# Dayan Lunhui is not competition legal?



## Calvin Laza (Apr 30, 2011)

I believe the Dayan Lunhui is not competition legal because the design allows for new moves to be now possible, in violation of WCA regulation *3h)*:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/

Dayan modified Rubik's cube design to make the corners be freely rotated without any effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7RrARLWsN4

I really don't see any advantage in doing the new move and introducing parity cases into the world of 3x3x3 cubing, but I think WCA rules and regulations are very strict.


----------



## Shamankian (Apr 30, 2011)

Awesome, my GuHong and ZhanChi aren't legal either then


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 30, 2011)

You can do this on most cubes. 
It doesnt count as a new move.
It's still competition Legal.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 30, 2011)

You aren't allowed to purposely rotate one corner, it's an automatic DNF. If it happens by accident, it's fine as long as you fix it by taking the corner and an adjacent edge out then put them back in with the corner rotated properly.


----------



## Drake (Apr 30, 2011)

You can rotate an corner on a lot of cube, you just need to put it lose...


----------



## uberCuber (Apr 30, 2011)

I can do this on my old crappy F-II


----------



## Ethan_Dale (Apr 30, 2011)

If this cube is illegal then almost all competitors cubes are illegal

I do wonder though if you have a pop and you put a corner in wrong are you allowed to fix your parity in this manner or must you pull the peice out?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 30, 2011)

You have to remove the piece


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 30, 2011)

What corner piece on a speedcube CAN'T be twisted in place?


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Apr 30, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> What corner piece on a speedcube CAN'T be twisted in place?


 
Mf8 Legend.


----------



## Calvin Laza (Apr 30, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> What corner piece on a speedcube CAN'T be twisted in place?


 
With my ultimate guhong and my nonmodified guhong POM, as well as my 2 lingyuns (nonmodified) I can't do this move unless I put some muscle into it and force it. With a Lunhui twisting corners in place is smooth and easy. Tension is set to medium on all.


----------



## Drake (Apr 30, 2011)

Yeah but even if it's smooth an easy i don't think you can do it fast during a solve to that no 1 see.


----------



## Calvin Laza (Apr 30, 2011)

Drake said:


> Yeah but even if it's smooth an easy i don't think you can do it fast during a solve to that no 1 see.


 
And I wouldn't want to because I would end up with a parity error in the end.


----------



## MichaelP. (Apr 30, 2011)

Calvin Laza said:


> With my ultimate guhong and my nonmodified guhong POM, as well as my 2 lingyuns (nonmodified) I can't do this move unless I put some muscle into it and force it. With a Lunhui twisting corners in place is smooth and easy. Tension is set to medium on all.


 
If it's the case that making something easier makes it a move then all new models that make normal turns more easily would be illegal in comparison to a Rubik's brand although what cube you would base the system off of and how consistant that cube is is quite variable. Think before posting.


----------



## AvidCuber (Apr 30, 2011)

Calvin Laza said:


> And I wouldn't want to because I would end up with a parity error in the end.


 Which you can fix legally.


----------



## Calvin Laza (Apr 30, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> If it's the case that making something easier makes it a move then all new models that make normal turns more easily would be illegal in comparison to a Rubik's brand although what cube you would base the system off of and how consistant that cube is is quite variable. Think before posting.


 
I don't see why you needed to insult me with the thinking remark. 

When the corners on old models stop short of twisting in place, I stop and don't force them to; that's the limit of their movement. When the corners on the Lunhui model start to seamlessly twist in place like they have their own axis, there is no longer a limit of movement, so I brought it up to the attention of the forums.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 30, 2011)

silly goose you :3


----------



## antoineccantin (May 1, 2011)

It would probably be very bad if you would get a cornertwist on a Lunhui in competition because it is quite hard to pop an edge out though...


----------



## RaresB (May 1, 2011)

antoineccantin said:


> It would probably be very bad if you would get a cornertwist on a Lunhui in competition because it is quite hard to pop an edge out though...


 
Its not really hard to pop an edge, its hard to pop an edge without exploding the cube


----------



## EricReese (May 1, 2011)

No..I was just in a competition with my Lunhui, and it was allowed <_<


----------



## RTh (May 1, 2011)

My Guhong's corners twist some times while doing F2L, I usually fix them after solving.


----------



## sa11297 (May 1, 2011)

EricReese said:


> No..I was just in a competition with my Lunhui, and it was allowed <_<


 
thank you now hopefully this stupid thread will die down


----------



## Mewrius (May 1, 2011)

I guess my lovely storebought isn't competition legal then =(


----------



## Jungleterrain (May 1, 2011)

Why would anyone want to twist a corner? You'd end up with an unsolvable cube. Just set your tensions tighter


----------



## ElectricDoodie (May 1, 2011)

Calvin Laza said:


> I brought it up to the attention of the forums.


 
So, you brought something to the attention of the forums, that is actually very normal, and happens on many 3x3 cubes.
I guess I should go make a thread bringing to the attention of the forums, that my A5 pops.


----------



## Carrot (May 1, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> So, you brought something to the attention of the forums, that is actually very normal, and happens on many 3x3 cubes.
> I guess I should go make a thread bringing to the attention of the forums, that my A5 pops.


 
Then I wil make a thread bringing to the attention of the forum, that my stackmat timer can't go lower than 0.02


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> If it happens by accident, it's fine as long as you fix it by taking the corner and an adjacent edge out then put them back in with the corner rotated properly.


 wtf ??? That's just silly. If a corner twists by accident, just twist it back to fix the defect. I've done it several times and I didn't get DNFs for that.


----------



## caseyd (May 1, 2011)

yeah and with the lunhui you cant take edges out without taking a corner out first


----------



## masterofthebass (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> wtf ??? That's just silly. If a corner twists by accident, just twist it back to fix the defect. I've done it several times and I didn't get DNFs for that.


 
I've been DNF'd a few times for this. Too bad the WCA doesn't like to talk about the regulations anymore.


----------



## amostay2004 (May 1, 2011)

Yea if you follow the rules strictly, you can't just twist a corner. However, personally if I'm judging I would just let it slide ;P


----------



## freshcuber (May 1, 2011)

I think most judges are pretty lenient on things like that. Especially if the competitor doesn't have a good chance at winning or getting a WR.


----------



## TheJCube (May 1, 2011)

*sarcastically*
"WHAT! Does this mean Feliks doesn't get the 3x3 world record?!?!?"
happy days, happy days!


----------



## MrIndianTeen (May 1, 2011)

Dang'it! *throws guhong in the trash*


But seriously LOL


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

freshcuber said:


> I think most judges are pretty lenient on things like that. Especially if the competitor doesn't have a good chance at winning or getting a WR.


 
f you have to fix a puzzle defect on a 3^3 you don't have a great chance of getting a WR anyway. An intelligent judge won't add insult to injury by DNFing the solve for such a stupid reason.


----------



## Stefan (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> f you have to fix a puzzle defect on a 3^3 you don't have a great chance of getting a WR anyway. An intelligent judge won't *add insult to injury* by DNFing the solve for such a stupid reason.


 
You "injured" yourself, and the "insult" is a regulation you accepted beforehand.


----------



## Nestor (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> wtf ??? That's just silly. If a corner twists by accident, just twist it back to fix the defect. I've done it several times and I didn't get DNFs for that.


 
I was just wondering this.. why take back all pieces when a simple, EVIDENT twist will fix the problem? Is not like you can twist a corner without a judge not noticing.


----------



## Shamankian (May 1, 2011)

I suppose it would give "an unfair advantage" to people using cubes that are easier to corner twist.


----------



## Sa967St (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> wtf ??? That's just silly. If a corner twists by accident, just twist it back to fix the defect. I've done it several times and I didn't get DNFs for that.


I don't agree with that. If you accidentally/unintentionally twist a LL corner during pre-LL and don't know which corner it was, you could use later it to your advantage (force an easier OLL etc.) without the judge noticing. You could still do that (not really cheating in most cases), but by having to take it out and put it in properly, more time is added to make up for that advantage.

edit: it doesn't have to be an LL corner, it can be any unsolved corner.


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

Stefan said:


> You "injured" yourself, and the "insult" is a regulation you accepted beforehand.


 
As it was pointed out before, by the same regulations all my solves should be DNFs because I used an illegal cube (the possibility of twisting a corner falls under the "more moves are possible" rule). If such a cube is allowed, then twisting corners to repair it should be allowed too, just for the sake of consistency.


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> I don't agree with that. If you accidentally/unintentionally twist a LL corner during pre-LL, you could use later it to your advantage (force an easier OLL etc.) without the judge noticing. .



So what ? Getting lucky is not a crime.


----------



## Sa967St (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> So what ? Getting lucky is not a crime.


Corners aren't supposed to be able to twist on their own. You think that accidentally having a corner twist then being able using it to your advantage makes it lucky?


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (May 1, 2011)

Dear dear. And I just had my Maru 4x4 as my new main. Oh well... </sarcastic>


----------



## Shamankian (May 1, 2011)

As for the "new moves possible" you could say that a pop is a new move. If it's a bit pop you could (technically) swap to edges which is definately a "move" that cubes aren't supposed to be able to do. So we can't use cubes that can (possibly) pop?


----------



## Sa967St (May 1, 2011)

Shamankian said:


> As for the "new moves possible" you could say that a pop is a new move. If it's a bit pop you could (technically) swap to edges which is definately a "move" that cubes aren't supposed to be able to do. So we can't use cubes that can (possibly) pop?


No, it just means that if you have a poppy cube, you have to add on the time it takes to fix a pop when you solve with a pop.

Also: 
5b2) During the repairing of the puzzle, the competitor must not intentionally make the position easier to solve than before the defect. Penalty: disqualification of the solve

It's not cheating if you know which corner twisted/edge popped, but if you are aware of it then that's the only piece you should fix.


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> Corners aren't supposed to be able to twist on their own. You think that accidentally having a corner twist then being able using it to your advantage makes it lucky?


 
As lng as the corner twist is purely accidental, yes. If it was intentional then it would deserve a DNF.


----------



## Sa967St (May 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> As long as the corner twist is purely accidental, yes. If it was intentional then it would deserve a DNF.


Couldn't that cause bad sportsmanship though? One could use a cube that he knows sometimes does corner twists on its own and hope that he'll get "lucky" so he can abuse the rules.

edit: My point is to keep the corner twisting defect rules in place (having to take it out and put in properly instead of being able to simply twist it back in place).


----------



## TMOY (May 1, 2011)

Sa967St said:


> Couldn't that cause bad sportsmanship though? One could use a cube that he knows sometimes does corner twists on its own and hope that he'll get "lucky" so he can abuse the rules.



Yeah you would get a lucky case on one twist out of say 10 and just waste time with it on all other times it happens. What a great advantage.



> edit: My point is to keep the corner twisting defect rules in place (having to take it out and put in properly instead of being able to simply twist it back in place).


 
And mine is to make people understand that it's just a stupid way of interpreting the rules.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (May 2, 2011)

TMOY said:


> As it was pointed out before, by the same regulations all my solves should be DNFs because I used an illegal cube (the possibility of twisting a corner falls under the "more moves are possible" rule).


 
:fp

How are people this dense?


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> How are people this dense?



What do you mean?



Sa967St said:


> My point is to keep the corner twisting defect rules in place (having to take it out and put in properly instead of being able to simply twist it back in place).



Which rules are that? I actually can't find it. Closest one I see is this, and that's a "may" and *upper* limit rather than "must" and lower limit:

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. 4 pieces to make the puzzle solvable again.


----------



## Vinny (May 2, 2011)

Shamankian said:


> I suppose it would give "an unfair advantage" to people using cubes that are easier to corner twist.


 
Well if that's true, we should all have to use storeboughts because AVs and FIIs and GuHongs are better.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2011)

I agree with Dan that it's sad that we don't seem to be making any progress on improving the regulations anymore. It seems to me that this is one place where the regulations are inadequate.

As I see it, you can view twisting a corner as one of three things:
1. It is a standard move. It's pretty obvious that most people don't think of it that way, but theoretically, I guess it's a possibility, since most cubes allow it. I certainly don't like this answer.
2. It is a "new move" according to rule 3h. If this is the case, then most cubes violate the rules, and technically most solves should be invalidated. I don't like this answer either.
3. It is a puzzle defect. Imagine that the piece popped and then unpopped. It didn't come completely out of the puzzle, but in a way you could consider it to have popped. If this is the case, one could argue that twisting the corner constitutes popping and repairing it. I admit I'm not crazy about this answer either, but I guess I like it better than the other two.

So I guess my inclination is to say that the rules might be best interpreted to allow twisting a corner as a legal puzzle defect repair. Any comments or arguments?

I'm genuinely interested - if this ever comes up in a competition, I want to know what the right ruling would be.


----------



## JLarsen (May 2, 2011)

If someone was to rotate a corner to force an easier OLL, wouldn't they have to rotate more than one corner to actually do anything useful since having one corner twisted is an impossible position to begin with? Even if they did twist say 2 or more corners, how much benefit could it possibly have?


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2011)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> If someone was to rotate a corner to force an easier OLL, wouldn't they have to rotate more than one corner to actually do anything useful since having one corner twisted is an impossible position to begin with? Even if they did twist say 2 or more corners, how much benefit could it possibly have?


 
I think one time I had an entire LL that was just two corners twisted. In that case, it might be faster to twist the two corners by force than to perform an alg to twist them. Admittedly an outlandishly rare case, but it's possible.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 2, 2011)

Another option:
in case of a 'non-possible' corner twist (one corner or two corners in the same direction) the cube could be considered unambiguously solved.

Question is then: do you allow stopping the timer with the corner still twisted of should the defect be fixed before stopping the timer?
I think I'm in favor of the first.
The latter leaves the possibility that a competitor quickly twists two remaining corners as described by Mike.

If you allow the timer to be stopped you are either 'unambiguously solved' or you have a DNF in case of a solvable two corner twist.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Another option:
> in case of a 'non-possible' corner twist (one corner or two corners in the same direction) the cube could be considered unambiguously solved.



An interesting suggestion, but do the words "non-functional parts" exclude this possibility? I admit I'm not sure, one way or the other. I guess I also consider the word "functional" here ambiguous.


> 5b5) If, after the solve, *non functional parts* of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)



In any event, it feels inappropriate because then you could have the case I mentioned where the entire LL is two corners twisted - you could twist one corner in place to be correct and then stop the timer.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 2, 2011)

*Current* regulations indeed exclude this option, that is why I did not reference to 5b5 

Your LL scenario is yet another resaon why it would be better to just stop the time *without* fixing.

Proposal In short: no corner twists allowed, puzzle is considered solved when there is an unsolvable corner situation left.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 2, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> *Current* regulations indeed exclude this option, that is why I did not reference to 5b5
> 
> Your LL scenario is yet another resaon why it would be better to just stop the time *without* fixing.
> 
> Proposal In short: no corner twists allowed, puzzle is considered solved when there is an unsolvable corner situation left.


 
In order to require "no corner twists allowed", you mean that the puzzle cannot be capable of a corner twist? Otherwise the judge is responsible for watching for surreptitious corner twists, which is a pretty challenging requirement for judges. Keep in mind that judges are sometimes volunteer parents of competitors at small competitions - my opinion (for what it's worth) is that it's asking too much of judges.

And in general, I'm somewhat interested in proposals for how to fix the rules, but I guess I'm a little more interested in what the community as a whole thinks is the correct way to interpret the current rules. I want to know how to handle it if it comes up at the next competition.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 2, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Proposal In short: no corner twists allowed, puzzle is considered solved when there is an unsolvable corner situation left.


 
Uhhhhh no. Aside from the whole issue of the puzzle NOT BEING SOLVED, it can always be reduced to one twisted corner.



Mike Hughey said:


> And in general, I'm somewhat interested in proposals for how to fix the rules, but I guess I'm a little more interested in what the community as a whole thinks is the correct way to interpret the current rules. I want to know how to handle it if it comes up at the next competition.


 
Define corner twists as puzzle defects, and clarify that you are allowed to fix them without removing any edges. Easy.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 2, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> In order to require "no corner twists allowed", you mean that the puzzle cannot be capable of a corner twist?.


No, I mean the competitor is not allowed to twist corners in place.

Regadring judging: I think people should know enough about cubing and pay enough attention to be able to recognize something like this.

Afterall LL with 2 or more corners twisted in place do happen so corner twist cheats could already be reality.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 3, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Define corner twists as puzzle defects, and clarify that you are allowed to fix them without removing any edges. Easy.


I think this is my favorite approach to dealing with it under the current rules. If we don't like this as an interpretation of the rules, I think we need to change the rules.



Cubenovice said:


> Regadring judging: I think people should know enough about cubing and pay enough attention to be able to recognize something like this.


Operative word here is "should". Most judges have probably had moments where they're not watching the solver. (I admit that I too am unfortunately guilty of this sometimes.)



Cubenovice said:


> Afterall LL with 2 or more corners twisted in place do happen so corner twist cheats could already be reality.


Unfortunately, this is true. I thought of this after my last post - it is already theoretically a problem. If we go with David's interpretation of the rules, the problem is solved, and the only negative is some DNFs (such as Dan's) that perhaps shouldn't have been DNFs.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 3, 2011)

Putting the stuff above together, something like this could be added to the current regulations:

-	In a cube that is unamb. solved apart from one corner twisted in place, the twisted corner can be considered a puzzle defect.
-	This corner may be twisted (in place) at the end of the solve, before stopping the timer
-	You may not twist more than one corner 

3rd line because of:
-	Two “impossible” corner twists can be reduced to one “impossible” twist (2 CCW twistes -> Sune -> 1 CW twist)
-	Allowing two corner fixes may lead to people “fixing” regular LL cases (1 CCW twist + 1 CW twist -> “fix- cheat” -> 2 move last layer!)


EDIT:
Reading this I think I'll stick with my initial idea:
When it is limited to one corner only we might as well skip "fixing it" and treat it similar to a center cap that has fallen off.
Just leave it twisted because it is unamb... solved 
Unamb.... Solved


----------

