen regardless of the regulations.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 28, 2009)

Olivér Perge said:


> I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only.



How do you suppose we retroactively remove all +2's from the database?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> Ryanrex116 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while.
> ...


Hmm, we should use the projector for that. Thanks for making me think about it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > esquimalt1 said:
> ...



I just want to make it clear now, even though I've mentioned it before: as far as I'm concerned, I cheat on every 6x6x6 BLD solve I do. The problem is that my partially modded 6x6x6 is such that I can feel which slice has the alignment problem, and from that I can tell whether or not I have the cube properly oriented after the middle centers are done. So yes, this is a problem, and it's a good thing 6x6x6 BLD is not an official event.


----------



## CitricAcid (Dec 28, 2009)

I think there should be some more leeway on the Magic penalties. 

With all the crappy Magics most people have, people are getting +2s

more than half the time. 


Maybe make it 4 panels instead of 2?


----------



## syuhei222 (Dec 28, 2009)

At least, +2 penalty for ALL events is not reasonable.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 28, 2009)

Considering magic solving: must the three joined rings be face up at the end of a solve? Nowhere in the regulations does it say that.


----------



## Jai (Dec 28, 2009)

If you check out some magic vids, you'll see that it doesn't have to. A lot of people have it face down at the end of the solve, and that's okay.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 28, 2009)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Considering magic solving: must the three joined rings be face up at the end of a solve? Nowhere in the regulations does it say that.



G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top.

So that means that they can be either side.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2009)

We might wanna add a bit on magic-type events to the regulations that says the judge must check it after every solve. On master magic I start and end with the connected side on bottom, and sometimes the judge doesn't bother to check it because I guess they assume what I'm doing is correct. I've never taken advantage of this to cheat, but someone in theory could.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 28, 2009)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Olivér Perge said:
> 
> 
> > I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the *+2 rule* at all! It should be solved or DNF only.
> ...



I didn't say we should remove already existing results with +2, that's not even possible, or if is, it would be very hard.

I said from now on it should be solved or DNF.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 28, 2009)

I think the Magic's should be +25% not +2, same with 2x2 & pyraminx.


----------



## JTW2007 (Dec 28, 2009)

I'd like for Skewb to be added, but that would present some challenges that would likely not be worth it. I agree that transparent cubes should be legalized though.


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Dec 28, 2009)

Cyrus C. said:


> I think the Magic's should be +25% not +2, same with 2x2 & pyraminx.


That would be like a .3 penalty for magic. Penalties should be high enough so that there is insentive to avoid them


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 28, 2009)

Ryanrex116 said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > I think the Magic's should be +25% not +2, same with 2x2 & pyraminx.
> ...



Magic - + 50%
2x2 - + 25%
Pyraminx - + 15%
???


----------



## Cuber3 (Dec 28, 2009)

Olivér Perge said:


> I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all!



+1


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 28, 2009)

Cuber3 said:


> Olivér Perge said:
> 
> 
> > I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all!
> ...


Alright, that does nothing. What use is it that "Cuber3" decided to declare his agreement to something, without explaining anything?
I'm not mad, but if anyone else posts something like that in this thread, don't be surprised if your post is deleted. This should at least be _discussion_.

Anyhow, I'm firmly against removing the +2 rule. As qq and Stefan argue, it is there as a safety net for competitions being tests of solving a cube _in practice_. Removing it is rather scary, and would involve unnecessarily important close calls.
Doing badly because of +2's is sad, but I've never heard someone complain that they should have beaten another person who didn't get penalized enough on their solves (when the reulations were followed).


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 28, 2009)

Cyrus C. said:


> Ryanrex116 said:
> 
> 
> > Cyrus C. said:
> ...



Things like this have been brought up before, many times. The idea of a +2 is that it generally takes just under two seconds to realize your mistake, fix it, and stop the timer. I'm not going to worry about whether or not my magic is actually flat if it take 1 second to fix, but I only get a .5 second penalty if I leave it. In fact, someone could leave out the last flip every time and just get a small penalty that actually adds less time than doing the last flip. And you know penalties are calculated immediately after the solve right? How fast can you add a 15% penalty to a 14.83 solve? What about the judges who are less than 12, or sometimes even less than 10 years old? Most of them cannot do these calculations quickly and accurately. All this will do is slow down competitions and add more work for the organizing staff. +2 is fine as it is.


----------



## shelley (Dec 28, 2009)

Weston said:


> I think transparent cubes should be legal.
> Its a rather stupid rule in my opinion.



The rule is there to prevent cheating. True, I don't know of anyone who has used transparent cube pieces to an advantage in solving... _yet._ If we allowed transparent cubes it creates the possibility that someone could develop a way to cheat. You can see things on a transparent cube that you normally wouldn't be able to see on normal opaque cubes and that's enough of an unfair advantage.



Ryanrex116 said:


> I think that the competitors should be called up in a certain order. (ex. alphabetically) It would be nice to know when and if you were called, instead of hoping that your scorecard was in the stack for a while. Also, it is rather annoying when you are called up for a new event while you are solving a different puzzle.



That kind of thing is up to individual competition organizers. I really don't think a blanket regulation like this would improve the fairness or ease of running competitions. At most of the competitions I go to, organizers tend to call up certain people to go first because they a) are faster and b) have agreed to help judge/scramble once they're done. As for being called up for something else while you are doing solves, that's not something a regulation will fix.

With the proliferation of new cubes that can lose not only center caps but also edge caps, corner caps, and possibly other pieces (*cough*typeF*cough*) I think some clarification is needed on how many and which "non functional" pieces can be popped if a cube is to be considered unambiguously solved. Four center caps, for example, can pop off in a way so that the cube is still solved, but if the two remaining centers are on opposite faces, the cube is not considered solved.

I think this has been mentioned already, but Square-1 misalignments also need to be clarified (specifically, a 90 degree misalignment of the slice).

Also, I propose a new regulation that requires all Master Magic competitors to wear a helmet.


----------



## Bogyo (Dec 28, 2009)

I think that avg5 in megaminx would be great.
-There are a lot of people who solves megaminx faster than 5x5, and in 5x5 we have avg5.
-Now if you miss one solve, then your average will be bad. For example if you are averaging about 1:15, and you miss a solve and got 1:45, it destroys your average. Here is two example:
Kamil Zielinski, Polish Open 2009 Final: average: 1:21.07 times:1:48.09 1:06.96 1:08.15
Simon Westlund, Swedish Cube Day 2009	First: average: 1:26.37 times: 1:54.30 1:16.21 1:08.59

In my opinion we shouldn't remove +2. Sometimes it happens, that after PLL you do the AUF, but you did U instead of U'. It would be annoying if it would be a DNF. But the cube isn't solved. So I think +2 is necessary.
When I practise magic it happens to me more times, that I "scrambled" it than it would be a +2, because it isn't flat. 
I think that the +2 rule is simply fair. If you want to correct the mistake you did, it really takes you 1 second, but don't forget this is a *penalty*, and not the end of the solve.


----------



## Rune (Dec 28, 2009)

Bogyo said:


> I think that avg5 in megaminx would be great.
> -There are a lot of people who solves megaminx faster than 5x5, and in 5x5 we have avg5.
> -Now if you miss one solve, then your average will be bad. For example if you are averaging about 1:15, and you miss a solve and got 1:45, it destroys your average. Here is two example:
> Kamil Zielinski, Polish Open 2009 Final: average: 1:21.07 times:1:48.09 1:06.96 1:08.15
> ...


----------



## antros (Dec 28, 2009)

Olivér, ok imagine that we do not have a +2 or other penatly, only DNF. 
In Your opinion the following situation should be DNF???


----------



## jazzthief81 (Dec 28, 2009)

antros said:


> Olivér, ok imagine that we do not have a +2 or other penatly, only DNF.
> In Your opinion the following situation should be DNF???


This is not a penalty under the current regulations because the misalignment is less than 45 degrees, so why would this suddenly become a DNF?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 28, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.



So what happens if the cube leaves the competitor's hands in the state of a +2 then by complete accident and by bad luck it misaligns another face resulting in a DNF? Should the competitor suffer the DNF even though it would've been just a +2 second penalty? I might be for this elimination of the +2 rule. What if the cube was about to be a +2, but by good luck and chance the cube gets realigned into the solved state? Luck always plays a factor in solves, which is why the avg of 5 system cuts out the best and worst times. I know it will impact the mean of 3 puzzles but as you said, those are less likely to happen anyway. It would also force the competitor to be more careful with bigger cubes and not take advantage of the fact that +2's don't mean as much for 6x6 and 7x7 as they do for 2x2. DNF stands for "Did Not Finish" and in a +2, the competitor technically did not finish the cube.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 28, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I'd like for Skewb to be added, but that would present some challenges that would likely not be worth it.



How would adding Skewb present challenges? There's already scramblers for them (although optimal scramblers would be good). The procedure would be just like any other procedure. It's not like team blind or something that would be hassle in the first year.

But yeah, fix the Magic issue. New magics sometimes simply can't lay flat.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 28, 2009)

I like the +2 system as it does prevent a lot of stupid mistakes. Just imagine being a U-turn off in MegaMinx and getting a DNF average 

I don't like the "two tiles" rule because it is a stupid measurement. For all other puzzles a turn is defined (90 degrees for a cube, 72 degrees for a megaminx) by the physical specifications of the puzzles. And a +2 is given when the puzzle is more than half a turn away from solved. In my opinion a turn on Magic is 180 degrees so everything more than 90 degrees off should be +2 and everything else should be ok. If it weren't for string friction/tightness a Magic that is > 90 degrees off would actually fall back and not be flat but piled up. And if it is <90 degrees it would fall down into the solved position. And the most stupid thing is that currently 2 piled up tiles are +2, but 3 piled up tiles are DNF which actually promotes a particular type of solving for no benefit at all.

Turning +2 into a percentage is extremely hard to calculate and would punish slower cubers more than faster cubers. It also makes a +2 a calculated risk or even an option instead of a real penalty.

For Clock the 1 move away from solved should not include moves of the pins. When I stop solving the clock falls flat on a side and all pins turn upwards. The rule should be "if the clock can be solved by only turning 1 wheel after repositioning the pins it is +2"

The logo/sticker question is a tough one. The new Mefferts 4x4x4 have logo's on every tile but are allowed for some reason (that I don't know, but agree with). I personally couldn't figure out a realistic scenario on how to cheat with a transparant cube. But I understand that the rules have to be strict and have to prevent people from inventing ways to be able to cheat. So I understand the point of the rules but I really hate it when someones cube is disallowed because it has a chipped off sticker/tile.


----------



## deadalnix (Dec 28, 2009)

Atually, I think the stackmat is the problem.

I think we should have a timer that internally stop after something like 2s. let me explain.

The starting of the timer is the same than standard stackmat.

When you put back your hand on the timer, the drawn time actually stop, and the vallue is stored in R, but internally, the timer continue to run. The timer effectivelly stop after 2s. Then R is the result.

If one hand is removed from the timer, then the time continue to run until the hand are put back on the timer.

Why it shoul like this ?

The +2 penality for puzzles is quite complicated and sometime (especially to puzzle with « clics ») really hard to figure out if a puzzle is +2 or not.

With this timer, the competitor can see that he have not solved the cube and finish the last moves and restop timer.

Another advantage is the unwanted stop of the timer (by accident) or dubtful timer stop (like we have seen in Haag open with Ton as judge).

So the puzzle just need a solved state and unsolved state, not an extra +2 state. The +2 penality can be keeped for some other cases, like incorrect timer stop.

This is my « ideal » idea, but probably complicated to make it real beacause of the need of a new timer.


----------



## SuperNerd (Dec 28, 2009)

I hope I don't get flamed for this .

I actually would like to see the DNF penalty for an M Layer being more than 45 degrees away taken away. I've had to DNF so many good at-home solves because of M layer turns not being completed.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 28, 2009)

Where's the confusion? They're called penalties for a reason. It's either solved, or not. As for the magic, I think 90 degress from flat is a perfectly reasonable limit.


----------



## Tomk (Dec 28, 2009)

deadalnix said:


> Atually, I think the stackmat is the problem.
> 
> I think we should have a timer that internally stop after something like 2s. let me explain.
> 
> ...




Couldn't that be abused?

For example one could not bother with look ahead and just go flat out and then pause the timer while searching for an F2L pair

You could also stop after the last pair to recognise OLL and then again for PLL recognition.


----------



## Dave Campbell (Dec 28, 2009)

shelley said:


> This discussion would normally take place on the WCA forums.



I get that the discussion is happening here out of convenience, but it concerns me when we use this site more and more for official discussions. Should one of the over zealous mods decide to ban someone over a violation of forum customs, we are then hindering that person's ability to contribute to these discussions. How someone acts on a fan-created forum, and his or her ability to contribute to official matters should be independent of each other, in my opinion.

But, having said that, i will contribute to the current discussion nonetheless.



Olivér Perge said:


> I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all!



I respectfully disagree with this and all the penalty discussions. I feel they should be left the way they are for all puzzles. I feel they work well enough as is. The idea of using percentages adds complexity to the scoring phase. Simply adding two seconds for the penalty is fine, especially when you keep in mind that the +2 you are discussing is just one of the types of penalties that can be applied to a solve. Should it be another percentage if the person starts or stops illegally, or goes over the inspection time? 



JTW2007 said:


> I'd like for Skewb to be added



I would like to see the Skewb added as an event at some point, as well. I personally feel it has more merit than a few of the current events. It is a puzzle that needs solving, and not just executing blindly, it is readily available (online) today, and has existing scramble notation that is easy enough to execute. 

And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!



AvGalen said:


> - average of 5 solves for Megaminx. I really think this is possible now that scrambling is fast and competitors are getting faster.



I also agree with this idea. The competitors are fast enough, and if organizers are concerned about time, just use a combined average with a low cut off time like we do for 5x5 events.



SuperNerd said:


> I actually would like to see the DNF penalty for an M Layer being more than 45 degrees away taken away.



I actually had not thought of this before reading the post, but i am going to agree, assuming you didn't really mean only the M layer. The thought of having a DNF because someone left an inner slice off during a 7x7 solve feels dirty. I think it could be treated like a +2. Of course, it does open up issues such as, what if two slices are off, what if the two are beside each other, what if they are not, etc.

And lastly, for what it is worth, i don't have an issue with the stackmat timing system. Not that i thought it was going to be changed for the 2010 regulations.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2009)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> So what happens if the cube leaves the competitor's hands in the state of a +2 then by complete accident and by bad luck it misaligns another face resulting in a DNF? Should the competitor suffer the DNF even though it would've been just a +2 second penalty?



Yes, I think this should be DNF. The +2 rule is originally meant (in my mind) as a safeguard against cases where the cube was solved but it got misaligned when dropped (by accident). I've never seen a cube misalign by two non-parallel slices when dropped, so having the +2 rule limited to cubes that are one turn off is reasonable. Even with the rule, though, the idea is not to make it so you are free to keep the cube a turn off, but as a protection against accidental random turns. If the cube leaves your hands a turn off at the end of a solve, you don't really deserve this kind of protection, because you didn't really solve it.


@ anyone who thinks it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure the cube doesn't misalign: the WCA wants to be fun and fair, and I don't see how forcing people to carefully place their cubes down (when split-second timing is an issue) is fun. Removing +2 isn't fair either, because people with very light/bouncy or loose cubes will suddenly be penalized. Even if it might make more sense to not have the rule, I think it would make competing less enjoyable.




Dave Campbell said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > This discussion would normally take place on the WCA forums.
> ...



I agree with you, but I don't really know a better way. It is difficult to use the WCA forum because anyone who needs to participate would need to make new accounts for it; on the other hand discussions in speedsolving are relatively easy to look up and contribute to. I also think many more people read this forum than the WCA forum because of higher overall activity.


----------



## deadalnix (Dec 28, 2009)

Tomk said:


> For example one could not bother with look ahead and just go flat out and then pause the timer while searching for an F2L pair
> 
> You could also stop after the last pair to recognise OLL and then again for PLL recognition.



No, you don't get the way it works.

The only thing that stop is the srawn time, not the timer.

For exemple, I stop the timer at 5s during 1s. During this second I see that my cube isn't finished yet. So I pick up my cube back and continue cubing.

The timer will not stop to run. So when I pick up my cube, the timer will draw 6s.

Maybe this pseudo code will be more clear :


```
StartTimer();
var R = null;
while(handsOnTheTimer()){
    wait();
}

setLEDoff();
var run = true;
while(run){
    while(!handsOnTheTimer()){
        draw(getTime());
    }

    R = getTime();
    draw(R);
    while(handsOnTheTimer() && run){
        if(getTime()-R >= 2s) run = false;
    }
}

setLEDon();
stopTimer();
```


----------



## Bryan (Dec 28, 2009)

deadalnix said:


> Atually, I think the stackmat is the problem.
> 
> I think we should have a timer that internally stop after something like 2s. let me explain.



2 seconds? How long does it take you to do Magic?

Besides, I would be very opposed to regulation changes that would require the purchase of new equipment.

We also need a regulation that handles who advances to the next round. Right now, you aren't required to take the top competitiors. You can go by nationality, who you like, etc. Plus, the x,x-2,x-2 rounds (where x is the # of competitors) in some competitions is bad.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Bryan said:


> We also need a regulation that handles who advances to the next round. Right now, you aren't required to take the top competitiors. You can go by nationality, who you like, etc.



Indeed that needs clarification. While it may seem obvious to have the fastest people advancing, one could do whatever he wants because that's not explicit in the regulations.



> Plus, the x,x-2,x-2 rounds (where x is the # of competitors) in some competitions is bad.



I didn't get this part. What is bad?


- I agree with +2 penalty for clock. I didn't have a clock before, but now I do and realise that DNF is pretty harsh when you are a "1 hour" move away from solved. I don't think half a turn should be +2, but at least 1 or 2 moves.

- I also agree with +2 penalty for inner slice misalignment. Yeah, yeah, it's technically 2 moves, but many people do it as one move (just watch some H perm videos) and corners-first people are really punished by this.

- Another thing I was thinking the other day is about the # of people required to have an extra round. Why do we need 100 people to do 4 rounds? I mean, it goes like 8, 16...100 
Yes, of course having 4 rounds with 20 people is not good, but I think a lower number than 100 should be used. If organizers have time and are willing to do an extra round, and have like 70 competitors, why shouldn't it be allowed?
Then comes the question of how much should it be. I'd say something like 50 would be fair(er). Or maybe 8, 16, 32, but 32 seems a little low.


EDIT

Made a thread for this at the WCA forum: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=821
Post there if you feel like (your ideas will have more...hmm..."power" also)


----------



## Dene (Dec 28, 2009)

A lot of interesting points have been made in this thread since I went to bed, but I will just pick on this one (Sorry Dave ).



Dave Campbell said:


> And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!



While I am aware that team events are fun, I think they should not be official; if you want to do them, then do them in your own time  .
The problem: almost impossible to judge. I mean, really, almost impossible. I don't think I need to explain further, but if you object then feel free to say so.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 28, 2009)

antros said:


> Olivér, ok imagine that we do not have a +2 or other penatly, only DNF.
> In Your opinion the following situation should be DNF???



You are kidding, right? If not, my answer is: No, it shouldn't be a DNF.



qqwref said:


> @ anyone who thinks it should be the competitor's responsibility to make sure the cube doesn't misalign: the WCA wants to be fun and fair, and I don't see how *forcing people to carefully place their cubes* down (when split-second timing is an issue) is fun. Removing +2 isn't fair either, because people with very light/bouncy or loose cubes will suddenly be penalized. Even if it might make more sense to not have the rule, I think it would make competing less enjoyable.



What? So the competitions are enjoyable only if you get good results? For me the fun part is not the race with the time... And if you are really that nervous about finishing a puzzle (which you've done like 100,000 times correctly), I think you should either work on your nerve or practice the end of the solve.

I'm pretty sure +2 gives us safety, because we are used to it. If it would be only DNF we would change our style a bit (or not at all) and we would have not so much more DNFs. In my opinion.



PhillipEspinoza said:


> DNF stands for "Did Not Finish" and in a +2, the competitor technically did not finish the cube.



I agree with that. Is it looks like a solved puzzle? (I know, by the current regulation it is a +2.)


----------



## Dave Campbell (Dec 28, 2009)

Dene said:


> A lot of interesting points have been made in this thread since I went to bed, but I will just pick on this one (Sorry Dave ).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No worries, Dene. Actually, i don't do team stuff, so it is not something i want to do on my own time. I was speaking strictly as a cubing enthusiast. I just think that it is interesting when it is done right. It also has the added bonus of creating more social interaction and a reason for people to partner together. And from a spectator standpoint, it can be pretty entertaining.

I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.


----------



## Dene (Dec 28, 2009)

I guess you're right. But then again, many other "sports" have far stricter conditions for competing. Cubing is generally seen as a more laid back "sport", with rules in place, but a lot of leniency. To judge team-cubing there would have to be very strict conditions in place for there to be any element of fairness.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 28, 2009)

Dave Campbell said:


> I don't think it is impossible to judge, *you merely need clear rules*. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.



How about world ranking? If I compete with more persons, how do you count the ranking?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 28, 2009)

Olivér Perge said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is impossible to judge, *you merely need clear rules*. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.
> ...



It should be possible to do it with points, like is done with Tennis Doubles rankings. Not that I fully understand the system, but surely something like that is possible.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 28, 2009)

Olivér Perge said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is impossible to judge, *you merely need clear rules*. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.
> ...



Well, you could just have, this person + this person for the world rankings. And on the individual person's profile, their number ranking would just be the best time they got with whoever.


----------



## Carrot (Dec 28, 2009)

I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles 

ohh... and then a rule saying something like "Odder should not be allowed to scramble 5x5x5-7x7x7, megaminx, clock, square-1... even though he knows how to scramble it"


----------



## Pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Odder said:


> I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles



Isn't is like that already? http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles/scramble_pyraminx2009.htm


----------



## Bryan (Dec 28, 2009)

Dave Campbell said:


> I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.



I think if Team was ever to become an event, it should go through a trial period while we figure out the proper regulations. And not, "Oh, let's just do this for a year and change the next year." I'm thinking a year where the results are unofficial and won't count when the real regulations go into effect. This would be to avoid the Old-MultiBLD and new MultiBLD scenario.

Yes, all events have had different rules throughout the year, but no event has had significant changes.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 28, 2009)

Pedro said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles
> ...



Well, it's currently random-state, but not optimal.

How about average of 5 for FEET? Getting a pop on that is fatal: Ouyang Yunqi 7:19.59 2:11.13 1:47.46 => 3:46.06


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 28, 2009)

Bryan said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it is impossible to judge, you merely need clear rules. And, like everything, it will go through an period of evolution where we find rules that need to be more explicit, or altered. It is not necessarily a 2010 item, i suppose. But i think it would be nice to work towards it at some point. Many other traditional solo "sports" have a team aspect. I think we could do it.
> ...



For team BLD how wouldn't it be difficult for the team to be solving with the judge holding the paper?


----------



## Carrot (Dec 28, 2009)

Pedro said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > I would be so happy if it was optimal scrambles for pyraminx... doing a 25 moves long scramble on a pyraminx, which I averagely solve in about 11-13 moves... NO WAY!!! it's like have 100 moves long 3x3x3 scrambles
> ...



Just an example...

I got L U R L' R U' R B' R' U' R U B R L' B b from the scramble... which is... 17 moves...

Petrus style: L' R' B' L' | U' B U | B R B' R B R B b' [15 moves including tip...]
WO: U L' R' B' | L' B' L' B | R L R B R B' U' b' [16 moves including tip.. damn a bad solve haha =D
hard scramble though ;D


----------



## Dave Campbell (Dec 29, 2009)

Bryan said:


> I think if Team was ever to become an event, it should go through a trial period while we figure out the proper regulations.



I was thinking something along the same lines after my last post. Of course, the initial reaction by some will be that we are free to hold unofficial events already, so nothing has changed anyway. I had thought Sweden was doing team events already in their unofficial events, but i could not find any results to verify it. But I'd like to see us, as a community, standardize the would-be regulations together and have everyone follow them during this trial period.

As for ranking, i'd think you are ranked according to which ever team you are part of that is the highest. But that is just off the top of my head, perhaps there are solid reasons for not doing it as such. However, i don't think a challenge in ranking should be the basis for not having an event.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 29, 2009)

> 9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).



WAAAAT?!?!?!


----------



## Bryan (Dec 29, 2009)

Dave Campbell said:


> But I'd like to see us, as a community, standardize the would-be regulations together and have everyone follow them during this trial period.
> 
> As for ranking, i'd think you are ranked according to which ever team you are part of that is the highest. But that is just off the top of my head, perhaps there are solid reasons for not doing it as such. However, i don't think a challenge in ranking should be the basis for not having an event.



Yes, someone needs to propose some team-BLD regulations that people can follow and if there's something that's inconvenient, figure it out, but not simply ignore it.

Also, I always thought team-BLD rankings might be done by a "position" ranking. So you could be ranked by either "caller" or "executor". And in the display rankings, it could have who your partner was. Of course, this would require that positions stay the same during an average/mean, but I think that should be fine. The reason I think it should be this way is that the caller position requires a lot more skill than the executor.



DavidWoner said:


> The regulations do not address the event of a tie.



9f14) If in 'Mean of' and 'Average of' rounds competitors have the same average/mean result, then the order in the results for these competitors is based on the best result per competitor, with lower meaning better.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 29, 2009)

Bryan said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > The regulations do not address the event of a tie.
> ...



Yeah I saw that but I guess you were too quick. It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> > 9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).
> 
> 
> WAAAAT?!?!?!


Counted results. Not timed results. Clear now? I'm really just guessing, as "WAAAAT" isn't very specific.

Edit: Or you could mean that 0.1 isn't a natural number, with which I agree.



DavidWoner said:


> It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.


9f15) Competitors with the same result in a round finish at the same position.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 29, 2009)

at da vinci 08 one of the center caps fell out of Dan's cube during most of his BLD solves and since he used M2 for edges it meant that he could keep track of centers. I remember pointing this out to Bob and he said that there should probably be a rule for it.

he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 29, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > > 9f3) All counted results and averages/means are measured in natural numbers, with averages/means rounded to the nearest tenth (x.04 becomes x.0, x.05 becomes x.1).
> ...



Yes Lucas just pointed this out to me as well. However, "counted" does not necessarily imply "not-timed", given the multiple meanings of the word. 



StefanPochmann said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > It still doesn't address ties that occur in "Best of x" events.
> ...


That is still unclear, as the word "result" is used with multiple meanings in 

9f14) If in 'Mean of' and 'Average of' rounds competitors have the same average/mean result, then the order in the results for these competitors is based on the best result per competitor, with lower meaning better.

I think the wording of the regulations should be as clear and indisputable as possible.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2009)

ErikJ said:


> he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.


Or he sucks at cheating.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 29, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.
> ...



or that. I thought I brought up a good potential problem with BLD solving though.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Dec 29, 2009)

So BLD cubes should have good caps?


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 29, 2009)

ErikJ said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...



5a)	Puzzle defects are defects of puzzles, like: pieces popping, wires breaking, screws/caps/stickers falling off.
5b)	If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve.

Going by Bryan's interpretations of these regulations, the defect must be fixed before further moves are made since "continue the solve then repair the defect" is not an option. Therefore if a competitor loses center caps during a solve (blindfolded or otherwise) they must be replaced immediately.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 29, 2009)

I think a slice move away should be +2 too...DNF-ing would be horrible.

I know that there are only a minority of the speedcubers out there who use slice-dependent methods like roux, waterman, etc, or perhaps direct solving methods of bigcubes like mine, but as a competition, it should really be fair for everyone to compete with the same fairness.

To roux users, an M move would probably have the same value to him as what a fridrich does, etc.

I almost got a DNF during one of my official solves, but I wasted more than 2s to adjust. a +2 would have given me a better timing, and not a DNF.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 29, 2009)

Also, I think it should be clarified that only official Speedstacks timers should be used. There are those knockoffs that had .16 precision.

Also, Multi-BLD solves where solved < 2 should be DNF's.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 29, 2009)

Bryan said:


> Also, Multi-BLD solves where solved < 2 should be DNF's.


They _were_, until Ron took pity on them.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2009)

ErikJ said:


> he obviously wasn't cheating though because he DNFed every solve.


Hah. You can cheat and still fail.

I'm kinda wondering about this BLD cap thing. Obviously a cap isn't gonna fall out on purpose, but what should be done if one comes off mid-solve? It's clearly an aid to solving when this happens, but since it's an accident it isn't fair to DNF the solve. Maybe the best solution would be to include a regulation that says that if a non-functional piece comes off during a BLD solve the competitor must stop the solve and replace it before continuing.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Because of a bouncy surface and some competitors having loose cubes, there are always going to be misalignments that happen completely by accident, and declaring that that should be a DNF is ridiculous.



Also, why should the WCA adjust the regulations to accommodate someone's crappy cube. If your cube is too loose don't use it. Just like if you have a cube that pops all the time you know better than to compete with it in BLD or anything for that matter. Remember when pops used to be judged as re-solves until they changed the regulation? Regardless if it is an accident, when you slam the cube down and a piece pops out, it is judged as a DNF. By your reasoning, they should just get a +2. And what about if a corner cubie twists during a solve and when you put the cube down everything is solved except for the one twisted piece? Isn't that also a DNF even though the misalignment was by accident?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2009)

If someone's best cube is "crappy" why should they be forced to switch to another? In the case of +2s it is perfectly fine for solves, and the only problem is in dropping it onto a bouncy mat (which doesn't happen in practice). I don't think people who use certain types of cubes (F, ES 2x2) or prefer their cubes to be loose should be punished for that.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> I would also like allowing (all the moves on inverse scramble)' as a valid notation for FMC. This prevents unimportant "translation" and writing down errors for competitors and makes checking a solution more obvious. I can see many people not liking this one.



I would not want to see this unless it is also allowed in partial fashion. So with a NISS solve, you could do something like this:

(for scramble B2 L2 B2 D B2 D' U' F2 R2 D2 L2 F' D2 U' L U2 R B' L' D' B)

D’ R2 D R U F’ U2 R’ U2 R2 U’ R’
(L U’ L’ B U B’ U’ B2 R B2 R2 U R D’ B' D' B U' B' D R’ B R D B2)'

(my solution to this week's competition fewest moves scramble - it's a bad solution, but at least it's an example)

If you don't allow this, you're giving a clear advantage to a particular type of solution (pure inverse scramble) over another type of solution (NISS), and I think that's not fair.

By the way, I felt I had to check my answer above, and it took me 3 tries of attempting to apply that solution above before I got it to come out right. Which is upsetting, because I like to think I'm very good at applying inverse moves. (I always check my match-the-scramble weekly solutions by applying the inverse scramble when I'm done.) So I suspect allowing this would make judging the event significantly harder.


----------



## Novriil (Dec 29, 2009)

Weston said:


> I think transparent cubes should be legal.
> Its a rather stupid rule in my opinion.



+1

It's pointless because you can't see through transparent puzzles mostly when they are wearing stickers and when you can then you're solving so fast that it won't help you in any way.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 29, 2009)

1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.

If the rule is needed because sometimes a solved cube will dealign when dropped on the table, the solution of the root problem is a timer that doesn't require dropping the cube on a table, hoping for a favorable bounce.

2. Sadly, blindfold will not be fully legit until people have to solve on other cubes than their own.

3. To me, if you can use transparent cubes to look ahead better, that's progress in cube solving, not cheating.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2009)

Lars Petrus said:


> 2. Sadly, blindfold will not be fully legit until people have to solve on other cubes than their own.


I don't see why that helps at all. If you require people to do blindfold solves on unfamiliar cubes, it's still possible for the solver to be good at immediately noting ideosyncracies in the supplied cube while memorizing, and then take advantage of them on the solve.

I suppose it would be reasonable to do the following:
1. Apply a scramble on 2 cubes - the first being the solver's own cube, the second being a cube supplied by the organizer.
2. Give the first cube to the solver to memorize.
3. When the solver has finished memorizing, have the solver don the blindfold, then remove a cover from the second cube (which has been properly oriented by the judge) and solve the cube.

Would this solve the problem you're thinking of, Lars? Or am I misunderstanding your idea of what is not legit?

(I also want to point out that an unfamiliar color scheme kills me on BLD memorizing, so I'd hate to think I'd ever have to use a different color scheme because of a rules change! )


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

Lars Petrus said:


> 1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.
> 
> If the rule is needed because sometimes a solved cube will dealign when dropped on the table, the solution of the root problem is a timer that doesn't require dropping the cube on a table, hoping for a favorable bounce.


In soccer, they didn't change the rules because hitting the post is _nearly_ in.


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Dec 29, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Turning +2 into a percentage is extremely hard to calculate and would punish slower cubers more than faster cubers. It also makes a +2 a calculated risk or even an option instead of a real penalty.



What about turning +2 into a percentage but stopping it at a penalty of 2 seconds?. For example in a 6.00s solve you would get 1.50s of penalty (assuming a 25% penalty) but in a 9.00s solve you would get 2s of penalty. (Instead of getting a penalty of 9*0.25=2.25s)


----------



## MistArts (Dec 29, 2009)

luisgepeto said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Turning +2 into a percentage is extremely hard to calculate and would punish slower cubers more than faster cubers. It also makes a +2 a calculated risk or even an option instead of a real penalty.
> ...



Still quite some time to calculate for faster events...


----------



## gpt_kibutz (Dec 29, 2009)

Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Lars Petrus said:
> 
> 
> > 1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.
> ...



I agree. I still think all the +2s are enitrely the competitors fault. So the competitor should be able to fix them. 

In the video of Lucas's 2x2x2 solve, it was Lucas's fault, not the stack mat's.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 29, 2009)

luisgepeto said:


> Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.



A percentage penalty on fast events would be small enough to take the penalty and getting a faster time than executing the last turn. 

Also, would you add the percentage penalty after or before other penalties?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

I think the entire point of the +2 penalty was to make it impossible to gain an advantage from not doing the last turn. Making that penalty 20% would add 30 seconds onto a 2:30 5x5 solve for missing off a 0.5 second AUF or dropping the cube funny. That defies the point of the penalty. It is supposed to make it not viable to miss the last turn and not to punish the cuber for making a mistake.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 29, 2009)

MistArts said:


> luisgepeto said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's why we have computers now, and a penalty can be written in the scoresheet as a "P" and later calculated on the PC.
> ...



That's the point! I think these "percentage penalty" ideas have no sense.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 29, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Lars Petrus said:
> 
> 
> > 2. Sadly, blindfold will not be fully legit until people have to solve on other cubes than their own.
> ...



Yeah, that's the problem I'm talking about.

You're right that my idea wouldn't eliminate 100% of the problem, but I disagree that solving 95% would not help at all. Also, even if you can find and memorize features of an unknown cube, that effort takes time out of your solve.

Your 2 cube scenario is would address even the chance of learning cube features while memorizing, but at a considerable cost of complexity.

A more serious problem is that you have no control over how easy to turn the unknown cube is, how well it fits with the competitors turning style, and the problem of matching everybody's color scheme that you mention.

It may be that any cure is worse than the disease here, but the fact remains that as long as people can use their own cubes, they will be able to recognize things on it, even if they don't intend to cheat.

One low tech remedy would be to require people to wear gloves, to remove the chance of sensing minor sticker differences.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Lars Petrus said:
> 
> 
> > 1. To me the +2 situation shows that we don't have the right timer.
> ...



That is a good rebuttal of an argument I didn't make.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

Lars Petrus said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Lars Petrus said:
> ...


Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.

The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.
> 
> The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.


I think your analogy is broken because dealing with the bouncing of balls is an inherent part of the skills needed for soccer and rugby, so trying to compensate for it would defeat the purpose of the game.

I don't think anyone is claiming the same for cube bouncing?


The cheating aspect is a valid concern, but it is easy to construct a timer where it's impossible to make turns while the clock isn't running, or to stop the timer when all sides are not aligned.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

Lars Petrus said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. In soccer, they didn't change the shape of the goals because hitting the post is nearly in. Or in rugby they didn't change the shape of the ball because the ball might bounce unpredictably.
> ...


Like a machine that chops your hands off when you finish? 

Why can't putting the cube down properly be part of the skill?


----------



## Kian (Dec 29, 2009)

Dave Campbell said:


> Dave Campbell said:
> 
> 
> > And, while i am at it, i think Team events should become official. Team solve and Team BLD would be sufficient. I know, i must have lost my mind!



I know I'm probably in the minority here, too, but I'd also like to see this happen. Everyone seems to have a lot of fun with these events. I understand that it poses some different challenges, but I think it's a reasonable thing to try on an interim basis, at least. With proper considerations up front, of course.

At the end of the day I think we're all here to have fun so we should try to contribute to that the best we can. I think team events would be a refreshing twist that people would enjoy.

Anyway, just my two cents, and I know it'd be difficult. I don't mean to pick a fight about it.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> D’ R2 D R U F’ U2 R’ U2 R2 U’ R’
> (L U’ L’ B U B’ U’ B2 R B2 R2 U R D’ B' D' B U' B' D R’ B R D B2)'
> 
> (my solution to this week's competition fewest moves scramble - it's a bad solution, but at least it's an example)
> ...


I actually disagree with this. The fact that you have to invert parts of your solution is a given if you use inverse scramble or NISS. I feel like it is the competitor's responsibility to end up with a solution in the standard FRUBLD notation, and I think it's part of the NISS method (i.e. something you knew when you decided to use it) that you will have to invert your moves later, just like it is part of using insertions that you will have to rewrite your solution with the inserted moves inside it. The brunt of translating a solution from nonstandard notation (insertions, inverses) into normal notation should be on the solver, not on the judge.



Lars Petrus said:


> It may be that any cure is worse than the disease here, but the fact remains that as long as people can use their own cubes, they will be able to recognize things on it, even if they don't intend to cheat.
> 
> One low tech remedy would be to require people to wear gloves, to remove the chance of sensing minor sticker differences.


In theory we could just force people to use new/perfect cubes. If the judge can literally feel no difference between any of the stickers or sides, the cube is acceptable; otherwise, it isn't. Of course this would put a lot of responsibility on the competitors' side. I don't know if there's any way to prevent telling pieces apart by touch and still allow people to use their own preferred cubes.

It might actually be reasonable to say that the idea of blindfold solving does not prohibit telling things apart by touch. Since we call it blindfold solving, it's not really all that out of the way to say that anything involving the participant not being able to see is OK.



Musli4brekkies said:


> The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.


"Opens a new world of cheating"? Many people already do this in practice; if we had replay cameras (instead of judges who can only see things as they happen) it would be much easier to check if the cube really was solved when the timer was stopped, and in that case, not only would we not need people to drop their cubes, but we could also eliminate the +2 rule completely.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 29, 2009)

Lars Petrus said:


> The cheating aspect is a valid concern, but it is easy to construct a timer where it's impossible to make turns while the clock isn't running, or to stop the timer when all sides are not aligned.



How exactly? How much would it cost? 
We currently have competitions in a lot of countries, and I have no idea how many new timers we would need...


----------



## Edmund (Dec 29, 2009)

New Rule: Competitors are not required to wear clothing while solving.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > D’ R2 D R U F’ U2 R’ U2 R2 U’ R’
> ...



Actually, I totally agree with you. (I seem to be making very unclear posts today - sorry about that.) My argument was simply that it wouldn't be fair to just allow a pure inverse solution, but not allow partial inverse solutions. But I think it's best to simply keep the rules the way they are now - as I mentioned above, it can be quite difficult for a judge to handle inverse moves.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Dec 29, 2009)

I think requiring the competitors to start and stop the timer themselves and having to pick up and put down the cube while the timer is running is the only fair and straightforward way to time a solve. I don't see how you could determine the end of the solve while the competitor is still holding the cube and therefore is still able to move it.

There has been a lot of talk about cubes misaligning while dropping it. I find it amazing that cubers spend so many hours practicing the most complex movements at high speeds but seemingly have a lot of trouble putting down an object on a table and putting their hands flat on the timer. Is it really that hard?

I did a small experiment and worked out how much time it takes to stop the timer in the following two ways:


by releasing the cube in the air and immediately stopping the timer (the fast, but risky way)
by putting the cube down on the surface with both hands and then stopping the timer (the slow, but safe way)
I filmed myself executing those two ways of stopping the timer and counted the frames. 






As you can see, dropping the cube took ~0.233s and putting the cube down took ~0.400s. Now I held the cube at the same height for both cases to be able to compare them. I think both ways can be done faster by holding the cube at a lower height as you do the final moves. However if you carefully look at the replays, the extra ~0.167s it took for the second way (the "safe" way) is really the time it takes to bring the hands from the cube to the timer pads.

I don't see _any_ way how stopping the timer using the second, safe way could ever result in a penalty unless the cube really wasn't solved when you were still holding it up in the air. 

It only adds ~0.167s to your time.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > The point you made is that the timer is badly designed because it requires you take your hands off the cube, yet finishing the solve with hands on the cube opens a new world of cheating.
> ...


Finishing the solve in a position where you can discreetly apply the last move is almost the same as turning a face in the inspection time. Regardless of the fact that people do it in practise I think we should not allow it in competition.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

jazzthief81 said:


> [Loads of stuff that I deleted so it wasn't a massive quote]



But then you jun the risk of doing a MasterMagic timer stop (with your elbows) which would end up with a +2 penalty anyway.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> Like a machine that chops your hands off when you finish?



Imagine two flat surfaces at a 90° angle, with a start/stop button where they meet.

No more +2 judgment calls. Fully aligned sides. Faster times.

The downside I can think of is that you'd need different constructions for the few non straight angle puzzles.



Musli4brekkies said:


> Why can't putting the cube down properly be part of the skill?



It can (and currently is) but I don't think that's the interesting part of the sport. 

If it has to be there for practical reasons, it's no big deal, but it would be better to remove that factor.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jazzthief81 said:
> 
> 
> > [Loads of stuff that I deleted so it wasn't a massive quote]
> ...



I don't see where my elbows ever come near the timer. And why would this happen for Master Magic specifically?

And stopping the timer with your elbows would give a penalty? It's simply not allowed.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 29, 2009)

jazzthief81 said:


> I find it amazing that cubers spend so many hours practicing the most complex movements at high speeds but seemingly have a lot of trouble putting down an object on a table and putting their hands flat on the timer. *Is it really that hard?*
> 
> It only adds ~0.167s to your time.



I completely agree! Thank you Lars for the video!

Let's say it's 0.2 seconds. Is this long enough to be nervous?



Musli4brekkies said:


> But then *you jun the risk* of doing a MasterMagic timer stop (with your elbows) which would end up with a +2 penalty anyway.



What does it mean?

Stopping with elbow is so obvious to see for the judges. Rules for stopping the timer with your hands are clear enough, I guess.

In this topic I think we should more accept the conditions rather then changing them.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

jazzthief81 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jazzthief81 said:
> ...



I've occasionally brushed the timer with my forearms when putting the cube down. 
"A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds."



Olivér Perge said:


> jazzthief81 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amazing that cubers spend so many hours practicing the most complex movements at high speeds but seemingly have a lot of trouble putting down an object on a table and putting their hands flat on the timer. *Is it really that hard?*
> ...



Run the risk I meant.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Dec 29, 2009)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jazzthief81 said:
> 
> 
> > Musli4brekkies said:
> ...



I have to try really hard and sit in a rather unnatural position in order to touch the timer with both my forearms. But of course different people are built differently. I can see how someone who is slightly smaller and leaner can have that problem.


----------



## Muesli (Dec 29, 2009)

jazzthief81 said:


> Musli4brekkies said:
> 
> 
> > jazzthief81 said:
> ...


I'm quite tall and have a really droopy cubing angle. I sometimes brush the cube on the mat. :fp


----------



## adamzamora (Dec 29, 2009)

I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 29, 2009)

Sandbest said:


> Well, I think this should be maintained, because on my old store bought cube my look ahead was way better because I could immediately see where all the pieces where (whitout turning the cube at all), because *I regonized the different damages of each sticker*.



Basically that is cheating.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Dec 29, 2009)

adamzamora said:


> I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.



And who may you be? Shouldn't you introduce yourself to the forum first before making your first post? 

EDIT: Seriously, we did a head-to-head event at the UK Open a few times and it was a lot of fun! It certainly adds another dimension to it and it's a lot more competitive.


----------



## adamzamora (Dec 29, 2009)

naw i thought i was well known already


----------



## Pasquale Lombardozzi (Dec 30, 2009)

In my opinion it is *REALLY IMPORTANT to have a Megaminx Average of 5* instead of a Mean of 3. Because this is totally unfair and sucks. There is for example the 5x5x5 cube there is the single WR 1:07.25 minutes and average is 1:16.75 minutes, where the Megaminx single WR 57.94 seconds and average 1:04.34 minutes is. So why get Megaminx only a Mean of 3 and 5x5x5 a average of 5, when Megaminx deserved it more, because it is faster? So I think when 5x5x5 get a average of 5, for the Megaminx should be a Average of 5, too. And the limit should be, that if the competitor doesn't gets no sub 2:30 minutes after 2 solves, he can't do an Average of 5. Even thought that the Megaminx gets more popular than ever has been. So I hope that WCA makes a new regulation because when you do a bad solve at the Mean of 3, your mean would be worst then it even is. That you can see at the Mean of 3 from Simon Westlund at Swedish Cube Day 2009: 1:54.30 Minutes (POP) 1:16.21 Minutes 1:08.59 Minutes. At the first solve he had a massive pop witch get his Mean down to 1:26.37 minutes. But at the final he gets average was 1:14.69 minutes. So isn't not completely unfair? I think so. I hope some WCA delegate reads this and shares this with the others.

Best Regards

Pasquale Lombardozzi


----------



## Bryan (Dec 30, 2009)

Pasquale Lombardozzi said:


> So why get Megaminx only a Mean of 3 and 5x5x5 a average of 5, when Megaminx deserved it more, because it is faster?


Well, if we only had the top competitors in Megaminx, then avg of 5 would be easier. But when you get into the "slower" competitors, Megaminx will be slower than 5x5x5. Compare the 500th ranked 5x5 against the 500th ranked Megaminx. That's why Megaminx is mean of 3.



Pasquale Lombardozzi said:


> And the limit should be, that if the competitor doesn't gets no sub 2:30 minutes after 2 solves, he can't do an Average of 5.



These limits are never in the regulation, they're always set on a per competition basis. If a competition is ahead of time, they can adjust this accordingly.


----------



## ianini (Dec 30, 2009)

adamzamora said:


> naw i thought i was well known already



Who's Adam Zamora?


----------



## Johannes91 (Dec 30, 2009)

Bryan said:


> But when you get into the "slower" competitors, Megaminx will be slower than 5x5x5. Compare the 500th ranked 5x5 against the 500th ranked Megaminx. That's why Megaminx is mean of 3.


That's a quite bad comparison; there are more people who've solved 5x5x5 than who've solved Megaminx, so 500th in the former is much better than 500th in the latter. Comparing relative ranks shows that the times are fairly close:


```
5x5x5 Megaminx
10% 1:44  1:42
20% 2:00  2:01
30% 2:20  2:21
40% 2:35  2:43
50% 2:57  3:10
60% 3:21  3:33
70% 3:52  3:59
80% 4:32  4:28
90% 5:43  5:41
```


----------



## Stini (Dec 30, 2009)

One thing about the regulations that should be changed concerns the fewest moves:

E2e) The solution of the competitor must not be in any way related to the scrambling algorithm. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

At least in the competitions that I have been to, this is interpreted so that if the scramble ends for example with U then your solution can't start with U'. This is really stupid since if you for example solve using inverse scramble and the last move of your solution for the inverse scramble happens to cancel the last move of the scramble, it's technically against the regulations. Also if you happen to find a nice insertion before the first move of your solution, but the insertion begins with the move that cancels the last move the scramble, it's against the regulations. Also it's not clear if the solution is allowed to start with U2 with the last move of the scramble is U or U' and vice versa.

An obvious solution to this is to make the scrambles longer, but I find that this makes using techniques such as inverse scrambles and NISS more tedious. Perhaps it could be possible to make the judge to decide if the explanation of the solve is good enough in case the solution happens to cancel some moves of the scramble.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 30, 2009)

Stini said:


> At least in the competitions that I have been to, this is interpreted so that if the scramble ends for example with U then your solution can't start with U'. This is really stupid since if you for example solve using inverse scramble and the last move of your solution for the inverse scramble happens to cancel the last move of the scramble, *it's technically against the regulations.*



No, it isn't. In these situations the delegate is misinterpreting the regulation. It is obvious that in most cases the solutions are in no way related save for one move. If that was a correct interpretation of the rules, then if the scramble has U R' B somewhere in it then your solution cannot have B' R U' anywhere in it.

This regulation is in place to prevent something like E M E' M' (inverse scramble) M E M' E' or something similar.

I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this. I did not realize this was so common. I had heard of a Polish competition where there was a 1 move 2x2x2, but that 1 move was the inverse of the final move of the scramble, and the competitors were not allowed to use it. I had thought this was an isolated incident otherwise I would have mentioned something sooner.


----------



## Stini (Dec 30, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this. I did not realize this was so common. I had heard of a Polish competition where there was a 1 move 2x2x2, but that 1 move was the inverse of the final move of the scramble, and the competitors were not allowed to use it. I had thought this was an isolated incident otherwise I would have mentioned something sooner.



Similar thing has happen in a Finnish a competition, but I think it was a 3-move 2x2x2 and the first move of the solution canceled the last move of the scramble so you couldn't use the block. Sure you could use the block and try to leave just 3 corners left and make the insertion before the first move though


----------



## idpapro (Dec 30, 2009)

i think that there should be a cutoff time for the megaminx avg of 5, like the cutoff time in most competitions, e.g.. you get 2 tries to get below 2:30 to get the rest of your solves, i think that the same cutoff time for the megaminx as the 5x5 in a competition.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2009)

adamzamora said:


> I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.



I think there should be an Adam Zamora category. To win, you have to chat up the most girls in the room.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 30, 2009)

Dene said:


> adamzamora said:
> 
> 
> > I think there should be an Adam Zamora category. To win, you have to chat up the most girls in the room.
> ...


----------



## Chuck (Dec 30, 2009)

This:
Should Rubik's brand cubes be prohibited for BLD?


----------



## eliner (Dec 30, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> I was just curious if people had any new ideas of new puzzles or new rules that should be in the 2010 WCA regulations.


i don't have many dramatically ideal 

but team work and pratice


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Dec 30, 2009)

360 is gonna be made official in 2010 right? Also, as long as Magic remains a legitimate/official puzzle, there's no reason why Snake shouldn't be official (not that I practice either Snake or 360). Wasn't there a thread somewhere where people discussed removing Magic from the official events? 

I'm also for the head-to-head event and avg of 5 for megaminx. 

Does anyone wanna see 6x6/7x7 BLD as an official event?


----------



## idpapro (Dec 30, 2009)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Does anyone wanna see 6x6/7x7 BLD as an official event?



i think the wr would be inbetween mike hughey, or chris hardwick


----------



## Gunnar (Dec 30, 2009)

Stini said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > I think this regulation should be made clearer, and a notice should be sent to every delegate explaining this. I did not realize this was so common. I had heard of a Polish competition where there was a 1 move 2x2x2, but that 1 move was the inverse of the final move of the scramble, and the competitors were not allowed to use it. I had thought this was an isolated incident otherwise I would have mentioned something sooner.
> ...



That's bad judgement by the delegate/main judge. The rules must of course be there to prevent a competitor to just write down the scramble backwards. In suspicious cases the competitor would be asked to explain his reasoning behind his solution's start. A 3-move 2x2x2-block is often a quite obvious start, which the judge should realize if he knows anything about FMC.


----------



## Slash (Dec 30, 2009)

I don't really understand why the cubes with not 100% smooth stickers aren't allowed for BLD. I don't think if the stickers are a bit damaged it shuold be a problem. there's no difference between bit-damaged and bit-damaged stickers. and of course, the judge must pay attention if the competitor tries to distinguish the pieces by touching its stickers. and if there's only one piece with damaged stickers, the cube is not allowed.
I think the delegate/main judge should decide whether the cube has different stickers. We can't avoid damaging stickers because we have those nails on our fingers.
btw, I have damaged stickers on some of my cubes, on a little bit they're different, but I would never try to distinguish the pieces by touching them. And if I see this in a competition as a judge, I will stop the competitor.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 30, 2009)

idpapro said:


> PhillipEspinoza said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone wanna see 6x6/7x7 BLD as an official event?
> ...



Of course I would! But I admit it's not practical, and I'm not about to push it. There are too many people who would like to remove 5x5x5 BLD as an official event, and I'd rather just leave it alone so we can at least keep 5x5x5 BLD.


----------



## Tomk (Dec 30, 2009)

> *Cognitive Enhancers*
> 
> Cognitive enhancers are products designed to help improve brain function. There are many reasons why someone may want to take a cognitive enhancer and may be used temporarily or for longer term use. Scientists now believe that in the future, people will be using these items on a regular basis and may be easily available to everyone.
> 
> ...



I found this on the internet, prehaps they should be banned in competitions even though i have never heard of anyone using them.


----------



## Slash (Dec 30, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> idpapro said:
> 
> 
> > PhillipEspinoza said:
> ...



I knew you would
By the way, I think 5x5 BLD is enough. For example, at the Hungarian Open 2008 and at the HO 2009 was only 2 5x5 BLD competitors - in 2008 István+Balázs, I mean Pitzu and Zava and in 2009 István+I - and only István solved the cube, so he was standing alone on the podium both times.


and I give +1 for "megaminx average of 5", the reasons are the common reasons you can see earlier in this thread.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Dec 30, 2009)

I agree that megaminx should be an average of 5. It doesn't take that long to do and if there is really no time in the schedule then the limit for an average can be decreased.

I think that although +2 does prove to be more of a disadvantage in certain events than others, it's the best way of dealing with the situation. Calculating percentages after each solve with a penalty is simply impractical and overcomplicated. It would also allow so much more room for error, particularly with inexperienced judges.

As for group events such as Team BLD I think they should be included if there is a way of doing so. It would add a new element to competitions and a bit more team spirit! Lars and I would need to meet up far more frequently to practise this too, which can't be a bad thing! As for head to head, I'm not sure it really needs to be official, just seems a bit irrelevant to me anyway. It is very fun however!

Whoever said they wanted to know when they were going to be called up for events, this can easily be remedied by posting lists of groups on the wall at the beginning of the day. I have done that at competitions I have organised and it seems to have worked well, especially when the same people are in the same groups for different events. It also means that the organiser can consider beforehand how to distribute more experienced cubers so there are adequate judges and scramblers for each group. Although this is our way of doing it, others would find this annoying to organise and perhaps even unnecessary, so it shouldn't, in my opinion, have a place in the regulations.

One point I have discussed with a few of you already outside of this forum is the subject of scrambles for a competition. As it stands, anyone can organise a competition and as long as a delegate is present, it is recognised by the WCA. At the moment, the organiser (who may or may not be the delegate) provides the scrambles for the competition, which is obviously a very important part of the organisation process. Recently I had a few comments from people following a single solve I did in a competition that I happened to organise. As this was a very fast and considerably lucky solve for me several people made the suggestion that I had cheated in some way. While this was somewhat hurtful to me, for if you actually know me, you will be aware that I would never contemplate such a thing, it did bring a very important matter to light. Trust is essentially being placed in those that may not necessarily have earned it. What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition. Although this creates more work for a delegate, it could be possible to work around this by only using the same delegate more than once a month if they agreed to it and/or having a few more delegates to share the work load. I hope I explained my point successfully, I feel quite strongly about this, especially after the hostility I encountered after my most recent competition. I think that as cubing is becoming more popular and more competitions are cropping up all over the place, issues like this need to be addressed.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 30, 2009)

Perhaps a compromise of a "+1" for some events, instead of +2?


----------



## gyc6001 (Dec 30, 2009)

4Chan said:


> Perhaps a compromise of a "+1" for some events, instead of +2?



especially magic, I screwed terribly because of a +2.
and I got single NR for 2x2 because a friend of mine did +2.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 30, 2009)

Tomk said:


> > *Cognitive Enhancers*
> > Drugs used in the treatment of ADHD...
> > At the moment there are no testing methods for people who take these substances
> 
> ...



There, I boiled down your long post as to why this is impractical.

The thing about head-to-head:

You can determine #1 and #2, but nothing else beyond that (without additional rounds)
It doesn't demand any new skill. It's just fast 3x3 solving.


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 30, 2009)

CharlieCooper said:


> What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition. Although this creates more work for a delegate,


I'd actually like to see one program able to generate a PDF containing scrambles for an entire competition. I'm not sure how this would work with Cube Explorer, but this would certainly save a lot of time...


----------



## Markus Pirzer (Dec 30, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> (...)
> I don't like the "two tiles" rule because it is a stupid measurement. For all other puzzles a turn is defined (90 degrees for a cube, 72 degrees for a megaminx) by the physical specifications of the puzzles. And a +2 is given when the puzzle is more than half a turn away from solved. In my opinion a turn on Magic is 180 degrees so everything more than 90 degrees off should be +2 and everything else should be ok. If it weren't for string friction/tightness a Magic that is > 90 degrees off would actually fall back and not be flat but piled up. And if it is <90 degrees it would fall down into the solved position. And the most stupid thing is that currently 2 piled up tiles are +2, but 3 piled up tiles are DNF which actually promotes a particular type of solving for no benefit at all.
> (...)



I totally agree with you. You perfectly explained what I have thought when I made the same suggestion about one year ago in the WCA forum: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=506#p3473


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 30, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition. Although this creates more work for a delegate,
> ...



It's actually been a rather mixed bag for me. When I organized UPenn, Tyson had me generate the scrambles. But when I helped organize MO Open, Shelley provided the scrambles. I do think having the delegate do this would help prevent cheating, or at least prevent some accusations. Jim's idea does sound nice, although I don't really know how easy it would be to implement.


----------



## shelley (Dec 30, 2009)

adamzamora said:


> I would want a Head to Head Event to be added and to be official somehow.



Adam and I actually discussed this quite extensively. Head to head competitions are great for spectators, especially with an announcer who knows the competitors and can get the audience to root for people. It gets the audience involved and it's much more clear what's going on, rather than the usual competition scene of people walking around everywhere and solves happening at any time. For a non-cuber, watching a fast solve or two might be fun, but with all the chaos it's hard to focus on what's going on and they quickly get bored. If we want to spread awareness of cubing and increase chances of getting competition sponsorships, we should make cubing a more spectator friendly sport.

However, I have a lot of reservations about making head to head anything more than a fun unofficial event. The results are very unreliable for determining the best cuber if we are only comparing specific pairs of single times. In cubing, there is a very objective way to measure your performance against everybody else: your measured time. Why arbitrarily compare that time to only one other time? If you take the 16 competitors in the speedsolve final at Worlds and arrange them in a head to head bracket using their competition results (pairing up the top seed with the bottom seed in each round), you get some interesting outcomes. Piti Pichedpan, ranked 8th by average, actually comes out on top. Erik and Breandan get knocked out in their first and second matches.

Add that to the fact that unless we do a round robin structure (and then it would just be more efficient give everyone a five solve average the usual way) not everyone will be ranked (only 1st, 2nd and 3rd), and all the competitors will be getting different numbers of solves, which doesn't correspond to their skill. With our current system faster people usually get more solves, but with a round where a single bad solve can get you eliminated, this isn't true anymore. I think Adam's reason for wanting it to be official is in the event that a WR single is set during a head to head competition, but if we want to make this an official event, how would the results be entered in the WCA database? Head to head is certainly a fun event and it would be nice to see it more, but I really don't think any kind of WCA competition results (i.e. who advances to the next round or winners of a speedsolve event) should be decided based on it.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 30, 2009)

I agree with Shelley. One solve isn't enough to decide who is better, but there isn't enough time to do 5 solves in every match, and any time you have two equally-skilled people running against each other it means that one of them won't get to advance while someone who is less skilled might be able to.

Perhaps, if we want to make our sport appeal more to the audience, we could have everyone do their 5 solves at one timing station in sequence for every event. This would create some extra overhead and not be as efficient, but it would be a lot easier to see how a particular person was doing, so it would be more exciting for people who are watching. They could even compute the average themselves, rather than having to remember the 5 times a particular person went up. Since the final results are based on averages, making the round more organized would let audience members figure out what various peoples' averages are with much less effort.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Dec 30, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieCooper said:
> ...



I agree, a way of generating all the scrambles in one document with only having to input the events and rounds would certainly make this a lot easier. This would also make it so much easier for a delegate to provide the scrambles. I realise the organiser doesn't always generate scrambles, but I just figure it would be a way of ensuring fairness and maintaining the standards of the WCA.


----------



## cubeflip (Dec 30, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> I was just curious if people had any new ideas of new puzzles or new rules that should be in the 2010 WCA regulations.


they should have bandaged cube. or the Rubik's UFO. or gigaminx. I wonder what the world record would be for that!


----------



## CitricAcid (Dec 31, 2009)

Not really a regulation, 
but I think they should make team BLD solving an official event. 
It's so much fun! 

Really a regulation:
Transparent cubes LEGALIZED.


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2009)

CharlieCooper said:


> One point I have discussed with a few of you already outside of this forum is the subject of scrambles for a competition. As it stands, anyone can organise a competition and as long as a delegate is present, it is recognised by the WCA. At the moment, the organiser (who may or may not be the delegate) provides the scrambles for the competition, which is obviously a very important part of the organisation process. Recently I had a few comments from people following a single solve I did in a competition that I happened to organise. As this was a very fast and considerably lucky solve for me several people made the suggestion that I had cheated in some way. While this was somewhat hurtful to me, for if you actually know me, you will be aware that I would never contemplate such a thing, it did bring a very important matter to light. Trust is essentially being placed in those that may not necessarily have earned it. What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition.



I think this is a good point to bring up. For the NZ open, I insisted that I supplied the scrambles, even though I did not organise the competition. Although the organiser of the Melbourne Open does not know it yet, I will be insisting that I supply the scrambles for that competition too. 
The problem I have, is that I fear that I will get a good time one day, and that it will look suspicious.
I also worry about Feliks getting a WR, and us being accused of cheating. I would never cheat, and the possibility will not be available for anyone else to cheat. However anyone can still accuse.
I also like Jimmy's suggestion. Who wants to do it?


----------



## Lars Petrus (Dec 31, 2009)

A head to head competition is not to determine who is the fastest cuber, but to provide entertainment and to give anyone a chance to win!

It may well be what will get us on ESPN!

Ideally I would not want head to head to be timed, but have some more primal racing mechanism. Maybe whoever is done first drops their solved cube in some shared spot.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Dec 31, 2009)

Dene said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > One point I have discussed with a few of you already outside of this forum is the subject of scrambles for a competition. As it stands, anyone can organise a competition and as long as a delegate is present, it is recognised by the WCA. At the moment, the organiser (who may or may not be the delegate) provides the scrambles for the competition, which is obviously a very important part of the organisation process. Recently I had a few comments from people following a single solve I did in a competition that I happened to organise. As this was a very fast and considerably lucky solve for me several people made the suggestion that I had cheated in some way. While this was somewhat hurtful to me, for if you actually know me, you will be aware that I would never contemplate such a thing, it did bring a very important matter to light. Trust is essentially being placed in those that may not necessarily have earned it. What I would suggest is that the delegate is responsible for organising the scrambles for a competition.
> ...



I tried to register for the WCA forum but encountered difficulties, so I can't bring it up there just yet... I will try again shortly. I'm glad you share this concern. If anything I think it would do no harm to ensure that the delegate always provides scrambles and doesn't really seem to make that much of a difference for a lot of people. Me getting a good time was yes, incredible, especially as I have still to average sub 20 in a competition, which just makes me look so amazingly suspicious, I will be the first to admit! If you don't actually know me however, there is no reason why you wouldn't think I had cheated. I'm not a delegate, I'm not in any way connected with the WCA, despite having competed for a reasonable length of time, so why not point the finger? With Feliks not competing as often as some of the other supermegafast people it could really put you in the firing line should he get a WR, you are right. I was sort of surprised when I organised my first competition that such responsibility was in my hands really, it seems very obvious to me that people that haven't been recognised by the WCA shouldn't have that specific responsibility of providing something so important.


----------



## lilkdub503 (Dec 31, 2009)

Soooooo...can I put my puzzle on the timer or not? That was never clarified.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2010)

cubeflip said:


> they should have bandaged cube. or the Rubik's UFO. or gigaminx. I wonder what the world record would be for that!


too hard to scramble. been done. too hard to stackmat.


----------



## gogozerg (Jan 5, 2010)

Olivér Perge said:


> I know it sounds weird but in my opinion we should remove the +2 rule at all! It should be solved or DNF only.



I've been asking for this for years.
10e3) and 10e4) -> DNF

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=455#p3033


----------



## ham10444 (Jan 6, 2010)

they need to add another puzzle such as the rubiks 360 or the skewb


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 6, 2010)

ham10444 said:


> they need to add another puzzle such as the rubiks 360 or the skewb


They ABSOLUTELY NEED TO add Speed BLD.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Jan 7, 2010)

Lars Petrus said:


> A head to head competition is not to determine who is the fastest cuber, but to provide entertainment and to give anyone a chance to win!
> 
> It may well be what will get us on ESPN!
> 
> Ideally I would not want head to head to be timed, but have some more primal racing mechanism. Maybe whoever is done first drops their solved cube in some shared spot.



very true. that'd be fun, and a shot on espn would me nice.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm waiting for my account to be approved on WCA forums, so I'll post this here for now. I'll post it over there whenever I'm approved.:



> 3e)	Twisty puzzles must either have coloured stickers or coloured tiles.


Some puzzles have their colors printed on, but are otherwise indistinguishable from other, comparable, puzzles with stickers/tiles (I’m specifically thinking about the small white Diansheng’s that some use for OH). Could this be changed to allow those puzzles for use? I think that 3c, 3d, 3j, and 3k together prevent people from interpreting a lack of 3e as “I can use my painted cube now!”.



> 3l)	Cube puzzles must have at most one logo. For Rubik's Cube or bigger cube puzzles the logo must be placed on one of the centre pieces.


I think the Mefferts’ 4x4’s(?) have logos on multiple faces, but are somehow still allowed; yet, I couldn’t actually find a provision that specifically excluded them from 3l. I think there should be some clarification on this.



> 11f)	The main judge and WCA delegate must not support their decisions with video or photograph analysis.


This confuses me. What situations was this regulation meant to cover?



> A3d) At the end of the inspection, the competitor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes.


Is the timer considered part of the Stackmat? If so, can the puzzle be placed on the timer itself, between the hands?

I don’t know if adding team BLD is an option at all, but here is a set of possible regulations I came up with. If there is support, this could be applied in a 1 year test run of unofficial events at competitions to determine feasibility.
TEAM BLD: Competitors shall register in sets of 2, with one being designated the “caller” and the other the “executor”.
1.	(Identical to A1) Attempts for events categorized under Speed Solving must abide to the following procedure.
a.	(Identical to A1a) The time limit is 10 minutes, or less/higher if announced before the event.
b.	(Identical to A1b) A stopwatch is used for time measurement, in addtino to a Stackmat, if the time limit is higher than 10 minutes. If the puzzle solving time is under 10 minutes, the Stackmat time is the result, otherwise the stopwatch time is the result.
2.	Scrambling
a.	The competing team hands over the puzzle to the scrambler and waits in the competitors area until they is called to compete.
b.	(Identical to A2b) A scrambler scrambles the puzzle according to the regulations in Article 4.
c.	The competing team must not see the puzzle between the time when the puzzle is scrambled and the start of the inspection phase.
d.	(Identical to A2d) When taking the puzzle from the scrambler, the judge does a quick general inspection of thorough scrambling of the puzzle. In case of doubt the judge contacts the scrambler for a detailed check.
e.	(Identical to A2e) The judge places the puzzle onto the Stackmat and covers it completely with an object.
3.	Inspection
a.	Before starting the solve, the competing team may inspect the puzzle.
i.	The competing team has a maximum of 15 seconds for inspecting the puzzle and starting the solve.
b.	Before the judge uncovers the puzzle, the executor must don the blindfold (provided by judge).
c.	The judge resets the timer and stopwatch.
i.	When the judge and competing team mutually agree within one minute that the competing team is ready to begin the inspection, the judge says ‘READY?’.
ii.	When the competing team confirms, the judge uncovers the puzzle after 1 second. At the same time the judge starts the stopwatch.
d.	At no point during inspection is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
e.	During inspection the executor is allowed to pick up the puzzle.
i.	The competing team must not apply moves. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
ii.	If the pieces of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the executor may fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the alignment must not exceed 45 degrees).
iii.	The executor may reset the timer before the competing team starts the solve.
f.	The competing team is not allowed to make notes during inspection.
g.	At the end of the inspection, the executor must place the puzzle back onto the Stackmat, in the orientation and position he wishes.
i.	When the inspection time reaches 8 seconds, the judge calls ‘8 seconds’.
ii.	When the inspection time reaches 12 seconds, the judge calls ‘GO’.
4.	Starting the solve
a.	The executor must place his hands flat on the elevated sensor area of the Stackmat, with his fingers touching the sensors and with palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
i.	Neither caller nor executor can have any physical contact with the puzzle before the solve is started. Penalty: 2 seconds.
b.	The competing team starts the solve by confirming that the timer light is green, then removing the executor’s hands from the timer, thus starting the timer.
i.	The competing team must start the solve within 15 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: 2 seconds.
ii.	The competing team must start the solve within 17 seconds after the start of the inspection. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
c.	Time penalties for Starting the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Starting the Solve.
5.	During the solve
a.	While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the caller and executor are allowed to communicate with each other.
b.	While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any communication with anyone other than the judge. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
c.	While inspecting or solving the puzzle, the competing team must not have any assistance from anyone or any object (other than the surface). Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
d.	At no point during the solve is the caller allowed to touch the puzzle.
e.	During the full solve the judge must keep a sheet of paper or a similar object between the executor’s face and the puzzle, unless the puzzle is in a position where peeking at the puzzle is not possible.
f.	The executor must not look at the puzzle state any time during the solve. Penalty: Disqualification of the solve.
6.	Ending the solve
a.	When using a Stackmat, the executor ends the solve by releasing the puzzle and then stopping the timer.
i.	It is the executor’s responsibility that the timer is stopped correctly.
ii.	(Identical to A6c) The timer must be stopped using both hands, with both hands flat and palms down. Penalty: 2 seconds.
iii.	The executor must fully release the puzzle before stopping the timer. Penalty: 2 seconds.
b.	When using a stopwatch, the executor ends the solve by placing the puzzle back onto the surface and notifying the judge that the solve has ended. At that moment the judge stops the timer.
c.	The executor may remove the blindfold before stopping the timer, but after removing the blindfold no moves must be applied to the puzzle anymore. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
d.	The competing team must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
e.	The competing team must not reset the timer until the judge has written down the result on the competition sheet. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge).
f. (identical to A6g) The judge must inspect the puzzle without making moves or aligning faces and must determine whether the puzzle has been completely solved.
g.	(identical to A6h) In case of a dispute no moves or alignments must be applied to the puzzle until 
the dispute has been settled, involving the main judge if needed. Penalty: disqualification of the solve (courtesy of judge).
h.	(identical to A6i) Time penalties for Ending the Solve are not cumulative. There is a maximum of 1 time penalty for Ending the Solve.
7.	Administration
a.	(identical to A7a) If the judge decides the solve was correct, the judge calls ‘OK’.
b.	(identical to A7b) The judge writes down the result of the solve on a competition sheet, and signs the sheet with name or signature.
c.	(identical to A7c) The competing team is responsible for checking the result on the sheet, immediately after the judge has written it down.
d.	If the judge gives a penalty, then judge calls 'PENALTY'. The competing team must sign the score sheet.
e.	If the result is DNF, then the judge calls ‘NO FINISH’. The competing team must sign the score sheet.
f.	At the end of the competing team’s round the judge delivers the competition sheet to the score taker.


----------



## Anthony (Jan 10, 2010)

Vincents said:


> I don’t know if adding team BLD is an option at all, but here is a set of possible regulations I came up with. If there is support, this could be applied in a 1 year test run of unofficial events at competitions to determine feasibility.
> TEAM BLD:
> (rules....)



I would really like to have TeamBLD as an official event and I think a 1 year unofficial test run may be a good stepping stone. I read through your rules and I didn't catch anything "wrong" with them, they look fine at first glance. The only thing that I can think there may be some debate over is whether or not the caller and executor can talk during inspection. I'm in favor of communicating during inspection, but some people aren't. 

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to come up with some possible regulations for TeamBLD. Much better than simply suggesting it.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 10, 2010)

I reposted them on WCAForums, and two things were immediately caught:

Firstly, 5e should be removed (sticking something between the blindfold and the cube), otherwise the caller can't see the cube well. The judge just has to make sure the executor isn't cheating.

Secondly, it was also mentioned this is basically the same thing as blindfold, except the person holding the cube is allowed to communicate with one person other than the judge (the caller), who is not allowed to touch the cube at any point. The reason I wrote it all out is because it was either that or saying "follow all speedsolving and blindfold regulations, except change the word competitor to competing team except in these regulations where you should change it to executor and these regulations where it should be caller, and etc etc.". I can probably come up with something in the "standard" convention though it might get a tad messy.


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Jan 10, 2010)

I think there is one problem with competitive team BLD. In the current official events, we avoid cheating by not looking at other people's cubes for too long. But in team BLD, there is one person yelling out the solution, which can allow cheating. If we make everybody go at the same time, some people might talk too loudly and distract the other teams. Perhaps we should give everybody different scrambles?


----------



## Bryan (Jan 10, 2010)

Vincents said:


> I reposted them on WCAForums, and two things were immediately caught:
> 
> Firstly, 5e should be removed (sticking something between the blindfold and the cube), otherwise the caller can't see the cube well.



Well, I didn't say that it should be removed. But that's the whole issue with Team BLD is we need to prevent the executor from cheating. Trusting the judge makes sure the executor can't (in normal BLD) has failed in the past.

You're in trouble if you remove it, you're in trouble if you keep it. Something else needs to be done, which is why if people are serious about Team BLD, it needs some burn-in time.

Of course, Team Double-BLD doesn't have this issue


----------



## qqwref (Jan 11, 2010)

I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 11, 2010)

I vote for adding team bld. And 2x2 a12? But maybe not I guess. It would be cool.
And 2x2 scrambler not giving scrambles of less than x amount of moves.


----------



## Erik (Jan 11, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.



Swimming goggles that are made black are (close to) flawless for that, and easy and fairly cheap to make (like $5 for a cheap pair of goggles)


----------



## Sakarie (Jan 11, 2010)

I haven't read this thread in total, and I haven't read earlier years' threads, so I don't know if this have been discussed, but I'll post it anyway.

First thing:
The thing that "A +2 on 7x7 doesn't mean anything, make it 20%!" or something like that, feels strange to me! The point is to "punish" the competitor for not making the final move, or making it wrong. Lifting your hands from the timer, and making it right wouldn't take 20% of the solve, but 2 seconds. And it would take about 2 seconds for Magic too, not 20% (like 0.20s). 

Second thing: 
WCA and the cubing community (of course) try to minimize the possibilities of cheating on blindsolving, but to me it seems like we're missing something. If I wanted to cheat with my memo, the only thing I would need is a friend, that tells me how the cube is scrambled, if he/she gets to do the solve before me!
If I had a swedish friend on a competition in USA, Italy or something, they wouldn't have any idea at all if we are talking about grasshoppers or the cube I just memorized.

The solution might be to have double competition areas, and hen you've done your first solve, you go to area #2, that is separated from #1. And when area #1 is empty, the competitors that have made their second solve, go there before their third.


----------



## deadalnix (Jan 11, 2010)

Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.

And it lead to new method like speedblind. It would be a pretty interesting event.


----------



## Anthony (Jan 11, 2010)

deadalnix said:


> Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.
> 
> And it lead to new method like speedblind. It would be a pretty interesting event.



It wouldn't be long before someone good at 2x2 got a very easy scramble with a 1 move FL or something and got a stupidly fast time on it.


----------



## dbax0999 (Jan 11, 2010)

Erik said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I think the solution is to have better blindfolds. Perhaps we could create something that is like a normal blindfold (rests on the nose) but with a curtain of extra fabric coming down over the nose, so that the competitor cannot possibly see the cube if it is held in front of their face.
> ...



Maybe it's time to relook at this: http://www.stefan-pochmann.de/spocc/blindsolving/blindfolds/


----------



## Slash (Jan 11, 2010)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252807&postcount=1
something like this? I'd like to see a better solution, because it really disturbs during the solving. It kinda like solving under the table, but in this case the spectators are watching your .... this thing between your legs. so to avoid this thing, we should use a thing like this
any opinions?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 12, 2010)

Anthony said:


> deadalnix said:
> 
> 
> > Why not having 2x2x2 blind as an official event ? We got it for 3x3x3 to 5x5x5 and it would be faster for 2x2x2.
> ...



Yes, the problem with 2x2 BLD is the huge difference between the best times on a typical scramble and the typical times on the best scramble. Someone who averages 40 seconds might get a 5-second solve (!) just because the scramble is easy. That is, every problem we have right now with 2x2 single would be 10 times worse with 2x2 BLD single. So I think we should never add this event.


----------



## clement (Jan 12, 2010)

For 2x2 bld, I think that the bests solves would be with the speed method, when you could see the entire solve quickly. So it would not really differ from the 2x2 speed.

As for the 3x3 speedblind, I think it's too close from the regular 3x3 event.


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 12, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> ham10444 said:
> 
> 
> > they need to add another puzzle such as the rubiks 360 or the skewb
> ...



i would like to see that, it might take a while though, but it would be very fun and entertaining...


----------



## Erik (Jan 12, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > ham10444 said:
> ...



And very impopular, hard to learn, few people competing, time consuming and another blindfolded event. (which in my opinion isn't speedcubing, but memory-sports/speedcubing combined)

If any event should be added it should be either teamsolving or team BLD. These events don't take much time: you can only get half the amount of teams as there are competitors and easy to scramble.
Team BLD is a bit easier to judge, since at teamsolving you have to problem of determining 'communication' and that it's hard to tell if both are touching the cube at the same time or not.
Anyway, main reason I'd like team solving/BLD is that it adds a social and team aspect into the individual sport we have. It's fun (for audience and solvers) and easy to learn.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm thinking Y/N team BLD is good fun. I think you could come up with some really awesome techniques.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 14, 2010)

I would like 3x3x4 or 3x2x2.
At least I would like one new event (whichever) get added, which shouldn't take too much time.

Also a new format could be used for that (e.g. mean of 2 for 3x3x4).


----------



## mrbiggs (Jan 14, 2010)

I don't see any reason to have team BLD. We already have way too many events--so many that it's very rare to have a competition with all of them. We just added two new ones last year, and they were long ones at that (6x6x6 and 7x7x7).

It's always possible to add an event and justify it by explaining that it does not take too much time, but if we keep doing that, we're going to have way too many events. Which we already do.

Not to mention the added overhead of keeping track of teams of two as opposed to single competitors.


----------



## Faz (Jan 20, 2010)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=838

Ugh...

This would disadvantage people alot.

For example, people would feel alot more rushed, and get tense after the judge says 5 seconds, which most people would normally use to inspect the cube and plan their first moves.

Also, the people who hold WR's (specifically in 3x3), will have had more time to inspect the cube, and plan ahead, without feeling rushed and nervous. This has no positive effects, only negative ones.

IMO, this shouldn't become a regulation.


----------



## Escher (Jan 20, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=838
> 
> Ugh...
> 
> ...



Wow.
It's true that a lot of people (particularly the sub 30/20 like Michael said) only ever use a few seconds of inspection, but also a lot of people use Fridrich and only a single colour for cross only. 
Most 3x3 methods other than Fridrich (particularlyZZ) have a lot more going on in inspection. Add some form of colour neutrality (be it opposite or complete) and the solver is searching through six different crosses or many different blocks and ways to build blocks. 

As was said before the full 15s inspection is rarely used and the 'time saved' from this new regulation would amount to perhaps 15s per competitor per round if everything ran just like before. In fact, plenty of people suffering from 5-10s less inspection may well actually solve 5-10+s slower. 

Ron said that he didn't like the idea of people planning a whole solve in pre-inspection, like in 2x2: if you are a practiced solver and know one or two advanced methods you can plan the entire solve in a majority of scrambles; should these advanced cubers get even less time to inspect than others who can't do that?


----------



## jazzthief81 (Jan 20, 2010)

Escher said:


> Ron said that he didn't like the idea of people planning a whole solve in pre-inspection, like in 2x2: if you are a practiced solver and know one or two advanced methods you can plan the entire solve in a majority of scrambles; should these advanced cubers get even less time to inspect than others who can't do that?


The way I see it, everyone should compete under the same circumstances and be given the same opportunity. If you can get a better result because of your skill level, that's to your own credit and is totally fair.


----------



## Escher (Jan 20, 2010)

jazzthief81 said:


> The way I see it, everyone should compete under the same circumstances and be given the same opportunity. If you can get a better result because of your skill level, that's to your own credit and is totally fair.



Yes, I completely agree!



ron said:


> The reason for this is that inspection often takes longer than the actual solve. People are making more effective use of inspection, and I do not like to go a situation where more parts of the solve are planned during inspection. Btw. for 2x2 we are already in a situation where people can plan more than half of the solve.



It upsets me to think that the many hours I've spent practicing speedBLD specifically to improve my preinspection lookahead would be completely wasted because it is decided that I (and others) lookahead 'too far'? :confused:


----------



## CharlieCooper (Jan 20, 2010)

I absolutely do not think the inspection time should go down to ten seconds. The inspection time is an integral part of solving and it doesn't seem fair to penalise people by reducing this just because now we are "in a situation where people can plan more than half of the solve".

On a personal level I wouldn't like this due to the nature of my solving style.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 20, 2010)

I don't see how the inspection time is a problem that needs changing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm ambivalent to this, and I have opinions on both sides of the issue.

*Pros:*I like the idea of reducing inspection, because from a non-cuber perspective it is strange to see people look at the cube for longer than they solve, and the time only counts as the solve time. Over the years I've heard a number of people, non-cubers, ask at competitions "isn't that cheating somehow?"

I'm more of a fan of going to a no-inspection style, but Ron does raise some good points about orienting the cube, aligning all slices, making sure the cube is the right distance from you, etc.

So that is why I am in favor of reducing inspection.

*Cons:* I do see why it would be frustrating to people who use methods who rely more heavily on inspection. I would also be affected, as I practice X-cross solving purposefully so that I can see them easier and solve using them as often as possible. I am probably, on a good day, up to about 40% of all my solves using some sort of block building/Xcross solving technique instead of just the cross. I would certainly not do Xcross anywhere near as often with shorter inspection, it would simply not be a good idea to do so.

To those who are up in arms about how they feel the change affects them too harshly, how do you think the people back in 2003 who practiced Siamese cube, or Rainbow cube feel now that their events have been completely discontinued? I don't bring this up to say the WCA should bring these events back, that is simply not feasible, but only to illustrate that sometimes big changes are implemented in order to help the sport as a whole.

*General Thoughts*
I do think having a significantly shorter inspection time, or eliminating inspection altogether, would give cubing a much higher credibility factor amongst non-cubers and could help us become much more of a "mainstream" sport. Seeing as how growing cubing as a sport is part of the mission statement of the WCA, then I think this is something that should strongly be considered.

*Changes to your solving strategy for inspection heavy methods:*
On a final note ZZ solvers and the like, myself partially included, who do use more inspection could benefit from this line of thinking. Just think of the part of inspection not completed as the part to be finished during the first part of the solve. So for example if inspection is reduced to 5 seconds. You will use probably 2-3 seconds to orient the cube, and count some or all of the flipped edges. After the solve time starts you will, on the fly, create the solution to the EO line. Don't feel like you must abandon your method entirely, it will only be a motivating factor to do more with your available 5 seconds, leaving you less to do during the solving phase while the timer is running. With practice you may be able to see the EOline solution in it's entirety during the inspection time + starting the timer time (where you can still see the cube and think about how to solve). The other possibility is that this change will eliminate ZZ as a speedsolving method, because it relies too heavily on inspection, but I have a feeling people are resourceful enough to come up with changes to allow ZZ to still be used as a very competitive method even if the new change went into effect.

On the whole, I guess you could say I am more in favor of reducing inspection than I am against it.

Chris


----------



## Bryan (Jan 20, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I do think having a significantly shorter inspection time, or eliminating inspection altogether, would give cubing a much higher credibility factor amongst non-cubers and could help us become much more of a "mainstream" sport.



Inspection is planning. Just like when the clock is stopped in American football, the players are still doing planning.


----------



## Escher (Jan 20, 2010)

So basically the only argument for reducing inspection times is that non-cubers don't understand why we have inspection time when they see clips of the sport, or it in person?

Imo it's analogous to snooker, where before each shot a player will plan much further ahead than the current play. A non-snooker player would ask 'why is he waiting so long before taking a shot?'. That doesn't make the sport less mainstream, just that non-snooker players (and non-cubers) are ignorant of the technique involved.

I personally think that pre-inspection makes minimal difference to attracting more people to cubing. Media and popular representation of the puzzle is far more of a hindrance.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 20, 2010)

I think reducing inspection is not a good idea.

Methods were (and are) developed having the 15s inspection in mind. People practice using the 15s inspection. If you can "see" more stuff than someone else, IN THE SAME TIME, it's because you have skills.

I believe this would affect negatively our sport. Everyone has the same 15 seconds available. Wether to use it entirely or not is a personal choice.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Jan 20, 2010)

Escher said:


> Imo it's analogous to snooker, where before each shot a player will plan much further ahead than the current play. A non-snooker player would ask 'why is he waiting so long before taking a shot?'. That doesn't make the sport less mainstream, just that non-snooker players (and non-cubers) are ignorant of the technique involved.



Yeah, well... I'm not so sure if that analogy is well chosen. Cubing and snooker are very different in nature anyway. 

For speedcubing, there is always the time pressure because you have to solve it as fast as you can. That's what it's all about: it's a race against the clock. 

A game of snooker is a head-to-head battle against another player and the pressure comes from the fact that making a mistake lets your opponent in with a scoring chance. It doesn't matter how fast you play when it's your turn. Speed doesn't earn you any points in this game.

But I think the bottom line of your reasoning is that it shouldn't matter what some unknowledgeable outsiders may think, and with that I agree.


----------



## Escher (Jan 20, 2010)

jazzthief81 said:


> Yeah, well... I'm not so sure if that analogy is well chosen. Cubing and snooker are very different in nature anyway.
> 
> For speedcubing, there is always the time pressure because you have to solve it as fast as you can. That's what it's all about: it's a race against the clock.
> 
> ...



Sorry, you're completely right, I was being lazy and I couldn't think of anything better to use at the time 
You're totally right about what I'm trying to say.
The problem with cubing and popularity is that people just don't understand or want to understand because they think they can't, and it is such a deep-set idea that people won't begin to think properly about it even when they can, i.e. "why do they look at it first before doing a blindfolded solve?".
We shouldn't be getting rid of things that unknowledgeable people can query, we should be promoting cubing by having more open competitions that are advertised that anybody can walk into and watch or have a go at, like Worlds last year.


----------



## Lars Petrus (Jan 20, 2010)

Personally I'd prefer if there was no inspection time. It's a bit sad that an "8 second" solve takes 23 seconds.

But a system like that would be more vulnerable to cheating. Getting a peek of the mix before your solve would be a much bigger advantage than today, and policing that would be a nightmare. You could solve that by just mixing each cube randomly.

Anyway, I'd like if there were official no inspection competitions _[EDIT: in addition to, not instead of, regular ones]_. To me, the fastest no inspection solver would be the worlds best speed cuber.

It would also be interesting if there were much longer inspection competitions (5 minutes?) to explore that side of cubing.

As for the actual question at hand, I'd be reluctant to change the inspection time too often, as it is very disruptive. If it's changed, it better only happen ONCE, and be for solid, fact based, and well researched reasons!


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 20, 2010)

no inspection is stupid i think.
it is the solve time which we are worrying about
not the inspection time.
who cares how fast e.g. erik's inspection is.
his solve is 7.08 --> speed*solving* the rubik's cube


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 20, 2010)

Lars Petrus said:


> As for the actual question at hand, I'd be reluctant to change the inspection time too often, as it is very disruptive. If it's changed, it better only happen ONCE, and be for solid, fact based, and well researched reasons!



I completely agree with this. If the goal is to change inspection to 5 seconds, better to just change it to 5 seconds than to have a graduated program of bringing it down over a period of a year or two. The sport will adapt, so if we change inspection change it to the final goal right off the bat. I agree that this would be best.

Chris


----------



## deadalnix (Jan 20, 2010)

Yes said:


> no inspection is stupid i think.



Yes. In this case, the cube direction will become very important, all people that like a given direction will be screwed up, some judge will put the puzzle in the wrong direction, resulting in a implicit penality for the cuber who get that cube.

It's just not a good idea. Anyway 15s isn't a long time. And most of the time, the cuber have done the preinspection before teh end of 15s. Reducting this time will not change many things abouts how good people solve the cube, but will be much more stressful for cubers in general, and probably more problems will come up with unexperienced cubers/judges.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jan 20, 2010)

No inspection would be annoying. Also, what would you do with all the other results where people had the chance to inspect?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 20, 2010)

I do like the analogy to Football (don't know which one but hey I don't play either) that Escher brought up. Any game with timed rounds that can be paused has the same problem, when the clock is stopped the players usually get together with each other and the coach to decide what to do next. If there's 15 seconds left in the game you get to figure out what you're going to do in that 15 seconds before you have to actually do it. Cubing is exactly the same thing - inspection is there to allow us to get the best performance we can while the clock is actually running.

By the way, an 8 second solve does NOT necessarily take 23 seconds just because inspection goes up to 15. If that same solve was done no-inspection it would no doubt be closer to 10-11. There is no good way to time no-inspection solves except to force the competitor to remove the cap from the puzzle as the time is running. (And if the competitor happens to see the puzzle before the timer starts, is that DNF?) As I said in the WCA topic, it's better to have a limit that is quite a bit more than most faster people will use, so that people don't feel rushed. There is no way to properly inspect within 5 seconds in such a way that you will not go "oh no I have to start the timer NOW" after it.


----------



## Dene (Jan 20, 2010)

Lars Petrus said:


> Personally I'd prefer if there was no inspection time. It's a bit sad that an "8 second" solve takes 23 seconds.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'd like if there were official no inspection competitions _[EDIT: in addition to, not instead of, regular ones]_. To me, the fastest no inspection solver would be the worlds best speed cuber.



How about the fact (yes fact) that removing or reducing inspection time biases certain solving methods? Do we not encourage people to try new things and learn new things about the cube?
Certainly I would hope that you yourself would see this as an issue; one of the first methods to get thrown out the door will be your own if inspection is significantly reduced or removed altogether.

The simple fact of the matter is that picking up the cube and quickly building a cross is going to be faster than trying to build a 2x2x2 block.

I myself am a Fridrich user, but I rely on being colour neutral. This is another thing that will be thrown in the trash if inspection is removed or reduced. It simply isn't viable to be distracted by other possible crosses when you have no time to waste. Everyone will pick a colour and stick to it. Everyone will build the same cross. Everyone will solve the same way. How much fun this will be! (please note my extreme sarcasm here).

I don't want to sound rude or anything. Personally, I don't mind the idea of 10 seconds as much as some of the people here seem to. However I think 5 seconds is out of the question. I also do not think that no inspection should be a separate event. I think we ought to be removing silly events before adding in more. And there are other events that would be far more interesting to add than no inspection.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 20, 2010)

There was once an event called "Rubik's cube no inspection", so maybe we can bring that back for the people who don't want to inspect.
I am actually in favor of raising the inspection time. It's your choice if you use it or not.


----------



## Cride5 (Jan 21, 2010)

Dene said:


> How about the fact (yes fact) that removing or reducing inspection time biases certain solving methods? Do we not encourage people to try new things and learn new things about the cube?



To me, these two sentences are extremely pertinent.

Reducing inspection time is likely contribute to the dumbing down of cubing. The most thoughtful (mentally challenging) aspect of a speedsolve is the inspection. By reducing it, speedsolving will be biased towards less thought intensive methods.



cmhardw said:


> I do think having a significantly shorter inspection time, or eliminating inspection altogether, would give cubing a much higher credibility factor amongst non-cubers and could help us become much more of a "mainstream" sport.



Inspection allows lookahead to take place right from the beginning, allowing the solve to flow quickly from the outset, without pauses. With no inspection, solves will look slow and hesitant at the beginning. I believe this poses a greater risk for the sport's interest amongst the mainstream.



Escher said:


> Imo it's analogous to snooker, where before each shot a player will plan much further ahead than the current play. A non-snooker player would ask 'why is he waiting so long before taking a shot?'. That doesn't make the sport less mainstream, just that non-snooker players (and non-cubers) are ignorant of the technique involved.
> 
> I personally think that pre-inspection makes minimal difference to attracting more people to cubing. Media and popular representation of the puzzle is far more of a hindrance.



I think this is a good analogy. What an expert does during inspection is a very involving and skilled part of the solve. It serves to separate the experts from the intermediates. The fact that outsiders don't understand it is unlikely to reduce their respect for the sport. If anything it promotes further intrigue. I've never been able to fully explain my thought process during EOLine to non-cubers, but I doubt my inability to do so has turned them off it. If anything, it adds to the depth and variety in the sport.



deadalnix said:


> Anyway 15s isn't a long time.



It certainly isn't! After a year of doing EOLine, I still struggle to plan all of them within 15 sec. Reduction to 10 seconds would be disastrous for ZZ, I think to the point that it would be difficult to be competitive with it. ZZ is an exciting new method with huge potential for development and some really interesting systems for the last layer. Losing it would be sad for the community.

Finally, if no inspection is to be seriously considered, then why not create two speedsolve categories: One with, and one without inspection (even if its just for a trial period). I don't think reduction to 10 seconds should be considered, since it will unfairly disadvantage some methods more than others. Either the solver is allowed to plan the first step or not. I.e, there should be a full 15 sec or none at all.


EDIT: Ninja'd ...


TheMachanga said:


> There was once an event called "Rubik's cube no inspection", so maybe we can bring that back for the people who don't want to inspect.
> I am actually in favor of *raising the inspection time. It's your choice if you use it or not.*


*

I like this idea.*


----------

