# WCA Documents: Updated January 1, 2013



## Vincents (Dec 31, 2012)

Hello all,

The World Cube Association has released a new set of documents, effective January 1, 2013. All documents can be accessed via http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/.

The WCA Regulations go into effect immediately, and govern all official competitions sanctioned by the World Cube Association. The WCA Regulations are also supplemented by the WCA Guidelines. The Regulations should be considered a complete document, but the Guidelines contain additional clarifications and explanations.

The WCA has also updated the scramble program(s) to be used for official competitions; the official scrambler can also be found at the link above.

Special thanks to: 
- The WCA Board (Tyson Mao, Ron van Bruchem, Tim Reynolds, and Sébastien Auroux), Independent Advisory Committee (Anders Larsson), the WCA Delegates (too many to list) and members of the community for constructive feedback and review;
- Jeremy Fleischman, the point man and lead architect of the TNoodle Official WCA Scrambler project; and lastly,
- The entire WRC committee (Clément Gallet, Lucas Garron, Sébastien Auroux, Shelley Chang, and myself) for their their tireless efforts. Each of the members of the WRC spent an inordinate amount of time collecting data, reviewing Delegate and community feedback, and debating the merits of the WCA Regulations.

Happy New Year!

Vincent Sheu
Chair, WCA Regulations Committee; WCA Delegate


----------



## Tong Haiwu (Dec 31, 2012)

Happy new year


----------



## brandbest1 (Dec 31, 2012)

I might sound stupid, but do the regulations state which scramble program is used? is it tnoodle?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 1, 2013)

brandbest1 said:


> I might sound stupid, but do the regulations state which scramble program is used? is it tnoodle?



They do, indirectly: 4f) Competition scramble sequences must be generated using the current official version of the official WCA scramble program (available via the WCA website).

The main point behind this is that the official scramble program can be updated separately from the Regulations. It's available from http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/scrambles.html

EDIT: As Daniel mentioned, yes, it's TNoodle.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 1, 2013)

brandbest1 said:


> I might sound stupid, but do the regulations state which scramble program is used? is it tnoodle?


Click on the 'Scrambles' link at the top to read the document about it. Yes it is tnoodle btw


----------



## cubernya (Jan 1, 2013)

Is it just me, or is the regulations page unchanged? I'm almost positive it hasn't changed, although the other pages are up.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 1, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> Is it just me, or is the regulations page unchanged? I'm almost positive it hasn't changed, although the other pages are up.


Probably some sort of cache. If you have found the current version, you will realise you have found it because it looks completely different


----------



## cubernya (Jan 1, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> Probably some sort of cache. If you have found the current version, you will realise you have found it because it looks completely different



I forgot about the hard refresh in chrome


----------



## brandbest1 (Jan 1, 2013)

oh my, new clock notation...

and no inner slice moves...

So basically to do M E, and S we have to do like Rw R', right?


----------



## cubernya (Jan 1, 2013)

brandbest1 said:


> So basically to do M E, and S we have to do like Rw R', right?



Yes


----------



## BlackStahli (Jan 1, 2013)

5b3c YESS


----------



## kirtpro (Jan 1, 2013)

Is there a changelog?


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 1, 2013)

I don't see anything that says you need to use your feet during inspection for a feet solve.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 1, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I don't see anything that says you need to use your feet during inspection for a feet solve.



D1b. The "beginning of each attempt" is defined in A3a, clearly indicating that an "attempt" includes inspection.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 1, 2013)

BlackStahli said:


> 5b3c YESS



I'd like to point out that you're only allowed to do this if a puzzle defect, such as a pop, has already occurred.


----------



## speedpicker (Jan 1, 2013)

Vincents said:


> I'd like to point out that you're only allowed to do this if a puzzle defect, such as a pop, has already occurred.



Can you just clarify that please? You are only allowed to twist a corner back if the cube has also popped? That doesnt seem to make sense.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Can you just clarify that please? You are only allowed to twist a corner back if the cube has also popped? That doesnt seem to make sense.



I think he means that you can only twist the corner if it has already twisted, making the cube unsolvable, not just at any time to try and force a better case by cheating.


----------



## speedpicker (Jan 1, 2013)

Well it clearly says "If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece". No mention of pops though, unless he means a corner has previously popped and has been replaced incorrectly? Hence the clarification request.


----------



## Dene (Jan 1, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Well it clearly says "If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece". No mention of pops though, unless he means a corner has previously popped and has been replaced incorrectly? Hence the clarification request.



Yes that's what he meant. Surely that is obvious.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

Dene said:


> Yes that's what he meant. Surely that is obvious.



I would say that it isn't, as a corner can twist in place without a pop, so the regulation would still hold even if a pop hadn't taken place.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 1, 2013)

Can we have a guideline added about similarity of cubes in multibld? E.g. Are there any restrictions on having different sizes?

(Thanks to MLSTRM for asking about that)


----------



## Kian (Jan 1, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> Can we have a guideline added about similarity of cubes in multibld? E.g. Are there any restrictions on having different sizes?
> 
> (Thanks to MLSTRM for asking about that)



There was not a restriction on this previously and I don't see one in the new regulations.


----------



## speedpicker (Jan 1, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I would say that it isn't, as a corner can twist in place without a pop, so the regulation would still hold even if a pop hadn't taken place.



That was my point.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 1, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Can you just clarify that please? You are only allowed to twist a corner back if the cube has also popped? That doesnt seem to make sense.



Notice that he said "if a puzzle defect, _such as_ a pop, occurs". He never specified pops as the only possible case where you can twist the corner, he simply listed it as an example of a puzzle defect. And yes, 5a) lists pieces twisting in place as another example of a puzzle defect.


----------



## MovingOnUp (Jan 1, 2013)

For clock, are F2 and F3 just now being implemented , or were they there before and no one paid attention to it?? Because , for example, this competition solve (first one I found) does not follow these rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdwkrq9KH
http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#F2


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

MovingOnUp said:


> For clock, are F2 and F3 just now being implemented , or were they there before and no one paid attention to it?? Because , for example, this competition solve (first one I found) does not follow these rules.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdwkrq9KH
> http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#F2



They've always been there, and every competition I have been to has followed those regulations...


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 1, 2013)

I wonder what people are going to use to account for A2c1.
I suggest the stereotypical Chinese food takeout paper boxes. They're nifty and customisable =)


----------



## MovingOnUp (Jan 1, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> They've always been there, and every competition I have been to has followed those regulations...



Then how come they aren't followed in this video and its considered a WR, am i missing something?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

MovingOnUp said:


> Then how come they aren't followed in this video and its considered a WR, am i missing something?



The video link is broken so I can't see what you mean. Relink?


----------



## MovingOnUp (Jan 1, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> The video link is broken so I can't see what you mean. Relink?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdwkrq9KH0

or this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvsHbxvEvpk


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

MovingOnUp said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdwkrq9KH0
> 
> or this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvsHbxvEvpk



Those solves do follow the regulations....


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 1, 2013)

MovingOnUp said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdwkrq9KH0
> 
> or this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvsHbxvEvpk


Can you clarify what you think isn't being done correctly? As far as I can see, the regulations are followed in those videos


----------



## MovingOnUp (Jan 1, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> Can you clarify what you think isn't being done correctly? As far as I can see, the regulations are followed in those videos



Omg. I knew I had to be missing something. I was assuming, incorrectly, that they meant once the competitor had completed their solve. "After the inspection period," is what i missed . Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 1, 2013)

As for rule 3h1 I know the pillowed 7x7s are alowed. Would the SS(Cubic) 7x7 be usable?


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 1, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> As for rule 3h1 I know the pillowed 7x7s are alowed. Would the SS(Cubic) 7x7 be usable?



of course not. cubic puzzles in competition - what a ridiculous idea.



Spoiler



i strongly believe there would be another exception if a rather "normal" puzzle like the SS 7x7 would be prohibited - there is also no reason, no unfair advantage that would explain a ban.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 1, 2013)

Petro Leum said:


> of course not. cubic puzzles in competition - what a ridiculous idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're saying the SS 7x7 is banned?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 1, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> So you're saying the SS 7x7 is banned?



No. Based on the context, I would say he was being sarcastic. Both brands of 7x7 are allowed in competition.


----------



## CubeRoots (Jan 2, 2013)

i find the latter part of article 9 confusing. Since when do we have qualification rounds?


----------



## Kian (Jan 2, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> i find the latter part of article 9 confusing. Since when do we have qualification rounds?



There have been many tournaments with qualification rounds. They were more prevalent years ago.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 2, 2013)

BTW is there any new events that will replace magic and master magic?


----------



## Dene (Jan 2, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> BTW is there any new events that will replace magic and master magic?



No.


----------



## Bob (Jan 2, 2013)

Dene said:


> No.


I think we should remove even more events before we consider adding any new ones.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Jan 2, 2013)

Bob said:


> I think we should remove even more events before we consider adding any new ones.



yes, like feet!


----------



## Bob (Jan 2, 2013)

ducttapecuber said:


> yes, like feet!



and 6x6 and 7x7 and 5BLD


----------



## ducttapecuber (Jan 2, 2013)

Bob said:


> and 6x6 and 7x7 and 5BLD



a LOT of people really enjoy 6x6. I can see no more 7x7 and 5BLD though


----------



## Stefan (Jan 2, 2013)

Kian said:


> There have been many tournaments with qualification rounds.



19


```
2005	1
2006	-
2007	4
2008	4
2009	4
2010	5
2011	-
2012	1

SELECT year, count(distinct competitionId)
FROM Results, Competitions
WHERE Competitions.id = competitionId
AND roundId in ('h', '0')
GROUP BY year
```


----------



## Bob (Jan 2, 2013)

Stefan said:


> 19
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



With only one in the past two years, I don't really think we need those anymore.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 2, 2013)

Bob said:


> I think we should remove even more events before we consider adding any new ones.



I'm not sure how serious you are. However, I would like to make the point that with the removal of magic and master magic there are no more "harmful" events. The rest of the events are fair and sound. Beyond that, what events there are and are not should not be dictated by personal preference or convenience. Why do people call for the removal of feet, when almost no competitions (at least in the US) have feet. Feet does not harm anyone, and since it is unpopular, most competitions don't have it. That's fine. There is no concrete reason to remove feet like there was for magic.


----------



## BlackStahli (Jan 2, 2013)

Vincents said:


> I'd like to point out that you're only allowed to do this if a puzzle defect, such as a pop, has already occurred.



Yeah, I know. It's just a faster way of fixing those darn corner twists you get on cubes (Dayan ones, especially >.>)

and I didn't mean to ask if it were a way of cheating for something like ZBLL-U #1


----------



## Coolster01 (Jan 2, 2013)

ducttapecuber said:


> yes, like feet!



Noooo! Please! My favorite event, and there's no cheating involved like magic! How about events that if you're good at, you can also be good at other events automatically (7x7)?




Noahaha said:


> I'm not sure how serious you are. However, I would like to make the point that with the removal of magic and master magic there are no more "harmful" events. The rest of the events are fair and sound. Beyond that, what events there are and are not should not be dictated by personal preference or convenience. *Why do people call for the removal of feet, when almost no competitions (at least in the US) have feet. Feet does not harm anyone, and since it is unpopular, most competitions don't have it. That's fine. There is no concrete reason to remove feet like there was for magic.*



Thank you!


----------



## hcfong (Jan 2, 2013)

A6b1: In the previous regulations, if the timer stops between 0.01 and 0.06 seconds, before the solve is completed, you get an extra attempt, This did not include 0.00 (for example due to releasing the timer early) In the new regulations, it's under 0.06. Does this mean when the timer remains at 0.00 for whatever reason, the competitor will get an extra attempt even if it's his own fault for releasing the timer before the green light flashes?


----------



## JasonK (Jan 2, 2013)

hcfong said:


> A6b1: In the previous regulations, if the timer stops between 0.01 and 0.06 seconds, before the solve is completed, you get an extra attempt, This did not include 0.00 (for example due to releasing the timer early) In the new regulations, it's under 0.06. Does this mean when the timer remains at 0.00 for whatever reason, the competitor will get an extra attempt even if it's his own fault for releasing the timer before the green light flashes?



"If the timer stops..."
The timer can't stop if it didn't start. Is it even possible for the timers to stop displaying 0.00?


----------



## Geert (Jan 2, 2013)

JasonK said:


> The timer can't stop if it didn't start. Is it even possible for the timers to stop displaying 0.00?



This happened once @ Dutch Open 2011 while I was judging a solve for TMOY, the timer failed to start and displayed 0.00 while the red and green LEDs lights kept flashing erratically.


----------



## Dene (Jan 2, 2013)

Geert said:


> This happened once @ Dutch Open 2011 while I was judging a solve for TMOY, the timer failed to start and displayed 0.00 while the red and green LEDs lights kept flashing erratically.



I'm sure you could put that down to timer malfunction. If in doubt, ask the delegate. I hope TMOY got a rescramble in that case.



JasonK said:


> "If the timer stops..."
> The timer can't stop if it didn't start. Is it even possible for the timers to stop displaying 0.00?



On gen2 timers it is impossible to get below 0.02.


----------



## Geert (Jan 2, 2013)

Dene said:


> I'm sure you could put that down to timer malfunction. If in doubt, ask the delegate. I hope TMOY got a rescramble in that case.



Yes, he got an extra attempt!


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 2, 2013)

Of course you can get times with pro timers that we consider as 0.00.

We have evaluated removing qualification rounds as they are almost not used, but there were objections on removing them so we kept them for now.


----------



## Dylann (Jan 2, 2013)

In a nutshell, what are the main changes?


----------



## Ickathu (Jan 2, 2013)

no stickerless cubes for anything is the biggest one I can think of. I've read over the entire regulations and that's the only thing that stands out as significant in my opinion.


----------



## Forte (Jan 2, 2013)

Dylann said:


> In a nutshell, what are the main changes?



Also clock notation is completely different.


----------



## hcfong (Jan 2, 2013)

Dylann said:


> In a nutshell, what are the main changes?



From what I could see:
Strict enforcement of time limits. Judge has no discretion to allow competitor to continue the solve once the time limit has been reached.
Cumulative time limits are possible
Cumulative time penalties
0.00 on timer before end solve is an extra attempt (I think. I could be wrong on this one)
Outer Block Turn Metric instead of Half Term Metric.
Some organisational responsibilities have moved from organiser to delegate, although the delegate may delegate responsibilities to organisers.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 2, 2013)

hcfong said:


> From what I could see:
> Strict enforcement of time limits. Judge has no discretion to allow competitor to continue the solve once the time limit has been reached.
> Cumulative time limits are possible
> Cumulative time penalties
> ...



In my opinion, the biggest thing changed is how we treat defective puzzles at the end of solves.

Also, main judge has been completely removed.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 2, 2013)

Vincents said:


> In my opinion, the biggest thing changed is how we treat defective puzzles at the end of solves.
> 
> Also, main judge has been completely removed.



That's one of the main one's in my opinion. It's very helpful, since if a corner twists during a PLL (as it did on one of my 4x4 solves), it's still considered solved, and not a DNF.


----------



## brandbest1 (Jan 2, 2013)

What was the main cause of switching clock notation?


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 2, 2013)

I don't see anything that states that you aren't allowed to _intentionally_ cause a puzzle defect.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 2, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> That's one of the main one's in my opinion. It's very helpful, since if a corner twists during a PLL (as it did on one of my 4x4 solves), it's still considered solved, and not a DNF.


No? How did you figure that one out? If a corner twists then you are allowed to twist it back without taking it out. You can't just leave it and declare it solved.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 3, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I don't see anything that states that you aren't allowed to _intentionally_ cause a puzzle defect.



So what? Cause as many puzzle defects as you want as long as there is:

5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).


----------



## cubernya (Jan 3, 2013)

kinch2002 said:


> No? How did you figure that one out? If a corner twists then you are allowed to twist it back without taking it out. You can't just leave it and declare it solved.



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


----------



## Micael (Jan 3, 2013)

Thanks to all those that worked on this document!:tu

In PDF version, links that reference to other regulations don't appear correctly. Like the part in parentheses in this one:
5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle (see Regulation 5b3).


----------



## JasonK (Jan 3, 2013)

theZcuber said:


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



Exactly. The worst state possible from "repairing" a twisted corner is having the corner twisted the other way, which is DNF.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 3, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I don't see anything that states that you aren't allowed to _intentionally_ cause a puzzle defect.



That wouldn't be a defect of the puzzle then. That would be like taking a sledge hammer to a timer and calling it a timer defect.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 3, 2013)

JasonK said:


> Exactly. The worst state possible from "repairing" a twisted corner is having the corner twisted the other way, which is DNF.



I interpreted that as worst solvable state, but maybe that's just me.
Edit: Checked the guidelines, and the pyraminx example doesn't help, since all tip positions are solvable


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 3, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> So what? Cause as many puzzle defects as you want as long as there is:
> 
> 5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).



Then the judge needs to know how the defect occured? Because depending on this, fixing a single corner twist could either be giving an advantage or not.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2013)

Sebastien said:


> So what? Cause as many puzzle defects as you want as long as there is:
> 
> 5b2) Any repair to a puzzle must not give the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).



Repairing kinda always is an advantage in solving the puzzle...
Advantage compared to what?


----------



## hcfong (Jan 3, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> I interpreted that as worst solvable state, but maybe that's just me.
> Edit: Checked the guidelines, and the pyraminx example doesn't help, since all tip positions are solvable



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

The pyraminx example is quite clear. When a tip falls off, you can repair it by placing it back. You can do so in 3 ways. 1 way in which it is placed and aligned correctly and 2 ways in which it is placed but need to make 1 move to align it, which is a plus two. +2 is the worst case scenario here, so that's what will be recorded. If for example the same thing happens + another tip aligned incorrectly, then the worst possible state would be a DNF.

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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2013)

> 5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, *pieces twisted in place*, and detached screws/caps/stickers



Sounds like for example superflip is twelve puzzle defects. Don't see a way to exploit this, though...


----------



## Dene (Jan 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Sounds like for example superflip is twelve puzzle defects. Don't see a way to exploit this, though...



How is a flipped edge twisted? Unless it was an obscenely loose cube, I guess...


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> How is a flipped edge twisted? Unless it was an obscenely loose cube, I guess...



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

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


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 3, 2013)

theZcuber said:


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



Does this mean that a cube with a flipped edge (because of a pop) is considered solved? Repairing it means solving it; no matter how you do it.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2013)

ThomasJE said:


> Does this mean that a cube with a flipped edge (because of a pop) is considered solved? Repairing it means solving it; no matter how you do it.



Hmm... together with the rule to only repair defective pieces, I'd say it actually does mean that that is considered solved.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 3, 2013)

Can't we change 5b5 to:


> 5b5) All the stickers on an individual face must be of the same colour or sticker pattern.


or something on those lines?


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Just tried it with one cube (Zhanchi), I can directly twist an edge in place, don't even need a 45 degree misalignment
> 
> Was just an example anyway, I picked it for the short name. Imagine you get a scramble that results in some corner in the correct place but twisted (like the URF corner after the "scramble" R U). That's called a puzzle defect then.



HOW?!?! Video might be helpful.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> HOW?!?! Video might be helpful.



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

I just grab and turn it. Duh.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 3, 2013)

hcfong said:


> Yes, it's just you. It clearly says "the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle". There's no mention of solvable state.
> 
> ...
> 
> Again, whether the puzzle is solvable after the repair is irrelevant.



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


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 3, 2013)

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

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


----------



## hcfong (Jan 3, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> 1) So if after F2L I have finished OLL with 1 twisted corner, can I twist it so I will have OLL skip? Or this action will be considered as "giving the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle"?
> 
> 2) In BLD section penalties for starting the solve are explicitly written (B2b, B2c), but penalties for stopping the solve are not. Does this mean there are no penalties for stopping? Or they are inherited from standard speed solving procedures?
> The former kinda makes sense because a competitor can't see his timer so he can accidentally stop it with his wrists.



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

2. Unless stated otherwise, Article A applies.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 4, 2013)

hcfong said:


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



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


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Vincents (Jan 4, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> 1) So if after F2L I have finished OLL with 1 twisted corner, can I twist it so I will have OLL skip? Or this action will be considered as "giving the competitor any advantage in solving the puzzle"?
> 
> 2) In BLD section penalties for starting the solve are explicitly written (B2b, B2c), but penalties for stopping the solve are not. Does this mean there are no penalties for stopping? Or they are inherited from standard speed solving procedures?
> The former kinda makes sense because a competitor can't see his timer so he can accidentally stop it with his wrists.



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

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


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jan 4, 2013)

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


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 4, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


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



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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2013)

Dene said:


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



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


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 4, 2013)

Noahaha said:


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



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


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 4, 2013)

Sebastien said:


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



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


----------



## Dene (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


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



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


----------



## Julian (Jan 4, 2013)

Sebastien said:


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


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


----------



## hcfong (Jan 4, 2013)

Julian said:


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



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

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


----------



## Julian (Jan 4, 2013)

hcfong said:


> [...]


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


----------



## Pedro (Jan 4, 2013)

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

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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2013)

hcfong said:


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



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


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


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



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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


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



Why should you move the gap? That doesn't even seem permitted.

What about a popped 4x4 edge, edge+center pair or edge+center+center triple (in a straight line)?


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Why should you move the gap? That doesn't even seem permitted.
> 
> What about a popped 4x4 edge, edge+center pair or edge+center+center triple (in a straight line)?



Normally, 4x4 edges only go in one way, and centers would just go in either of the two gaps; the cube would still be solved afterwards. That's what I think; but whether it is right I don't know.


----------



## clement (Jan 4, 2013)

Pedro said:


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



The problem here is that you require that the judge has enough knowledge to know that it is unambiguously solved. If you write the rule like you suggest, then a lot of judges would not be able to judge if it is solved or not.
If this case is too simple for you, consider the case where you remove 1 corner cap from every corner, it is still unambiguously solved.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 4, 2013)

clement said:


> The problem here is that you require that the judge has enough knowledge to know that it is unambiguously solved. If you write the rule like you suggest, then a lot of judges would not be able to judge if it is solved or not.
> If this case is too simple for you, consider the case where you remove 1 corner cap from every corner, it is still unambiguously solved.



It is the competitor's responsibility to know the rules. If there is ever a question, the competitor can still ask for the delegate to make the judgement call.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 4, 2013)

AFAIK, in all modern 4x4x4's an edge physically cannot be placed on its place with wrong orientation, so a popped edge would lead to no penalties.
But if tomorrow someone will create a 4x4x4 that has "symmetric" edges that can be placed on their places twisted, then a popped edge on this particular cube will lead to DNF, right?



ThomasJE said:


> Normally, 4x4 edges only go in one way, and centers would just go in either of the two gaps; the cube would still be solved afterwards. That's what I think; but whether it is right I don't know.



I think Stefan meant that after an edge+center popped (for example, white center and white-green edge), you can move green center adjacent to a gap on the white layer, just like you move pieces and gaps in popped square-1.



clement said:


> The problem here is that you require that the judge has enough knowledge to know that it is unambiguously solved.


Not the judge, but the delegate. If a regular judge is in doubt, he calls a delegate.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Why should you move the gap? That doesn't even seem permitted.
> 
> What about a popped 4x4 edge, edge+center pair or edge+center+center triple (in a straight line)?



It wouldn't be permitted, but the competitor might have it somewhere else in the layer, pop it intentionally (might not be able to tell as a judge if this happened) and then move the gap around so the edge would be solved, while making it look like an accident. Since there would be no way to guarantee where the piece came from, it should be a DNF, at least that's how I think it should be ruled as.

As for the 4x4. single edge would be solved, 2 edges would be DNF since could be OLL parity. Also, any amount of centres from the same face is fine. Also fine is lots of centres, as long as all of each individual type of centre is the same colour (e.g. red xcentres, green +centres, blue left obliques, white right obliques would be fine.)


----------



## Julian (Jan 4, 2013)

clement said:


> The problem here is that you require that the judge has enough knowledge to know that it is unambiguously solved. If you write the rule like you suggest, then a lot of judges would not be able to judge if it is solved or not.
> If this case is too simple for you, consider the case where you remove 1 corner cap from every corner, it is still unambiguously solved.


Perhaps you should be given the chance to prove to the judge (or delegate) that the cube is indeed unambiguously solved?


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 4, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> I think Stefan meant that after an edge+center popped (for example, white center and white-green edge), you can move green center adjacent to a gap on the white layer, just like you move pieces and gaps in popped square-1.



Ah; okay.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> I think Stefan meant that after an edge+center popped (for example, white center and white-green edge), you can move green center adjacent to a gap on the white layer, just like you move pieces and gaps in popped square-1.



Yep, that's what I meant.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> As for the 4x4. single edge would be solved, 2 edges would be DNF since could be OLL parity. Also, any amount of centres from the same face is fine. Also fine is lots of centres, as long as all of each individual type of centre is the same colour (e.g. red xcentres, green +centres, blue left obliques, white right obliques would be fine.)



Not sure whether you avoided the interesting cases (edge+center(s)) or answered inconsistently (to your Square-1 argument).


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 4, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Yep, that's what I meant.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure whether you avoided the interesting cases (edge+center(s)) or answered inconsistently (to your Square-1 argument).



Ah, no. I misread the post I replied to. However on a 4x4, the centres wouldn't slide because the other outer pieces hold them in place, since the 4x4's centres always point towards the centre of the side, they would have to twist past another piece to move, so if only the edge+centre came out, it wouldn't be a problem since motion is impossible, and should be no penalty. Same goes for the 3 piece line, although I think on some mechs that are looser than others, there might be cases where centres could move, so I'm not so sure on that one.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 4, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Ah, no. I misread the post I replied to. However on a 4x4, the centres wouldn't slide because the other outer pieces hold them in place, since the 4x4's centres always point towards the centre of the side, they would have to twist past another piece to move, so if only the edge+centre came out, it wouldn't be a problem since motion is impossible, and should be no penalty. Same goes for the 3 piece line, although I think on some mechs that are looser than others, there might be cases where centres could move, so I'm not so sure on that one.



Try LanLan. Some centers can slide.


----------



## Kian (Jan 4, 2013)

uberCuber said:


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



"5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle "

This includes states that wouldn't normally come to be on a puzzle. One center cap is fine, two is a DNF. This is new.


----------



## tim (Jan 4, 2013)

So, "repairing" in 5b5 basically means "putting stuff back to where it fits"?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 4, 2013)

tim said:


> So, "repairing" in 5b5 basically means "putting stuff back to where it fits"?



I think this is probably the most straight-forward way of putting it. If you can put stuff back in such a way that the puzzle isn't solved, then its the relevant penalty (+2 for pyra tips, DNF for most other things, etc.). THe only other case is when no matter how the pieces are replaced, the puzzle is solved, and so there is no penalty for this case.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 4, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> I think this is probably the most straight-forward way of putting it. If you can put stuff back in such a way that the puzzle isn't solved, then its the relevant penalty (+2 for pyra tips, DNF for most other things, etc.). THe only other case is when no matter how the pieces are replaced, the puzzle is solved, and so there is no penalty for this case.



But this will depend on the model of the puzzle. You have already given an example when red x-centers and blue oblique centers pop. What if my cube allows to put oblique center in the gap for x-center? Well, the cube will look weird and won't be cubeshape anymore, but still it is "putting stuff back to where it fits".


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 4, 2013)

Kian said:


> "5b5) If parts of the puzzle are still defective or not fully placed at the end of the attempt, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by repairing the puzzle "
> 
> This includes states that wouldn't normally come to be on a puzzle. One center cap is fine, two is a DNF. This is new.



With that particular post I actually didn't intend to question what the regulations say; I was questioning the logic behind it. As some people have said since I wrote that post, it makes little sense to call a DNF with only two center caps fallen off, because _any_ slightly knowledgeable cuber should be able to tell that the cube is still unambiguously solved. Like someone said, I could take four center caps off my cube (such that the remaining two are adjacent) and just throw them away completely, and I would still be able to solve the cube without problems, nothing would be changed at all (except for slightly more difficult recognition or whatever :s)


That aside, I do also find the use of the word "repair" in these regulations very questionable. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of DNFing a cube that has a twisted corner or a popped edge when the timer is stopped, but I don't like the way the issue is being handled here. To "repair" something is to fix it, it's the definition of the word. If a single corner got twisted clockwise, twisting it clockwise again doesn't fix anything; calling it a "repair" is nonsensical. By the actual definition of the word _repair_, the only possible repair in this case is to twist the corner counterclockwise - to _fix_ it.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 5, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> As for the 4x4. single edge would be solved



Why not +2? You can move the other pieces around just like with Square-1, ending up with a turn away from solved. Or even two turns, so shouldn't it be DNF?


----------



## Dene (Jan 5, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Why not +2? You can move the other pieces around just like with Square-1, ending up with a turn away from solved. Or even two turns, so shouldn't it be DNF?



I don't want to jump in on this discussion, I just want to point out there is a difference. On a Square-1 you'd move the pieces within the layer. On a 4x4 you'd move the pieces by moving the layer. Very different. 

But please continue  . I too am interested in the results of this discussion.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 5, 2013)

Dene said:


> I don't want to jump in on this discussion, I just want to point out there is a difference. On a Square-1 you'd move the pieces within the layer. On a 4x4 you'd move the pieces by moving the layer. Very different.



I've almost succeeded in turning one internal layer in LanLan 4x4 with popped edge+center by moving the pieces separatery. Unfortunately, the cube crumbled to pieces -_-
Besides, regs say nothing about "turning the pieces within the layer" and "turning the pieces by moving the layer".


----------



## Stefan (Jan 5, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> I've almost succeeded in turning one internal layer in LanLan 4x4 with popped edge+center by moving the pieces separatery. Unfortunately, the cube crumbled to pieces -_-
> Besides, regs say nothing about "turning the pieces within the layer" and "turning the pieces by moving the layer".



Darn, I was about to say the regs don't distinguish that, but you were faster 

I successfully turned (far enough for DNF) an inner layer of a Rubik's 4x4 with just a missing edge by moving pieces separately.


----------



## Dene (Jan 5, 2013)

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


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


----------



## hcfong (Jan 5, 2013)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Vincents (Jan 5, 2013)

hcfong said:


> I noticed people are still talking about 'unambiguously solved'. While this was part of the old regulations, there is no mention of it in the current regulations. Even though it may be what the WRC meant, but worded in a different way, we can't be sure of that.
> 
> anyway, I think the underlying idea should be that the competitor is responsible for the state of his puzzle. If a puzzle pops, it's the competitor's responsibility. If the solve is ended with pieces not fully in place or detached from the puzzle, it's the competitor's responsibility. In short, if the competitor, when stopping the timer fails to present to the judge a fully solved and operational puzzle, you shouldn't expect the judge to put time into working out whether if he repaired the cube, he would have done it in such a way that it would have been solved. To expect something like that from the judge, would be the same as when a student forgets to answer a question in a test, expecting the teacher marking it to consider whether he would have answered it correctly if he did answer it.
> 
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Pedro (Jan 5, 2013)

Maybe write it like:

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

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


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 5, 2013)

Pedro said:


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



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



Pedro said:


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



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

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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 5, 2013)

hcfong said:


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



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



Vincents said:


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



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

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


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 5, 2013)

Pedro said:


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



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



Vincents said:


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



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


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

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

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


----------



## TMOY (Jan 5, 2013)

Vincents said:


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


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


----------



## clement (Jan 5, 2013)

Stefan said:


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



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



TMOY said:


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



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


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 5, 2013)

clement said:


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



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


----------



## Stefan (Jan 5, 2013)

clement said:


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



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

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



hcfong said:


> I think the approach to 5b5 should be: Can the puzzle be *reasonably* repaired in such a way that it results in an unsolved cube? If yes, DNF. If no, can the puzzle be *reasonably* repaired that it results in a +2 state. If yes, +2, otherwise solved.
> 
> By '*reasonably*', I mean that the repair can be done without intentionally manipulating the puzzle.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 5, 2013)

Ok, here is another point of view.

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

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


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 5, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


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



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


----------



## hcfong (Jan 5, 2013)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 5, 2013)

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


----------



## TMOY (Jan 6, 2013)

clement said:


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


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

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


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 6, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Vincent spoke about reassenbling the puzzle without seeing the colors. That was the part I was answering to.
> 
> And if you really want to be silly: the worst thing that can happen while repairing your puzzle is putting back a similar piece from another puzzle by mistake, which is always a DNF. So all kinds of popped pieces at the end of the solves should be DNFs. QED



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


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 6, 2013)

hcfong said:


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


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



hcfong said:


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


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


----------



## hcfong (Jan 6, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


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



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

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


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jan 6, 2013)

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


----------



## whauk (Jan 6, 2013)

a twisted corner is DNF because rule 5b5 applies and says we are allowed to repair the puzzle (and take the worst possible result that one can get applying the reapirs in 5b3). so obviously the cube is unsolvable and can be made solvable by twisting a single corner (so 5b3c applies here). notice that the regulations talk about "a corner" and not about "the corner that...(has been twisted or sth)". so the cube can be made solvable by twisting any corner in the direction that the already twisted corner is not twisted in. (e.g. URF is twisted clockwise, so we can twist URF and any other corner ccw and the cube becomes solvable).

this procedure leads to 8 possible repairs - 7 of them are DNF and one is solved. the worst possible repair therefore leads to a DNF so the position is considered as one.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2013)

whauk said:


> so the cube can be made solvable by twisting any corner in the direction that the already twisted corner is not twisted in. (e.g. URF is twisted clockwise, so we can twist URF and any other corner ccw and the cube becomes solvable).



I once thought about that as well, but I think it violates

5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he must repair *only the defective pieces*


----------



## whauk (Jan 6, 2013)

this might seem ridiculous but the rules do not state anywhere that *the* twisted corner is a defective piece. it only says that a puzzle defect exists when a corner is twisted...
and in actual situations it might be really hard to find out which corner had been twisted by the competitor.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2013)

whauk said:


> the rules do not state anywhere that *the* twisted corner is a defective piece. it only says that a puzzle defect exists when a corner is twisted...



I think you're misrepresenting this one:

_”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”_

That doesn't say a twisted corner means there's a puzzle defect. The twisted corner *is* the defect.


----------



## whauk (Jan 6, 2013)

Stefan said:


> _”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”_
> 
> That doesn't say a twisted corner means there's a puzzle defect. The twisted corner *is* the defect.



puzzle defect ≠ defective piece
you wouldn't say that a corner is a puzzle, would you?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 6, 2013)

whauk said:


> you wouldn't say that a corner is a puzzle, would you?



Did I say _"The twisted corner *is* the *puzzle*"_? No, I said _"The twisted corner *is* the *defect*"_. Those words look rather different, no idea how you misread that. The rule is also quite clear and calls it a puzzle defect:

_”5a) Examples of *puzzle defects* include: popped pieces, *pieces twisted in place*, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”_



whauk said:


> puzzle defect ≠ defective piece



If it's just one piece, then the rules seem to disagree with you. And what do you think the rules do mean with "defective pieces"? You seem to think perfectly solved pieces are defective, which is a rather weird viewpoint.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jan 6, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


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



I would start the stopwatch at 10 minutes (so after the stackmat is switched off), and add 10 minutes to the stopwatch time.


----------



## okayama (Jan 6, 2013)

I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).


> B4c3) If the judge and competitor agree beforehand, the competitor may choose to place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase.


Is it possible for organizers to force competitors to use a music stand (instead of inserting a paper)?
For example, if organizers say


> You have to use a music stand if you want to compete in.
> Your registration means that you agree to this regulation.


must competitors use a music stand?

In the registration page of Kansai Open 2013, this statement is written,
but is such an indirect enforcement accepted?

http://jrca.cc/modules/eguide/event.php?eid=43


----------



## Vincents (Jan 6, 2013)

okayama said:


> I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).
> 
> Is it possible for organizers to force competitors to use a music stand (instead of inserting a paper)?
> For example, if organizers say
> ...



I believe the Board has specifically approved music stands for this particular competition.


----------



## Vincents (Jan 6, 2013)

The intention of the new defective puzzle regulations are:

It is the competitor's responsibility to provide a working puzzle. Any issues with that puzzle are the competitor's problem. We are not completely unforgiving; we could treat a piece pop as an auto-DNF and take out the puzzle defects article entirely (and define it as a move the original Rubik's Cube was not meant to make), but we wrote this gigantic thing instead.

The spirit of this regulation is: At the end of your solve, your puzzle may have pieces strewn over the floor. I ask someone who doesn't understand the concept of a cubic puzzle, and who is oblivious to colors, to attempt to reassemble your cube. He is allowed to put any pieces that fit together, together (as long as it is reasonable; we don't want this hypothetical person taking a drill to your cube to make a piece fit where it shouldn't). We are assuming rudimentary intelligence. He does NOT know the original puzzle is a cube/dodecahedron/etc.; he simply knows that some pieces seem to fit, and some don't. He does NOT know that the colors have to match because he doesn't notice the colors at all. Purely from a mechanical perspective, consider all possible states of a fully reassembled puzzle. What's the worst state this hypothetical person could come up with? Whatever that state is is the result of the solve.

I hope I have communicated the idea across. We're sorry that this is unclear to people; instead of attempting to poke holes all over it - all of you should consider a career in law, by the way - consider what Lucas, Sebastien, Clement, Shelley, and I were TRYING to do, and please let us know how to improve it.

Of course, this could all be fixed if you just repaired your puzzle before stopping the timer. The only times this comes into play are when your puzzle pops or becomes defective from you slamming it into the table too hard while you stop the timer, or if you suffer an accident earlier in the solve and consciously make the choice to continue solving, thinking you might save time by doing so.


----------



## whauk (Jan 6, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Did I say _"The twisted corner *is* the *puzzle*"_? No, I said _"The twisted corner *is* the *defect*"_. Those words look rather different, no idea how you misread that. The rule is also quite clear and calls it a puzzle defect:
> 
> _”5a) Examples of *puzzle defects* include: popped pieces, *pieces twisted in place*, and detached screws/caps/stickers.”_


so we have a rule that allows us to repair only "defective pieces" and another rule that says a piece twisted in place is an example for a puzzle defect. i cannot read anywhere that only the twisted corner is a defective piece. 5a only tells me that a puzzle with pieces twisted in place happens to be a puzzle defect.




Stefan said:


> If it's just one piece, then the rules seem to disagree with you. And what do you think the rules do mean with "defective pieces"? You seem to think perfectly solved pieces are defective, which is a rather weird viewpoint.




lets take the following example: URF and URB are both twisted clockwise. the puzzle is unsolvable and can be made solvable by twisting only one corner piece so obviously 5b3c applies here. in order to make the cube solvable again i can twist ULB clockwise _although this piece is already solved_. maybe this is even the defective piece because i accidently twisted exactly this corner earlier. (defective piece as "the one that caused all the trouble") but i already said that this might be hard to tell (for the judge) in practical situations.
"solved piece" is also only a matter of choosing a viewpoint. you could also pop an edge and declare it as solved but somehow the whole rest of the cube popped away. or in my earlier example: maybe URF is solved but the whole cube is twisted?!
in fact, no i have no problems calling a "solved" piece defective.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 7, 2013)

whauk said:


> so we have a rule that allows us to repair only "defective pieces" and another rule that says a piece twisted in place is an example for a puzzle defect. i cannot read anywhere that only the twisted corner is a defective piece.



Well, "defective piece" is never defined, 5a calling certain things "puzzle defects" is the only thing we have, so that's gotta be it.



whauk said:


> 5a only tells me that a puzzle with pieces twisted in place happens to *be* a puzzle defect.



No it doesn't. *Puzzle* isn't listed, only puzzle *parts* are:
_”5a) Examples of puzzle defects include: *popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.*”_



whauk said:


> lets take the following example: URF and URB are both twisted clockwise. [...] maybe URF is solved but the whole cube is twisted?!



Now what is URF? Twisted or solved? Both? The rules have to be used, so we actually have to decide. What would you declare it?



whauk said:


> in fact, no i have no problems calling a "solved" piece defective.



I still find that unreasonable. And with your view where you consider *everything* defective, please explain why we have this rule at all:

_"5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he *must repair only the defective pieces.*"_


----------



## Stefan (Jan 7, 2013)

Vincents said:


> The spirit of this regulation is: At the end of your solve, your puzzle may have pieces strewn over the floor. I ask someone who doesn't understand the concept of a cubic puzzle, and who is oblivious to colors, to attempt to reassemble your cube. He is allowed to put any pieces that fit together, together (as long as it is reasonable; we don't want this hypothetical person taking a drill to your cube to make a piece fit where it shouldn't). We are assuming rudimentary intelligence. He does NOT know the original puzzle is a cube/dodecahedron/etc.; he simply knows that some pieces seem to fit, and some don't. He does NOT know that the colors have to match because he doesn't notice the colors at all. Purely from a mechanical perspective, consider all possible states of a fully reassembled puzzle. What's the worst state this hypothetical person could come up with? Whatever that state is is the result of the solve.



I think someone who messes this up doesn't possess rudimentary intelligence:


Spoiler











And if you do let him mess that up, you allow him to move stuff around. Which you're not allowing in other cases, so that would be inconsistent.

I'd say you're again implying this should be considered solved, not DNF.



Vincents said:


> I hope I have communicated the idea across. We're sorry that this is unclear to people; instead of attempting to poke holes all over it - all of you should consider a career in law, by the way - consider what Lucas, Sebastien, Clement, Shelley, and I were TRYING to do, and please let us know how to improve it.



Yeah, sorry. Though in some cases it's actually not clear what you were trying to do, and I think our hole-poking at least points them out.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2013)

> _"5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, he *must repair only the defective pieces.*"_


_
How would that work in reality? During a solve I hear something that MIGHT be a corner twist, but I don't know if it really twisted 120 degrees or if it twisted 50 degrees but then nicely snapped back the way it should be. Actually, let's say that happens twice. Now I reach the end of the solve with just 2 corners twisted.
Can I just twist both of them into the solved state?
Should I twist a third or maybe even a fourth one and then solve all unsolved pieces?
Should I twist one of the two unsolved cornes so that the cube can be solved but isn't yet?

And are we going to train judges to actually understand all of this when we don't even agree on it on this forum of experts?

I also don't like the new rule for centercaps. In the old rules caps were not considered funtional pieces and the result of 2 caps falling of was different from now. I don't like it when new rules change the result of a solve compared to the past. But I have no opinion on which rule is better, old or new_


----------



## Dene (Jan 7, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> I don't like it when new rules change the result of a solve compared to the past.



Even for the sake of progress? (not referring to the centre cap issue specifically)


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2013)

Dene said:


> Even for the sake of progress? (not referring to the centre cap issue specifically)


There haven't been many rule changes that actually change a result. The biggest one that comes to mind is multiblind where my old National Record (2 out of 2 in 26 minutes) would have been a DNF under the new rules. That rule change turned out very nicely.
Of course I liked rule changes like "don't put back the cup after inspection" as well.

Determining if a cube is solved or not has always been a very tough job and is actually the most important job for a judge. But these new rules really seem to be 'lawyer material' while I don't think there was anything wrong with the old rules.

A +2 rule for Clock, that would be something I would like to see though


----------



## cubernya (Jan 7, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> A +2 rule for Clock, that would be something I would like to see though



I agree. there is all this controversy about consistency in the regs, then there is no +2 in clock.

On a side note: What if the clock does not have inserts? Which way is solved?


----------



## Bob (Jan 7, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> I agree. there is all this controversy about consistency in the regs, then there is no +2 in clock.
> 
> On a side note: What if the clock does not have inserts? Which way is solved?



It would not be a legal puzzle.


----------



## okayama (Jan 7, 2013)

Vincents said:


> okayama said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to ask a question about Blindfolded Solving, B4c3).
> ...


I don't think so, because the organizer said that this enforcement was ok in his personal understanding.
So I would like to confirm whether it is true or not.

In my opinion that is not good. The regulation B4c3) says the *competitor* may choose which one to use,
and not the *organizer*.

If such an enforcement is ok, for example, do you accept the following statement?

You have to start your solve with no inspection time for any puzzle.
Your registration means that you agree to this regulation.​I think it's not good. The competitor should decide when to start. Not the organizer.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 7, 2013)

okayama said:


> I don't think so, because the organizer said that this enforcement was ok in his personal understanding.
> So I would like to confirm whether it is true or not.
> 
> In my opinion that is not good. The regulation says the *competitor* may choose which one to use,
> and not the *organizer*.



The competitor was notified, so they chose to use the music stand when they registered


----------



## okayama (Jan 7, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> The competitor was notified, so they chose to use the music stand when they registered



The statement was added a few days after the registration started.
Most of the current registrants did not see it.

Besides, I don't think it is good that the organizer takes away competitors' freedom to choose...
If that is allowed, all competitors in this competition cannot choose inserting a paper.
Please compare the following statement with B4c3):

If requested by the organizer/judge beforehand, the competitor must place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase.​which is essentially equal to the current regulation in Kansai Open 2013.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 7, 2013)

hcfong said:


> 5b3b would be redundant, because if you put everything back in the exact spot in came from, you would always have a solvable puzzle



It is perfectly possible to put a popped edge piece back in the same spot, but flipped. 


Anyway,
I started to re-write article 5, trying to address some of the holes and ambiguous wordings that have been pointed out. Then, in doing so, I stumbled upon even more questions. Here is the start, followed by my thoughts.


5a) The following are considered puzzle defects: popped pieces, pieces twisted in place, and detached screws/caps/stickers.

5b) If a puzzle defect occurs during an attempt, the competitor may choose either to repair the defect and continue the attempt, or to stop the attempt.
5b1) Tools and/or pieces of other puzzles must not be used to repair the original puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
5b2) Permitted repairs:
5b2a) If any pieces have fallen out of the puzzle or moved out of place, the competitor may place them back on the puzzle in any open gaps. No fully attached pieces may be intentionally moved into a different position during this process.
5b2b) If, as a result of a previous repair, the competitor finds the puzzle to be unsolvable, he may disassemble and reassemble a maximum of 4 pieces to make the puzzle solvable.
5b2c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may make the puzzle solvable by twisting any corner in place without disassembling the puzzle.
5b3) If a puzzle defect occurs during a blindfolded event, any repairs must be performed blindfolded. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF).
5b4) ?? [see below]

5c) If a competitor has a puzzle defect, this does not give him the right to an extra attempt.


In 5a....how the hell do screws get detached in the middle of a solve?

I removed the following: the current 5b2 (any repair must not give competitor any advantage), and the "he must only repair the defective pieces" clause in 5b1, as they seem too ambiguous. I honestly can't figure out what kind of specifics 5b2 would be referring to that weren't addressed elsewhere anyway, and it was pointed out above that that clause in 5b1 is problematic too. The way I understand it, it should suffice to make the Permitted Repairs section specific enough so as to make it clear what is and isn't legal.

In the current 5b3a (my 5b2a), what exactly is meant by "or moved out of place"? What kind of situation is this referring to? I kept it here assuming there was a reason for it to be there, I'm just not sure what that is.

In the current 5b4, what is the purpose of: "a puzzle defect must be repaired during the attempt"? The wording in 5b (either repair the defect and continue the attempt, *or* stop the attempt) already addresses the fact that defects must be repaired during the attempt; this clause feels entirely redundant.

For the purpose of handling the current 5b5, I have to ask: what are all the cases and their desired results? Is the following correct as far as the writers' intentions, and is there anything missing?
edge or corner popped or twisted: DNF
No more than one bigcube wing per orbit popped: Solved
Single center cap popped: Solved
2+ center caps popped: DNF
1+ bigcube centers of the same color popped: Solved
2+ bigcube centers of the same type but different colors popped: DNF
Square-1 piece popped: DNF?


That is all for now, until some of the above questions have been addressed.


----------



## hcfong (Jan 7, 2013)

Stefan said:


> I think someone who messes this up doesn't possess rudimentary intelligence:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I think it depends. On a Sq-1 (at least mine) you can only pop a piece back where the gap in the rail is, so you'd have to move the gap to the where the gap in the rail is. (As this is part of the basic concept of the puzzle, I don't think this violates any rule). Of the 8 possible ways to rotate the layer (finger can be placed on all 4 corners, each clockwise or anticlockwise), only 2 of them preserve the gap in its place. So, depending on how you rotate the layer to get to the gap in the rail. As Vincent says, we should assume the possibilities as if the repair is done by someone who does not have a clue of the basic concept of the puzzle and doesn't see the colours, so he just pops it back where he sees a gap.

Of course, you can argue that someone who doesn't know the basic concept of the puzzle won't know that he needs to move the gap to the gap in the rail in order to pop the piece back in. In that case, he would just try to pop the piece back in where gap is. The worst that can happen is that he fails to pop it back in and give up: DNF.


----------



## Sebastien (Jan 7, 2013)

okayama said:


> The statement was added a few days after the registration started.



I have a feeling that this is a misunderstanding between me and the organiser, probably my fault. As far as I understood the organisers request, he wanted to ask the registrants for their agreement during the registration process and not demand their agreement in order to be able to register.

I will contact the organiser to clear things up.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jan 7, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> In 5a....how the hell do screws get detached in the middle of a solve?



I have a GuHong which for some reason pops screws occasionally, I think I did a bad job of switching cores. Obviously lots of other pieces will pop at the same time. I don't use it in comp .


----------



## Pedro (Jan 7, 2013)

I was thinking about my proposed writing for 5b5 and it is not perfect. Because the reg says "If parts of the puzzle are still defective...", and a twisted piece is also a deffect, so this case doesn't need reassembling.

Maybe we could have this part split in 2:

_5b5) If any piece is twisted in place at the end of the solve, the result is a DNF.

5b6) If any piece is not fully attached/placed at the end of the solve, the result is recorded as the worst state obtainable by reassembling the puzzle._ (*Dont' see 5B3**)

*There's no need to see any regulation here, you just reassemble the cube putting the pieces back in where they fit.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 7, 2013)

I like the idea that it would now be allowed to have pops (piece out of puzzle) at the end of the solve. The way time is measured motivates people to drop the cube on the table and if pieces come out at that moment while it is still clear that the puzzle was solved it should be counted as solved in my opinion. This used to be the case for centercaps (non-functional pieces) and I like that this would be the case for pieces as well. Of course that makes it necessary to define "clear that the puzzle is solved".

Having 1 centercap be ok and 2 centercaps a DNF goes against my feeling of fairness.
And having the idea of you COULD put it back wrong, so it is a DNF is just silly. We give +2 for a turn that is missing and we don't question if the competitor would have done that turn in the right direction. Of course we can't just call a whole exploded cube solved because you could put it back correctly but the old rules were fine 

Why not make it like this (not official wording, somebody needs to lawyerize this!):
* You cannot cause defects on purpose except for the purpose of fixing a previous defect. This is for the judge to decide.
* If it is unclear if the puzzle is solved at the end of the solve it is DNF
* If functional pieces are out of the puzzle after the end of the solve it will be a +2.
* If the puzzle can be solved with 1 move after the end of the solve it is a +2


----------



## Akash Rupela (Jan 13, 2013)

1.Why was article 6 removed(i think awards and prizes)? The regs look a bit weird with no number 6

2. just clarifying, Suppose my 5x5 is solved with some(a lot of) pops= 3 blue center corners popped off. 2 blue center edges, 1 green white edge, Its still solved right?

3. Is there no limit now to minimum competitors required for a competition?(earlier it was 12 AFAIK, not sure)


----------



## cubernya (Jan 13, 2013)

Akash Rupela said:


> 1.Why was article 6 removed(i think awards and prizes)? The regs look a bit weird with no number 6
> 
> 2. just clarifying, Suppose my 5x5 is solved with some(a lot of) pops= 3 blue center corners popped off. 2 blue center edges, 1 green white edge, Its still solved right?
> 
> 3. Is there no limit now to minimum competitors required for a competition?(earlier it was 12 AFAIK, not sure)



1. Who knows...apparently the regs aren't renumbered when they are deleted, even though I think they should be (I know I would be willing to go through and renumber them)

2. No. The centers are acceptable, since it's the same colour, but the edge is not, since it has 2 positions.

3. It's recommended minimum of 12 in the guidelines, which it has been at for a few years now


----------



## Akash Rupela (Jan 13, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> 2. No. The centers are acceptable, since it's the same colour, but the edge is not, since it has 2 positions.


Well, An edge on 5x5(at least shengshou) can go inside in only 1 way(if we dont talk about the big middle edge than never pops)


theZcuber said:


> 3. It's recommended minimum of 12 in the guidelines, which it has been at for a few years now


Yes, this is what made me ask http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=BogorOpen2013


----------



## cubernya (Jan 13, 2013)

Akash Rupela said:


> Well, An edge on 5x5(at least shengshou) can go inside in only 1 way(if we dont talk about the big middle edge than never pops)
> 
> Yes, this is what made me ask http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=BogorOpen2013



The outer edge is called a wing  An edge (or midge) is the one in the middle.

But yeah it's not required, just a good recommendation


----------



## Vincents (Jan 14, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> 1. Who knows...apparently the regs aren't renumbered when they are deleted, even though I think they should be (I know I would be willing to go through and renumber them)
> 
> 2. No. The centers are acceptable, since it's the same colour, but the edge is not, since it has 2 positions.
> 
> 3. It's recommended minimum of 12 in the guidelines, which it has been at for a few years now



The Regulations are not renumbered because many individual regulations reference other regulations elsewhere. Also, it makes posts from different time periods easier to reference - if you're looking at an announcement from 2009, you shouldn't have to dig up a copy of the 2009 Regulations.


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 14, 2013)

Vincents said:


> The Regulations are not renumbered because many individual regulations reference other regulations elsewhere. Also, it makes posts from different time periods easier to reference - if you're looking at an announcement from 2009, you shouldn't have to dig up a copy of the 2009 Regulations.



Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that if any organisation changes their regulations significantly, then they do actually dig up regulations from previous dates to sort out retroactive issues. Would it really be that hard to store former versions of the regulations on the WCA site with their dates of activity? I mean, they would probably hardly be used but just in case of retroactive potential problems they would still be there.


----------



## cubernya (Jan 14, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that if any organisation changes their regulations significantly, then they do actually dig up regulations from previous dates to sort out retroactive issues. Would it really be that hard to store former versions of the regulations on the WCA site with their dates of activity? I mean, they would probably hardly be used but just in case of retroactive potential problems they would still be there.



That's what I was thinking. It's just one more click to get a former version.
Again, in terms of references to other regs, I'm more than willing to go through them all


----------



## DrKorbin (Jan 14, 2013)

Why do we have D1c? "During the *solve*, the competitor must use only his feet to touch the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF)."
I think it is absorbed by D1b: "During the *attempt*, the competitor must only use his feet and the surface. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF)."
Attempt = solving + inspection. If a competitor can use only feet during the attempt, why do we specify he can touch a puzzle with his feet during solving?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 14, 2013)

Mollerz said:


> Would it really be that hard to store former versions of the regulations on the WCA site with their dates of activity?



Isn't the "History" section exactly that?


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Mar 24, 2013)

*WCA Regulations 2013*

I want to point you all to this thread here about slice moves.

http://www.twistypuzzles.com/forum/...d&sid=e85500c2e31eaac241f11732ef07340f#unread

The poster, Konrad, asks some interesting questions alright.

Inner slice moves (f,b,r,l,u,d; M, S, E) are no longer defined in the Regulations 2013, but we have still "Multiple Outer Slice Moves"?

Weird indeed!

How should we write slice moves using WCA notation?


Does anyone know?


----------



## qqwref (Mar 24, 2013)

So the new 6x6x6/7x7x7 notation will include things like "3Rw"?

That's disgusting.


----------



## Mikel (Mar 24, 2013)

qqwref said:


> So the new 6x6x6/7x7x7 notation will include things like "3Rw"?
> 
> That's disgusting.



It's true. Here are images of 6x6 and 7x7 scrambles I generated using TNoodle, the official WCA scrambler. I do like the prefix notation without the "w" for 6x6 and 7x7 better. 



Spoiler

















Edit: I think they eliminated slice moves (M, S, and E) so that all moves in an FMC solution would count as 1 move.


----------



## stevecho816 (Mar 24, 2013)

What!!??


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 24, 2013)

"Multiple Outer Slice Moves" will be renamed to "Outer Block Moves": https://github.com/cubing/wca-documents/issues/9

Slice moves were taken out because they never had an official use, except to confuse competitors and graders during FMC. (Big cube slice moves definitely never had any use.)

As for big cube notation, I'm a big fan of SiGN (I'm the one who came up with the name!). But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.
I've used it to scramble cubes at a competition, and it didn't slow me down compared to any other big cube notation I've used.


----------



## Mikel (Mar 24, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> As for big cube notation, I'm a big fan of SiGN (I'm the one who came up with the name!). But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.
> I've used it to scramble cubes at a competition, and it didn't slow me down compared to any other big cube notation I've used.



I am against SiGN notation. I don't understand why anyone uses it. 

1) It isn't clear whether you should turn just the inner slice move (r,l,b,d,f,u) or turn both layers like you would an Rw,Lw,Dw,Fw,Uw

2) The use of the lowercase letters in SiGN is extremely ugly annoying to read.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 24, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> But after some discussion, we decided that the current official notation is the clearest, given how many people with different skill levels / cubing backgrounds have to use it.


That shouldn't matter. It's a new way of doing things, nobody has seen monstrosities like "3Rw2" before, so they'll have to learn it just like with every previous change in notation (not that that ever takes a long time) Why do we even need the w, anyway? Doesn't it just signify that the 3 you just looked at is indeed more than 1? You might as well use the "Rxw" (R extra wide) joke notation someone came up with years ago. I really can't see the benefits of this extra-long new way of writing moves.
also I still think TNoodle is a bad name and a bad idea


Mikel said:


> 1) It isn't clear whether you should turn just the inner slice move (r,l,b,d,f,u) or turn both layers like you would an Rw,Lw,Dw,Fw,Uw


An uppercase letter is always one layer, a lowercase letter is always multiple layers.


Mikel said:


> 2) The use of the lowercase letters in SiGN is extremely ugly annoying to read.


The use of lowercase letters in your post is extremely ugly and annoying to read. PLEASE TALK LIKE THIS FROM NOW ON. THANK YOU.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 25, 2013)

qqwref said:


> That shouldn't matter. It's a new way of doing things, nobody has seen monstrosities like "3Rw2" before, so they'll have to learn it just like with every previous change in notation (not that that ever takes a long time) Why do we even need the w, anyway? Doesn't it just signify that the 3 you just looked at is indeed more than 1? You might as well use the "Rxw" (R extra wide) joke notation someone came up with years ago. I really can't see the benefits of this extra-long new way of writing moves.
> also I still think TNoodle is a bad name and a bad idea.



Well, the most important part is that it doesn't contradict any widely used definition. In particular, it is compatible with SiGN.
Adding a w becomes a synonym for lowercase.

WCA notation has always been a bit of an unfortunate thing, but I think we're at a sane, stable point. Maybe it's more verbose now, but it's effective.
Nobody else has really complained about the notation, and I havent heard of any trouble scrambling with it.

(Also, it's TNoodle unless/until someone comes up with something else. I appreciate that you care, but we need something reliable and usable.)


----------



## antoineccantin (Jun 25, 2013)

Quick question:
Are you allowed to slightly mod the bottom of your clock to make it more square so that it sits level when you put it in "standing position"?


----------



## Michael Womack (Jun 25, 2013)

Since Fangshi is releaseing a Mini 44.6mm 3x3 that is not all black or all white like this one http://www.toysbuying.com/546cm-fangshiâ„¢-shuang-ren-funs-puzzle-3x3-magic-cube-p-486.html Would it still be competition legal?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 25, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Quick question:
> Are you allowed to slightly mod the bottom of your clock to make it more square so that it sits level when you put it in "standing position"?


I can't see any reason why this would be forbidden.



Michael Womack said:


> Since Fangshi is releaseing a Mini 44.6mm 3x3 that is not all black or all white like this one http://www.toysbuying.com/546cm-fangshiâ„¢-shuang-ren-funs-puzzle-3x3-magic-cube-p-486.html Would it still be competition legal?


Yes, since the coloring doesn't give you any extra information about which piece is which.


----------



## Yoheicube (Jul 9, 2013)

And I want to add oldest solver and youngest solver.
Haruo Aoki, he is 77 years old, enjoyed looking these data and these data gave his power.


----------



## okayama (Aug 2, 2013)

I have a question about corner pivoting.

In the world champs, 3x3 first round, 4th solve of Akihiro Ishida:

Corner pivoting occurred during the F2L, and he fixed it by twisting
the corner, without twisting apart the adjacent edge. However, the
judge said that "In order to fix the corner, you have to remove the
adjacent edge before twisting the corner. Twisting the corner
directly is not allowed. So this solve is DNF."

That was the slowest time among Akihiro's five solves, so he did
not mind it. But is that true? In order to fix the corner pivoting,
must the competitor remove the adjacent edge before twisting
the corner?


----------



## JasonK (Aug 2, 2013)

okayama said:


> I have a question about corner pivoting.
> 
> In the world champs, 3x3 first round, 4th solve of Akihiro Ishida:
> 
> ...



That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?

EDIT: 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.


----------



## okayama (Aug 2, 2013)

JasonK said:


> That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?
> 
> EDIT: 5b3c) If the puzzle is unsolvable, and can be made solvable by rotating a single corner piece, the competitor may correct the corner piece by twisting it in place without disassembling the puzzle.



Thank you so much. So the judge was wrong.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 2, 2013)

JasonK said:


> That definitely used to be the case, but I thought this was changed with the new regulations at the start of this year?


This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.


----------



## Michael Womack (Aug 2, 2013)

TMOY said:


> This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.



Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 2, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.



Because the cube wasn't solved?! That's also not was TMOY said. :fp


----------



## JasonK (Aug 2, 2013)

TMOY said:


> This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.


Lucky you. It was definitely being DNF'ed in some places, and there was discussion on here about it last year, so at the very least it was inconsistent between competitions/judges.



Michael Womack said:


> Back at USNATS2011 I was doing OH with my LunHui and stopped the timer with all solved except a corner was twisted. So that solve was a DNF.


We were talking about twisting the corner during the solve, not finishing the solve with a corner twisted. That is obviously a DNF.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 2, 2013)

At Worlds this year, I did an OH solve in which I had a twisted corner and I'm 100% sure I didn't twist any corners, so in must have been done during scrambling. Since it was on video, would it have been possible to get an other attempt if I was able to prove I didn't do it using the video evidence?

PS: I can upload the video if you'd like to see it.


----------



## Sa967St (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> At Worlds this year, I did an OH solve in which I had a twisted corner and I'm 100% sure I didn't twist any corners, so in must have been done during scrambling. Since it was on video, would it have been possible to get an other attempt if I was able to prove I didn't do it using the video evidence?
> 
> PS: I can upload the video if you'd like to see it.



The same thing happened to someone else at Worlds, except with megaminx. I had a discussion about that with Vincent and some other people. He said that you can't (or it's very hard to) prove that you didn't accidentally twist the corner during your solve, so shouldn't be given an extra attempt. Even if it was the scrambler's mistake, it shouldn't be an extra attempt unless there's evidence that the scrambler was purposely sabotaging your puzzle. The easy solution would be to not use a puzzle with easily twistable corners.

Note: I was originally arguing that the competitor should be given an extra attempt when it's *clear* that it's not his/her fault, but Vincent convinced me otherwise.

Edit: Since you can actually prove that the scramble you received was off by a corner twist, if you brought it up at the competition right after you solved, you might have been given an extra attempt.


----------



## Emily Wang (Aug 2, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> Edit: Since you can actually prove that the scramble you received was off by a corner twist, if you brought it up at the competition right after you solved, you might have been given an extra attempt.



wait how can you prove that the twist happened during scrambling and not solving?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 2, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> He said that you can't (or it's very hard to) prove that you didn't accidentally twist the corner during your solve



Was he thinking about watching the solve and looking for accidental twists? If you instead just check the start state (if that's visible on camera), it should be quite easy.



Sa967St said:


> Even if it was the scrambler's mistake, it shouldn't be an extra attempt unless there's evidence that the scrambler was purposely sabotaging your puzzle.



So if a mistake happens, it's totally not the fault of the person handling the puzzle? I shall remember that when we talk about removing +2 again.


----------



## Sa967St (Aug 2, 2013)

Emily Wang said:


> wait how can you prove that the twist happened during scrambling and not solving?


A careful reconstruction? Or checking if the scramble given matched the original scramble except for one corner.



Stefan said:


> Was he thinking about watching the solve and looking for accidental twists? If you instead just check the start state (if that's visible on camera), it should be quite easy.


The incident we were talking about wasn't caught on video.



Stefan said:


> So if a mistake happens, it's totally not the fault of the person handling the puzzle? I shall remember that when we talk about removing +2 again.


*Waits for Vincent to reply.*

I don't like this either, but how can you tell whose fault it is when the solver insists that he/she didn't twist a corner during the solve (when it's not on video)? What do you suggest?


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 2, 2013)

Round 2, solve 5, heat 12 (or whatever the fast one was).

Obviously it's too late to do anything about this particular case, but is that sufficient evidence to prove I didn't twist the corner?


----------



## cubernya (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> [video]
> 
> Round 2, solve 5, heat 12 (or whatever the fast one was).
> 
> Obviously it's too late to do anything about this particular case, but is that sufficient evidence to prove I didn't twist the corner?



I didn't see any corner twists in it, but I also didn't look at it slowed down.


----------



## janelle (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Round 2, solve 5, heat 12 (or whatever the fast one was).
> 
> Obviously it's too late to do anything about this particular case, but is that sufficient evidence to prove I didn't twist the corner?



3x3 one-handed Round 2 Group C

L2 U2 D F' U R' L' D' L' F L2 B2 R' F2 L D2 R2 F2 R (+ z2 y for the orientation under the cover)

You can tell right from the start that as the cover is lifted up that the UBR corner is twisted clockwise.

http://i.imgur.com/FFzAw5x.png


----------



## Stefan (Aug 2, 2013)

theZcuber's point is worthless.

janelle perfectly proved a misscramble, though not necessarily that the start state is invalid (in the sense of unsolvable by normal turns), but that can easily be seen even without knowing the supposed scramble by checking the white/yellow stickers of the corners (unless one claims that Antoine twisted a corner while inspecting the cube).


----------



## Dene (Aug 2, 2013)

TMOY said:


> This has never been the case, I've been twisting back corners since 2008 and nobody has ever DNF'd me for that. Rule 5b3c is simply a clarification.



The old regulations were very unclear about corner twists. Although not technically outlawed, we had:
5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, then he must only repair the defective pieces, and must not use pieces of other puzzles. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
5b3) If after repairing the puzzle, but still during the solve, the competitor notices that the puzzle is unsolvable, he may disassemble and assemble max. 3 pieces to make the puzzle solvable again.

These were taken from the 2008 version of the regulations (in essence the same as 2010).
Now 5b1 was clearly written in respect to pieces popping or caps falling off the puzzle. There is no guideline to indicate what should be done if a corner twists. Then 5b3 states that to repair a puzzle (if unsolvable) it must be disassembled and reassembled correctly. Naturally, twisting a corner is not disassembling the puzzle to repair it. I believe this is why I was originally taught by someone in California (I cannot remember who) that corner twisting was illegal, and therefore I enforced it as such. 

The new regulations make it clear that corners twists are fine.



Stefan said:


> So if a mistake happens, it's totally not the fault of the person handling the puzzle? I shall remember that when we talk about removing +2 again.



Darn you Sarah, stop making my life difficult... 

*damage control* The rule of thumb that I have always applied is this: If you choose to use a puzzle that is prone to defects such as corner twists or caps falling off etc. etc. then it is the fault of the competitor for using a vulnerable puzzle. Therefore, as Sarah said, unless there is clear proof that a scrambler has deliberately sabotaged a puzzle, it is the competitors responsibility to ensure their puzzle is solvable before starting the timer. If they can show it isn't solvable before starting the timer then it's simple enough to give them a new scramble. If they get into the solve and realise it isn't solvable, then they just have to deal with it. 

NOTE: This is the same logic I apply to the +2 rule in response to the "it turned by itself" argument; that is, if your cube is so loose that it can turn by itself upon being placed on the stackmat, then it's the competitors fault for using such a loose cube and then throwing it down to stop the timer. 


At the end of the day, people aren't perfect. Although scramblers are meant to ensure every cube has been scrambled perfectly, some things will still be overlooked, such as a twisted corner. These things could be avoided entirely if competitors were more careful about their choice of hardware. While the WCA is in it's current state, everyone has to work together to make things happen. Thus, if a competitor chooses to be difficult and use a cube which is horribly loose and vulnerable to defects, they have to accept responsibility for that choice, and the consequences that could arise from it. When staff start getting paid for their manual labour, then we'll start thinking about perfecting the systems


----------



## Stefan (Aug 2, 2013)

Dene said:


> 5b3) If after repairing the puzzle, but still during the solve, the competitor notices that the puzzle is unsolvable, he may disassemble and assemble max. 3 pieces to make the puzzle solvable again.
> [...]
> Then 5b3 states that to repair a puzzle (if unsolvable) it must be disassembled and reassembled correctly.



"may" is not the same as "must" (and 5b3 btw speaks about doing that *after* repairing, not *to* repair).



Dene said:


> Darn you Sarah, stop making my life difficult...



Tee hee hee 



Dene said:


> unless there is clear proof that a scrambler has deliberately sabotaged a puzzle



There's deliberate, and there's sloppy. Like you said, people aren't perfect. And corner twists can happen even with a good puzzle (happened with mine, and they're not at all horribly loose).


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 2, 2013)

Dene said:


> ...The rule of thumb that I have always applied is this: If you choose to use a puzzle that is prone to defects such as corner twists or caps falling off etc. etc. then it is the fault of the competitor for using a vulnerable puzzle. Therefore, as Sarah said, unless there is clear proof that a scrambler has deliberately sabotaged a puzzle, it is the competitors responsibility to ensure their puzzle is solvable before starting the timer. *If they can show it isn't solvable before starting the timer then it's simple enough to give them a new scramble.* If they get into the solve and realise it isn't solvable, then they just have to deal with it...



And how would a competitor see this within 15s while planning cross?


----------



## Pedro (Aug 2, 2013)

ThomasJE said:


> And how would a competitor see this within 15s while planning cross?



This. Not doable. I think the competitor should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course if it happens like 3 times in a row, they should be asked to use another cube.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2013)

If you practice a little bit, it does take very little time to check if corner orientation is good or not, but it is unfair to expect competitors use up any amount of their inspection time to do this.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

Assuming scramblers follow 4g as intended, there is no way that the competitor can blame a twisted corner during scrambling. I agree with Dene; it's the competitor's responsibility for having a vulnerable puzzle.

This said, is it feasible for scramblers to check every scrambled puzzle before sending it off to be solved, as far as time effectiveness/efficiency goes? With events like 2x2, 5x5-7x7, and 5BLD (and FMC ofc), puzzle "defects" like this are less bound to happen because of the physical capabilities of the puzzles. What then, if scramblers are told they are required to meticulously verify the scrambled state of every puzzle, despite the improbability of a defect like a corner twist from occurring? And then, what if the improbable through some twisted black magic manifests itself on a puzzle?


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2013)

> I agree with Dene; it's the competitor's responsibility for having a vulnerable puzzle.



So a competitor should be punished for using a puzzle that is tensioned to their liking if that preference happens to not be tight?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> 4g



Ooh, excellent point! Since _"the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly"_ and _"If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it "_, even if you blame a corner twist on the puzzle and thus the competitor, not verifying+correcting it is 100% the scrambler's fault who is explicitly obligated to do that.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> So a competitor should be punished for using a puzzle that is tensioned to their liking if that preference happens to not be tight?



The competitor must assume responsibility for using a puzzle that is vulnerable to puzzle defects, by current regulation. If the competitor prefers his cube to be loose, then he should accept all responsibility for the puzzle defects he incurs. But to be fair, the scrambler must follow 4g and verify the puzzle is correctly scrambled before sending it to a timer station.



Stefan said:


> Ooh, excellent point!



I never before thought I'd hear these words. I'm touched. -wipes tear-


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Assuming scramblers follow 4g as intended, there is no way that the competitor can blame a twisted corner during scrambling.


But we just proved that in my case it wasn't properly scrambled.



> What then, if scramblers are told they are required to meticulously verify the scrambled state of every puzzle, despite the improbability of a defect like a corner twist from occurring? And then, what if the improbable through some twisted black magic manifests itself on a puzzle?


Well, 99% of the time you get a twisted corner, you can heard or feel that a corner has been twisted, so it's the scrambler's responsibility to resolve the puzzle and re-scramble it, or make sure that every piece of the puzzle is in fact properly scrambled.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> But we just proved that in my case it wasn't properly scrambled.
> 
> 
> Well, 99% of the time you get a twisted corner, you can heard or feel that a corner has been twisted, so it's the scrambler's responsibility to resolve the puzzle and re-scramble it, or make sure that every piece of the puzzle is in fact *solved*.



Properly scrambled* perhaps?

You deserved another attempt simply because the scrambler didn't follow 4g. However, there's no way for the competitor to know if a cube is properly scrambled if it is indeed solvable, let alone checking that the puzzle is solvable during the inspection phase.

Again, actually following 4g, despite the supposable ineffective use of time, would eliminate errors in results.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> But to be fair, the scrambler must follow 4g and verify the puzzle is correctly scrambled before sending it to a timer station.



And if 4g were actually followed perfectly, then I would accept this as a completely reasonable argument. Of course it's the competitors fault if he twists a corner of his own puzzle while solving, and when that happens it might be a sign that the cube is actually too loose for that cuber's turning style. But, as an example, Antoine was punished because the *scrambler* twisted a corner and did not fix it. It is the *scrambler's* responsibility to fix that, not the competitor's responsibility to verify during inspection that the scrambler didn't screw up.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> And if 4g were actually followed perfectly, then I would accept this as a completely reasonable argument. Of course it's the competitors fault if he twists a corner of his own puzzle while solving, and when that happens it might be a sign that the cube is actually too loose for that cuber's turning style. But, as an example, Antoine was punished because the *scrambler* twisted a corner and did not fix it. It is the *scrambler's* responsibility to fix that, not the competitor's responsibility to verify during inspection that the scrambler didn't screw up.



^Agreed. Antoine deserved an extra attempt. Antoine also had the opportunity to dispute the judge's ruling to any delegate.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> ^Agreed. Antoine deserved an extra attempt. Antoine also had the opportunity to dispute the judge's ruling to any delegate.



I actually did. They denied me anything.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I actually did. They denied me anything.



Ouch. Then I'm out =x


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Ouch. Then I'm out =x



Well, I forgot to tell them about the video evidence, so it's my fault.


----------



## Bob (Aug 2, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Assuming scramblers follow 4g as intended, there is no way that the competitor can blame a twisted corner during scrambling. I agree with Dene; it's the competitor's responsibility for having a vulnerable puzzle.
> 
> This said, is it feasible for scramblers to check every scrambled puzzle before sending it off to be solved, as far as time effectiveness/efficiency goes? With events like 2x2, 5x5-7x7, and 5BLD (and FMC ofc), puzzle "defects" like this are less bound to happen because of the physical capabilities of the puzzles. What then, if scramblers are told they are required to meticulously verify the scrambled state of every puzzle, despite the improbability of a defect like a corner twist from occurring? And then, what if the improbable through some twisted black magic manifests itself on a puzzle?



This isn't really feasible. When scramblers made mistakes scrambling Megaminx I told them to ignore them. It is not worth delaying the competition any further.

However I told scramblers that I'd they suspect they twisted a corner to just scramble randomly and give it back to the competitor to be solved so we can rescramble.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 2, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Well, I forgot to tell them about the video evidence, so it's my fault.



The fact that you would actually need video evidence is an annoying part of the problem, though hard to address without opening up an easy way to cheat. The same thing happened in one of my 4x4 solves at Nats '12, but again, since there was no way for me to _prove_ to them that I didn't twist a corner during the solve, blame was put on me (and believe me, I _know_ when I twist a corner on my 4x4. I had done it numerous times in the months leading up to that comp, and I very clearly felt the twist happen every single time, but no such thing happened during my solve). I wish there were an easy way to do something about it, but apparently the existence of 4g isn't enough.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 2, 2013)

Bob said:


> This isn't really feasible. When scramblers made mistakes scrambling Megaminx I told them to ignore them. It is not worth delaying the competition any further.
> 
> However I told scramblers that I'd they suspect they twisted a corner to just scramble randomly and give it back to the competitor to be solved so we can rescramble.



Which has higher priority--time effectiveness or proper scrambling?

Perhaps having more scramblers would balance the regulatory deliberation 4g requires? Or should 4g be rethought?
I like the way 4g is written. It establishes responsibility and should help prevent cases like Antoine's.


----------



## Dene (Aug 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> "may" is not the same as "must" (and 5b3 btw speaks about doing that *after* repairing, not *to* repair).



Either you're playing dumb and hoping I won't notice, or you're over-thinking the regulation and have thus confused yourself... The word "may" is specifically in reference to the choice the competitor has of whether to repair the puzzle or not (i.e. fix it before stopping the timer, or taking a DNF). The word "may" is NOT in reference to the method of reparation (disassembling vs. not disassembling). 

As to your note in brackets: ok perhaps my use of the word "repair" was inappropriate there, as the word is being used as a technical term in the regulations. But I clearly meant "repair" in respect to bringing the puzzle back into a solvable state from an unsolvable state. Once again either you're playing dumb or you're overthinking it. You won't catch me out that easily though 



Stefan said:


> There's deliberate, and there's sloppy. Like you said, people aren't perfect. And corner twists can happen even with a good puzzle (happened with mine, and they're not at all horribly loose).



I agree that corner twists can happen to good, and even tight puzzles. My own Zhanchi can have corner twists, despite being fairly tight. However I am aware that this is a risk inherent in my choice of puzzle, and I accept that like a man.

I know it could be harsh, and in a perfect world we'd never have this problem due to scramblers checking every cube perfectly before submitting them for solving. However we live in a world with practical constraints in which oversights can occur. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is for now. 

Perhaps I should be more sympathetic in future, as a delegate, to allow people another chance if a corner twist shows itself at the end of a solve, but only if a trustworthy judge insists he didn't notice anything that might have indicated a corner twisting during solving. But there's a fine line, and if it gets crossed rules could get abused (in the same way the old POP rule could get abused). This is the tough part of a delegates role ^_^



Stefan said:


> Ooh, excellent point! Since _"the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly"_ and _"If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it "_, even if you blame a corner twist on the puzzle and thus the competitor, not verifying+correcting it is 100% the scrambler's fault who is explicitly obligated to do that.



I'm going to repeat myself a bit but I'm tired and I already wrote the above stuff before I got to this and I can't be bothered to integrate my response...

You talk about "fault", but deciding who is at fault is a tricky situation. Obviously, if there is evidence the corner was twisted by the scrambler (such as video/photo evidence) then the answer is simple. But otherwise it is impossible to know; judgement calls have to be made; not everyone is going to be happy with the decision... etc. etc. refer above for more stuff. 

(Look at that, I didn't really repeat myself after all  ).


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> Either you're playing dumb and hoping I won't notice, or you're over-thinking the regulation and have thus confused yourself... The word "may" is specifically in reference to the choice the competitor has of whether to repair the puzzle or not (i.e. fix it before stopping the timer, or taking a DNF). The word "may" is NOT in reference to the method of reparation (disassembling vs. not disassembling).



No, I'm actually serious and don't think I'm overthinking. Where did you get your "must" from then? I don't see anything like it in 5b3. And that's why I think Francois is right and corner twisting was already allowed in 2008.



Dene said:


> As to your note in brackets:



Yah, I knew what you meant, was just a minor side note, that's why I put it in brackets and with a "btw" 



Dene said:


> However we live in a world with practical constraints in which oversights can occur.



Twisting corners is probably the only accident that leaves puzzles unsolvable and might go unnoticed. Maybe we should make it a guideline for scramblers that at least the corners should be checked? At least in finals, at least at major competitions? For cubes, the eight stickers on opposite sides would suffice. And might be a better check than what scramblers are doing right now (cause with our notation, every turn involves corners).


----------



## Bob (Aug 3, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Which has higher priority--time effectiveness or proper scrambling?
> 
> Perhaps having more scramblers would balance the regulatory deliberation 4g requires? Or should 4g be rethought?
> I like the way 4g is written. It establishes responsibility and should help prevent cases like Antoine's.



In the case of Megaminx, an incorrect move or two still yields a randomly scrambled puzzle so I say time effectiveness has a higher priority. I agree more scramblers would have helped (and a stricter cutoff would have helped even more) but that was not an option at the time as our staff was already stretched to capacity.


----------



## Dene (Aug 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> No, I'm actually serious and don't think I'm overthinking. Where did you get your "must" from then? I don't see anything like it in 5b3. And that's why I think Francois is right and corner twisting was already allowed in 2008.



The regulations only provided one choice for bringing an unsolvable cube into a solvable state (disassembling and reassembling). We are then left with two ways to interpret the regulations to apply to this particular situation which isn't directly specified (corner twist):
1) Disassembling and reassembling is the only option available to deal with unsolvable cubes
2) Disassembling and reassembling is just one method which can be used to deal with unsolvable cubes, among others

I am of the opinion that the most appropriate interpretation is option 1. When I read the regulation it comes across to me as saying "either disassemble and reassemble to fix the issue, or take the DNF". I think the only way to come to option 2 is if you are deliberately trying to look for a loophole. The first rule of any "close-reading" like this is to be charitable to the author; i.e. looking for loopholes is not cool (although helpful to point out for the sake of amendment).




Stefan said:


> Twisting corners is probably the only accident that leaves puzzles unsolvable and might go unnoticed. Maybe we should make it a guideline for scramblers that at least the corners should be checked? At least in finals, at least at major competitions? For cubes, the eight stickers on opposite sides would suffice. And might be a better check than what scramblers are doing right now (cause with our notation, every turn involves corners).



I think this would be a very good idea, and I will make sure that at all future Australian and New Zealand competitions that every scrambler checks corners before submitting a cube for solving.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 3, 2013)

I actually think it would be a good idea to check the corners. Even the white/yellow (or U/D) color placement is enough, since you're only checking for twists. I think it would be good to add that into the regs (on the next change) or in the guidelines.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> We are then left with two ways to interpret the regulations to apply to this particular situation which isn't directly specified (corner twist):
> 1) Disassembling and reassembling is the only option available to deal with unsolvable cubes
> 2) Disassembling and reassembling is just one method which can be used to deal with unsolvable cubes, among others



Right, and I guess I'm more in camp 2. Or in camp 1 and I interpret the _"disassemble and assemble *max. 3* pieces"_ as including *zero pieces*. Anyway, how about we drop it cause we have a clear ruling now anyway?



theZcuber said:


> I actually think it would be a good idea to check the corners. Even the white/yellow (or U/D) color placement is enough, since you're only checking for twists.



Might not catch as many misscrambles, though, and might be harder to do than checking fixed eight sticker positions on two opposite sides. But that's just my gut feeling, didn't try it or think about it much.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 3, 2013)

Bob said:


> This isn't really feasible. When scramblers made mistakes scrambling Megaminx I told them to ignore them. It is not worth delaying the competition any further.


I know you did this and have done it in the past, but isn't it technically not only against the letter of the rules, but against even the spirit of the rules? After all, we have specific instructions that the delegate may, at his or her discretion, approve an improperly scrambled 6x6x6 or 7x7x7, but have not included megaminx in the list of such puzzles. If we wanted to allow misscrambled megaminxes, shouldn't we include them in the list of puzzles that may be misscrambled?

(This has always bothered me - I wonder if it shouldn't be added.)


----------



## Bob (Aug 3, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> I know you did this and have done it in the past, but isn't it technically not only against the letter of the rules, but against even the spirit of the rules? After all, we have specific instructions that the delegate may, at his or her discretion, approve an improperly scrambled 6x6x6 or 7x7x7, but have not included megaminx in the list of such puzzles. If we wanted to allow misscrambled megaminxes, shouldn't we include them in the list of puzzles that may be misscrambled?
> 
> (This has always bothered me - I wonder if it shouldn't be added.)



Yes it is. IMO Megaminx is the most difficult puzzle to verify the state and when that regulation was originally written, a picture wasn't provided for Megaminx to verify against. Does that regulation still exist?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 3, 2013)

Bob said:


> Yes it is. IMO Megaminx is the most difficult puzzle to verify the state and when that regulation was originally written, a picture wasn't provided for Megaminx to verify against. Does that regulation still exist?



It just says that 6x6 and 7x7 are the only you don't have to solve and re-scramble.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 3, 2013)

4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).

4g1) Exception: For the 6x6x6 Cube and the 7x7x7 Cube, it is not necessary to correct the scramble, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate.


----------



## Goosly (Aug 3, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> 4g) After scrambling a puzzle, the scrambler must verify that he has scrambled the puzzle correctly. If the puzzle state is wrong, he must correct it (e.g. by solving the puzzle and applying the scramble sequence again).



I wonder how many scramblers actually check the *full *state. Usually one would just check a certain pattern, like a row of yellows on the right side and a blue-green-blue pattern on top (random example). I doubt more than half of the scramblers would notice a cornertwist - unless of course, they felt something went wrong during the scrambling.


----------



## Rune (Aug 3, 2013)

"And I want to add oldest solver and youngest solver.
Haruo Aoki, he is 77 years old, enjoyed looking these data and these data gave his power"

You must understand that there are big risks involved here for men of Aoki´s age. Maybe he has children - or friends - who with the best intentions urge him to try harder in order to accomplish some results. If he follows the "advice", he may ultimately come under stress, which can lead to a heart attack with death as a consequence.
We must by all means avoid such an outcome and therefore the first step will be to stop the ranking list for the oldest solvers.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Aug 3, 2013)

Youngest then too.. child labor!


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 3, 2013)

Goosly said:


> I wonder how many scramblers actually check the *full *state. Usually one would just check a certain pattern, like a row of yellows on the right side and a blue-green-blue pattern on top (random example). I doubt more than half of the scramblers would notice a cornertwist - unless of course, they felt something went wrong during the scrambling.



Usually you can feel a corner twist. I checked it and I know others checked at my comp. Except one time. It was Sarah's fault.


----------



## Dene (Aug 3, 2013)

On the topic of megaminx, if I recall correctly the scrambler we use doesn't create a random state, nor even come close to covering all possible cases for a megaminx. Am I remembering correctly? If so, is it still the same? Because if it is, I don't see how it can be *meaningfully* enforced to have the exact scramble result as provided.


----------



## Bob (Aug 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> On the topic of megaminx, if I recall correctly the scrambler we use doesn't create a random state, nor even come close to covering all possible cases for a megaminx. Am I remembering correctly? If so, is it still the same? Because if it is, I don't see how it can be *meaningfully* enforced to have the exact scramble result as provided.



You are correct.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2013)

Dene said:


> Because if it is, I don't see how it can be *meaningfully* enforced to have the exact scramble result as provided.



I don't understand what you mean here.


----------



## Dene (Aug 4, 2013)

Yea sorry I was writing that on my phone while in transit and couldn't be bothered to be more detailed.

Before going into detail I'll quickly reinforce what we all know: we attempt to achieve fairness for all competitors by giving them the same scrambles as often as possible.

Now what I meant by "meaningful"...
Ok so the scramble is just bunch of turns with no particular scrambled state being aimed for, therefore any random turns would be sufficient to achieve what we need, i.e. a well scrambled puzzle. I believe we also do the same for 4x4 through to 7x7(?). The current regulations already put 6x6 and 7x7 to the side, and the reason for this I guess is because screwing them up is easy, and dealing with that is impractical. However in saying that, if the risk of a competitor gaining an unfair advantage was significantly increased by not using the same scramble, I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed, as fairness is the ultimate target (although we supposedly have to remain method neutral... that's a whole different can of worms I'm not going to open). With 4x4 and 5x5, the chance of fairness coming out of balance is much greater, as a different start could have a strong influence on the overall solve, and the practicability of avoiding this by re-scrambling one done improperly isn't an issue.

So coming back to what I meant by "meaningful"... I don't think there is much space for an "easy" scramble on megaminx. That is, I don't think a different scramble is going to result, in any obvious way, in a significant change in the final result. Couple this with the fact that the scramble itself is just a bunch of turns with no specified goal, and I think there is no "meaning" or "justification" for enforcing the exact scramble (because fairness is not significantly compromised, but practicability is).


I guess I'm not really remaining "method neutral" like I should be, although I haven't tried to and I don't really care


----------



## Stefan (Aug 4, 2013)

Ah, ok. So the real point was neither that we don't reach all possible cases (I really didn't see how that mattered) nor that we don't have a pre-picked goal state (we do have a goal state once we have the scramble, though), but that a mistake in megaminx scrambling doesn't matter much. Don't know how true that is, but if the mistake was skipping a scramble line or two, that could make the scramble easier. We do use a certain number of turns to reach "enough randomness", after all, so shouldn't use fewer.


----------



## Pedro (Aug 4, 2013)

I think Dene's point is not about fewer/more moves, but instead he's saying that if you check the megaminx and the picture, and they look different*, but you've applied the correct number of moves and confused a ++ with a --, it's not necessary to solve and rescramble, the same way we do for 6x6 and 7x7 now.
And I agree with him, with the obvious exception of a popped piece or something like that.

*This is already complicated to check, since people have all sorts of color schemes on megaminxes


----------



## Stefan (Aug 4, 2013)

Pedro said:


> I think Dene's point is not about fewer/more moves, but instead he's saying that if you check the megaminx and the picture, and they look different*, but you've applied the correct number of moves and confused a ++ with a --, it's not necessary to solve and rescramble, the same way we do for 6x6 and 7x7 now.



Yeah, the fewer moves is *my* point. The question is: How do you know you just confused a ++ with a -- and didn't skip a scramble line?


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 4, 2013)

I think that it's pretty shitty that you just ignore mis-scrambled megas, Bob. The regs are clear on it. You are supposed to set an example, but you are you are displaying complete contempt for the regulations you are supposed to be enforcing. What gives you the right to break regs so openly like that? ...over other delegates and other regs...


----------



## Bob (Aug 4, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> I think that it's pretty shitty that you just ignore mis-scrambled megas, Bob. The regs are clear on it. You are supposed to set an example, but you are you are displaying complete contempt for the regulations you are supposed to be enforcing. What gives you the right to break regs so openly like that? ...over other delegates and other regs...


Guess how much I care what you think.

We had to get through the Megaminx round at a pace of nearly 200 puzzles per hour. If I thought that the integrity of a solve was being compromised, I'd have it rescrambled, as was the case when judges twisted corners or popped pieces. But verifying a puzzle when there are so many variations in color scheme is tedious and impractical and therefore just a waste of time.


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 4, 2013)

Bob said:


> Guess how much I care what you think.
> 
> We had to get through the Megaminx round at a pace of nearly 200 puzzles per hour. If I thought that the integrity of a solve was being compromised, I'd have it rescrambled, as was the case when judges twisted corners or popped pieces. But verifying a puzzle when there are so many variations in color scheme is tedious and impractical and therefore just a waste of time.



probably as much as you care about the regs.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 4, 2013)

Which should be more important in competition--correct procedure, or time efficiency? The regs are rather time neutral off-stage, so it seems like 4g is fairly included, but we all know that 4g gets forgotten when it's meant to be applied because of time.


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 4, 2013)

it's not even about integrity of the solve. It's about fairness. And the shitty example a delegate is setting. Maybe i'll hand scramble some 3x3x3s next comp - i'll just make sure that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the solve.

And if theres such an issue with scrambling a mega properly. Maybe you should... hmmm, i don't know... change the regs?!


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 4, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> it's not even about integrity of the solve. It's about fairness. And the shitty example a delegate is setting. Maybe i'll hand scramble some 3x3x3s next comp - i'll just make sure that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the solve.
> 
> And if theres such an issue with scrambling a mega properly. Maybe you should... hmmm, i don't know... change the regs?!



Do you have a solution in mind? I think that if you had, people would take you more seriously.


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 4, 2013)

the solution is at the end of my last post. Change the regs.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 4, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> the solution is at the end of my last post. Change the regs.



How very specific.


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 4, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> How very specific.



whatever. You are a moron if you can't figure out the specific change. Where it says with the exception of 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 which can be approved by a delegate blah blah blah... just add the word mega into the list of puzzles which can be scrambled incorrectly.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 4, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I think that if you had, people would take you more seriously.



I take him quite seriously and agree with him. While I think Bob's solution was reasonable, it does violate the letter of the regulations. CubeRoots' _"maybe I'll hand scramble"_ example also isn't that far-fetched, given that exactly that has just recently actually happened. I mailed the WRC about the issue (megaminx and in general) with proposals, among them the obvious one of including megaminx in 4g1.


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 5, 2013)

Stefan said:


> I take him quite seriously and agree with him. While I think Bob's solution was reasonable, it does violate the letter of the regulations. CubeRoots' _"maybe I'll hand scramble"_ example also isn't that far-fetched, given that exactly that has just recently actually happened. I mailed the WRC about the issue (megaminx and in general) with proposals, among them the obvious one of including megaminx in 4g1.



I think his point is good, but the delivery is far from it. Adding mega to 4g1 would solve the megaminx problem, but it still doesn't solve the 4g application problem overall.


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 5, 2013)

Can a misscrambled megaminx lead to an advantage? I mean if one competitor has all white (for example) edges near the white layer, and other competitors have white edges near the opposite layer, then a competitor can win a couple of seconds (dunno how fast do they solve a cross though). Of course you can object that a solved centers' bar in misscrambled 6x6 and 7x7 can also save a couple of seconds, but at least a bar is more noticeable than an edge adjacent to a layer in mega (in my opinion).


----------



## Bob (Aug 5, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I think his point is good, but the delivery is far from it. Adding mega to 4g1 would solve the megaminx problem, but it still doesn't solve the 4g application problem overall.



Indeed I don't think anybody is going to verify the position of all 132 stickers on the minx.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 5, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> Can a misscrambled megaminx lead to an advantage? I mean if one competitor has all white (for example) edges near the white layer, and other competitors have white edges near the opposite layer, then a competitor can win a couple of seconds (dunno how fast do they solve a cross though). Of course you can object that a solved centers' bar in misscrambled 6x6 and 7x7 can also save a couple of seconds, but at least a bar is more noticeable than an edge adjacent to a layer in mega (in my opinion).



Deciding if a misscrambled mega is fair is tricky, though checking white edges deals with most people. I reckon it won't make a lot of difference and the regs should be changed for 'resonably scrambled' megaminxes to be allowed if misscrambling occurs, in the rare chance it is also spotted as a misscramble. I personally start on light blue with a weird colour scheme, so nobody is going to realistically check that. Also, at my last comp I'm pretty sure I got a corner twisted during scrambling twice on mega, and I didn't really care, partly because I hadn't practiced enough, and partly because it didn't waste a lot of time to fix.

I eagerly await puzzles designed to eliminate corner twists.


----------



## Bob (Aug 5, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Deciding if a misscrambled mega is fair is tricky, though checking white edges deals with most people. I reckon it won't make a lot of difference and the regs should be changed for 'resonably scrambled' megaminxes to be allowed if misscrambling occurs, in the rare chance it is also spotted as a misscramble. I personally start on light blue with a weird colour scheme, so nobody is going to realistically check that. Also, at my last comp I'm pretty sure I got a corner twisted during scrambling twice on mega, and I didn't really care, partly because I hadn't practiced enough, and partly because it didn't waste a lot of time to fix.
> 
> I eagerly await puzzles designed to eliminate corner twists.



This is part of my point. It is unrealistic to check all 132 stickers. It's even too big of a pain to verify all of the corners. In general my policy regarding corners is that if I think I may have twisted a corner, I either check all corners (on cubic puzzles, for example) or hand scramble the puzzle and give it the competitor to solve and then rescramble.

If you want a puzzle that doesn't allow corner twists, try a Rubik's brand 3x3. Twisting a corner on those is damn near impossible.


----------



## Dene (Aug 5, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> whatever. You are a moron if you can't figure out the specific change. Where it says with the exception of 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 which can be approved by a delegate blah blah blah... just add the word mega into the list of puzzles which can be scrambled incorrectly.



You're a moron if you think clear deductions can be made from vague statements. I suggest you start talking smart and stop trying to be such a smartass if you want to get anywhere around here. -1000 respect points for you.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 5, 2013)

Rune said:


> "And I want to add oldest solver and youngest solver.
> Haruo Aoki, he is 77 years old, enjoyed looking these data and these data gave his power"
> 
> You must understand that there are big risks involved here for men of Aoki´s age. Maybe he has children - or friends - who with the best intentions urge him to try harder in order to accomplish some results. If he follows the "advice", he may ultimately come under stress, which can lead to a heart attack with death as a consequence.
> We must by all means avoid such an outcome and therefore the first step will be to stop the ranking list for the oldest solvers.


If this was coming from anyone else I would think it was for the lulz. Now, I just don't know what to think. WCA, please add a "if you have a weak heart you shouldn't compete" clause in the rules



Stefan said:


> Ah, ok. So the real point was neither that we don't reach all possible cases (I really didn't see how that mattered) nor that we don't have a pre-picked goal state (we do have a goal state once we have the scramble, though), but that a mistake in megaminx scrambling doesn't matter much. Don't know how true that is, but if the mistake was skipping a scramble line or two, that could make the scramble easier. We do use a certain number of turns to reach "enough randomness", after all, so shouldn't use fewer.


I never understood why we only do ++ and -- and not + and - as well. I recall reading something like "++ and -- looked like they gave a better random scramble and are easier to perform" but nothing more than that.



Stefan said:


> I take him quite seriously and agree with him. While I think Bob's solution was reasonable, it does violate the letter of the regulations. CubeRoots' _"maybe I'll hand scramble"_ example also isn't that far-fetched, given that exactly that has just recently actually happened. I mailed the WRC about the issue (megaminx and in general) with proposals, among them the obvious one of including megaminx in 4g1.


I agree. This was bad behavior by Bob. Understandable given the pressure, but bad nonetheless. I also agree with 'just allow misscrambles on megaminx like we do on 6x6x6 and 7x7x7'.


----------



## CubeRoots (Aug 5, 2013)

lol, I don't need to get anywhere. 

And I do think clear deductions can be made... what other reg COULD be changed to fix my complaint? :s I can't be assed to write it out and so just hope people'll figure it out, cause it's pretty damn simple.

Besides, I was just responding to a sarcy dick-ish comment with my own dick-ish comment. He could have just asked what I meant.


----------



## ryanj92 (Aug 13, 2013)

Would it not be reasonable to include the 5x5 in this discussion? In terms of solving time and puzzle size, the megaminx is way more comparable to a 5x5 than the two larger cubes. So do we treat the 5x5 in the same way that has been discussed for the megaminx? Surely, if verifying 132 stickers is unreasonable then 119 is almost as unreasonable.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 13, 2013)

Sa967St said:


> The same thing happened to someone else at Worlds, except with megaminx.



If that competitor had not mentioned about the incident to the judge, he would have ended up 2nd place at megaminx.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 13, 2013)

ryanj92 said:


> Would it not be reasonable to include the 5x5 in this discussion? In terms of solving time and puzzle size, the megaminx is way more comparable to a 5x5 than the two larger cubes. So do we treat the 5x5 in the same way that has been discussed for the megaminx? Surely, if verifying 132 stickers is unreasonable then 119 is almost as unreasonable.


Where does your 119 come from ? There are 150 stickers on a 5^3.
Megaminx is harder to check properly because of the varous color schemes (and mainly because of the fact that the one which is becoming the most standard (the chinaminx/MF8/Dayan scheme) is not the one used by the official scrambler, but this could be easily fixed), at least on 5^3 almost everyone uses the same. But I agree with you that 5^3 should also be included.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 13, 2013)

The other thing that makes megaminx harder to check is that there are more possible colors on each face. With just 6 colors to check on a 5x5x5, it's easy to find and recognize patterns for each color on that face. With megaminx, there's often only one sticker of a given color on a given face - not much of a pattern to easily recognize. I scrambled for 6x6x6 and megaminx at WC, and it was MUCH easier to recognize patterns that indicated you probably had scrambled it correctly with 6x6x6 than it was to recognize them on megaminx. An exact check would certainly have taken very long on 6x6x6, but a quick check of a couple of faces to make sure the proper patterns were there only took a few seconds.


----------



## ryanj92 (Aug 13, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Where does your 119 come from ? There are 150 stickers on a 5^3..


Whoops, my tired brain did 25**5*-6, how embarrassing... I removed the centres because they are fixed throughout the course of a scramble (provided the scrambler makes no accidental triple layer turns), unlike the megaminx. Although arguably, checking the position of two centers fixes the rest so there are 10 fewer to check... 



Mike Hughey said:


> An exact check would certainly have taken very long on 6x6x6, but a quick check of a couple of faces to make sure the proper patterns were there only took a few seconds.


This is what I tend to do for megaminx too - I look for matching colours on pieces in the scramble on maybe two or three faces, and then check on my scrambled minx whether the same positions also have matching colours. Recognition is a little harder than cubic puzzles admittedly but certainly not difficult.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 13, 2013)

ryanj92 said:


> This is what I tend to do for megaminx too - I look for matching colours on pieces in the scramble on maybe two or three faces, and then check on my scrambled minx whether the same positions also have matching colours. Recognition is a little harder than cubic puzzles admittedly but certainly not difficult.



Yes, that works on megaminx too, but not very well. The fact is that there aren't many matching colors per face on megaminx vs. 6x6x6 or even 5x5x5. So if all you do is check for matching colors on megaminx, you're not doing nearly as good a job at checking as you are with a cube.


----------



## cubizh (Nov 21, 2013)

I need a clarification over the following regulation:

```
1c1) Reporting to the WCA Board regarding adherence to WCA Regulations during the competition, the overall course of the competition, and any incidents. The report must be submitted to the WCA Board within one week of the competition date.
```
I assume it's counting from the last day the competition takes place(?)
For competitions that run through 2 (or 3) days, the text is somewhat ambiguous, as "date" usually refers to a single day.
Thank you.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 21, 2013)

cubizh said:


> I need a clarification over the following regulation:
> 
> ```
> 1c1) Reporting to the WCA Board regarding adherence to WCA Regulations during the competition, the overall course of the competition, and any incidents. The report must be submitted to the WCA Board within one week of the competition date.
> ...



*Need*? Is this an urgent thing?

The last day would make the most sense. Is 9i2 suggestive enough?

In practice, it doesn't really matter. We can fix it for 2014, though.


----------



## DrKorbin (Nov 21, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> We can fix it for 2014, though.



What are the changes planned? Will you make a proposal thread or something?


----------



## cubizh (Nov 21, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> *Need*? Is this an urgent thing?


No, absolutely not, I was just working/nitpicking on the translation.
I have found some other very minor possible issues which I will convey through the appropriate channels.
Thank you for your response.


----------



## Rune (Nov 22, 2013)

Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post 

"And I want to add oldest solver and youngest solver.
Haruo Aoki, he is 77 years old, enjoyed looking these data and these data gave his power"

You must understand that there are big risks involved here for men of Aoki´s age. Maybe he has children - or friends - who with the best intentions urge him to try harder in order to accomplish some results. If he follows the "advice", he may ultimately come under stress, which can lead to a heart attack with death as a consequence.
We must by all means avoid such an outcome and therefore the first step will be to stop the ranking list for the oldest solvers.
If this was coming from anyone else I would think it was for the lulz. Now, I just don't know what to think. WCA, please add a "if you have a weak heart you shouldn't compete" clause in the rules

Was my sarcasm too subtle?


----------

