# Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?



## WitEden (Jul 17, 2010)

I want to ask everybody,Can the color version of combined DaYan Guhong participate in WCA competition? ? ?

Color Guhong is used 6 color (white,yellow,blue,green,red,orange) to combine, it is a stickerless cube,very beautiful!

I think it can participate in WCA competition!





















Color DaYan GuHong on WitEden:http://www.witeden.com/goods.php?id=161


----------



## masterofthebass (Jul 17, 2010)

its not painted. I'm sure it would be allowed, but according to the regulations it isn't legal. That is the fault of the regulations though.


----------



## nck (Jul 17, 2010)

No it can't


----------



## Carrot (Jul 17, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> its not painted. I'm sure it would be allowed, but according to the regulations it isn't legal. That is the fault of the regulations though.



so if I buy this I would be allowed to use it?


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 17, 2010)

If you look carefully at the first image it is possible to work out the colours on the back faces, underneath the white cubies. This happens because the plastic is slightly translucent, allowing the colour from the rear faces to pass through the white plastic. For example I can 'see' that the colour opposite blue is green, and that opposite orange is orange/red.

The effect isn't as obvious on the scrambled version because the majority of light is coming from behind the viewer. If the light comes from behind the cube however, the effect is much more obvious.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 17, 2010)

Odder said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > its not painted. I'm sure it would be allowed, but according to the regulations it isn't legal. That is the fault of the regulations though.
> ...


Depends on what Delegate is there, probably.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Jul 17, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > masterofthebass said:
> ...



bob would, tyson wont


----------



## Carrot (Jul 17, 2010)

ehhmmm..

for me it looks like plastic tiles, so I don't actually see what's wrong with it? but I might be wrong >.<'


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 17, 2010)

Odder said:


> ehhmmm..
> 
> for me it looks like plastic tiles, so I don't actually see what's wrong with it? but I might be wrong >.<'



look closer.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jul 17, 2010)

Cride: I can't really see it but a slight hue along the edge. I wouldn't really call it an advantage.

I think if this is really an issue we should bring this up on the WCA website and let the Delegates discuss the issue. It might require some hands on with the cubes though so it might not be allowed by nationals but maybe in the future?


Witeden: I don't feel like registering an account just to find the shipping price (I was doing it through the checkout method), so how much is shipping?


----------



## Алексей (Jul 17, 2010)

WitEden said:


> I want to ask everybody,Can the color version of combined DaYan Guhong participate in WCA competition? ? ?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



:fp


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 17, 2010)

Whoa that's a cool lookin' cube!


----------



## Meep (Jul 17, 2010)

Do you seriously _want_ to use that in a competition? Whether it's legal or not.


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Jul 17, 2010)

Алексей said:


> WitEden said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ask everybody,Can the color version of combined DaYan Guhong participate in WCA competition? ? ?
> ...



Ok. I don't see the big deal. Unless you're looking at a normal cube from exactly 90 degrees, you can see either the color on the right or left. If you see the color on the right then the color on the left is obvious. 

With the guhong you can see the color when the cube is directly at 90 degrees because of how the cube is put together but this is only when a layer is turned. So yes, there is a slight advantage but no one holds the cube at exactly 90 degrees for more then a few milliseconds. 

That wasn't really all that clear, probably. But yea.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 17, 2010)

Meep said:


> Do you seriously _want_ to use that in a competition? Whether it's legal or not.



yes


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jul 17, 2010)

That cube is so illegal. I can't believe I didn't make the connection earlier when I realized that it's 3 parts for each corner + 2 parts for an edge. And you can't see that "left" face "normally" but you can here due to the way the cubies are put together. I'm not sure how much of an advantage that would hold in speedcubing, especially the fast cubers since their TPS is so high.

I honestly don't see this being allowed in competition though, since that is an obvious amount visible.


----------



## Meep (Jul 17, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Meep said:
> 
> 
> > Do you seriously _want_ to use that in a competition? Whether it's legal or not.
> ...



Am I the only one who thinks the orange and red are way too close ):


----------



## IamWEB (Jul 17, 2010)

Meep said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Meep said:
> ...



yes


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jul 17, 2010)

Meep said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the orange and red are way too close ):



That might be the camera's fault, some cameras don't take good pictures of orange. One camera I had would make orange look like yellow or red, depending on the shade of orange and the lighting.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't read the regulations much, so please, no ass-talking please :3

Would this color version of the GuHong effect these regulations?

3h)	No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

3j)	Puzzles must be clean and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 17, 2010)

Meep said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Meep said:
> ...




At first I was like "idk maybe I'd use it it could be cool"

Then I was like "oshi ya nowai"


----------



## Carrot (Jul 17, 2010)

I want it to be legal =D just because it's cool =D


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 17, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> I don't read the regulations much, so please, no ass-talking please :3
> 
> Would this color version of the GuHong effect these regulations?
> 
> ...



This could allow you to see corner or edge colors on the back side.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 17, 2010)

It looks so cool! I wish I had one. I think the fact you can do half a U turn and see the half colored edges.

But if you look at mefferts tiles, you can see the back side probably even easier than this one and that's legal


----------



## Dene (Jul 18, 2010)

As a delegate, I would say "no" if someone asked me at a competition.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 18, 2010)

Not as a delegate, but as a competition organizer I would say no to this. The 45 degree turn problem is really bad =.=


----------



## blakedacuber (Jul 18, 2010)

nopes


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jul 18, 2010)

I would put it in the same category as transparent cubes. At full speed there might not be much of an advantage, but the possibility is there.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 18, 2010)

Regardless of if it is or not, I think it should be legal.


----------



## shelley (Jul 18, 2010)

Алексей said:


>



This is all we need to see. No, this isn't legal.


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

shelley said:


> Алексей said:
> 
> 
> > [picture]
> ...



WAT!?? I'm gonna go do harikiri now :fp


----------



## r_517 (Jul 18, 2010)

Odder said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Алексей said:
> ...



u can clearly see the back (blue)  so this should be illegal


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

r_517 said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



fixed


----------



## irontwig (Jul 18, 2010)

Shouldn't/Wouldn't loose cubes be illegal to, since more moves are possible (corner twist)?


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Shouldn't/Wouldn't loose cubes be illegal to, since more moves are possible (corner twist)?



I GO FOR THIS!!!

Now legalize this cube!! =D

EDIT: the danish delegate won't let me use my russian pyraminx due to slice turns O____O


----------



## maggot (Jul 18, 2010)

I think with practicing on this cube, my speed would improve vastly.. lookahead is 90% of you having succesful f2l, and most likely blockbuilding method too. To be able to see the back color with a 45 or less degree turn is a lot easier than holding the cube at awkward angle, or even more worse to turn cube over to see back color, is definate advantage... not to say that you could be significantly fast because of this... sticker/tile is only acceptable and even they have regulation on that... it should stay strict so that we can keep speedcube consistant from player to player


----------



## irontwig (Jul 18, 2010)

maggot said:


> it should stay strict so that we can keep speedcube consistant from player to player



Huh? What do you mean, it's not like everybody uses the same cube.


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> maggot said:
> 
> 
> > it should stay strict so that we can keep speedcube consistant from player to player
> ...



irontwig, let's make a team and force it to be legal!!


----------



## nck (Jul 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Shouldn't/Wouldn't loose cubes be illegal to, since more moves are possible (corner twist)?



I think that's pretty irrelevant. 
Valid argument. However, I would doubt that anyone would use corner twisting to gain an advantage.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 18, 2010)

nck said:


> irontwig said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't/Wouldn't loose cubes be illegal to, since more moves are possible (corner twist)?
> ...



Yeah, but what's the point of having rules if they aren't being followed? Loose cubes and puzzles with thick tiles (having more pieces visible) break the WCA regulations but are still allowed.


----------



## Edward (Jul 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> nck said:
> 
> 
> > irontwig said:
> ...



There's a limit on how thick tiles can be, and I'm sure If a jugde caught you corner twisting on purpose, he/she probably would DNF you right there.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 18, 2010)

Edward said:


> There's a limit on how thick tiles can be, and I'm sure If a jugde caught you corner twisting on purpose, he/she probably would DNF you right there.



Oops, I forgot they added to the tile thickness rule:



> 3f)	Stickers/tiles/textures/paint must not be thicker than 1.5 mm, *or the generally available thickness for non cube puzzles.*



Of course one should at the very least get a DNF after doing a corner twist, but according to the regulations it's in enough that you _can_ do it. I personally think pops should be counted as DNFs to, as they are pretty much the same thing and it's for the most part the slowest time anyway.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 18, 2010)

Whyusosrs? said:


> Unless you're looking at a normal cube from exactly 90 degrees, you can see either the color on the right or left. If you see the color on the right *then the color on the left is obvious.*



Ya, cause we never scramble the cubes.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 18, 2010)

C'mon, Stefan. We all know they're impossible to solve.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 18, 2010)

shelley said:


> This is all we need to see. No, this isn't legal.




Ofc. But /should/ it be?


----------



## Ashmnafa (Jul 18, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > This is all we need to see. No, this isn't legal.
> ...



I think that it should be. I highly doubt that anyone would look mid-turn to see what the colors on the side are, when they could just tilt the cube to the side. It isn't really an advantage.


----------



## M4rQu5 (Jul 18, 2010)

But if anyone can use this cube, noone can't really get an advantage.
I say legal.


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

I say Legal


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 18, 2010)

illegal


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> *legal*



fixed =D


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Jul 18, 2010)

Odder said:


> EnterPseudonym said:
> 
> 
> > *illegal*
> ...


----------



## r_517 (Jul 18, 2010)

EnterPseudonym said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > EnterPseudonym said:
> ...



this


----------



## maggot (Jul 18, 2010)

I think it important to note that if this puzzle is sticker on top of the color **insert tons of flaming here** that transparency is negligible. However, I still say illegal because (hopefully majority will agree) f2l lookahead advantage.. no matter how small or insignificant it may seem to be, everyone trying to become fast times should play with similar puzzle. A white plastic or black, purple or orange, doesn't matter, but the 45 degree turn make it very obvious. I know people with very high tps it will not really help, but for me, with 15sec cross f2l, it would put me at advantage... because as I'm looking for my edge piece, my tps is not as fast, and I can distinguish the back edge piece as I'm solving without turning the angle of cube! I may not see it very well, but if I was able to distingush it, that save me a potential 1/2-1 sec for looking at the B face.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 18, 2010)

People say that it gives you an advantage.

I don't see why it's different from having an easier to turn cube in that respect though. Obviously, it's different in other aspects.

I also don't see why it's a problem. You're still solving the same puzzle.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 18, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Shouldn't/Wouldn't loose cubes be illegal to, since more moves are possible (corner twist)?



Accidental corner twists are considered puzzle defects, like pops. Intentional corner twists results in DNFs



Odder said:


> EDIT: the danish delegate won't let me use my russian pyraminx due to slice turns O____O



What do you mean by slice turns? Like you can do U u' with one finger?


----------



## r_517 (Jul 18, 2010)

This is what WCA Delegate Chris Krueger said on twistypuzzles



> The issue is with this:
> 
> 
> > No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are [...] more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible
> ...


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

Odder said:


> EDIT: the danish delegate won't let me use my russian pyraminx due to slice turns O____O



What do you mean by slice turns? Like you can do U u' with one finger?[/QUOTE]

yes


----------



## Bryan (Jul 18, 2010)

If you feel really strongly about the issue, why not take it up on the WCA forum?


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> People say that it gives you an advantage.



this..



Kirjava said:


> I don't see why it's different from having an easier to turn cube in that respect though. Obviously, it's different in other aspects



this... just ask Joey, about my disadvantages with my cubes 



Kirjava said:


> I also don't see why it's a problem. You're still solving the same puzzle.



THIS!!!! and multiply it with 1000


----------



## shelley (Jul 18, 2010)

Edward said:


> I'm sure If a jugde caught you corner twisting on purpose, he/she probably would DNF you right there.



He/she had *better* DNF you right there, as that's an illegal move.



Kirjava said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > This is all we need to see. No, this isn't legal.
> ...



That's probably a discussion better suited for the WCA regulation forum. This thread is about this particular cube, and as the rules stand now it is not WCA legal.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 18, 2010)

Yah. We've covered it. Can we not topic drift?

EDIT; Besides, no-one ever uses the WCA forum


----------



## Carrot (Jul 18, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> EDIT; Besides, no-one ever uses the WCA forum



Let us go spam WCA forum and tell them to allow this cube


----------



## shelley (Jul 18, 2010)

Odder said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT; Besides, no-one ever uses the WCA forum
> ...



That is not how you go about things.

The regulations are very clear on why a cube like this isn't allowed. Spamming the forum won't accomplish squat.


----------



## krnballerzzz (Jul 18, 2010)

SHELLEY IS BRINGING DOWN THE LAW
=P


----------



## Feryll (Jul 18, 2010)

Odder said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > EDIT; Besides, no-one ever uses the WCA forum
> ...



In space, no one can hear you scream.


----------



## Forte (Jul 18, 2010)

Feryll said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...



In a LAUNDRY BASKET, there are many CLOTHES.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 18, 2010)

Forte said:


> In a LAUNDRY BASKET, there are many CLOTHES.




Deep.


----------



## Carrot (Jul 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...




I was joking about the spam part x'D


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 19, 2010)

shelley said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure If a jugde caught you corner twisting on purpose, he/she probably would DNF you right there.
> ...



One time, after doing the first look Alg of 2LOLL, a corner twisted itself. Do I HAVE to DNF something that wasn't my fault?


----------



## Enter (Jul 19, 2010)

back to rubik studio cubes  
no FII, AV no ghost hands......
but seriously why not?
the rules are there to break them, there is already a new generation of cubers!


----------



## Carrot (Jul 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Of course it's DNF... if you can twist a corner like that, then you have added a new move to the cube, and that's illegal, so of course that's a DNF if you use that move in competitions, if it was intended or not


----------



## irontwig (Jul 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



But it _is_ your fault. Tighten your goddamn cube.


----------



## Carrot (Jul 19, 2010)

Now go make GuHong Legal 

EDIT: I made a poll on the danish forum, among the two participants (me and someone else), atleast 50% told to legalize this cube  see!! people want it to be legalised


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 19, 2010)

Odder said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



-3- Meanie...


----------



## Carrot (Jul 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> ...



I will be mean until someone make this cube legal


----------



## nck (Jul 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Dont think so, since '*a corner twisted itself'*.
But if you decide to do the headlight oll by twisting corners then......



Odder said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > Odder said:
> ...


I don't see the point of spamming this thread with "oh I like the cube, let's make it legal" because we all know what you think just by looking at ONE of your many replies.

I really like this cube, may even get one. But I don't think I will bring it to a competition just for the sake of starting a war on the forum.


----------



## shelley (Jul 20, 2010)

Odder said:


> ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



An accidental corner twist on a loose cube would be considered a pop/puzzle defect. You would be allowed to fix it and finish your solve, but only by taking out an edge piece and fixing the corner from there (the way you would normally correct a cube after a pop). If you attempt to fix it by twisting the corner in place, then you get a DNF.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> Odder said:
> 
> 
> > ~Phoenix Death~ said:
> ...



shellyyy...please say you are lying. Oh well. It's not like it happens to me every solve.


----------



## emg (Aug 30, 2010)

Although the colored cube breaks article 

3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours.

this seems to me to simply be an omission. People said it won't be allowed because of article

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.

But the Rubik's deluxe cube, which has fairly thick tiles on it and is still legal (AFAIK), makes it much easier to see the colors on the top row of the back face than this colored cube

I'm interested in the outcome of this debate as I'm thinking about trying the colored cube (please tell me there isn't already an answer to this and I've completely missed it)

-emg


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Aug 31, 2010)

They should make it legal.

There are other cubes, which have been mentioned in this topic, which bend the rules a little, yet they are still legal.


----------



## Radu (Aug 31, 2010)

If you ever have similar questions you can post them on WCA forum. 
For this particular thread the answer is here:
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=889&p=4957#p4957 . So they are not allowed due to the 45 degrees issue.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 31, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> There are other cubes, which have been mentioned in this topic, which bend the rules a little, yet they are still legal.



Example?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Aug 31, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > There are other cubes, *which have been mentioned in this topic*, which bend the rules a little, yet they are still legal.
> ...



You don't like to read, do you?
Just a little bit of reading, and you can find the answer yourself.


----------



## clarubik (Sep 1, 2010)

It's not allowed because you can see the other colors when you turn a layer.


----------



## jiggy (Sep 1, 2010)

shelley said:


> An accidental corner twist on a loose cube would be considered a pop/puzzle defect. You would be allowed to fix it and finish your solve, but only by taking out an edge piece and fixing the corner from there (the way you would normally correct a cube after a pop). If you attempt to fix it by twisting the corner in place, then you get a DNF.


This...confuses the heck out of me. Why is this the case?

If a centre cap flies off in one of my solves, would you like me to take an edge out while I fix that too? (I kid, I kid)


----------



## emg (Sep 1, 2010)

clarubik said:


> It's not allowed because you can see the other colors when you turn a layer.



But this is true for the Rubik's Deluxe and Rubik's Game cubes which are WCA legal... (they are still WCA legal right?)


----------



## Erik (Sep 1, 2010)

Damn I didn't realize you could see the colours during a turn. I sadly ordered it and thought it'd be nice for recognition since the whole face is the same colour. 
After seeing the pictures it is clearly not competition legal according to the rules, however, I think it should be legal.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Sep 1, 2010)

It doesn't give the person a huge advantage, I have it and I like it a lot so it's sad that it can't be competed with. It's probably quicker to tilt the cube a bit to see the colour than turn the top layer 45º.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 1, 2010)

esquimalt1 said:


> It doesn't give the person a huge advantage, I have it and I like it a lot so it's sad that it can't be competed with. It's probably quicker to tilt the cube a bit to see the colour than turn the top layer 45º.



It's mainly about people having any "advantage" over any other cuber by using it. However, I agree. It should be legal IMO.


----------



## flan (Sep 1, 2010)

Erik said:


> it'd be nice for recognition since the whole face is the same colour.


Thats why i want one and why i dont like F-II

Also Surely it would be legal if you took a permanent marker to the illegal bits. I dont know how long it would last even if it works at all but if done right before a comp then it would surfice.


----------



## ThePuzzler96 (Sep 2, 2010)

it makes recognition easier, giving you an advantage. Should DIY's be illegal cuz they have an advantage over rubik's brands? Of course not!So i see no reason in this cube being illegal.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Sep 2, 2010)

If you painted the sides of the edges over, would it be legal? I mean the parts that let you see what the back/left/right sides are.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 2, 2010)

iasimp1997 said:


> If you painted the sides of the edges over, would it be legal? I mean the parts that let you see what the back/left/right sides are.



The reason why I'd want that cube, is because it looks the way it does. 
By painting it like a normal cube, it would ruin the reason why I bought. So, to me, there wouldn't be a point in buying it, if I'm gonna paint it like a normal guHong anyway. 
Just my reasoning.


----------



## scotzbhoy (Sep 17, 2010)

I don't see what would be wrong. The regulations say:
"The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours."
It certainly meets this criteria.
The only issue would be:
"Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours."
For all intents and purposes, this cube might as well have tiles/paints. It certainly isn't a matter of being able to feel the slight raise of stickers or paints, because DS's are legal, and they would be no different if the paint on them was actually the colour of the plastic.


----------



## iasimp1997 (Sep 17, 2010)

scotzbhoy said:


> I don't see what would be wrong. The regulations say:
> "The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours."
> It certainly meets this criteria.
> The only issue would be:
> ...



Read all the other posts in this thread. There clearly is look-ahead advantage when using this cube. That's why it's illegal.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 17, 2010)

I could argue the look ahead concept (especially with TPS as fast as rowe / feliks), but yeah, the reason why it's illegal is because if you do a half U/U' you'll see two colors on edge pieces.


----------



## Erzz (Sep 17, 2010)

What if you put stickers on it that weren't on the right color? (Like you put blue stickers on the orange face.)


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 17, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I could argue the look ahead concept (especially with TPS as fast as rowe / feliks), but yeah, the reason why it's illegal is because if you do a half U/U' you'll see two colors on edge pieces.


Doesn't matter whether it actually gives you an advantage. It breaks a WCA rule.



Erzz said:


> What if you put stickers on it that weren't on the right color? (Like you put blue stickers on the orange face.)


You could still, in theory, determine the colour of the sticker from the colour of the piece. It would still break the rule.


----------



## Erzz (Sep 17, 2010)

What if you scrambled the cube, then put stickers on it? (So the stickers are on random colours)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 17, 2010)

What's the point of that cube, then?


----------



## Erzz (Sep 17, 2010)

Well, the stickers would be in a solved state, the cubies would be random.
The point is saving 15$ by not having to buy a new one


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 17, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> What's the point of that cube, then?



If it can't be used in comp, then there is no point.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 17, 2010)

Erzz said:


> What if you scrambled the cube, then put stickers on it? (So the stickers are on random colours)


The stickers would still be on the same pieces all the time. So, again, in theory, you could gain more information by looking at the colour of the pieces. Illegal...



StefanPochmann said:


> What's the point of that cube, then?


But Stefan has a good point. That's just ridiculous. Just buy a normal Guhong.


----------



## iSpinz (Sep 17, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Erzz said:
> 
> 
> > What if you scrambled the cube, then put stickers on it? (So the stickers are on random colours)
> ...





WCA regulations said:


> "The colors of puzzles must be *solid*, the same per colour, and clearly distinct from other colours."


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 17, 2010)

hawkmp4: I understand that, hence why I mentioned the U/U' 45deg turn.


----------



## MichaelX (Jan 4, 2011)

Is it just me or it's really ugly?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 13, 2011)

To my understanding, the Colored GuHong is illegal because of the advantage of being able to see colors on the backside due to the nature of the way the pieces are molded.

However, would this cube be WCA illegal in a 3BLD round? Since you are not allowed to turn the cube until you've put the blindfold on, and while blindfolded you would not be able to see the backside colors anyway, there would be no advantage


----------



## AustinReed (Jan 13, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> To my understanding, the Colored GuHong is illegal because of the advantage of being able to see colors on the backside due to the nature of the way the pieces are molded.
> 
> However, would this cube be WCA illegal in a 3BLD round? Since you are not allowed to turn the cube until you've put the blindfold on, and while blindfolded you would not be able to see the backside colors anyway, there would be no advantage



Probably not, considering you can see the colors on the backside while memorizing. Just adds an advantage.


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Jan 13, 2011)

AustinReed said:


> Probably not, considering you can see the colors on the backside while memorizing. Just adds an advantage.


 
Can't you see the backside colors while memorizing any cube? I personally don't see how using this cube would aid in 3BLD at all.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 13, 2011)

Inf3rn0 said:


> Can't you see the backside colors while memorizing any cube? I personally don't see how using this cube would aid in 3BLD at all.


Have you ever tried to use one? Could people stop using the "I can't imagine myself cheating this way" argument?


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Jan 13, 2011)

Lucas Garron said:


> Have you ever tried to use one? Could people stop using the "I can't imagine myself cheating this way" argument?


 
No I haven't tried one. Cheating what way? I'm not saying whether this cube should be allowed for 3BLD or not, I really don't care. I just disagreed with the advantage AustinReed was talking about and still disagree with it.


----------



## TimMc (Jan 15, 2011)

*herp derp*



MichaelX said:


> Is it just me or it's really ugly?


 
Thanks for bumping this 4-month-old herp derp of a thread. But, sorry, I wont answer your fragment of a question.

The puzzle violates the following regulations:



WCA Regulations said:


> 3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours.
> 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.



It violates 3d because it doesn't have any stickers, tiles, textures, or painted colours.

And it violates 3h because:


A 45 degree turn on any face exposes both face colours of an edge cubie which would otherwise not be possible with a regular cube; and
A poorly assembled cube, with slight defects resulting in an overlap of the corner or edge pieces, will allow the competitor to see the backside colours.

Transparent puzzles will continue to sell like this sticker-less DaYan GuHong simply because people like the way they look, in spite of the regulations. Taking 6 cubes of different colours and combining them to form six new sticker-less cubes is an affordable way to produce a new product as it only involves a slight alteration to the assembly process. And buyers are hooked in with the appeal of not having to maintain the upkeep of their stickers, rightly so.

3d could probably be revised to allow for similar puzzles with a more advanced staining process that utilises borders (similar to painted colours) so that it doesn't expose the backside colour in any way.

Tim.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 15, 2011)

Lol. 12 pages. No. Close?


----------



## professoralpha7 (May 13, 2011)

*stickerless cubes?*

I was reading the regulations and regulation 3d caught my eye:
3d)	Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours.


Does this mean colored guhong and the like aren't competition legal?


----------



## Engberg91 (May 13, 2011)

yes


----------



## fugiyoshi (May 15, 2011)

Oh wow that stinks. I've been practicing a lot with my stickerless guhong. I guess I'll put that to the side for now... I wonder why.


----------



## cuberkid10 (May 15, 2011)

Turning a layer 45 degrees shows 2 colors on the edes exposed


----------



## Schmidt (May 15, 2011)

cuberkid10 said:


> Turning a layer 45 degrees shows 2 colors on the edes exposed


My avg. is 35 seconds and even at that slow "speed" I can't use the info that a 45 degree angel gives me. So I guess that some one at warp-6 would be seeing one big purple? blur!


----------



## NaeosPsy (May 15, 2011)

Schmidt said:


> My avg. is 35 seconds and even at that slow "speed" I can't use the info that a 45 degree angel gives me. So I guess that some one at warp-6 would be seeing one big purple? blur!


 
Still can't risk it. xP


----------



## Cool Frog (May 15, 2011)

Schmidt said:


> My avg. is 35 seconds and even at that slow "speed" I can't use the info that a 45 degree angel gives me. So I guess that some one at warp-6 would be seeing one big purple? blur!



I can guess most of the time the BR pieces (During solving with no rotating of the cube)and it seems to give me an unfair advantage.


----------



## MalusDB (Jan 15, 2012)

Bump because I feel this really shouldn't be an issue. There is no true advantage from this in speedsolving. There is no way that the information could be interpreted at any reasonable rate to use it in any decent speedsolve. Why even bother with the regulation? Sure they want to maintain the integrity of the "solve" but anybody who thinks that speedsolving isn't just carrying out well rehearsed segments and putting the necessary ones together quickly is just plain ignorant.

/rant


----------



## Coltee (Jan 15, 2012)

The advantage given by seeing the two colors of an edge piece probably only shows up with practice. I'd say that for people that aren't sub-15 it doesn't give a whole lot of advantage. It could provide an unfair boost to cubers with great lookahead though. I think WCA should make a competition solely for stickerless cubes, so that everybody would have that advantage and thus make things fair.


----------



## asportking (Jan 15, 2012)

Coltee said:


> I think WCA should make a competition solely for stickerless cubes, so that everybody would have that advantage and thus make things fair.


Considering the difficulty just to get Skewb as an official event, I doubt they'd make a seperate event just for stickerless cubes.


----------



## Cheese11 (Jan 16, 2012)

asportking said:


> Considering the difficulty just to get Skewb as an official event, I doubt they'd make a seperate event just for stickerless cubes.


 
They wouldn't have to make a whole new set of rules to go along with the event. Thus it would be easier. Honestly, I think it's a stupid idea.


----------



## peterbone (Jan 16, 2012)

How about if you took a stickerless cube and drew a border along the edges with a black permanent marker pen? Would that allow it to be used in competition?


----------



## JohnLaurain (Jan 16, 2012)

Are you allowed to use a stickerless cube for blindfolded solving? Since you wouldn't be able to look at the cube it would eliminate the advantage, unless the advantage was there for memorizing


----------



## cubernya (Jan 16, 2012)

JohnLaurain said:


> Are you allowed to use a stickerless cube for blindfolded solving? Since you wouldn't be able to look at the cube it would eliminate the advantage, unless the advantage was there for memorizing


 
Yes. You can use stickerless and pillowed cubes in blindslving.


----------



## Jaycee (Jan 16, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Yes. *You can use* stickerless and *pillowed cubes in blindslving*.


 
Really? I thought the ONLY time a pillowed cube is allowed is for 7x7. (Excuse me if that doesn't sound grammatically correct, I can't word it correctly. :/)


----------



## Evan Liu (Jan 16, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> Really? I thought the ONLY time a pillowed cube is allowed is for 7x7. (Excuse me if that doesn't sound grammatically correct, I can't word it correctly. :/)





Evan Liu said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=924
> Last post of the thread (by Ron).


I've posted this so many times now...


----------



## Windsor (Jan 16, 2012)

In my opinion, stickerless cubes would be good for repetitive practice because of the fact that there are no stickers to have fall off. However you would still have to get used to the feel of you other cube afterwards in order be more proficient at solving it for a competition. The matter regarding whether or not a stickeless cube should be able to be used in a competition, honestly it shouldn't matter whether or not WCA regulations allow stickerless cubes, because solving a cube is solving a cube, and unless you intend to cheat you won't spend the time it takes to look at the back of the cube for the colors.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm surprised pillowed cubes are allowed in BLD events. Surely if they offer any advantage in normal 3x3, it would be in the same way as during memo... though I guess they tent to turn worse so it could balance out.


----------



## Nestor (Jan 16, 2012)

peterbone said:


> How about if you took a stickerless cube and drew a border along the edges with a black permanent marker pen? Would that allow it to be used in competition?


 
No, the inner sides of the pieces would still be visible when you do U turns. If you dye the inside of the cube black, it might be legal.


----------



## Bapao (Jan 16, 2012)

peterbone said:


> How about if you took a stickerless cube and drew a border along the edges with a black permanent marker pen? Would that allow it to be used in competition?


 
That could have a negative effect on the performance of the cube if you ask me. I might try it to find out though. Plus, the permanent marker would probably start wearing off after a solve or two...


----------



## skeletonboy (Jan 17, 2012)

UnAbusador said:


> No, the inner sides of the pieces would still be visible when you do U turns. If you dye the inside of the cube black, it might be legal.


 Permanent Markers are technically only "permanent" on paper and fabric. If you do it on plastic (polished plastic escpecially), it can be wiped off with your fingertips.


----------



## Nestor (Jan 17, 2012)

skeletonboy said:


> Permanent Markers are technically only "permanent" on paper and fabric. If you do it on plastic (polished plastic escpecially), it can be wiped off with your fingertips.


 
I was referring to serious dying, like using RIT dye or more powerful chemicals.


----------



## skeletonboy (Jan 17, 2012)

UnAbusador said:


> I was referring to serious dying, like using RIT dye or more powerful chemicals.


 
And yet, I was referring to peterbone. Not you. Of course dye would would work.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 17, 2012)

skeletonboy said:


> And yet, I was referring to peterbone. Not you. Of course dye would would work.


 
You quoted UnAbusador, so it makes sense he would think you were talking to him >_<


----------



## Godmil (Jan 17, 2012)

If you try to make a 6 coloured cube competition legal you quickly get to a point where it would be easier to just buy another cube.


----------



## peterbone (Jan 17, 2012)

Godmil said:


> If you try to make a 6 coloured cube competition legal you quickly get to a point where it would be easier to just buy another cube.


It's not about trying to avoid buying a stickered cube, it's about preferring to use a stickerless because you don't have to worry about the stickers chipping or peeling off. I also prefer the feel of the stickerless. I really think that with today's technology, we shouldn't need to put a sticker on the plastic to give colour to a face. Tiled cubes are better but they feel different.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 17, 2012)

Yeah, I just ordered my first stickerless cube, and am very excited about it... a problem with anything you want to do to the inside though is it will most likely change the feel of the cube, to the point that it's not nicer than a standard one. I too wish it could be just the outside the is coloured cause I think having more colour per surface area will help me a lot with my colour recognition.


----------



## peterbone (Jan 17, 2012)

If Dayan could somehow develop a stickerless cube with uncoloured and coloured parts then I think it would become the preferred cube for speedcubing in general. It may be as simple as modifying the current parts to add a recess that coloured tiles fit into, but that are flush with the face of the pieces.


----------



## Bapao (Jan 17, 2012)

peterbone said:


> If Dayan could somehow develop a stickerless cube with uncoloured and coloured parts then I think it would become the preferred cube for speedcubing in general. It may be as simple as modifying the current parts to add a recess that coloured tiles fit into, but that are flush with the face of the pieces.


 
The guys that make the GANS 3x3x3s tried that, it was the first GANS. And there's also the c4u and MHZ cubes with interchangeable tiles. But those all still have bezels around the colours. Other than preferring the feel of stickerless cubes, I also prefer the fact that there isn't a common base colour on all sides.


----------



## MostEd (Jan 17, 2012)

the parts have the "sticker thing" being plastic colored and the insides being black or white


----------



## Bapao (Jan 17, 2012)

MostEd said:


> the parts have the "sticker thing" being plastic colored and the insides being black or white


 
That's what I thought that peterbone was getting at. If you want to retain the overall look of a stickerless DaYan type cube, then you would need to use caps. But caps would also make the piece colours visible in B when you turn the layers. Or maybe I'm missing his point altogether ...


----------



## skeletonboy (Jan 17, 2012)

Tim Major said:


> You quoted UnAbusador, so it makes sense he would think you were talking to him >_<


 
Ah, I see. Sorry, didn't see that. >.<


----------



## Pyjam (May 21, 2012)

Stupid regulation. There's no unfair advantage to use a stickerless cube since everybody can buy one.


----------



## Noahaha (May 21, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Stupid regulation. There's no unfair advantage to use a stickerless cube since everybody can buy one.


 
You could make that argument about literally every regulation...


----------



## CubeRoots (May 21, 2012)

whaaat this rule sucks! never knew it til now. It should be removed - if there is such an advantage then go get a stickerless. Wca should encourage people to use whatever cube they feel comfortable with so people get faster times.


----------



## MalusDB (May 21, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> whaaat this rule sucks! never knew it til now. It should be removed - if there is such an advantage then go get a stickerless. Wca should encourage people to use whatever cube they feel comfortable with so people get faster times.


 
By your logic a self "helping" cube would be allowed. Thats not a great reason to allow the cube. The fact is that it doesn't actually give any advantage to the solver other than the cube itself "feels" better, or recognition is better *because of the sold colour on the tileside*. It makes it alot easier to discern pieces at a faster rate. I have tried and failed to even utilise the advantage of the 45 degree turn at a slow pace, its not that informative anyway. A cube rotation is probably quicker for most people anyway, and people at the top level can already predict pieces based on the position of others that they CAN see without having this. It literally serves no purpose. I don't care about using the cubes in competition, but I feel that there should be no reason that they couldn't be. Ask yourselves honestly, would you feel as though you were at a *genuine* unfair advantage if somebody used a stickerless cube in competition against you?


----------



## Pyjam (May 21, 2012)

You're perfectly right. I will quote you and open a poll.



Noahaha said:


> You could make that argument about literally every regulation...


Correct. I should have said that I don't even consider it cheating (quick glance while slightly rotating R). There's no proof that it's better than rotating the whole cube. And if so, everybody can buy this cube and do it. It would not revolutionize the world of competition.


----------



## Pyjam (May 21, 2012)

*Should stickerless cubes be allowed in competition? Your opinion?*

I would like to use my stickerless Zanchi in competition. It's by far the best cube I ever owned.

MalusDB gave a perfect argument.



MalusDB said:


> [...]
> The fact is that it doesn't actually give any advantage to the solver other than the cube itself "feels" better, or recognition is better *because of the sold colour on the tileside*. It makes it alot easier to discern pieces at a faster rate. I have tried and failed to even utilise the advantage of the 45 degree turn at a slow pace, its not that informative anyway. A cube rotation is probably quicker for most people anyway, and people at the top level can already predict pieces based on the position of others that they CAN see without having this. It literally serves no purpose. I don't care about using the cubes in competition, but I feel that there should be no reason that they couldn't be. Ask yourselves honestly, would you feel as though you were at a *genuine* unfair advantage if somebody used a stickerless cube in competition against you?


Correct. I should have said that I don't even consider it cheating (quick glance while slightly rotating R). There's no proof that it's better than rotating the whole cube. And if so, everybody can buy this cube and do it. It would not revolutionize the world of competition.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

Not many people disagree with this.


----------



## Vincents (May 21, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> I would like to use my stickerless Zanchi in competition. It's by far the best cube I ever owned.
> 
> MalusDB gave a perfect argument.
> 
> ...



Proof in this case is rather hard to obtain. I'd like to see how a study of stickerless vs. normal cubes could even be designed with elimination of confounding factors in mind.

We do not set regulations to apply to only the highest level of competition. Regulations are meant to create a fair, equitable environment for people to compete in, regardless of skill level. Just because you personally do not see an advantage to the demonstrated extra capabilities of the stickerless cubes (by the way, I notice you do not dispute, and even admit to the fact that there is some difference in the cubes which enables new strategies to be employed), does not mean that it is fair.

If you are so eager to use a uniformly colored cubie face for better recognition, you are welcome to design a stickerless cube where only the normally exposed faces offer information as to the piece's orientation and colors.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 21, 2012)

I've always heard the arguments against them as "if you are allowed to use them you will have an unfair advantage over everyone else who will also be allowed to use them", and I've never understood it personally.


----------



## Godmil (May 21, 2012)

If there is a distinct advantage to having a stickerless, then everyone will feel like they have to use one.
I'm wondering if an analogy could be in sporting events where steroids are banned... you could say why not allow them then everyone can use them. But I think there have to be some cut offs some where, not allowing cubes which let you to see things on them that aren't possible on standard cubes seems like a fair cut off. (having said that the colourless is my main, and I would love to take it to a comp someday, but I'm ok with not being able to do that).


----------



## Dene (May 21, 2012)

I always thought the issue is that the cube then becomes something different from the original, intended use of the puzzle. I don't know whether or not this is particularly a large issue, but I don't really see a problem with stickerless cubes at this stage.


----------



## Bob (May 21, 2012)

Are you suggesting to modify 3h?



> 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, *more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible*, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.



Note that this puzzle is a clear violation of this rule in that you can see additional pieces without the need of rotating. For example, I see blue on the bottom of this puzzle.


----------



## qqwref (May 21, 2012)

I think you could definitely argue that being able to see more pieces/stickers doesn't enhance the basic concept of the puzzle. Outside of WCA competitions, it was never really considered unnatural - there were really no debates as to whether using pillowed or stickerless cubes for unofficial times was unfair, and nobody has complained about the many computer cube programs over the years which show parts of 4-6 faces. All of those versions were considered to be the same puzzle as the original. This "modification" can be done without changing the puzzle anyway - someone could position a mirror to allow them to see the left and back sides of the puzzle, for instance, although I'm sure that would take a while to get used to. I'm not sure whether I'd consider the mirror strategy unfair.

I suppose I'd modify the rule as follows:
3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states. Note: the number of visible stickers is not considered part of the basic concept of a puzzle.


----------



## Noahaha (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> Note that this puzzle is a clear violation of this rule in that you can see additional pieces without the need of rotating. For example, I see blue on the bottom of this puzzle.


 
The problem with this argument for the regulation is that it would apply to BLD as well.


----------



## Escher (May 21, 2012)

I don't think it provides a distinct advantage at all for speedsolving...

Although, I do feel that one of the skills within cubing is being able to recognise a sticker of a piece and have the skill to know which piece it belongs to, through lookahead or logic. 

Although the cube itself is a game of complete information, human limitations make it incomplete, and thus anything external to human skill that increases the information available is an 'advantage', regardless of exploitable it is.

I think it should just be up to the delegate as to whether they allow stickerless cubes in a competition or not, and no regulation should specifically regard the use of them.


----------



## Godmil (May 21, 2012)

out of curiosity how would people feel if each sticker on an edge piece had a small piece of the colour of the opposite sticker, so you could tell which piece it was from just seeing one side?


----------



## Escher (May 21, 2012)

Godmil said:


> out of curiosity how would people feel if each sticker on an edge piece had a small piece of the colour of the opposite sticker, so you could tell which piece it was from just seeing one side?


 
Nope nope nope.


----------



## Kian (May 21, 2012)

Escher said:


> I think it should just be up to the delegate as to whether they allow stickerless cubes in a competition or not, and no regulation should specifically regard the use of them.


 
This is the exact opposite of what we should do for all issues. Ideally delegates should be a means for applying the regulations, not deciphering them. We need to adjudicate our regulations fairly and evenly across the board. Having different opinions in different parts of the world is a serious problem considering that we rank cubers from separate competitions in a single database. I realize this still happens to some extent, but it should not be encouraged.

As for the legality of this puzzle, it clearly does not conform to the regulations. That's not really debatable. If you want to argue the regulation should be changed, fine, though I disagree with that sentiment. I don't like that I can see completely different parts of the puzzle on the colored GuHong than anything else. 

The earlier argument that "anyone can buy it, so it shouldn't be illegal" is specious. While you could argue that makes it inherently "fair", we are establishing rules for solving within reason. We would also judge a self-solving puzzle to be illegal, even if everyone "could" buy one.


----------



## Pyjam (May 21, 2012)

The statement "anyone can buy it, so it shouldn't be illegal" alone is not sufficient. I say : "This is not a killer cube. Practically, it does not provide an unfair advantage because you can see small part of hidden pieces. But if you think it does, then buy it, and turn this to your advantage."

In fact, the main advantage for me is a better recognition of the visible parts during inspection. I use the ZZ method.


----------



## foolish (May 21, 2012)

If a stickerless cube gives you advantage, how about speedcubes in general then? And what about modded and lubed ones? All of them are by far more of an advantage than a stickerless cube imo. So this would mean any cube apart from original, unmodded, unlubed Rubik's Cube should be disallowed.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

ban them from BLD or allow them everywhere

the current inconsistant rule is crazy


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> ban them from BLD or allow them everywhere



Agreed. I think that maybe the reasoning behind allowing them for BLD was that Ron didn't realize that it gave an advantage while not turning the cube. The thought was that if the only advantage was seeing the interior piece parts while turning the cube, it wasn't an advantage for BLD. Clearly from Bob's picture, this is not the case, and they could potentially provide an advantage for BLD, so they should be disallowed for BLD.

Or we could allow them for all events; either way is okay with me. But we shouldn't make it different for BLD than for speedsolving.


----------



## Stefan (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> I see blue on the bottom of this puzzle.


 
I'm not sure you do. That's quite dark, could be a mix of shadow and table surface, possibly supported by the blue without it being visible directly. Hard to tell from this edited picture.

I'm pretty sure these are officially legal, though (notice especially the green on the right of the first pic):


----------



## Cubenovice (May 21, 2012)

In reference to Bob's image: several stickers on my stickered Zanchi (as bought) are just protruding past the onset of the radii of the cubies.
These areas of the stickers are becoming unglued over time and I can actually see these stickers' edges before I can see the actual face they are on.

Does this make my cube illegal?
Does this mean we need regulations that mention that stickers may not go past the onset of the radii of the cubie they are on?
Does this mean we need regulations mentioning a specific height that the unglued edges of my stickers' edges may stick upward?
Perhaps we should rewrite the regulations for tiled cubes too?

With the current situation where the non-stickered cubes are already allowed / tolerated in BLD / FMC my vote goes to allowing them across all events.


----------



## Pyjam (May 21, 2012)

Just to know, is this cube allowed in competition ?



Spoiler










I found this here.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 21, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Just to know, is this cube allowed in competition ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no. it would be if it wasn't missing the green sticker


----------



## Godmil (May 21, 2012)

Cubenovice, if you have stickers with bits sticking up then there already is a reg about that, something about notbeing able to destinguish stickers by touch, or something to that effect.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> no. it would be if it wasn't missing the green sticker


 
actually, you could probably get away with it


----------



## samchoochiu (May 21, 2012)

I don't understand why this is an issue. What's wrong with a black or white dayan cube?


----------



## applemobile (May 21, 2012)

How would people feel if my cubes colour scheme was in varying shades of ultraviolet, that could only be distinguished by wearing my specialist prescription glasses?


----------



## Bob (May 21, 2012)

Stefan said:


> I'm not sure you do. That's quite dark, could be a mix of shadow and table surface, possibly supported by the blue without it being visible directly. Hard to tell from this edited picture.
> 
> I'm pretty sure these are officially legal, though (notice especially the green on the right of the first pic):



Could you put my mind at ease and show me that the tiles are less than 1.5 mm thick? ...although the way the regulation is written, I'm not sure that is good enough. It gives two measurements--do we use the thicker or the thinner?



> 3f)	Stickers/tiles/textures/paint must not be thicker than 1.5 mm, or the generally available thickness for non cube puzzles.


 


Kirjava said:


> actually, you could probably get away with it


 
Not if the delegate is doing his job. That puzzle is a clear violation of 3j. I would not allow it.



> 3j)	Puzzles must be clean and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, *damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece.*






applemobile said:


> How would people feel if my cubes colour scheme was in varying shades of ultraviolet, that could only be distinguished by wearing my specialist prescription glasses?


 
It would not be allowed.



> 3e)	The colours of puzzles must be solid, the same per colour, and *clearly distinct from other colours.*



If they look the same to me with the naked eye, then they are not clearly distinct.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> That puzzle is a clear violation of 3j.


 
Yeah, it's not like that rule gets violated at every competition I ever go to.


----------



## Bob (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Yeah, it's not like that rule gets violated at every competition I ever go to.


 
It doesn't get violated at the ones I go to. Sounds to me like Daniel isn't doing his job.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

Of course it does. Unless all the stickers on every cube at every comp you've been to are pristine, you can use chips, cuts or marks to distinguish one piece from another.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Of course it does. Unless all the stickers on every cube at every comp you've been to are pristine, you can use chips, cuts or marks to distinguish one piece from another.



And that's actually how you identify your cube in a pile of cubes 
Unless you have a personalised logo...


----------



## Bob (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Of course it does. Unless all the stickers on every cube at every comp you've been to are pristine, you can use chips, cuts or marks to distinguish one piece from another.


 
Okay, let me revise my statement. If a cube has any easily distinguishable marks or damages, I don't allow it. The cube pictured is way too damaged. However, if a cube has just a couple of nicks and cuts, it would be fine. If colors are more worn than others or do not resemble the same shade as the rest, they are not allowed either. Even at Brown, which only had 32 competitors, we sent back a number of puzzles because they violated some rule(s) in Article 3.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Of course it does. Unless all the stickers on every cube at every comp you've been to are pristine, you can use chips, cuts or marks to distinguish one piece from another.


 
For these reasons i think that stickerless cubes should not only be allowed but be encouraged (especially for bld). if being able to determine what a piece is easier is a problem then everyone should have perfect stickers and the whole idea of having an "acceptable" cube would jut descend into petty nonsense.


----------



## Czery (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> Okay, let me revise my statement. If a cube has any easily distinguishable marks or damages, I don't allow it. The cube pictured is way too damaged. However, if a cube has just a couple of nicks and cuts, it would be fine. If colors are more worn than others or do not resemble the same shade as the rest, they are not allowed either. Even at Brown, which only had 32 competitors, we sent back a number of puzzles because they violated some rule(s) in Article 3.



How are you suppose to determine if a cube is damaged enough? 
I've seen competitors compete with stickers that don't even cover half the face. I'm pretty sure they can identify specific pieces based on the shape of the chips.


----------



## Julian (May 21, 2012)

My speedcube, which I competed with yesterday:







What do you think, Bob? That one sticker did not give me any advantage, and even though it could, it would be much slower than finding out the information the "fair" way.


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> Okay, let me revise my statement.


 
So you're just using your interpretation of the rules instead of following them by the word.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 21, 2012)

Bob said:


> It doesn't get violated at the ones I go to. Sounds to me like Daniel isn't doing his job.


Of course I allow cubes with small chips on the stickers. It would be silly not to. I'm sure you can't say you don't allow any chips whatsoever. Anyway, I distinctly remember not letting Ben use a cube at the last comp because the stickers weren't in a good enough state so I am aware of that rule. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but certainly not at the point where there is no leeway. If that means a change in the regs is needed then so be it.


----------



## MalusDB (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> So you're just using your interpretation of the rules instead of following them by the word.


 
What I was just going to say as well. I like the idea that the "threshold of acceptability" nonsense is iradicated by coloured cubes also. I say that there is no problem, or potential for a problem for that matter, that could arise from allowing them. And to respond to an asumption made by Vincents,(I guess I could have been clearer) the example of the fastest cubers was mostly to raise the point that it holds no potential for anybody to overshoot their potential as a cuber illegally. They will not be any faster ever because of this "advantage", mainly due to the fact that it is simply not utilisable at warp-6 (the fact that people can track pieces at that speed amazes me, nevermind spotting a tiny little bit of colour through a gap *during* a turn). Honestly I can't believe that there are any more than 0 people who think that it really is something that we should be making an effort to stop this.


----------



## applemobile (May 21, 2012)

Surely if you are to go by the rules word for word most cubes would be banned because you can perform an illegal move by rotating the corners.


----------



## MalusDB (May 21, 2012)

applemobile said:


> Surely if you are to go by the rules word for word most cubes would be banned because you can perform an illegal move by rotating the corners.



True that. Nevermind banning coloured zhanchis, ban the whole frikkin lot of 'em.


----------



## Bob (May 21, 2012)

Julian said:


> My speedcube, which I competed with yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Honestly, I probably would have made you resticker it.



kinch2002 said:


> Of course I allow cubes with small chips on the stickers. It would be silly not to. I'm sure you can't say you don't allow any chips whatsoever. Anyway, I distinctly remember not letting Ben use a cube at the last comp because the stickers weren't in a good enough state so I am aware of that rule. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but certainly not at the point where there is no leeway. If that means a change in the regs is needed then so be it.


 
Of course. I think Thom is just being pedantic for the sake of arguing with somebody.  The regulation cannot be followed to the letter because almost any cube you look at (even straight from the manufacturer) is going to have some way that the pieces can be distinguished--whether it be that stickers have imperfections or are not evenly spaced on the plastic or whatever. The idea is that if a piece is obviously damaged or different to the point that it is obvious with immediate inspection, the cube should not be permitted. I think it would be very difficult to quantify this, but for puzzles like the one pyjam showed, it's pretty clear.


----------



## TMOY (May 21, 2012)

Stefan said:


> I'm pretty sure these are officially legal, though (notice especially the green on the right of the first pic):
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: image



I've actually seen a cuber compete with such a cube in an official competition. We tried to convince him to use a better cube, because that one just sucks for speedsolving, but he insisted on using it because of the color scheme (he was used to the japanese color scheme, and the normal one just confused him)..


----------



## Kian (May 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> So you're just using your interpretation of the rules instead of following them by the word.


 
A delegate needs to determine what sort of marking allows someone to "distinguish", as the regulation states, one piece from another in a speedsolve.

For the record I would also have had Julian resticker his cube.


----------



## Joël (May 22, 2012)

I voted "No, they should not be allowed". I think the regulations are fine the way they are (on this specific issue).


----------



## Godmil (May 22, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Yeah, it's not like that rule gets violated at every competition I ever go to.


 
What is it you're saying exactly? I can't decide if you're suggesting
1) Because a rule sometimes gets broken, then the rule should be ignored.
2) There should be a quantified level of acceptable damage to stickers (like 5%).
3) The regulations should be written to reflect that the level of damage shouldn't be "immediately apparent".
4) Other.


----------



## CubeRoots (May 22, 2012)

Joël said:


> I voted "No, they should not be allowed". I think the regulations are fine the way they are (on this specific issue).


 
writing your opinion is pointless unless you exxplain why you feel that way. Why should they not be allowed?


----------



## samchoochiu (May 22, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> writing your opinion is pointless unless you exxplain why you feel that way. Why should they not be allowed?


 
Because there is an advantage, that I'm sure you are aware of. May not be a big one but nevertheless its an advantage, period. Personally I think this should not be such a big issue, I have no idea why people are having problems with white or black dayan cubes.


----------



## tx789 (May 22, 2012)

are there any stickless cube that are legal to use and don't have the colours on the egde?
still there are very few tpyes stickerless cube so I think that there nothing wrong about dayanstickerless being illeagal


----------



## scotzbhoy (May 22, 2012)

I personally don't see what's wrong with them. I understand the regulation and the reasoning behind it, but I don't think that it gives you a real advantage, since when you're turning that fast you're unlikely to be able to pick up on the colours of the unseen pieces anyway. Any advantage you get is going to be negligible. Besides, it's not like they give you an advantage that no-one else can have.


----------



## Pyjam (May 22, 2012)

Joël said:


> I voted "No, they should not be allowed". I think the regulations are fine the way they are (on this specific issue).


*Advanced fingertricks should not be allowed.*
They're unfair because the average cuber can't perform them on the official Rubik's cube. 
Yes, corner cutting enhances the basic concept of the puzzle and should not be allowed !
You see my point, I suppose.


----------



## Godmil (May 22, 2012)

tx789 said:


> are there any stickless cube that are legal to use and don't have the colours on the egde?



I think one of the Gans cubes and maybe a C4U one, but nothing actually good.

I was curious about all the comments that say it doesn't actually give an advantage. I know I'm a slow cuber and I also do slow turning during the F2L, so I'm not going to break any WR's, but I just tried looking at the RB and LB edges while doing F2L and I could clearly see a flash of colour that was enough for me to know what piece it was. It was a little strange cause I wouldn't normally look there, but with a bit of practice I bet I could get quite good at knowing what pieces are there. Now if it turns out that fast people are also able to do that, and practice to take advantage of it... then everyone will feel compelled to use Colourless cubes, and be practicing back face edge recognition to feel like they're able to compete fairly. 
It just doesn't feel right to me.


----------



## Joël (May 22, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> writing your opinion is pointless unless you exxplain why you feel that way. Why should they not be allowed?


 
Because you can see more than on an original Rubik's cube.

I wouldn't mind if they were allowed at some point in the future, it's not a big deal for me, but I kinda like the idea that the allowed cubes are as similar as possible to the original cube.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 22, 2012)

Godmil said:


> I think one of the Gans cubes and maybe a C4U one, but nothing actually good.
> 
> I was curious about all the comments that say it doesn't actually give an advantage. I know I'm a slow cuber and I also do slow turning during the F2L, so I'm not going to break any WR's, but I just tried looking at the RB and LB edges while doing F2L and I could clearly see a flash of colour that was enough for me to know what piece it was. It was a little strange cause I wouldn't normally look there, but with a bit of practice I bet I could get quite good at knowing what pieces are there. Now if it turns out that fast people are also able to do that, and practice to take advantage of it... then everyone will feel compelled to use Colourless cubes, and be practicing back face edge recognition to feel like they're able to compete fairly.
> It just doesn't feel right to me.


 
This is exactly the reason for not including them. I think that this could actually be used by fast cubers, and thereforse shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Pyjam (May 22, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Now if it turns out that fast people are also able to do that, and practice to take advantage of it... then everyone will feel compelled to use Colourless cubes, and be practicing back face edge recognition to feel like they're able to compete fairly.
> It just doesn't feel right to me.


Is there any fundamental difference with other forms of look-ahead training?



Joël said:


> I kinda like the idea that the allowed cubes are as similar as possible to the original cube.


In my opinion, they're not. Corner cutting has dramatically changed everything.


----------



## Escher (May 22, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Is there any fundamental difference with other forms of look-ahead training?


 
Normal cube
- See RB/LB sticker, know what BR/BL is through logic based on other stickers you have seen

Stickerless cube
- See RB/LB piece, know what BR/BL piece is by indirectly looking at it.

I don't own one of these, but if I'm right a BLD cuber could easily memorise while not looking at the B side.


----------



## Godmil (May 22, 2012)

Escher said:


> I don't own one of these, but if I'm right a BLD cuber could easily memorise while not looking at the B side.


I don't think it's such a big deal for BLD, the main advantage is for when you're doing U turns you can see flashes of colour for the back face.
I'm sure there is an issue with BLD, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is at the moment.


----------



## cubernya (May 22, 2012)

tx789 said:


> are there any stickless cube that are legal to use and don't have the colours on the egde?
> still there are very few tpyes stickerless cube so I think that there nothing wrong about dayanstickerless being illeagal


 
No they are not legal. "Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours."


----------



## Dene (May 23, 2012)

samchoochiu said:


> Because there is an advantage, that I'm sure you are aware of. May not be a big one but nevertheless its an advantage, period. Personally I think this should not be such a big issue, I have no idea why people are having problems with white or black dayan cubes.


 
The problem is that nubs buy the stickerless version of the cube as their first cube because they think it's cool (and don't have any others).



Pyjam said:


> In my opinion, they're not. Corner cutting has dramatically changed everything.



Stickerless cubes modify the _functions_ of the original Rubik's Cube, by allowing you to see things that you ordinarily can't. Cutting corners does not modify the function of the cube, just the ability to use it.

EDIT: I realise that my use of "function" could be interpreted differently, and I can't think of the word that I want here, so please interpret me in the sense that I mean and don't be a nubcake and misinterpret me for the sake of a pointless argument.


----------



## Pyjam (May 23, 2012)

No sticker does not modify the function of the cube either, just the ability to use it.

Sorry but it's not pointless argument. I think you have a narrowed point of view, no offense. I try to enlarge it.

When Mr Rubik designed the cube he hasn't speedcubing in mind. The back of cube is not a “hidden part“. You may turn the cube if you need to see the back. If Mr Rubik had designed a puzzle with pieces moving inside and outside of the cube then then inner pieces would have been hidden by design, and a translucent cube would change the nature of the puzzle.

This is not the case with stickerless cubes.

At the time Mr Rubik designed the cube, he has to deal with technical and economical limitations, and so he chose to put stickers on the cubies. Today he could make a different choice like a stickerless cube, but the goal would stay the same.

In every sport, the equipments evolve. This debate remind me the time when the big rackets started to be used in Tennis.


----------



## Dene (May 23, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> No sticker does not modify the function of the cube either, just the ability to use it.
> 
> Sorry but it's not pointless argument. I think you have a narrowed point of view, no offense. I try to enlarge it.


 
Just want to point out:


Dene said:


> I always thought the issue is that the cube then becomes something different from the original, intended use of the puzzle. I don't know whether or not this is particularly a large issue, but I don't really see a problem with stickerless cubes at this stage.


----------



## cubelover111 (May 23, 2012)

I dont have any problem with them being allowed or not but the people here should know how strong our unconscious mind is, even a slight glance (even for a micro second) can be imprinted on your mind don't believe me watch this Go to 5:24


----------



## Cubenovice (May 23, 2012)

cubelover111 said:


> I dont have any problem with them being allowed or not but the people here should know how strong our unconscious mind is, even a slight glance (even for a micro second) can be imprinted on your mind don't believe me watch this Go to 5:24



I counter with http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo


----------



## CubeRoots (May 23, 2012)

What about mini cubes, are they allowed? i can see F R U and L all at once on a smaller cube.


----------



## Godmil (May 23, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> What about mini cubes, are they allowed? i can see F R U and L all at once on a smaller cube.


Yes they are allowed. If you feel that you'll be faster with a mini-cube go right ahead


----------



## CubeRoots (May 23, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Yes they are allowed. If you feel that you'll be faster with a mini-cube go right ahead


 
it's not that i like minicubes or want to use one. I'm just pointing out that other cubes which are allowed in competitions have this same, supposedly unfair, advantage of being able to determine what a piece is quicker


----------



## Godmil (May 23, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> it's not that i like minicubes or want to use one. I'm just pointing out that other cubes which are allowed in competitions have this same, supposedly unfair, advantage of being able to determine what a piece is quicker


 
Yeah, but having a cube that is narrower than the space between your eyes isn't necessarily an advantage. Being able to see the back face edge pieces on a good cube without moving your head or rotating the cube is.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 23, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Being able to see the back face edge pieces on a good cube without moving your head or rotating the cube is [an advantage].


Being able to rotate one face without finishing a rotation of another is.



Dene said:


> Stickerless cubes modify the _functions_ of the original Rubik's Cube, by allowing you to see things that you ordinarily can't. Cutting corners does not modify the function of the cube, just the ability to use it.
> 
> EDIT: I realise that my use of "function" could be interpreted differently, and I can't think of the word that I want here, so please interpret me in the sense that I mean and don't be a nubcake and misinterpret me for the sake of a pointless argument.


I don't get your meaning of "function". In my meaning both cutting corners and stickerless cubes do not modify the "function" of the cube, just the ability to use it.


----------



## cubelover111 (May 23, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> I counter with http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo


 Spotting that gorilla was not tough and while solving a cube it's not that you are only paying attention to a specific colour you are constantly looking for different things and also you don't have constantly look at the cube (at least its not the case for advanced cuber) so they could definitely take advantage of the Back face being slightly cisible.


----------



## Dene (May 24, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> I counter with http://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo


 
:fp completely unrelated.



DrKorbin said:


> I don't get your meaning of "function". In my meaning both cutting corners and stickerless cubes do not modify the "function" of the cube, just the ability to use it.


 
Well, for example, the original functions of the cube were to have a colour on each face, to be solved by turning layers and aligning pieces that go next to each other etc. On the original cube it was not possible to see colours by looking between the layers when a slice is turning; you had to rotate the cube to get a look at the sticker on the outside. Now whether or not this would have been the case had Erno thought of the idea of a stickerless cube right at the start, it's hard to say, but probably not (i.e. he probably would not have objected to a stickerless cube), which is why I don't really object to them.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 3, 2012)

Bob said:


> Could you put my mind at ease and show me that the tiles are less than 1.5 mm thick?


 
The visible part of the deluxe cube tiles is about 1mm thick. The game cube tiles could count as "thicker" because of their deep holes. And both cubes' tiles actually are thicker than 1.5mm if you count their invisible parts under the surface.


----------



## Applejuice (Jun 5, 2012)

I don't really see how they can't allow this. If it gives an advantage over stickers it should be allowed.
What if we were to say that only Rubik's brand was allowed, because speedcubes have an advantage over them?

I don't see what's wrong with them anyway.


----------



## Eazoon (Jun 5, 2012)

Applejuice said:


> I don't really see how they can't allow this. If it gives an advantage over stickers it should be allowed.
> What if we were to say that only Rubik's brand was allowed, because speedcubes have an advantage over them?
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with them anyway.



they modify the way the cube works by allowing the user to see the color on the back face during a U turn.


----------



## Applejuice (Jun 5, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> they modify the way the cube works by allowing the user to see the color on the back face during a U turn.



Allright, I see.
But does that mean it should be forbidden? Not really..


----------



## Olji (Jun 5, 2012)

Although it violates regulation 3h:


WCA Regulations said:


> No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: new moves are possible, normal moves are impossible, more pieces are visible, colours on the backside of the puzzle are visible, moves are done automatically, more or other solved states.


And that's what this discussion is about right now I think.


----------



## Applejuice (Jun 5, 2012)

Olji said:


> Although it violates regulation 3h:
> 
> And that's what this discussion is about right now I think.



Then I just think that that rule shoul be scrapped, because I still feel like it's fair. We could also have added the rule that lubricant is forbidden because it makes you move easier.


----------



## Bob (Jun 5, 2012)

Applejuice said:


> I don't really see how they can't allow this. If it gives an advantage over stickers it should be allowed.
> What if we were to say that only Rubik's brand was allowed, because speedcubes have an advantage over them?
> 
> *I don't see* what's wrong with them anyway.



Are you suggesting that BECAUSE they are advantageous to stickers, they should be allowed? Not in spite of that? Do you also feel that if a cube was transparent with just smaller color squares such that you could see PLL by just looking at the front face, it should be allowed? It definitely gives an advantage over just stickers.



Applejuice said:


> Allright, *I see.*
> But does that mean it should be forbidden? Not really..



Yes, really..



Applejuice said:


> Then *I just think* that that rule shoul be scrapped, because *I still feel* like it's fair. We could also have added the rule that lubricant is forbidden because it makes you move easier.



Oh, well then, as long as YOU think it should be scrapped and YOU feel like it's fair, then let's by all means scrap the regulation.


----------



## Applejuice (Jun 5, 2012)

Bob said:


> Are you suggesting that BECAUSE they are advantageous to stickers, they should be allowed? Not in spite of that? Do you also feel that if a cube was transparent with just smaller color squares such that you could see PLL by just looking at the front face, it should be allowed? It definitely gives an advantage over just stickers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm just sharing my opinion here, that's why I use "I". 
It's awfully odd that you almost appear angry for me sharing my view. Maybe I am missing the obvious, but there's absolutely no need to yell at me.
I still can't see a reason for it not to be allowed, but meh, I'm out of this thread. I like to keep things civil.


----------



## shelley (Jun 5, 2012)

Regulations are only changed with good reason, not because some random person feels it should be some way.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jun 5, 2012)

shelley said:


> Regulations are only changed with good reason, not because some random person feels it should be some way.



This woman speaks the truth.

While my opinion may differ slightly, I don't believe the rule should be changed. Glad they're allowed for BLD though.


----------



## keyan (Jun 6, 2012)

3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle.
Anyone could buy a stickerless/transparent cube and use it, there's no question of fairness. The issue here is about the basic premise of cubing. If the cube changes enough, we're no longer solving the same cube that Erno designed back in the day. A Guhong is an upgrade from a standard Seventowns cube, but the basic premise is still the same. It turns better, but simply better of the same turning. With a transparent cube, you've (in my eyes) crossed a boundary, having functionality that Erno's cube didn't. Oscar could probably invent a cube that automatically does a T perm when you press on your last layer center piece. This would be fair, in that everyone could buy such a cube, but it would be an enormous change from the basic concept of Rubik's cube.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Restraining moves is also an important concept in puzzle conception. Certainly the MOST important concept. In the original concept of the cube, you are not supposed to rotate a face before the completion of the previous rotation. Corner cutting dramatically enhances the basic concept of the puzzle. So, it should be forbidden.

Luckily (for him), Mr Rubik is still alive. So, we should ask Mr Rubik if stickerless cubes are allowed in competition.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Consider this.

The basic concept of the cube is to solve it by rotating the faces.

With the original cube, you can cheat by removing the stickers.

With a modern cube, you can cheat by removing the stickers, or disassembling the cube.

With a stickerless cube, you can't cheat by removing the stickers.

With a stickerless cube and no corner cutting, you can't cheat at all.

So, stickerless cubes improve the basic concept of the original cube.

Do you see now why your argument is just a point of view?


----------



## Godmil (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Restraining moves is also an important concept in puzzle conception. Certainly the MOST important concept. In the original concept of the cube, you are not supposed to rotate a face before the completion of the previous rotation. Corner cutting dramatically enhances the basic concept of the puzzle. So, it should be forbidden.



I don't see why? Nothing significant is changed, one turn still has to be complete before the next turn, you can't do 1/2R U 1/2R.
And you're failing to appreciate that even old school cubes could cut corners to an extent. A well used cube could cut corners better... do you think there should have been a rule about not using broken in cubes? (Worlds '82 -shudder)

Modern cubes are fundamentally similar to the original cubes... they may turn a little nicer.. and cut corners a little better, but they're still the same. A cube that lets you see things that simply could not be seen on the original, is significantly different.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Godmil said:


> A cube that lets you see things that simply could not be seen on the original, is significantly different.


This is metaphysics! Nothing is hidden with the original cube: you can slightly rotate the cube to see what is on the back.

Practicably, corner cutting obviously improve times. There's no proof that stickerless cubes improve time. Why the former is allowed but not the latter makes no sense to me.

I think the discussion is pointless. Arguments have been exposed and everybody stands on their position.


----------



## Dene (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> This is metaphysics!



I think you may misunderstand what metaphysics is.



Pyjam said:


> Practicably, corner cutting obviously improve times. There's no proof that stickerless cubes improve time. Why the former is allowed but not the latter makes no sense to me.



Did you deliberately ignore what Godmil just said about original Rubik's brand cubes being able to cut corners? I used a storebought for years and it was pretty boss at cutting corners - certainly not what current cubes can do, but it could still do it.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Dene said:


> I think you may misunderstand what metaphysics is.


No.



Dene said:


> Did you deliberately ignore what Godmil just said about original Rubik's brand cubes being able to cut corners? I used a storebought for years and it was pretty boss at cutting corners - certainly not what current cubes can do, but it could still do it.


So what? Worn cubes allow corner-cutting. And worn stickers help you identifying the pieces. In both cases, it's not what was intended.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Do people who think that stickerless guhongs should be legit also think that this should be legit?







because it's basically allowing the same thing.


----------



## Godmil (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> So what? Worn cubes allow corner-cutting.....In both cases, it's not what was intended.



Hmm, just tried out a promo-rubik's brand that I've only solved about 3 times... it can cut a whole cubie effortlessly (surprisingly).
Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.



Pyjam said:


> And worn stickers help you identifying the pieces



Warn stickers that help you identify pieces are also not allowed in competition. Are you saying this should be allowed too? Since you don't have a problem with stickerless cubes, do you think people should be allowed to cut away at their stickers so that it is clear from looking at one what the other stickers on the unseen faces are? (edit: oops Kirjava beat me to it  )


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Hmm, just tried out a promo-rubik's brand that I've only solved about 3 times... it can cut a whole cubie effortlessly (surprisingly).


A whole cubie effortlessly! Sure, it's surprising. Maybe it's a KO.



Godmil said:


> Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.


Do you realize it's only a point of view?
You are speaking about the essence of the Cube. Therefore it's metaphysics.
Plus, we are interested by speedcubing. Where are your proof that stickerless cubes actually help you to get better times? If you have none, it's metaphysics, not speedcubing. And even if it's real, why is it bad?



Godmil said:


> Worn stickers that help you identify pieces are also not allowed in competition. Are you saying this should be allowed too? Since you don't have a problem with stickerless cubes, do you think people should be allowed to cut away at their stickers so that it is clear from looking at one what the other stickers on the unseen faces are? (edit: oops Kirjava beat me to it  )


No! I said: if worn stickers are forbidden, worn cubes (and corner-cutting) should be forbidden too.
The more I think about it, the more I think stickers should be forbidden. 



Kirjava said:


> Do people who think that stickerless guhongs should be legit also think that this should be legit?
> 
> •••
> 
> because it's basically allowing the same thing.


Why not? I think it's confusing, but for me the basic concept of the cube remains the same.
But, does it actually exist? Otherwise, it's metaphysics again!


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Why not?



Because half an edge cubie should only contain a single sticker.

You shouldn't be able to identify PLL by looking at the U face only.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Cutting corners doesn't change the original intent, seeing parts of the cube that wouldn't normally be visible by (that means) does.


What I mean: I think there's no proof that your opinion is justified, but there's no proof that mine is better. Therefore it's sterile.

Don't forget that Mr Rubik hasn't speedcubing in mind when he designed the cube. The concept of hidden parts makes no sense when you're supposed to need weeks to solve the cube.

For the sake of clarification: of course corner-cutting is a good thing, worn stickers are bad. Stickerless cubes are better. And Kirjava's cube is too much.



Kirjava said:


> You shouldn't be able to identify PLL by looking at the U face only.


Your opinion. I doubt there's any mention of a PLL in the original patent of the cube. What does it have to do with the essence of the cube?

Just kidding.
You haven't spoken about the metaphysical essence of the cube. Your only concern is speedcubing and I agree with you.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> And Kirjava's cube is too much.



It introduces the same issue the stickerless cubes have.




Pyjam said:


> I doubt there's any mention of a PLL in the original patent of the cube. What does it have to do with the essence of the cube?



You don't realise that you can use a specific example to demonstrate a more general idea?


----------



## Godmil (Jun 6, 2012)

I don't see how it is so controversial to think of being able to see the typically unseen faces as being a significant variation from the existing puzzle as it was when the WCA was formed. Say you could have a mirror behind the cube, so you could see almost every piece just by moving your eyes. The way you'd 'think' about the puzzle would be different, you'd focus on different things, there would be more emphasis on mentally connecting the two images of the cube, less emphasis on tracking pieces in your mind, less emphasis on deducing the 3rd unseen face of a corner, instead of concentrating on 2side pll recog it would be easier to spot key PLL patterns. The actual mental process of solving would be different, enough that it's essentially a different puzzle.
Now, I know the mental process is different for different methods in a standard solve, however there is nothing to stop a Fridrich solver learning Roux, but there would be something to stop a standard solver from getting key information about the cube that a mirror solver would have, the only way they could evenly compete would be for everyone to use mirrors.
There isn't any proof that being able to see the unseen faces without rotating the cube would make you faster, because I presume nobody is practicing it as a skill, however it is an extra option that someone with a stickerless cube could use, that wouldn't be available to someone without a stickerless cube.


----------



## Winball (Jun 6, 2012)

I would no be able to take advantage of these cubes, but Id guess someone with fast recognition would be able too (sub12?)


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> It introduces the same issue the stickerless cubes have.


…and much more.

With stickerless cubes you still have to slightly rotate one face to see ONE facet behind. There's no possible comparison with your extreme example.



Winball said:


> I would no be able to take advantage of these cubes, but Id guess someone with fast recognition would be able too (sub12?)


And I guess he doesn't need that.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> …and much more.



Not at all. It's exactly the same issue, just more apparent. You can't draw a line and say that this addition is only allowed if it's only there a little bit. It's either allowed or not.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

I think you're wrong. Or the same principle could be applied to stickers: you can't draw a line between acceptable stickers and stickers with little marks.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> I think you're wrong.



I'm not. The information introduced to the cuber by the stickerless cubes is the same as the information introduced to the cuber by using the sticker scheme I posted.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 6, 2012)

How about we test it.
How many of you watched CBCs video comparing cube colors?
Send out a colored cube of their choice to each of the top 10 avg cubers (Top ten on this list) and give them a while to get used to it, lube it, break it in, etc.
Then each one can do an ao100 with each and see if it makes a significant difference. If there is a 10% time decrease (faster) on the colored cubes for >6 of them, keep stickerless illegal. If it doesn't make >6 of them 10% faster, then let them be legal.

That would work, wouldn't it?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> That would work, wouldn't it?



No, because those statistics prove nothing.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 6, 2012)

Wouldn't it show if the fast cubers are able to utilize the stickerless "advantage"? I've tried both and I am not any faster at one or the other. I feel like this is the same for most other 15+ cubers. How about we do that to the top 100 people in the world? More people would be a better representation.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

That's just all really silly.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 6, 2012)

It's better than
"Allow them"
"One person doesn't change the regulations"
"Just saying my opinion"
"I think they make people faster"
"what qualifies as an enhancement"
"Corner cutting"
"No more dayans"
"Should be allowed"
"no"
"yes"
etc

That's really silly too. We're nowhere closer to deciding than we were 2 years ago when this thread was first created.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> It's better than



Just because a punch in the face is better than a bullet to the head, it doesn't make it good.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I'm not. The information introduced to the cuber by the stickerless cubes is the same as the information introduced to the cuber by using the sticker scheme I posted.


Not at all.


----------



## Bob (Jun 6, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> Wouldn't it show if the fast cubers are able to utilize the stickerless "advantage"? I've tried both and I am not any faster at one or the other. I feel like this is the same for most other 15+ cubers. How about we do that to the top 100 people in the world? More people would be a better representation.



Somehow I think you lack even basic understanding of statistics. A sample size of 10? Requiring >6 to be faster? If you're trying to show that there is increased recognition and that it can be applied to speedsolving, you should use a much larger sample size. You should also be looking for statistical significance, not some arbitrary number of your own choice. You also should not limit it to the top 10 cubers. What about somebody who averages 2 minutes? Do we not care if it gives them an advantage? I think it would give them the MOST advantage, actually, because they have less experience recognizing in general.



Ninja Storm said:


> This woman speaks the truth.
> 
> While my opinion may differ slightly, I don't believe the rule should be changed. Glad they're allowed for BLD though.



They're not.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> They're not.



They shouldn't be, but...


----------



## Bob (Jun 6, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> They shouldn't be, but...



and that puzzle is not allowed in competition. If it were up to me, the solve would be a DNF, because I think it is clear in the regulations that stickerluss Guhongs are not permitted. But it's not up to me.

I believe the reason people were allowing them in BLD was because they thought the only difference it makes is that when making a turn, you can see by looking at internal parts of pieces what color is on a hidden side. In a blindfolded sovle, you cannot do this. But they did not realize that you can also tell by NOT making turns (hence, during inspection). I'm speculating here as I do not know the actual reason they were permitted for BLD in some competitions by some delegates since I was not one who allowed them. Maybe somebody else can chime in with why it was allowed.


----------



## DrKorbin (Jun 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> They're not.



Yes they are.
http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5263#p5263


----------



## Bob (Jun 6, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Yes they are.
> http://worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5263#p5263



Ah, now that I re-read the email thread I had with Ron and Tyson last month, the change is going into effect for the next set of regulations. For some reason, I thought they made the change effective immediately. My mistake.

It was a mistake for it to be allowed in the first place, though. It is inconsistent with the speedsolving regulations and was only allowed because of an oversight.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> Wouldn't it show if the fast cubers are able to utilize the stickerless "advantage"? I've tried both and I am not any faster at one or the other. I feel like this is the same for most other 15+ cubers. How about we do that to the top 100 people in the world? More people would be a better representation.


If the test shows a bias, you can't prove it is because the cubers use the stickerless "advantage".
It could be because the stickerless cubes are mechanically better (mine is), or they took advantage of the vivider colors or of the larger colored surface.

For whatever reason, I had better times with my stickerless ZanChi and I don't cheat.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> Ah, now that I re-read the email thread I had with Ron and Tyson last month, the change is going into effect for the next set of regulations. For some reason, I thought they made the change effective immediately. My mistake.
> 
> It was a mistake for it to be allowed in the first place, though. It is inconsistent with the speedsolving regulations and was only allowed because of an oversight.



Stickerless cubes give an advantage IF you can see the colours. Obviously, in BLD, you can't.



Pyjam said:


> If the test shows a bias, you can't prove it is because the cubers use the stickerless "advantage".
> It could be because the stickerless cubes are mechanically better (mine is), or they took advantage of the vivider colors or of the larger colored surface.



If the plastic is better on stickerless cubes, then why don't they use the same plastic for standard cubes? And as for the vivider colours thing, the same effect could be acheived if the stickers were larger and covered virtually the whole face.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Not at all.



You're going to have to explain.


----------



## Bob (Jun 6, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> Stickerless cubes give an advantage IF you can see the colours. *Obviously*, in BLD, you the wan't.



You CAN see the colors. *Obviously*, you don't know what obvious means. Explain to me why you wouldn't be able to see colors on the back face during inspection? I can see several from this picture. I see colors on five different faces.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 6, 2012)

Bob said:


> You CAN see the colors. *Obviously*, you don't know what obvious means. Explain to me why you wouldn't be able to see stickers on the back face during inspection? I can see several from this picture. I see stickers on five different faces.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Image



But could you recognise the colour at the back quickly and easily? I'd think not unless you have amazing eyesight.


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 6, 2012)

ThomasJE - should stickerless cubes be allowed then except for people with 20/15 vision or better? You can clearly see additional stickers with or without turning the puzzle. The regulations should be consistent.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> No.



Please leave this thread if you're going to act in this way.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I'm not. The information introduced to the cuber by the stickerless cubes is the same as the information introduced to the cuber by using the sticker scheme I posted.


If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.



red and white


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> If you're right, name the colors at LF and DF.





Kirjava said:


> red and white



It's obvious since the cube is in a checkerboard pattern.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> red and white


In this order? Why these two edges would not be swapped?



ThomasJE said:


> It's obvious since the cube is in a checkerboard pattern.


Only on the visible faces. You have no proof regarding the hidden parts.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

I was making fun of you.

I can't see in that picture, but that doesn't mean you can never see those colours on a stickerless cube.


----------



## ThomasJE (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> In this order? Why these two edges would not be swapped?



You asked for LF and DF. The sticker we're talking about is represented by the first letter of the edge. Then, the stickers are specified in a clockwise direction (that only really matters for corners, but the same principal applies to edges). Because L and D were first, then the sticker on the L and D faces are the stickers we are talking about.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I was making fun of you.
> 
> I can't see in that picture, but that doesn't mean you can never see those colours on a stickerless cube.


I think you deserve your own reply :


Kirjava said:


> Please leave this thread if you're going to act in this way.



Goodbye.



ThomasJE said:


> You asked for LF and DF. The sticker we're talking about is represented by the first letter of the edge. Then, the stickers are specified in a clockwise direction (that only really matters for corners, but the same principal applies to edges). Because L and D were first, then the sticker on the L and D faces are the stickers we are talking about.



I know that, Thomas. It's not the point.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 6, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> I think you deserve your own reply :
> 
> Goodbye.



I'm not the one who refuses to answer when he realises that he's wrong


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 6, 2012)

This is getting ridiculous. There's no reason to get rid of this part of the regulations unless someone can prove, without any doubt, that stickerless cubes do not help you get faster.

Now can we PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY. Ugh.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't think being able to slightly see "around" the cube is a big deal, or even something that goes against the spirit of the cube at all. Cubes with thicker tiles (e.g. Rubik's Game, Mefferts Megaminx) have allowed this for ages - and by using a small enough cube I can basically see 4 sides at once anyway. The amount of modification we are talking here to the "original idea" of the cube is about the same as that of corner cutting, loose cubes whose corners can be turned, or cubes with nonstandard coloring. It's not a drastic change from a normal DIY by any means - the cube still moves the same way, a solve would still look the same to an observer, and I'm willing to bet most people will get statistically identical times (given identically good cubes).



megaminxwin said:


> Now can we PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY. Ugh.


What, because you don't like it?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2012)

qqwref said:


> I don't think being able to slightly see "around" the cube is a big dea



Would you be happy to allow the sticker scheme I posted earlier in this thread? (ignoring the centres)

It amounts to essentially the same thing.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 7, 2012)

qqwref said:


> What, because you don't like it?



Because the thread is getting far too long when the answer should've been obvious ages ago. If there isn't any proof that it doesn't help you get faster, there's no good reason to change it. I'm surprised this wasn't posted earlier, actually, but whatever.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 9, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Do people who think that stickerless guhongs should be legit also think that this should be legit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree here, actually. Not sure if people will agree with my opinion on this, but here is my reasoning:

Let's look at this in terms of an edge piece for now as it makes the explanation easier, but I apply the principal to corners too. Take an edge piece on a stickered cube and split it in half (while you can do this physically on a Dayan cube, for example, I'm talking theoretically here and referring to other 3x3x3s in general too), with one sticker on each half. I would say that each of these halves 'belongs' to a particular face, rather than just the sticker 'belonging' to the face. I therefore have no problem with the information for the sticker being anywhere on that half of the piece. On the cube you posted, information about the 'main' sticker colour of each half of an edge is present on the other half of the edge piece, which should only have information about it's sticker.

In other words, each half of an edge should only contain information about the face it belongs to, and not where the other half of the edge belongs.

Hopefully it is clear enough what I mean by this, and why I think stickerless cubes are fine, but the cube Kir posted isn't. As it happens, I have the cube in the picture, and it turns _so_ badly, but that is beside the point.


----------



## samchoochiu (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm going to say this again.
What is wrong with a black or white dayan cube?


----------



## musicninja17 (Jun 9, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> This is getting ridiculous. There's no reason to get rid of this part of the regulations unless someone can prove, without any doubt, that stickerless cubes do not help you get faster.
> 
> Now can we PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD ALREADY. Ugh.



This is getting ridiculous. There's no reason to get rid of this part of the regulations unless someone can prove, without any doubt, _that stickerless cubes help you get faster_.


----------



## Escher (Jun 9, 2012)

Could somebody with a stickerless cube try inserting a small piece of black paper between the edge of each piece? Just enough to cover the furthermost edge... Edges would be fine for providing an example of showing whether my idea works or not.

If my idea works it should provide a method of using stickerless cubes without 'additional info'. 

The problem with this approach is that each stickerless cube used would have to be verified by a delegate, or perhaps just the scramblers/judges.


----------



## Schmidt (Jun 9, 2012)

Kirjava said:


>


@Kirjava Do you own this cube?? If yes, could you scramble it and take a picture of it to see if it is possible to predict the last 3 edges and last corner( maybe even posistion and orientation)
BTW why is it mirrored??


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 10, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> This is getting ridiculous. There's no reason to get rid of this part of the regulations unless someone can prove, without any doubt, _that stickerless cubes help you get faster_.



Your point being?

Actually, this helps. If there's no proof going either way, why do people want to change it at all? Until we get proof that one way is better than another, we should keep it as it is until we get that proof. It'd be stupid to change it.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 10, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> Actually, this helps.


Not actually, theoretically.
Forget the stickerless cubes for a moment. Theoretically, you could cheat during the competitions. What would you say if you were banned until you prove you're not a cheater?


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 11, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Not actually, theoretically.
> Forget the stickerless cubes for a moment. Theoretically, you could cheat during the competitions. What would you say if you were banned until you prove you're not a cheater?



...I don't understand this question at all.


----------



## Godmil (Jun 11, 2012)

Escher said:


> Could somebody with a stickerless cube try inserting a small piece of black paper between the edge of each piece? Just enough to cover the furthermost edge...



Wait, are you suggesting puting paper over all the (possibly visible) internal surfaces? That's going to kill it's turning quality.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 11, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> ...I don't understand this question at all.


Is it badly translated? I'm not a native english speaker.

My point is: no one needs to prove his innocence while there's no clear evidence that he's guilty.
Your sentence seems to suggest that you disapprove this idea.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Would you be happy to allow the sticker scheme I posted earlier in this thread? (ignoring the centres)
> 
> It amounts to essentially the same thing.


Yeah, I think I would. From personal experience I wouldn't be worried about it helping people out all that much, though.



Godmil said:


> Wait, are you suggesting puting paper over all the (possibly visible) internal surfaces? That's going to kill it's turning quality.


I think he's saying to put paper between the differently-colored parts of each piece.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 11, 2012)

qqwref said:


> From personal experience I wouldn't be worried about it helping people out all that much, though.



You have no idea how good it would be for LSE recognition.


----------



## Escher (Jun 11, 2012)

qqwref said:


> I think he's saying to put paper between the differently-colored parts of each piece.



Indeed I am


----------



## theCuppman (Jun 11, 2012)

Woah wait, stickerless cubes? How does that work? And it makes it easier? I don't know as much as I thought I did...


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 11, 2012)

I see no reason at all why any cuber should be forced to waist his lifetime by restickering cubes. 

I use PVC stickers on one of my cubes, these are thicker than normal stickers, witch obviously makes it possible to predict the color of a sticker from more viewing angles as if I were using thin stickers. It would be quite silly if this would be forbidden.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 12, 2012)

Ah.



Pyjam said:


> Not actually, theoretically.
> Forget the stickerless cubes for a moment. Theoretically, you could cheat during the competitions. What would you say if you were banned until you prove you're not a cheater?



Okay. So you're saying that I don't think we should change something, because there's no proof for it being true or not. You then go on to say that because of this, I disapprove in the idea that people who have been charged on flimsy evidence shouldn't have to prove that they're not guilty.

It's a good point, actually. But you could say that we haven't finished this discussion yet, which I'm now feeling more open to discuss. As a result, the trial is still in progress, and until we have definitive evidence either way - and I mean actual, proper evidence - we can't actually charge anyone.

See what I mean?

So I sort of changed my viewpoint, but I'm still on the same side as I was before.

Also I find it funny that in the beginning, Kirjava was for this, but then he left, and now he's against it.


----------



## Ickathu (Jun 12, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Not actually, theoretically.
> Forget the stickerless cubes for a moment. Theoretically, you could cheat during the competitions. What would you say if you were banned until you prove you're not a cheater?



So you're saying innocent until proven guilty? Okay. Fair argument. If it works in crimes/court/law type settings (US, not sure about other places) then it should work with speedcubing.


----------



## Rubiksboy1 (Jul 29, 2012)

It shouldn't be allowed to be used for this reason: if you take a stickered cube, look at the U face straight-on from above, and make a D turn, halfway through the turn you can see normally hidden parts of the corners. If you had a stickerless cube and did that, you would be able to identify what corners you are looking at because those parts are colored the same as the corners themselves, unlike with the stickered cube, where that part is simply black, and offers no advantage.
Someone with a stickerless cube would therefore have an advantage.


----------



## Penguinstorm300 (Jul 30, 2012)

I think that stickerless cubes should be allowed:

I have a stickerless cube myself, and yes, if the cube is halfway through a turn it is possible to see colours. Note that when you turn a 'D' move, it is only possible to see the left and front face colours on the corner in front of you. Also, it is _very_ difficult to see colours halfway through a turn. I have tried that myself during a solve (I turn around 3.1 turns per second during solves) I noticed that it was almost impossible to see the colours even at that low speed. Many good cubers nowadays turn at over 7 turns per second.


----------



## Roberto Vazquez (Jul 30, 2012)

In my opinion, they should only be allowed in Blindfold solving, because really, you're never gonna look at it during the solve.


----------



## cubernya (Jul 30, 2012)

Roberto Vazquez said:


> In my opinion, they should only be allowed in Blindfold solving, because really, you're never gonna look at it during the solve.



It is allowed in BLD


----------



## Hunter (Jul 30, 2012)

Here is what I think.

First of all, pillowed cubes are not allowed.

However, the V-Cube 7, which is pillowed, is allowed.

Their reasoning is that many of the production 7x7s are pillowed, so they are allowed.

The ShengShou 7x7, (rated by users) is a vastly better cube than the V-Cube.
( http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?37390-ShengShou-7x7-vs-V-Cube-7 )

(The Shengshou is cubic)

I predict that the Shengshou 7x7 will become (if it is not already) more popular than the V-cube 7. 

What I believe will happen is that pillowed 7x7 cubes will still be legal, even when most of the competitors are using ShengShous.

So, lets say stickerless cubes stay illeagal until the point when 2/3rds of the competitors are using the ShengShou 7x7 and 1/3 are using the V-cube 7 which is still legal.


At this point, an illegal cube (V-Cube 7) is now legal due to the fact that there are not many cubic 7x7s, even after they are outnumbered 2 to 1 to cubic cubes.




Many people use Dayan guhongs, zhanchis, lingyuns, and most likely will use the new Dayan 6. All those cubes are available in white, black, and stickerless. That means, the most popular brand has 1/3 of its cubes stickerless.

If this happened, 1/3 of 7x7s are illeagal because they are pillowed, but the rules were changed to let them compete, and 1/3 of all 3x3s are illegal because they are stickerless. Why would we not have stickerless legal?

What if someone just wanted to buy a cube and didn't have enough money and time to buy stickers all the time. They cant compete.


Stickerless cubes are amazing. They last essentially forever and still look new. They are one of the biggest new revelations in the cubing world. Why waste money on stickers when you can have an always new looking cube, all the time?


This argument has been mentioned before, but if stickerless cubes are legalized, they don't really offer an advantage because anyone can go buy a stickerless cube if they think it will really help them. 
One would save money anyway in the long run not having to buy all the stickers.

So what if you can see the back color during a U-turn? How many people are really going to rely on that during a fast speed solve where you are turning 7 faces every second?? (If that is your TPS)


In my opinion, having stickerless cubes be illegal is just wrong. I am tired of sticker shards stuck under my finger nails and spending hours of my life restickering cubes. This is crap. 



-------------------


Edit:

For blindfold solving, it seems just as bad as during normal solving. In BLD when you are looking to examine it, that honestly seems like it would be more useful to try and look at the back colors by looking over the edge than during a speed solve. 

It does not make sense that they would be allowed forBLD but not speed solving.





On top of that, more than 50% of people want it legalized. If this was put to an actual vote, stickerless would easily win.


----------



## mdolszak (Jul 30, 2012)

Hunter said:


> For blindfold solving, it seems just as bad as during normal solving. In BLD when you are looking to examine it, that honestly seems like it would be more useful to try and look at the back colors by looking over the edge than during a speed solve.
> 
> It does not make sense that they would be allowed forBLD but not speed solving.


You can't turn any faces while memorizing during BLD.


----------



## Shamankian (Jul 30, 2012)

But I would guess it isn't a turn untill it's turned >45 degrees?


----------



## mdolszak (Jul 30, 2012)

Shamankian said:


> But I would guess it isn't a turn untill it's turned >45 degrees?


Valid point (if that's true), but don't you think it's faster to just rotate the cube and see a whole face than to keep doing and undoing 40 degree turns just to see one half of a piece?


----------



## cubernya (Jul 30, 2012)

Shamankian said:


> But I would guess it isn't a turn untill it's turned >45 degrees?



I'm 100% positive the main judge would DNF you if they saw you constantly 45 degree turns during BLD memo (stickerless or not)


----------



## drewsopchak (Jul 30, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> I'm 100% positive the main judge would DNF you if they saw you constantly 45 degree turns during BLD memo (stickerless or not)



Certainly not! The regulations effectively define a turn as more than 45 degrees.


----------



## Hunter (Jul 30, 2012)

I didn't say turn...I am looking at my colored 2x2 and thinking about lifting my head slightly and seeing the tiniest line of blue on the back...



@mdolszak...This is true. I believe it would be faster to just rotate the cube a little bit than doing a 45* turn. That also applies to speed solves....you can do a slower turn and see half of one piece, or do a half cube rotation and see 9 times the pieces.


----------



## Roberto Vazquez (Jul 30, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> It is allowed in BLD


I'm new to this, didn't know that xD


----------



## Hunter (Jul 30, 2012)

The people who want magics back did one, so I decided to, also.

A petition for stickerless cubes. Please sign if you are tired of stickers!

Feel free to post this around. 

http://www.change.org/petitions/world-cube-association-allow-stickerless-cubes-in-competitions#


----------



## Godmil (Jul 30, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Certainly not! The regulations effectively define a turn as more than 45 degrees.



I'm not sure that's the case. When determining the final state of a cube the 45 degree rule comes into effect, but I'm pretty sure any deliberate rotation of a face (even if it's just 20 degrees) would be seen as "turning" it. I'm pretty sure a judge would come down on you if you during a BLD (or normal) inspection if you deliberately made any face rotations.


----------



## stoic (Jul 30, 2012)

Hunter said:


> lets say stickerless cubes stay illeagal until the point when 2/3rds of the competitors are using the ShengShou 7x7 and 1/3 are using the V-cube 7 which is still legal.
> At this point, an illegal cube (V-Cube 7) is now legal due to the fact that there are not many cubic 7x7s, even after they are outnumbered 2 to 1 to cubic cubes.
> 
> 
> ...



These are not the same point. Just because 1/3 of the DaYan *range* is stickerless does not mean 1/3 of all their cubes are. I have about 8 3x3s but only one stickerless.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 30, 2012)

I noticed a few people earlier in the thread trying to argue they should be banned since it goes against the 'intended concept' of the puzzle or something similar, I forget the exact working. Did anyone ever back this up with the opinion of the original inventor? I don't think they did, and if they didn't then the argument doesn't actually count for anything.


----------



## Hunter (Jul 31, 2012)

It does not even make any sense. If there are stickers or colored plastic I cant see how it could at all be a change in the 'intended concept' of a rubiks cube.


----------



## Endgame (Jul 31, 2012)

Hunter said:


> The people who want magics back did one, so I decided to, also.



The people who want Magics back did one because they can't accept the wind of change. Don't open this petition with the same mindset because it sounds stupid.


----------



## elcuber (Jul 31, 2012)

The rules say:3h)* No modifications* are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle and blah blah. The colored cube is in its original state, isn't it?


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 31, 2012)

elcuber said:


> The rules say:3h)* No modifications* are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle and blah blah. The colored cube is in its original state, isn't it?



However the rules also say:



WCA Regulations said:


> 3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, textures or painted colours.


----------



## MarcelP (Jul 31, 2012)

Hunter said:


> A petition for stickerless cubes. Please sign if you are tired of stickers!
> 
> Feel free to post this around.
> 
> http://www.change.org/petitions/world-cube-association-allow-stickerless-cubes-in-competitions#



Thanks. I just signed it.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jul 31, 2012)

Hunter said:


> The people who want magics back did one, so I decided to, also.
> 
> A petition for stickerless cubes. Please sign if you are tired of stickers!
> 
> ...




1. petition is great.

2. I wan't all competitive swimmers to be naked, because the clothes makes them swim faster. (women only is fine, too).


----------



## Godmil (Jul 31, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Did anyone ever back this up with the opinion of the original inventor?



What do you think Ernő Rubik's opinion is on Dayan cubes?
I'm guessing he's not a fan


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 31, 2012)

elcuber said:


> The rules say:3h)* No modifications* are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle and blah blah. The colored cube is in its original state, isn't it?



No, you're misinterpreting the idea of that rule.


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 31, 2012)

WCA Regulations:
3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, *textures* or painted colours.

Textures would allow you to feel the "color" of non visual pieces.
If this is allowed then surely stickerless cubes could be allowed


----------



## Renslay (Jul 31, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> WCA Regulations:
> 3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, *textures* or painted colours.
> 
> Textures would allow you to feel the "color" of non visual pieces.
> If this is allowed then surely stickerless cubes could be allowed



No. If a cube has textures, then all the textures have to be the same; therefore you can only distinguish the elements by its colors.


----------



## drogg (Jul 31, 2012)

I have the cube. I love it. It clearly shouldn't be legal as you can see the colour of cubies you shouldn't be able to when turning faces due to the way they are made up. Very little room to argue as much as I'd like to back it. Wonder how many people have voted yes because they want it to be legal as they like the cube (as I do) rather than no due to a balanced decision (the reason I voted no begrudgingly)?


----------



## Godmil (Jul 31, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> WCA Regulations:
> 3d) Puzzles must either have coloured stickers, coloured tiles, *textures* or painted colours.
> 
> Textures would allow you to feel the "color" of non visual pieces.
> If this is allowed then surely stickerless cubes could be allowed



WCA Regulations:
3j) Puzzles must be clean and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece.

The textures would have to be consistent across all the different colours.

EDIT: Ninja'd


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 31, 2012)

Godmil said:


> WCA Regulations:
> 3j) Puzzles must be clean and must not have any markings, elevated pieces, damages, or other differences that distinguish one piece from a similar piece.
> 
> The textures would have to be consistent across all the different colours.
> ...



Time to adjust 3d then 
_WCA Regulations:
3d) Puzzles must either have *coloured* stickers, *coloured* tiles, textures or painted *colours*._

No mention of colour on the textures -> I can only conclude that we're talking differetn textures here.
Perhaps once added to cater for blind people but it was forgotten to put it in the right context?


----------



## Godmil (Jul 31, 2012)

Actually yes, I thought it was just referring to textured tiles, but now I think about it it does seem odd.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 31, 2012)

I would like to point out something that a lot of people seem to not realise: that being able to see more stickers than usual is not an argument to ban these cubes. Nor is it an argument for anything, since it isn't even an argument. It's just a statement about the puzzle, which if desired may be used as part of an argument.


----------



## Hunter (Aug 1, 2012)

Yeah the cube is illegal, but as the second post said...



masterofthebass said:


> That is the fault of the regulations.



We need the rules changed!


----------



## jason60069 (Aug 2, 2012)

I would like to see the regulations changed to make stickerless cubes legal, since I don't see much of an advantage, other than that there are no stickers that have to be replaced every once in a while.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Aug 2, 2012)

Just because you cannot see an advantage does not mean other people cannot.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Aug 2, 2012)

apologies if this has already been considered or said, but what would be wrong about having a thin black or white border around each individual cubie face, like how it looks on a normal stickered cube, but just stickerless instead? you get the same great turn and feel, and you don't have to replace any stickers because they aren't any. Plus you cannot see a clip of the opposite colour because all you would get would be a slither of black or white plastic from the border


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Aug 2, 2012)

If you want the same great turn and feel, why not buy 6 stickerless and make six one-color out of it and sticker them?

Basically you get the force cube, but that way you DO have the same material cubies, just not stickerless.


----------



## Penguinstorm300 (Aug 2, 2012)

PeelingStickers said:


> apologies if this has already been considered or said, but what would be wrong about having a thin black or white border around each individual cubie face, like how it looks on a normal stickered cube, but just stickerless instead? you get the same great turn and feel, and you don't have to replace any stickers because they aren't any. Plus you cannot see a clip of the opposite colour because all you would get would be a slither of black or white plastic from the border



The cube you are describing would be fine in a competition (the normal stickered cubes minus the stickers). However, the main type of stickerless cube isn't allowed because when you turn a layer 45 degrees, it is identify a cubie without looking at it's sides. Here's an image I took from Google Images here - 







In the turned M slice, you can see that the back edge is yellow and orange without seeing the orange side.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 2, 2012)

Kattenvriendin said:


> If you want the same great turn and feel, why not buy 6 stickerless and make six one-color out of it and sticker them?
> 
> Basically you get the force cube, but that way you DO have the same material cubies, just not stickerless.



Or buy a single coloured cube. (no need to make things difficult)


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 2, 2012)

PeelingStickers said:


> apologies if this has already been considered or said, but what would be wrong about having a thin black or white border around each individual cubie face, like how it looks on a normal stickered cube, but just stickerless instead? you get the same great turn and feel, and you don't have to replace any stickers because they aren't any. Plus you cannot see a clip of the opposite colour because all you would get would be a slither of black or white plastic from the border



I designed this idea on Google Sketchup. I've tried to get pictures up, but the attachments aren't working.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 2, 2012)

Penguinstorm300 said:


> The cube you are describing w*ould be fine in a competition* (the normal stickered cubes minus the stickers). However, the main type of stickerless cube isn't allowed because when you turn a layer 45 degrees, it is identify a cubie without looking at it's sides. Here's an image I took from Google Images here -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually it wouldn't. You have to have stickers, paint, tiles, something on there  It can't be stickerless even with a border and nothing visible during a turn (not sure why though)


----------



## Godmil (Aug 2, 2012)

PeelingStickers said:


> apologies if this has already been considered or said, but what would be wrong about having a thin black or white border around each individual cubie face, like how it looks on a normal stickered cube, but just stickerless instead? you get the same great turn and feel, and you don't have to replace any stickers because they aren't any. Plus you cannot see a clip of the opposite colour because all you would get would be a slither of black or white plastic from the border



It's not a border around the face of each cubie that's needed, it's a different colour on the inside of the pieces, but that's not possible with the current design of the Dayan cubes.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Aug 2, 2012)

true, but if it's possible to design a border around the cubie on the outside, (I'm not saying it is) then surely simply creating regular black internal colours is possible too or am I completely lost here? (I have little knowledge to how cubes are made or put together :/)


----------



## cubernya (Aug 2, 2012)

PeelingStickers said:


> true, but if it's possible to design a border around the cubie on the outside, (I'm not saying it is) then surely simply creating regular black internal colours is possible too or am I completely lost here? (I have little knowledge to how cubes are made or put together :/)



That's not how DaYan cubes work


----------



## Penguinstorm300 (Aug 2, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Actually it wouldn't. You have to have stickers, paint, tiles, something on there  It can't be stickerless even with a border and nothing visible during a turn (not sure why though)



Forgot about that regulation while I was answering the question .


----------



## Shamankian (Aug 2, 2012)

The Gans II cube got a design where it is stickerless however you are unable to get the advantage as with the DaYan cubes. It got a kind of shell around it. Too bad it isn't such a good cube.


----------



## Bob (Aug 5, 2012)

Godmil said:


> It's not a border around the face of each cubie that's needed, it's a different colour on the inside of the pieces, but that's not possible with the current design of the Dayan cubes.



It's both. The cube violates the regulations in more than one way.


----------



## markthema3 (Aug 8, 2012)

Bob said:


> It's both. The cube violates the regulations in more than one way.



So does every tiled cube in existance. Period. End of story. By the logic used against stickerless cubes, tiled cubes should be banned. Their "advantage" may be less significant, but it's still there. I say either ban tiled cubes or alow stickerless. Personally I lean toward allowing stickerless, but that's because stickers are annoying in that they have to be replaced.


----------



## Bob (Aug 8, 2012)

markthema3 said:


> So does every tiled cube in existance. Period. End of story. By the logic used against stickerless cubes, tiled cubes should be banned. Their "advantage" may be less significant, but it's still there. I say either ban tiled cubes or alow stickerless. Personally I lean toward allowing stickerless, but that's because stickers are annoying in that they have to be replaced.



No, not all tiled cubes. In fact, not even most of them.


----------



## Hunter (Aug 8, 2012)

We are up to 60% yesses!


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 8, 2012)

I support this 100%

the alleged advantage of stickerless cubes while solving is complete ********. to find out what colour is on another side of the cube, a half rotation or turn would be 10x more efficient.


The only advantage is that you can get rid of peeling stickers, elaborate and costy restickering and also discussions whether stickers are to damaged to be permitted.


----------



## Hunter (Aug 8, 2012)

^ Now we are talking!


----------



## Daniel Wu (Aug 8, 2012)

Even with all of these arguments for stickerless cubes being allowed, until 3d is changed, stickerless cubes are never going to be competition legal. Arguably, this cube violates more than just 3d, but at the very least this cube clearly does not comply with 3d.


----------



## cfelicella (Aug 8, 2012)

The main reason why I think many people want to use sticker less cubes, is that it's so much smoother compared to a regular stickered cube. Sticker less cubes are made ABS plastic whereas stickered cubes are made with ABS mixed PBC. I do see why they're illegal. Elite cubers defiantly would have an advantage by possibly knowing what colours the hidden edges or corners are. Overall, I think it should be used only for blindfolding, and the rules should stay the way they are.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 8, 2012)

cfelicella said:


> The main reason why I think many people want to use sticker less cubes, is that it's so much smoother compared to a regular stickered cube. Sticker less cubes are made ABS plastic whereas stickered cubes are made with ABS mixed PBC. I do see why they're illegal. Elite cubers defiantly would have an advantage by possibly knowing what colours the hidden edges or corners are. Overall, I think it should be used only for blindfolding, and the rules should stay the way they are.


Not really. have you tried it out? most of the time the face you turned to view the inside of the cubie on the back conceal mentioned cubie. and if it doesnt, its much harder to do it this way than just doing a half x' or a L/R'. btw, elite cubers have an advantage over beginners because... guess what? theyre elite.


----------



## Cheese11 (Aug 8, 2012)

cfelicella said:


> The main reason why I think many people want to use sticker less cubes, is that it's so much smoother compared to a regular stickered cube. Sticker less cubes are made ABS plastic whereas stickered cubes are made with ABS mixed PBC. I do see why they're illegal. Elite cubers defiantly would have an advantage by possibly knowing what colours the hidden edges or corners are. Overall, I think it should be used only for blindfolding, and the rules should stay the way they are.



The main argument is that you wouldn't be able to see the colours at the speed "elite" cubers turn at. 

Which is why I am for them being legalized.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 8, 2012)

A fast cuber should be able to see what the hidden edge is on a nonstickerless cube simply by look ahead.

Even I can from just lookahead know whats on BL/BR/ even DB which is not a hidden edge but actually a blind spot


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 8, 2012)

cfelicella said:


> The main reason why I think many people want to use sticker less cubes, is that it's so much smoother compared to a regular stickered cube. Sticker less cubes are made ABS plastic whereas stickered cubes are made with *ABS mixed PBC.* I do see why they're illegal. Elite cubers defiantly would have an advantage by possibly knowing what colours the hidden edges or corners are. Overall, I think it should be used only for blindfolding, and the rules should stay the way they are.



Whut?
Whut?
Not this again...


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 8, 2012)

yo dude

if im memoing for a blindsolve on a stickerless, can't i rotate the U layer 20 degrees and memo fazter?


----------



## Hunter (Aug 9, 2012)

On top of all that, if you really think you will be at a large disadvantage by not using a stickerless cube, feel free to go buy one. 



mDiPalma said:


> yo dude
> 
> if im memoing for a blindsolve on a stickerless, can't i rotate the U layer 20 degrees and memo fazter?



Technically yes, its only a turn when you get to 45.0001 degrees.  Might want to clear with the judge first though.


----------



## Endgame (Aug 9, 2012)

cfelicella said:


> The main reason why I think many people want to use sticker less cubes, is that it's so much smoother compared to a regular stickered cube. Sticker less cubes are made ABS plastic whereas stickered cubes are made with ABS mixed PBC. I do see why they're illegal. Elite cubers defiantly would have an advantage by possibly knowing what colours the hidden edges or corners are. Overall, I think it should be used only for blindfolding, and the rules should stay the way they are.



Welcome to 2012, where PVC is spelled PBC and opinions are objective.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 9, 2012)

Hunter said:


> Technically yes, its only a turn when you get to 45.0001 degrees.  Might want to clear with the judge first though.



Not quite. The regs only define that at the end of the solve. IMO (as mentioned earlier in the thread) the judge should DNF you if you keep doing turns during memo (even <45)


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 9, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Not quite. The regs only define that at the end of the solve. IMO (as mentioned earlier in the thread) the judge should DNF you if you keep doing turns during memo (even <45)



this is exactly my point. which is an easier regulation to enforce during blindsolving: NO STICKERLESS CUBES ...or... NO TURNING ANY SIDE OF THE CUBE ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY JUDGE'S DISCRETION DURING BLINDFOLD MEMORIZATION?

in my opinion, we should either universally allow stickerless, or universally ban them. any wishy-washy compromise between 3x3, OH, feet, and BLD is entirely halfwitted.


----------



## Bob (Aug 9, 2012)

mDiPalma said:


> this is exactly my point. which is an easier regulation to enforce during blindsolving: NO STICKERLESS CUBES ...or... NO TURNING ANY SIDE OF THE CUBE ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY JUDGE'S DISCRETION DURING BLINDFOLD MEMORIZATION?
> 
> in my opinion, we should either universally allow stickerless, or universally ban them. any wishy-washy compromise between 3x3, OH, feet, and BLD is entirely halfwitted.



They were never supposed to be allowed. When they were made legal for BLD, it was an oversight.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Aug 9, 2012)

I don't care that it's hard to utilize the advantage that stickerless cubes provide. It's an advantage, you can see extra information from certain angles. Just because people haven't been taking advantage of that information doesn't mean it's not there.

The WCA regulations have, for years, set a very clear and sensible rule that extra information can't be provided. If we allow stickerless cubes, that rule is gone, and we have to come up with a new definition of "some extra information but not too much". What's more information than regular cubes but less information that stickerless cubes? Those should be legal, right?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 9, 2012)

I dunno, it's hard to say. Maybe there is extra information, but I've used 4x4s and megaminxes (both Mefferts) in competition that had thick enough tiles to give you extra info, and nobody complained. I guess I just don't see being able to see extra stickers as a problem.


----------



## Bob (Aug 9, 2012)

I think that the thickness on tiles in the regs is too much. 1.5mm is a lot.


----------



## irontwig (Aug 9, 2012)

Tim Reynolds said:


> I don't care that it's hard to utilize the advantage that stickerless cubes provide. It's an advantage, you can see extra information from certain angles. Just because people haven't been taking advantage of that information doesn't mean it's not there.



How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?


----------



## Bob (Aug 9, 2012)

irontwig said:


> How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?



Let's make it a rule that you can put a mirror standing on the front of the table. It won't matter that you can see the back of the cube because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can make moves during inspection. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you can stop the timer with the puzzle in your hands. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.

Let's make it a rule that you are allowed to keep your eyes open instead of using a blindfold during BLD. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.


----------



## Kian (Aug 9, 2012)

irontwig said:


> How does that matter at all though if everyone is allowed to use said advantage?



Bob's response well documents the absurdity of that argument. You are proving that it wouldn't be "unfair", given that everyone could conceivably have the same advantage if they so chose. The same would be true if we allowed any of the things he mentions, but it doesn't make them good rules.

Like Tim said, it is an advantage from normal solving and I don't like the idea of providing additional information on the cube, even if it is not currently usable.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 9, 2012)

Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
Is it a good argument?


----------



## Godmil (Aug 9, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
> Is it a good argument?



Nope.
Ad Populi isn't a good argument.
If there was a poll which was "Do you think all WCA comps should be free to enter and have cash prizes?" I think it would a) get a lot of 'yes' votes and b) stress out a few organisers.


----------



## Pedro (Aug 9, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Stickerless cubes should be allowed because more than 50% think so.
> Is it a good argument?



No, because those 50-some percent are 144 people.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 9, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Nope.
> Ad Populi isn't a good argument.
> If there was a poll which was "Do you think all WCA comps should be free to enter and have cash prizes?" I think it would a) get a lot of 'yes' votes and b) stress out a few organisers.


Good! I hoped this answer!

So...

Is democracy a bad idea and it should be abandoned in politics?

Or sometime an argument is good in a context and bad in another. And then, irontwig's argument is valid and bob's aren't.


----------



## zhanchi03 (Aug 9, 2012)

If anyone was allowed to use them, then why would it make a difference?


----------



## Godmil (Aug 9, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Is democracy a bad idea and it should be abandoned in politics?



No, I don't think so. Politicians should reflect a) the will and b) the best interests of the people (even if some of the decisions aren't that popular).
Almost everyone would like to pay less taxes, cause not everyone understands how important it is. Politicians have to make tricky decisions about this, but in the end if they're not improving peoples quality of life then they wont be reelected.
difficult subject, I like that you brought it up


----------



## irontwig (Aug 9, 2012)

Bob said:


> Let's make it a rule that you can put a mirror standing on the front of the table. It won't matter that you can see the back of the cube because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.
> 
> Let's make it a rule that you can make moves during inspection. It won't matter at all because everyone is allowed to use said advantage.
> 
> ...



Thanks for being reasonable and not completely ridiculous.


----------



## Bob (Aug 9, 2012)

irontwig said:


> Thanks for being reasonable and not completely ridiculous.



I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it. All I did was apply your logic to some other rules that we already have in the Regulations. As Kian pointed out, what you suggested makes the regulation fair--it would be the same for everyone--but that does not make it a good regulation.



zhanchi03 said:


> If anyone was allowed to use them, then why would it make a difference?



...but apparently somebody else is using the same logic. Seriously? Ok, here goes again...

Let's make it so that inspection time is now 1 hour. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that you can use a Rubik's Touch Cube in competition and you are allowed to use Solve Mode so that the puzzle solves itself. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that outside assistance is permitted during a solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that during OH, you can use both hands. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if the cube is off by >45 degrees, there is no penalty. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.

Let's make it so that if your cube pops in a solve, that solve won't count and you get a brand new opportunity to solve. Everyone will be allowed to use it, so it won't make a difference.


----------



## Vincents (Aug 9, 2012)

Bob said:


> I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it. All I did was apply your logic to some other rules that we already have in the Regulations. As Kian pointed out, what you suggested makes the regulation fair--it would be the same for everyone--but that does not make it a good regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, that last one...


----------



## irontwig (Aug 9, 2012)

Bob said:


> I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it.



I would hope that you would see the huge difference between merely allowing a different version of the same puzzle and having rules that completely break an event. My point is that allowing sticker less cubes that may or may not have an advantage is as 'unfair' as the current situation with allowing cubes that turn better than others. If you care enough you would get the puzzle that might make you perform better. Do you honestly think that sticker less cubes make that big of a difference?


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 9, 2012)

Bob said:


> I was hoping the absurdity of my response would show how flawed that argument is and prevent others from using it.


The absurdity of your answer only showed that your analogy is flawed, not that the argument is bad.


----------



## Vincents (Aug 10, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> The absurdity of your answer only showed that your analogy is flawed, not that the argument is bad.



The absurdity of his answer shows that the same argument being used to support A may in fact be used to demonstrate absurdities. The analogy is sound.

Bob is trying to state that simply using the argument that <A should be allowed> because all competitors may take advantage of <A>, thus not providing an advantage to any competitor at the expense of others, to argue that <A should be allowed> is flawed. He has provided other examples of <B should be allowed>, <C should be allowed>, and demonstrated absurdities if those lines of reasoning are followed. Thus, he has concluded (you only need one counterexample to disprove something!) that the argument is flawed.

Also, I will submit that it does indeed provide an advantage to competitors who were not able to use such techniques because of a redefinition of the concept of what information can be provided from the puzzle.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 10, 2012)

The argument is certainly incomplete. We should say: stickerless cubes don't break the game, if they provide an advantage like good shoes in running or a good corner cutting in speedcubing then use them.

In the contrary, Bob's examples break the game.


----------



## offscott (Oct 15, 2012)

It would be ok for blindsolving, wouldn't it? There's no reason it shouldn't, I don't think.


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 15, 2012)

...because you can still see the other colors over the top of the pieces. Or you can turn U and D a little bit (< 45 degrees) and see the other colors.


----------



## AlexByard (Oct 15, 2012)

Stickerless 2x2's should be aloud. In my opinion.


----------



## Ickathu (Oct 15, 2012)

Why are they any different than 3x3s? You can still see the colors on the backside of pieces.


----------



## WBCube (Oct 15, 2012)

Ickathu said:


> Why are they any different than 3x3s? You can still see the colors on the backside of pieces.



One could start to make the argument where if the times are getting around world record status, they already have the solve planned out in inspection, so it wouldn't matter if they could see a bit on the sides. But I wouldn't really agree with that, it's essentially the same as 3x3


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 15, 2012)

WBCube said:


> One could start to make the argument where if the times are getting around world record status, they already have the solve planned out in inspection



no, they couldn't possibly do so.


----------



## LarryLunchmeat (Mar 31, 2013)

*If you think stickerless cubes should be illegal, have you considered this as well?*

I agree that if I stare at a stationary stickerless cube I can tell what colour is on the back. The only problem with this is that in the heat of a solve, when pieces are flying around so quickly, my brain can't accurately decipher what colour is on the backside by seeing only a small sliver of colour for a split second. Think about when you're doing F2L. You're not actually looking at every single piece individually.. You're using peripherals and looking at multiple pieces at once. In order for me to use the "back piece peek trick" I basically have to look directly at the top/back piece for a second and totally kill my solve flow.

My other issue; I have a set of half brights on one of my cubes and I can tell what colour is on the backside of the cube by the reflection of the fluorescent sticker on my index finger. Are they going to ban fluorescent stickers now, because technically I can now see four sides at once? 

IMO, it takes more time to look at the reflection on my index finger and decipher it as a colour, rather than just make a "U" and see it legitimately, and I say the same thing applies to stickerless. Maybe I'm just not a good enough solver to process it quick enough, but I say that if someone is good enough to actually use this "trick" to their advantage, then all the power to them.

One last thing.. When people say it's an unfair advantage if someone uses a stickerless cube because of the extra lookahead thing. But how is it an unfair advantage if anyone is free to use one?
To me that's like saying that we shouldn't be allowed to use cubes with torpedoes because people that use torpedoes would have an extra advantage over non torpedo users.


----------



## Bob (Mar 31, 2013)

That poor dead horse...being beaten again. :\


----------



## LarryLunchmeat (Mar 31, 2013)

lol. All I'm saying is that I can see the back colour reflection when I use half-brites.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 31, 2013)

Your second argument isn't so valid. There's a huge difference between changes in how a puzzle feels/performs and how a puzzle looks. Also you could use that argument to support any cosmetic changes to a puzzle, but then you run into trouble when people have to switch to the new thing to be the best, which is ok for the feel of a cube, but people should never have to change what their cubes look like. 

Your first argument I agree with, but Megaminx tiles are a much better example of something more unfair than stickerless cubes that is allowed.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Mar 31, 2013)

I can see the future. I see this thread being revived and many people posting in it, leading to an argument-sort-of.

My opinion is to not allow stickerless cubes. The four-side advantage thing is my reason.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Mar 31, 2013)

Question, and I am going to do this regardless of the answer, most likely.
If I were to put stickers on a stickerless cube, then dye it black, then after drying it remove the stickers (thus preserving the original color where the sticker was), would that be legal in competition?


----------



## kunparekh18 (Mar 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Question, and I am going to do this regardless of the answer, most likely.
> If I were to put stickers on a stickerless cube, then dye it black, then after drying it remove the stickers (thus preserving the original color where the sticker was), would that be legal in competition?



That would make it a painted cube like the Dian Sheng 3x3s, which I think would be allowed.


----------



## JF1zl3 (Mar 31, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> That would make it a painted cube like the Dian Sheng 3x3s, which I think would be allowed.


Neat 
I can't wait to try this lol.


----------



## KrisM (Mar 31, 2013)

Honestly, at a world class level, I don't think stickerless cubes have been proven superior to stickered cubes, in means of better times. I think banning this type of puzzle from competitions is silly... and I think many other people do too. But hey, I haven't made the rules, so I respect those who have.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Mar 31, 2013)

If stickerless cubes were allowed in competition, I would still use stickered cubes. I see no statistically significant advantage of using my stickerless zhanchi, and I prefer the feel of other cubes.


----------



## insane569 (Mar 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Question, and I am going to do this regardless of the answer, most likely.
> If I were to put stickers on a stickerless cube, then dye it black, then after drying it remove the stickers (thus preserving the original color where the sticker was), would that be legal in competition?



Yea thats aloud. There is another cube like this that I cant remember. Had a funky design. A skeleton that held pieces of plastic that made the stickers. Props to anyone who can find it.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 31, 2013)

insane569 said:


> There is another cube like this that I cant remember. Had a funky design. A skeleton that held pieces of plastic that made the stickers. Props to anyone who can find it.


I believe you're thinking of the new version of the official Rubik's cube (http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?40444-Rubik-Cube-2-0).

Anyway, I'm not sure there is a noticeable advantage to stickerless cubes, but I can understand why they would disallow them. Consistency and such.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Mar 31, 2013)

JF1zl3 said:


> Question, and I am going to do this regardless of the answer, most likely.
> If I were to put stickers on a stickerless cube, then dye it black, then after drying it remove the stickers (thus preserving the original color where the sticker was), would that be legal in competition?



That depends.

If the internals are dyed as well, then it is allowed. If you only dye the outside of the cubies (so the bits that have the stickers) then it will not be allowed as you still have the half turn peeking option.


----------



## speedpicker (Mar 31, 2013)

insane569 said:


> Yea thats aloud. There is another cube like this that I cant remember. Had a funky design. A skeleton that held pieces of plastic that made the stickers. Props to anyone who can find it.



I think you are recalling the original Gans cube: http://lightake.com/detail.do/sku.3x3x3_pvc_type_a_gans_puzzle_magic_cube_black-37517

Theres a pic of the internals there.


----------



## mati1242 (Mar 31, 2013)

*Odp: Should stickerless cubes be allowed in WCA competition?*

;O
I see this cube for the first time. Never saw it before. 

Wysyłane z mojego GT-I8160 za pomocą Tapatalk 2


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Apr 1, 2013)

I've got one. It's a fun cube but not really speedcubable *giggle*


----------



## insane569 (Apr 1, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> I think you are recalling the original Gans cube: http://lightake.com/detail.do/sku.3x3x3_pvc_type_a_gans_puzzle_magic_cube_black-37517
> 
> Theres a pic of the internals there.



Yea thats it. Thanks for finding it.


----------



## elrog (Apr 6, 2013)

Personally, the only thing I can say good about stickerless cubes is that you don't have to worry about the upkeep of stickers. Everything else I like better about normal cubes. Normal cubes look better due to having the background color between stickers/tiles, have more color/texture options, better plastic quality, do not require corners to be 3 seperate parts and edges 2 seperate parts allowing for new/different designs (Shuang Ren), only require a single color of plastic to make making replacing pieces and mass producing better, and you have the ability to change the texture/color of the cube without getting a new one (changing stickers/tiles).

There is not really that noticable of an advantage for stickerless cubes because humans have a limited ability in recognizing and utilizing the extra color seen while solving meaning the 45 degree thing. This is true as far as we know or have seen, but you never know if there may be somone who actually can. I say, if they are that good, let them be because they will beat you in competition anyway.

About what Cride said about seeing the tint of the back color with the right light, I've never noticed this on my stikered cube, but if this is so, you would need to make the plastic thicker.

I've noticed that with my stickerless cube, you can see the outline of colors on the edges similar to having thick tiles. For this reason, I don't think they should be legal, but I've already stated my thoughts on using stickerless cubes in the beggining of this post.

As for other cubes which have been mentioned in this thread that bend the rules, saying "They are legal so stickerless cubes should be legal aswell" should be turned into "These cubes bend the rules just like stickerless cubes so they shouldn not be legal."

I started reading this thread and skipped to the end after reaching page twenty because I was tired of people repeating things already said and all of the spam with people changing what others put in thier quotes. I don't think you should be able to change what people have in their quotes, but still be able to take only the part of it you need to show.


----------



## brian724080 (Apr 18, 2013)

I think the regulations regarding sticker-less cubes is dumb. Who in the world would squint to peak through the cubie while trying to speedsolve?


----------



## Username (Apr 18, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> I think the regulations regarding sticker-less cubes is dumb. Who in the world would squint to peak through the cubie while trying to speedsolve?



Everybody


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 18, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> I think the regulations regarding sticker-less cubes is dumb. Who in the world would squint to peak through the cubie while trying to speedsolve?



Turn the top layer a little bit and you can easily see both colors of all edge cubies around the equator. On a normal cube you only see both colors on 1 cubie and one color on 2 cubies.

I don't understand why being allowed to compete with stickerless cubes is so importart to some people, when they at the same time claim that you don't get better times from using one.



Username said:


> Everybody



If everybody wanted to do it then it there would be no problem . The issue is that if stickerless cubes were allowed and they give you an advantage, everybody would feel that they have to use one.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> I don't understand why being allowed to compete with stickerless cubes is so importart to some people, when they at the same time claim that you don't get better times from using one.


Because we like freedom.

I don't understand why being forbidden to compete with stickerless cubes is so importart to some people, when at the same time we don't get better times from using them.


----------



## izovire (Apr 18, 2013)

I agree with the regulations for many reasons.

anyway, 3D printing is getting better and I can see stickerless cubes being printed in unlimited colors in the future. It will look like it has stickers but not really. Some Diansheng puzzles have this already.


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 18, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> Because we like freedom.



So TouchCubes and stickers with different textures on different sides etc. should be allowed too? If someone wants to use one, we'd be wrong to limit their freedom I suppose.. I mean, what's more important in a competition; your total freedom or making sure that everybody is competing on similar terms?



Pyjam said:


> I don't understand why being forbidden to compete with stickerless cubes is so importart to some people, when at the same time we don't get better times from using them.



Anyone can say anything.. Just because you're saying that you don't get better times doesn't make it universally true . Perhaps it doesn't help you if you just solve it normally, but someone else could practice taking advantage of the back peeking and get better compared to what they would have been with a normal cube. However, I don't think anyone has actually put any effort into this yet, because it would be a waste of time since you're not allowed to do it in competitions.


----------



## Lchu613 (Apr 19, 2013)

I guess that if they did allow it, some people might practice a method that takes advantage of the feature of stickerlesses.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 19, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> So TouchCubes and stickers with different textures on different sides etc. should be allowed too? If someone wants to use one, we'd be wrong to limit their freedom I suppose.. I mean, what's more important in a competition; your total freedom or making sure that everybody is competing on similar terms?


You say this, not me.



JohanAR said:


> Anyone can say anything.. Just because you're saying that you don't get better times doesn't make it universally true . Perhaps it doesn't help you if you just solve it normally, but someone else could practice taking advantage of the back peeking and get better compared to what they would have been with a normal cube. However, I don't think anyone has actually put any effort into this yet, because it would be a waste of time since you're not allowed to do it in competitions.


Nobody has ever put any effort into this yet because it's inefficient. If you're right and I'm wrong, it's easy for you to prove it, isn'it ?


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 19, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> You say this, not me.



You argued that stickerless cubes should be allowed because "you like freedom". If your argument was valid, it would motivate allowing other things as well. For example:

-Why should textured stickers be allowed?
-We like freedom.

-Why should TouchCubes be allowed?
-We like freedom.



Pyjam said:


> Nobody has ever put any effort into this yet because it's inefficient. If you're right and I'm wrong, it's easy for you to prove it, isn'it ?



"put effort into something" does not mean that it's easy. If someone wants to change the rules it would be up to him/her to prove that it won't cause any imbalances, not everybody who thinks the rules are fine the way they are.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 19, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> You argued that stickerless cubes should be allowed because "you like freedom". If your argument was valid, it would motivate allowing other things as well. For example:
> 
> -Why should textured stickers be allowed?
> -We like freedom.
> ...


Exaggeration isn't an argument.

I can do the same : white cubes should be forbidden because they provide an unfair advantage. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. That's what you're doing.



JohanAR said:


> "put effort into something" does not mean that it's easy. If someone wants to change the rules it would be up to him/her to prove that it won't cause any imbalances, not everybody who thinks the rules are fine the way they are.


Sorry, you're wrong. There's no practical way for me to prove that you're wrong, because I can't prove that something does not exist. But you can easily prove your point by showing ONE example. Just one example. So, please do it.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Apr 20, 2013)

I guess the reason why people want stickerless cubes needs to be addressed before actually adding yes/no.

WHY do people want it?

Because it is said to be a faster cube? I mean, force cubes and all that. I have found them not faster or slower than plain jane unicolors. Has it actually been proven?

Are there any other reasons why? Bigger surfaces, so better color recognition? Why not then put large stickers on your unicolor cubes? That would sort that matter.

Because it looks better? That is a silly reason to give the rule makers, so it can't be that now.


Why the preference for the stickerless?


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 20, 2013)

Kattenvriendin said:


> I guess the reason why people want stickerless cubes needs to be addressed before actually adding yes/no.
> 
> WHY do people want it?
> 
> ...



You forgot the main reason: you can see another colour on turning a layer 45°


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Apr 20, 2013)

Ah lol. Just use tiles within the thickness limit, you can do the same, legally


----------



## TP (Apr 20, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> You forgot the main reason: you can see another colour on turning a layer 45°



I don´t think anyone actually prefer stickerless because of that.

Feel and better recognition, because the stickers are bigger combined with no background colour, is why I prefer(red) my stickerless Zhanchi.


----------



## PedroSabioni (Apr 20, 2013)

Yeah, when speedsolving, no one turn the layer to see what colour is in the back.


----------



## LarryLunchmeat (Apr 21, 2013)

You know how everyone just has that one cube that feels perfect in their hands? Mine is my stickerless Zhanchi. I have two other stickerless Zhanchi's and plenty of stickered ones, and even though they are the same cube, they AREN'T my main stickerless Zhanchi and I can tell the difference within one second of using it.

The main reason I prefer stickerless is because I've been using them for so long now that when I use black/white, my recognition is hindered. Similar to how someone who normally solves black cubes jumps to a white cube and they have trouble adjusting. It has nothing to do with seeing the back/top edge of the rear side (which I personally believe to be a tremendously weak argument in a speedsolving setting) 

I also find it funny that some people are anti-stickerless but fail to recognize the fluorescent sticker argument. Seems a little hypocritical to me..


----------



## AustinReed (Apr 21, 2013)

I seriously don't understand why there is still debate. It's been proven that you can see things on stickerless cubes that can't be seen on stickered cubes. Get over it.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 21, 2013)

AustinReed said:


> It's been proven that you can see things on stickerless cubes that can't be seen on stickered cubes.



It's been proven that you can see things on tiled cubes that can't be seen on stickered cubes.
Tiled cubes are allowed.
So, your point is that stickerless cubes are or should be allowed?


----------



## AustinReed (Apr 21, 2013)

Stefan said:


> It's been proven that you can see things on tiled cubes that can't be seen on stickered cubes.
> Tiled cubes are allowed.
> So, your point is that stickerless cubes are or should be allowed?



Well, if tiled cubes cause an advantage, they should be banned too. That is, if the tiles are thick enough. 

All I'm saying is that there has to be a limit of what you can and cannot see from a certain viewpoint.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 21, 2013)

Kattenvriendin said:


> Why the preference for the stickerless?


People like the look and feel of the cube, I think. Same reason some people prefer white plastic or have a particular favorite brand. I assume your main cube isn't stickerless, but what if it was? I guess it would be kind of annoying to not be able to use your best speedcube in competition.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 22, 2013)

AustinReed said:


> Well, if tiled cubes cause an advantage, they should be banned too.



Ah, so now you changed from "lets you see new things" to "causes an advantage". Has it been proven that stickerless cubes cause an advantage?


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 22, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Ah, so now you changed from "lets you see new things" to "causes an advantage". Has it been proven that stickerless cubes cause an advantage?



Proof: Take stickerless cube and turn U layer a few degrees. You can now see the colors of all second layer edges. Take a normal cube and do the same thing - you have to turn the whole cube to get the same information.

Has anyone proved that this can be used to get better times? I don't think so.


----------



## Emily Wang (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> Proof: Take stickerless cube and turn U layer a few degrees. You can now see the colors of all second layer edges. Take a normal cube and do the same thing - you have to turn the whole cube to get the same information.
> 
> Has anyone proved that this can be used to get better times? I don't think so.



So are you saying that seeing additional colours 'causes an advantage' or not? bc idk what you're trying to argue here


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 22, 2013)

Emily Wang said:


> So are you saying that seeing additional colours 'causes an advantage' or not? bc idk what you're trying to argue here



I'm saying that a stickerless cube will let you look at the back of the puzzle without turning it, and IMO that's an advantage by definition. However, just because the advantage is there doesn't mean that everybody will automatically use it. I think that to actually get a better time using this advantage would require a significant amount of practice, and I'm not going to do it just to win an internet argument because it would be a waste of time.

Imagine if some player wanted to solve the cube in front of a mirror at competitions. This would allow him/her to see the complete back side of the cube (similar to how a stickerless cube allows you to see part of the back side), information which is not as easily available to everybody else who will have to turn their puzzle in some way. Would this not clearly be an advantage? Is it a good idea to allow mirrors even if proponents claim that they're not getting better times because of it? Is "we like freedom" really an argument for anything?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 22, 2013)

Getting an "advantage" isn't much of an argument either. Having a good cube gives you an advantage (over all the people with bad cubes). Having nice new stickers gives you an advantage (over people with messy stickers). Having a mini cube gives you an advantage (you can see L and R at the same time). Having a normal-sized cube gives you an advantage (M slices are easier). It's not like the advantage in this case is unfair - there are several types and sizes of stickerless cubes out there, and anyone can buy one.

So you can see more pieces. So what? Does that make you faster? Can anyone actually use that during a solve? Is it any worse than having tiles or a mini cube?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> Imagine if some player wanted to solve the cube in front of a mirror at competitions. This would allow him/her to see the complete back side of the cube (similar to how a stickerless cube allows you to see part of the back side), information which is not as easily available to everybody else who will have to turn their puzzle in some way. Would this not clearly be an advantage? Is it a good idea to allow mirrors even if proponents claim that they're not getting better times because of it? Is "we like freedom" really an argument for anything?



A5b


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> Imagine if some player wanted to solve the cube in front of a mirror at competitions. This would allow him/her to see the complete back side of the cube (similar to how a stickerless cube allows you to see part of the back side), information which is not as easily available to everybody else who will have to turn their puzzle in some way. Would this not clearly be an advantage? Is it a good idea to allow mirrors even if proponents claim that they're not getting better times because of it? Is "we like freedom" really an argument for anything?



The mirror would be an advantage, but since the solves are only meant to involve the competitor, the cube, the surface and the timer, its a different issue from stickerless cubes.

I just tested and found that the timer display as a little reflective, so you can look at your cube's reflection to get info about the D face. Clearly extra information which gives an unfair advantage, we must clearly ban looking at the timer during a solve [/sarcasm].


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 22, 2013)

qqwref said:


> So you can see more pieces. So what? Does that make you faster? Can anyone actually use that during a solve? Is it any worse than having tiles or a mini cube?





bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> The mirror would be an advantage, but since the solves are only meant to involve the competitor, the cube, the surface and the timer, its a different issue from stickerless cubes.



On the tiles issue, I think it's very inconsistent that they allow thick tiles.. And how small does the cube have to be for you to see two sides at one time? 2 cm? You know that pillowed cubes are banned for exactly this reason?

I'll follow with a counter-counter-question; Do you think any kind of stickers should also be allowed? Currently all stickers on one side must have a uniform color, logos have to be placed in the center and even heavily worn stickers are banned. But if these rules were changed, I could use stickers that show all the cubie's colors on each sticker (like this supercube, except the centers would still be solid colors). Then I could also know the colors of part of the back face.. According to qqwref seeing more pieces shouldn't be a problem, right? And bobthe.., this doesn't involve any external tools, so is it not the same issue as stickerless cubes?

Speedcubing has its origins in solving the Rubik's Cube as fast as possible, so IMHO cubes should be limited to what you can do with and see on a standard Rubik's Cube. A Zhanchi might be better at turning than an original cube, but it can't do any new kinds of moves. Half-bright stickers might be easier to recognize for some people, but they don't give any extra information that you don't get with a Rubik's brand cube. Additionally, you can look at the reflection in the timer display with any kind of cube so this is not an advantage for anyone.


----------



## Emily Wang (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> I'm saying that a stickerless cube will let you look at the back of the puzzle without turning it, and IMO that's an advantage by definition. However, just because the advantage is there doesn't mean that everybody will automatically use it. I think that to actually get a better time using this advantage would require a significant amount of practice, and I'm not going to do it just to win an internet argument because it would be a waste of time.
> 
> Imagine if some player wanted to solve the cube in front of a mirror at competitions. This would allow him/her to see the complete back side of the cube (similar to how a stickerless cube allows you to see part of the back side), information which is not as easily available to everybody else who will have to turn their puzzle in some way. Would this not clearly be an advantage? Is it a good idea to allow mirrors even if proponents claim that they're not getting better times because of it? Is "we like freedom" really an argument for anything?



okay what does the mirror analogy actually have to do with anything. also you said this earlier:



JohanAR said:


> Has anyone proved that this can be used to get better times? I don't think so.



which means basically that everything you've said about any advantages is just conjecture. also what michael said


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> Additionally, you can look at the reflection in the timer display with any kind of cube so this is not an advantage for anyone.



So if you were allowed to start with the cube in your hands, that's something you could do with any cube and everyone could do it - so is that not an advantage for anyone?


----------



## Stefan (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> a stickerless cube will let you look at the back of the puzzle without turning it, and IMO that's an advantage by definition.



a stickered cube will hide the otherwise distracting back of the puzzle, and IMO that's an advantage by definition.


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 22, 2013)

Emily Wang said:


> okay what does the mirror analogy actually have to do with anything. also you said this earlier:



I wanted you to admit that being able to see the back pieces of the puzzle is an advantage. As far as I know nobody has spent (wasted?) time getting faster solves using a mirror either. Can we agree that allowing tools that allows you to see the back of the puzzle should stay banned, without anyone having to prove that they can give you better times?



Kirjava said:


> So if you were allowed to start with the cube in your hands, that's something you could do with any cube and everyone could do it - so is that not an advantage for anyone?



I have honestly no idea what you're talking about, but if everybody does the same thing then nobody has an advantage.



Stefan said:


> a stickered cube will hide the otherwise distracting back of the puzzle, and IMO that's an advantage by definition.



Feel free to ban them in your competition for stickerless speed solving if you think so.


Love how everybody ignored my question about sticker mods.. Could it be that you feel marked stickers would provide an unfair advantage (without anyone actually having proved that this is the case) but there are no solid arguments why stickerless cubes should be allowed while keeping sticker mods banned?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 22, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> And how small does the cube have to be for you to see two sides at one time? 2 cm?


Anything smaller than the distance between your eyes. You may have to bring the cube near your face or cross your eyes a little.



JohanAR said:


> But if these rules were changed, I could use stickers that show all the cubie's colors on each sticker (like this supercube, except the centers would still be solid colors). Then I could also know the colors of part of the back face..


I dunno. I'm not completely sure this would provide a benefit, due to the color confusion. But if the benefit is really obvious, then considering it's not at all a popular type of stickering, we should forbid it so everyone doesn't have to switch in order to have a chance. The advantages of stickerless cubes are nowhere near as clear, and they are very popular, so forbidding them may essentially do more harm than good by preventing many people from using their best cube in competition.



JohanAR said:


> Feel free to ban them in your competition for stickerless speed solving if you think so.


Well that's not a very helpful response, now, is it? We're trying to get a community consensus through debate, not trying to form splinter groups. It's in everyone's best interest to stick with WCA.


----------



## Maskow (Apr 22, 2013)

I can tell you why they should be allowed:
changing stickers in 37 cubes for multiblindfold before competition is a terrible thing.


----------



## Lchu613 (Apr 22, 2013)

Maskow said:


> I can tell you why they should be allowed:
> changing stickers in 37 cubes for multiblindfold before competition is a terrible thing.



This should be someone's sig


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 22, 2013)

I think the problem here is that it is not about _benefit_, but _potential benefit_. Same reason we don't allow people to listen to music or judge before they have done the solves themselves: we don't actually think anyone would abuse these things, but we also don't want to give them the chance. You can argue all you want about whether the advantage of a stickerless cube should or should not be allowed in competitions, but objectively speaking there *is* a benefit that could _potentially_ be taken advantage of.

I'm also inclined (pun intended) to use the slippery slope argument here. Once you allow stickerless cubes, people are going to start making it so that the stickerlessness can more easily be taken advantage of (unless they are properly regulated of course). 

For the sake of consistency, I think the width for tiles needs to be smaller. I see a lot of megaminxes where you can see sides you shouldn't be able to because of the sides of the tiles. I can see this being taken advantage of (subconsciously or consciously) especially on a puzzle where lookahead is so difficult.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2013)

If you truncate the edges of a stickerless cube (even if only a little) you can see the other sides amazingly easily.

This would def. be a huge advantage. Esp. in step 4c of Roux - a recognition system I spent months working on and incorporating into my solving technique would become redundant and I can ignore having to use it - this only requires looking at one extra back sticker that can be easily seen with the stated modification.

Anyone putting forward the idea that it doesn't offer any kind of major enhancement is incorrect. Please stop doing that now.

However, this idea by itself doesn't have any bearing on if they should be allowed or not - it's just relevant point for the discussion.


----------



## uniacto (Apr 23, 2013)

It's not as if these rules for advantages will actually make a huge difference in time. 

but on the other hand, I don't understand what's the big deal here. Rules are rules. Deal with it.


----------



## LarryLunchmeat (Apr 23, 2013)

This is actually the main reason I want no part of a WCA event. I'm a stickerless cube user and until they allow stickerless cubes into WCA events, they won't get a dime from me. I know this makes me sound like a butthurt Nancy, but it's more of a principle thing. Especially since they fail to recognize things like tile thickness or my favourite, the fact that you can see the reflection of a fluorescent sticker on your fingers when it's on the backside of a cube, which to me, is the exact same thing as peeking over a cube to see a fragment of colour on the backside.:fp


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 23, 2013)

LarryLunchmeat said:


> the fact that you can see the reflection of a fluorescent sticker on your fingers when it's on the backside of a cube, which to me, is the exact same thing as peeking over a cube to see a fragment of colour on the backside.:fp



That's not the main reason why stickerless cubes are not allowed.


----------



## Rnewms (Apr 23, 2013)

LarryLunchmeat said:


> This is actually the main reason I want no part of a WCA event. I'm a stickerless cube user and until they allow stickerless cubes into WCA events, they won't get a dime from me.



WCA is nonprofit; keep your dimes.


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 23, 2013)

Rnewms said:


> WCA is nonprofit; keep your dimes.



Beat me to it. 

Don't complain about an organization that doesn't want your money and is next to free to take part in. 

Every sport has its rules, and those rules will ALWAYS favor some people over others, and there will ALWAYS be seemingly unfair rules meant to keep the integrity of the game intact. Just look at golf... you can be penalized horrifically for something that objectively speaking doesn't matter in the slightest. The best we can do is argue about the rules and make our opinions heard, and I doubt the board (note that all of us are part of the WCA) will listen to someone who would rather boycott a rule than try to change it.


----------



## jayefbe (Apr 23, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Beat me to it.
> 
> Don't complain about an organization that doesn't want your money and is next to free to take part in.
> 
> Every sport has its rules, and those rules will ALWAYS favor some people over others, and there will ALWAYS be seemingly unfair rules meant to keep the integrity of the game intact. Just look at golf... you can be penalized horrifically for something that objectively speaking doesn't matter in the slightest. The best we can do is argue about the rules and make our opinions heard, and I doubt the board (note that all of us are part of the WCA) will listen to someone who would rather boycott a rule than try to change it.



Exactly. Without rules that are strictly enforced, it is impossible to ensure that results are comparable from one competition to another. Unfortunately, strictly defined rules will seem arbitrary at times. But it's either seemingly arbitrary rules that are strictly enforced, or vague rules that may vary from one competition to another, making it difficult to maintain a consistent and accurate competitive environment. Every competitive event will have it's "stickerless cubes". Just recognize that if it wasn't stickerless cubes, it would be something else that everyone complained about. Get over it.


----------



## TMOY (Apr 23, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> For the sake of consistency, I think the width for tiles needs to be smaller. I see a lot of megaminxes where you can see sides you shouldn't be able to because of the sides of the tiles. I can see this being taken advantage of (subconsciously or consciously) especially on a puzzle where lookahead is so difficult.


Megaminx is a bad example. Even with a stickered puzzle, you are already able to see 6 sides at a time, which is more than enough info tor speedsolving purposes, seeing more really doesn't help.


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 23, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Megaminx is a bad example. Even with a stickered puzzle, you are already able to see 6 sides at a time, which is more than enough info tor speedsolving purposes, seeing more really doesn't help.


But someone who has an unbelievable brain could use it to his/her advantage.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 23, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> But it's either seemingly arbitrary rules that are strictly enforced, or vague rules that may vary from one competition to another


I disagree. I think the choice is between "unambiguous rules that follow our intuition about what is reasonable to allow" and "unambiguous rules that don't". Which is why we have debates like this. The WCA is supposed to make decisions based on community input, which means we don't *have* to settle for having bad rules.


Anyway, I wonder, if we allow stickerless cubes, will fast people be forced to switch to stickerless cubes to remain competitive? Is it really enough of an advantage to matter, or is it an advantage on the same level as a really good brand of cube?


----------



## TMOY (Apr 23, 2013)

cxinlee said:


> But someone who has an unbelievable brain could use it to his/her advantage.



Somebody with an unbelievable brain can find lots of ways of cheating nobody else can think of anyway.


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 23, 2013)

TMOY said:


> Somebody with an unbelievable brain can find lots of ways of cheating nobody else can think of anyway.


Thus, more and more rules are being made to prevent cheating.


----------



## Petro Leum (Apr 23, 2013)

IMO, all that "unfair advantage, faster cubes, visible stuff BLAH BLAH" is complete BS.

The reason why they should be allowed is because it gets rid of those nasty stickers, I really hate them.


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 23, 2013)

qqwref said:


> But if the benefit is really obvious, then considering it's not at all a popular type of stickering, we should forbid it so everyone doesn't have to switch in order to have a chance. The advantages of stickerless cubes are nowhere near as clear, and they are very popular, so forbidding them may essentially do more harm than good by preventing many people from using their best cube in competition.



And this is one of the points I'm trying to argue; If stickless cubes are allowed and provide an ever so slight advantage, a lot of people would feel that they have to switch to a stickerless cube. I agree that the it's not as clear if stickerless cubes will bring faster times, though Kirjava wrote that they gave him a significant benefit when using Roux.



qqwref said:


> Anyway, I wonder, if we allow stickerless cubes, will fast people be forced to switch to stickerless cubes to remain competitive? Is it really enough of an advantage to matter, or is it an advantage on the same level as a really good brand of cube?



Competitions aren't only about fast people. Average people and beginners want to be as fast as they can too..

To the second point, a good speedcube let's say a Zhanchi, is an improvement of the old Rubik's Cube. The Zhanchi can do exactly the same things as the Rubik's, except better. However, it doesn't do _new_ things.

An (obviously exaggerated) analogy is that in a cycling competition, you are allowed to bring the best bike money can buy you, but you're not allowed to put a motor on it. One can argue that a moped is an improved bicycle and debate if it really brings an advantage (I think mopeds are speed limited to 35km/h here nowadays, a speed which is easily attainable with a good bike) but the deciding factor will be that the moped has an additional feature - a motor - that bicycles traditionally don't have.



qqwref said:


> Well that's not a very helpful response, now, is it?



I'm pretty sure the post I replied to was intended as a joke..



Maskow said:


> changing stickers in 37 cubes for multiblindfold before competition is a terrible thing.



Stickerless cubes should IMO be allowed in all blind events, because if you can't see the cube while solving they're no different from a regular Rubik's Cube.



Noahaha said:


> I think the problem here is that it is not about _benefit_, but _potential benefit_



Finally, someone who seems to agree with me


----------



## jayefbe (Apr 23, 2013)

qqwref said:


> I disagree. I think the choice is between "unambiguous rules that follow our intuition about what is reasonable to allow" and "unambiguous rules that don't". Which is why we have debates like this. The WCA is supposed to make decisions based on community input, which means we don't *have* to settle for having bad rules.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I wonder, if we allow stickerless cubes, will fast people be forced to switch to stickerless cubes to remain competitive? Is it really enough of an advantage to matter, or is it an advantage on the same level as a really good brand of cube?



What's your solution? At what point should the line be drawn? This is currently being debated as "should stickerless be allowed or not", when I think the real question is "what cubes should be allowed, and what shouldn't". Right now, it basically comes down to stickered vs stickerless, but that may not always be the case. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and ultimately some portion of the population will find it to be fairly arbitrary. I personally feel that stickerless cubes is a decent place to draw the line. While my gut feeling is that stickerless cubes don't give a significant advantage to the cuber, I think drawing the line at stickerless cubes prevents people from having to differentiate between stickerless vs stickered results or arguing over whether or not records from one is more valid than the other. Clearly stickerless do provide something that stickered cubes don't. 

Part of the reason why I think it's reasonable to keep stickerless out of competitions, is that allowing them will force people to make that decision between stickerless or stickered cubes. Plus, if a bunch of WRs are broken, it will be questioned whether that is due purely to the cuber's talent or partially due to these newly legal cubes.


----------



## BaMiao (Apr 23, 2013)

Just my 2 cents:

From a purely pragmatic sense, there has to be a line drawn in the regulations somewhere. Banning stickerless cubes is a natural point to draw the line, because it does offer a clear, distinct advantage (being able to see colors that were not seen in the original rubik's cube).

Now, I doubt it would have any noticeable effect on cube times in the immediate future, but that may only be because we are not practiced at using this advantage. With practice, you might be able to work it in to your lookahead (for example, you might learn to spot the BL and BR colors mid-U move).

And besides- no one makes stickerless cubes with hot pink. My daughter would be devastated if I couldn't use my hot pink stickers


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 23, 2013)

Petro Leum said:


> The reason why they should be allowed is because it gets rid of those nasty stickers, I really hate them.


What about tiles?


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> Just my 2 cents:
> 
> From a purely pragmatic sense, there has to be a line drawn in the regulations somewhere. Banning stickerless cubes is a natural point to draw the line, because it does offer a clear, distinct advantage (being able to see colors that were not seen in the original rubik's cube).


And for the worn stickers? Stickers with marks give illegal information too. Where's the line?
If the stickers weren't allowed, the line would be clear.


----------



## BaMiao (Apr 23, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> And for the worn stickers? Stickers with marks give illegal information too. Where's the line?
> If the stickers weren't allowed, the line would be clear.



My understanding (haven't been to a comp yet) is that a ruling on worn stickers is up to the discretion of the judge. I agree that this is not ideal. However, I think you have to compare the advantages of a cube to how the original puzzle (rubik's brand) was solved, and the rubik's brand had stickers.

And before you jump in with the lube/improved cube argument- these advantages didn't fundamentally change the way the puzzle was solved. They only make it possible to turn faster. The argument could be made that seeing more colors on the cube at one time has the potential to change the act of solving in a more fundamental way. You may disagree, but that is my reasoning.


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 23, 2013)

I personally think that the rule should stand. If stickerless cubes were allowed, everyone would be pressured to buy a stickerless cube to make things fair. Thus, those who cannot get them due to monetary or other reasons might unfairly get slower times than others.


----------



## Petro Leum (Apr 23, 2013)

cxinlee said:


> What about tiles?


i have a cube with tiles, they suck. slippery, make your cube bigger, get really sharp corners when they break a littlebit....


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 23, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> And for the worn stickers? Stickers with marks give illegal information too. Where's the line?
> If the stickers weren't allowed, the line would be clear.



But they are already banned, so what are you trying to argue?


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

JohanAR said:


> But they are already banned, so what are you trying to argue?


THIS : 


BaMiao said:


> My understanding (haven't been to a comp yet) is that a ruling on worn stickers is *up to the discretion of the judge*.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Apr 23, 2013)

that a ruling on worn stickers is up to the discretion of the judge.

Wrong.. up to the WCA delegate 

http://worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#3j1


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

One question : would a delegate refuse my cube for just three little scratches on the stickers?

I doubt a judge or WCA delegate would refuse my cube for so few.

He should.

I'm a ZZ cuber, I use a fixed cube orientation for every solve. For me, just a little scratch on one edge and two corners would help me a lot for recognition.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 23, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> One question : would a delegate refuse my cube for just three little scratches on the stickers?
> 
> I doubt a judge or WCA delegate would refuse my cube for so few.
> 
> ...



But would you put in the effort to learn which corners had the scratches on and actually use this information in a speedsolve?


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 23, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> But would you put in the effort to learn which corners had the scratches on and actually use this information in a speedsolve?



BLD maybe...


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 23, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> BLD maybe...



OK fine. So let's assume that chipped stickers are an advantage. There are a few ways to rectify this:
1. Force people to use new stickers in competitions. This would be incredibly expensive, since small chips/scratches can occur often and not after much use.
2. Create stickers that never chip. This again would be impractical for people who can't get them or afford them
3. Remove stickers completely and move to stickerless cubes. But then people can use the larger advantage of stickerless cubes in competition because we don't allow something that's more likely to be just a distraction.

Maybe in a perfect world you could say no sticker damage, but this is real life and stuff happens. What we have at the moment is the best compromise on practicality and on ease of enforcement. If you are using small chips in stickers to cheat, then you should feel bad and also it would probably be noticed during your solves.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> But would you put in the effort to learn which corners had the scratches on and actually use this information in a speedsolve?


I would do the scratches myself : on RED on the RED/WHITE edge and corners.
The same on the ORANGE face would be good too.


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 23, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> OK fine. So let's assume that chipped stickers are an advantage. There are a few ways to rectify this:
> 1. Force people to use new stickers in competitions. This would be incredibly expensive, since small chips/scratches can occur often and not after much use.
> 2. Create stickers that never chip. This again would be impractical for people who can't get them or afford them
> 3. Remove stickers completely and move to stickerless cubes. But then people can use the larger advantage of stickerless cubes in competition because we don't allow something that's more likely to be just a distraction.
> ...



I think the situation on that is pretty good the way it is. Delegates can tell people not to use certain cubes.


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 23, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> But would you put in the effort to learn which corners had the scratches on and actually use this information in a speedsolve?


We can't assume that everyone wouldn't.


----------



## JohanAR (Apr 23, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> THIS :



"Puzzles are permitted to have reasonable wear, at the discretion of the WCA Delegate."

Stickers are allowed to have some wear (rule 3j1), as long as they don't violate rule 3j: i.e. puzzle has "markings or other differences that distinguish any piece from a similar piece" etc. The line is when you can tell pieces apart by looking at the wear patterns. The person who has the final say if your puzzle breaks any rule is the WCA delegate, as with every other judgement call.

It doesn't mean that you some times are allowed to have marked pieces if the delegate is in a good mood or something.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 23, 2013)

cxinlee said:


> If stickerless cubes were allowed, everyone would be pressured to buy a stickerless cube to make things fair.


Except that this totally didn't happen when they were legal. It was just like it was now, that is, people used whatever cube they wanted and there was a ton of variation.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2013)

If stickerless cubes we made legal, I would have to buy one.

I would then perform the 'mod' I talked about and enjoy my ability to recognise CLL from any angle with my single-angle-only recognition system.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 23, 2013)

24 pages? What are people not getting? You can see sides of the cube that you are not looking directly at adding functionality to the cube that was never originally intended.

Can I use flavoured stickers for blind?
Of course not.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> 24 pages? What are people not getting?


Thanks for your input. Of those 24 pages, how many have you read ?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 23, 2013)

Only about 15.

It's mostly people complaining that because of some other thing that is still legal therefore stickerless cubes should still be legal. That is a reason for those other things to be made illegal not visa versa.
That or thinking that it is not a useable advantage when it can quite obviously be exploited with practice, especially to find out what BR and BL are during F2L without awkwardly turning the cube during another pair.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 23, 2013)

Right.

Plus, those other little things that should be illegal exist and they haven't destroy the competition.



Kirjava said:


> I would then perform the 'mod' I talked about and enjoy my ability to recognise CLL from any angle with my single-angle-only recognition system.


If it helps to go faster, some may see it as an improvement.

Stickerless cubes could be seen like the introduction of poles made of fiberglass or carbon fiber in pole vault. Those poles have dramatically increase the performance, but it's still pole vault.


----------



## Olji (Apr 23, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I would then perform the 'mod' I talked about and enjoy my ability to recognise CLL from any angle with my single-angle-only recognition system.



Although wouldn't that violate 3h? Specifically the additional information part. (This would probably apply to the supercube-stickering idea someone had a few pages before too.)


Regulations said:


> Modifications that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle are not permitted. Modified versions of puzzles are permitted only if the modification does not make any additional information available to the competitor (e.g. identity of pieces), compared to an unmodified version of the same puzzle.


----------



## itgfreak (Apr 27, 2013)

I'm sure lots of people here have stacks of 'zombie' cubes collecting dust right beside their stickerless Zanchi


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 27, 2013)

itgfreak said:


> democracy much?



The WCA/WRC doesn't seem to value the opinion of the community like it once did.

Say goodbye to +2.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 27, 2013)

itgfreak said:


> The facts remain that over 50% of us want this to be an option ( democracy much? )



Over 50% of the people who voted.
You are more likely to open and vote in this thread if you are for the use of stickerless cubes in my opinion.



itgfreak said:


> there are unofficial times of people getting sub 5s on a stickered cube



I presume you meant stickerless.
What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## MorrisKid101 (Apr 29, 2013)

This is the WCA rule:
"Stickerless" cubes, and other cubes whose face colours are visible inside the cube, are not permitted.
This proves that it is not the fact the cube is stickerless, it's the fact you can see the colours on the inside where the two/three bits of coloured plastic join. If there was some way to remove that, but still keeping the cube stickerless, you may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the WCA

And I think stickerless cubes SHOULD be allowed. I heard that the face colour on the inside creates confusion with +2 and possibly DNF. How could you be confused by two colours of plastic?! You can clearly see by the rotation of the layer whether or not it is over a 45° angle. Can someone please give me a legitimate reason why stickerless cubes should not be allowed? Unless I'm missing something, then the whole thing seems kinda ridiculous.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 29, 2013)

MorrisKid101 said:


> ...If there was some way to remove that, but still keeping the cube stickerless, you may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the WCA



That's probably not the wording you want. There are cubes like this out there.



MorrisKid101 said:


> And I think stickerless cubes SHOULD be allowed. I heard that the face colour on the inside creates confusion with +2 and possibly DNF. How could you be confused by two colours of plastic?! You can clearly see by the rotation of the layer whether or not it is over a 45° angle. Can someone please give me a legitimate reason why stickerless cubes should not be allowed? Unless I'm missing something, then the whole thing seems kinda ridiculous.



It's not necessarily ridiculous. It does potentially give an advantage that can be used, just like putting specific marks on stickers so that you know which is which, and that is also not allowed. Really, they shouldn't have been allowed in competition to begin with and then this would never be an argument.


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 29, 2013)

These are the arguments I have seen for allowing stickerless cubes:

1. There's no REAL advantage
2. Even if there is an advantage, it would be an advantage for everyone
3. People want it

Now, let's see what happens when we apply these arguments to something else that is not allowed: listening to music during solving

1. There's no REAL advantage since it doesn't affect how you do the solves
- While this is true for people who listen to music, it is not true for people who listen to instructions on how to solve a cube or during BLD listening to a friend telling them where the stickers are.
-> In the same way, the majority of people who would use stickerless cubes wouldn't take an unfair advantage, but there could be people who abuse it.

2. Even if listening to music is an advantage, it's an advantage for everyone.
- Not true since the people who don't have music to listen to or the right music to listen to would not receive the advantage.
-> If stickerless cubes evolve to the point where they give a distinct advantage, what happens to the people who don't want to use them?

3. People want to listen to music.
- Too bad, it's unfair.
-> Too bad, stickerless cubes are unfair.

I think most people agree that listening to music should not be allowed, and although it is harder to see, the same exact reasons prevent stickerless cubes from being allowed.


Finally, what I think most people here aren't quite grasping is the fact that it is not necessarily about banning the stickerless dayan cubes. It is about *drawing a line*. We need somewhere to say "this is allowed and that is not" and it just happens that drawing it at stickerless cubes is the most logical place. If we allow stickerless cubes, someone will surely come out with a way to exploit this so that it creates a bigger advantage than is already there.


----------



## MorrisKid101 (Apr 30, 2013)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> That's probably not the wording you want. There are cubes like this out there.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not necessarily ridiculous. It does potentially give an advantage that can be used, just like putting specific marks on stickers so that you know which is which, and that is also not allowed. Really, they shouldn't have been allowed in competition to begin with and then this would never be an argument.



You raise some good points, but when you say they should never have been allowed, does that mean they were allowed once? Sorry, I'm quite new to speedcubing, so I'm not sure about past regulations


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 30, 2013)

MorrisKid101 said:


> You raise some good points, but when you say they should never have been allowed, does that mean they were allowed once? Sorry, I'm quite new to speedcubing, so I'm not sure about past regulations



When they first came about they weren't banned. After some time it was pointed out that the colours on the angle of turn can be used to see more than is allowed for a comp-legal cube so they were banned, except from BLD events. It then remained like this for a while with some discussion about it going on, and then they were totally banned.
People seem to be annoyed because they were allowed for a time and then banned, but really they shouldn't have been legal to begin with.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Apr 30, 2013)

I would like to think that if Dayan released their cubes in a variation like this Cube4You tiled cube then people would just drop the subject.
I doubt it though due to the perpetuation of the confirmation bias that stickless cubes are better than the black and white ones.


----------



## Vincents (Apr 30, 2013)

The WRC's mission, in my mind, is to promote fairness in competition.

A by-product goal is to standardize practices and regulations. Each person's WCA page should have a list of their accomplishments, achieved under the same conditions as everyone else.

I don't think I would be remiss in conjecturing that only those who feel most strongly against the status quo would feel the need to enter this thread and vote/post - others on the other side of the argument might post once or twice, and lose interest (because there simply isn't anything for them to care enough about, right now).

I want to note that while in this specific thread, a plurality of you are for stickerless cubes being allowed in competition, you are a small part of a skewed sample. The worldwide community is much larger than Speedsolving.com. Speedsolving.com is much larger than the people who still feel strongly enough about this topic to post in this thread. Speedsolving.com is missing, for one thing, many of the Delegates who represent and/or speak for areas of the world where English is not considered the predominant lingua franca. I'm not advocating that you do this at your next competition, but I would also conjecture that if you asked your local delegate for an opinion (and s/he gave one to you), it would probably be against the use of stickerless cubes in competition - and they could tell you why.

The WRC does value community input, in that it gives us a great idea of what the current state of the sport is and can inform or guide future policy. Please try to remember that there are many communities out there, and one thread on Speedsolving.com is not a representative sample of what the cubing community as a whole feels.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Apr 30, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> 1. There's no REAL advantage since it doesn't affect how you do the solves
> - While this is true for people who listen to music, it is not true for people who listen to instructions on how to solve a cube or during BLD listening to a friend telling them where the stickers are.



This annoys me so much. I understand exactly why it is banned and I know nothing will change that it the near future but it is such a pain in the butt.


----------



## LarryLunchmeat (Apr 30, 2013)

So then why is stickerless legal in blindfolding??
During inspection/memorization, you can see more of the puzzle than you can on a stickered cube so technically that is an advantage.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 30, 2013)

LarryLunchmeat said:


> So then why is stickerless legal in blindfolding??
> During inspection/memorization, you can see more of the puzzle than you can on a stickered cube so technically that is an advantage.



It isn't.
They're banned in all events.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 30, 2013)

Vincents said:


> The worldwide community is much larger than Speedsolving.com.


Larger, yes. Much larger, I don't know.
WCA has 21743 members who's doing 3x3x3 : http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#most_persons
Speedsolving has 17415 members : http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/memberlist.php

However, I see your point.


----------



## TMOY (Apr 30, 2013)

Vincents said:


> I want to note that while in this specific thread, a plurality of you are for stickerless cubes being allowed in competition, you are a small part of a skewed sample. The worldwide community is much larger than Speedsolving.com. Speedsolving.com is much larger than the people who still feel strongly enough about this topic to post in this thread. Speedsolving.com is missing, for one thing, many of the Delegates who represent and/or speak for areas of the world where English is not considered the predominant lingua franca. I'm not advocating that you do this at your next competition, but I would also conjecture that if you asked your local delegate for an opinion (and s/he gave one to you), it would probably be against the use of stickerless cubes in competition - and they could tell you why.



Oh no, not that stupid "silent majority" argument again. Since people don't say anything, they must all agree with you. Sure.

Don't you think there are other reasons for people to keep their mouth shut ? Because they simply don't read that kind of threads, for example ? Or because they lack the necessary self-confidence to fight abainst the big mouths of the forum ? Or because they're simply tired of fighting against windmills for the Nth time ?


----------



## qqwref (May 1, 2013)

Vincents said:


> The WRC's mission, in my mind, is to promote fairness in competition.


Nobody is suggesting allowing stickerless cubes even though they think the cubes are unfair. People are suggesting allowing stickerless cubes specifically because they don't think the cubes are unfair. By bring up this point you imply that people disagree with you, but that's not true at all.



Vincents said:


> I don't think I would be remiss in conjecturing that only those who feel most strongly against the status quo would feel the need to enter this thread and vote/post - others on the other side of the argument might post once or twice, and lose interest (because there simply isn't anything for them to care enough about, right now).
> 
> I want to note that while in this specific thread, a plurality of you are for stickerless cubes being allowed in competition, you are a small part of a skewed sample.


Sure, but: (a) Who knows what everyone in the world thinks? Nobody. (b) The point of threads like this is to discuss the arguments for and against, not to try to determine what percent of people want stickerless cubes to be allowed in competition.


----------



## Vincents (May 1, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Nobody is suggesting allowing stickerless cubes even though they think the cubes are unfair. People are suggesting allowing stickerless cubes specifically because they don't think the cubes are unfair. By bring up this point you imply that people disagree with you, but that's not true at all.
> 
> 
> Sure, but: (a) Who knows what everyone in the world thinks? Nobody. (b) The point of threads like this is to discuss the arguments for and against, not to try to determine what percent of people want stickerless cubes to be allowed in competition.




I was not intending to argue a certain position regarding the stickerless cubes proposition in my first bit. I was simply trying to communicate how I approach all debates in this arena, in the hopes that people can better understand where I'm coming from. If it better informs people and allows them to make more effective arguments (on both sides), my mission has been accomplished.

The other bit is simply to counterbalance an implication that the WRC has stopped caring about community input. That's not true. While we do consider community input, my point is that Speedsolving.com is not the only piece of the community we listen to.

I make no assumptions about the motivations of people with regards to whether they post here, TMOY. I only state that this thread is probably not a representative sample of the community - why that is is open for debate; I've simply offered one or two possibilities that may be completely wrong.

In conclusion, I'm not arguing for or against either side - I simply am attempting to inform regarding my position. I might conjecture, but I give little or no credence to hypotheses unless offered supporting evidence. Please refrain from misrepresenting my post(s) as such.


----------



## elrog (May 1, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> Larger, yes. Much larger, I don't know.
> WCA has 21743 members who's doing 3x3x3 : http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#most_persons
> Speedsolving has 17415 members : http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/memberlist.php
> 
> However, I see your point.



According to your statistics, this represents about 80% of the world wide speedcubing community. Oh, and by the way, only 380 people have voted. That gives me about 1.7%.


----------



## Bob (May 1, 2013)

elrog said:


> According to your statistics, this represents about 80% of the world wide speedcubing community. Oh, and by the way, only 380 people have voted. That gives me about 1.7%.



Not true. You are making two (very wrong) assumptions:
1) All of Speedsolving.com's members are members of the WCA
2) The world wide speedcubing community is only those who have competed officially


----------



## elrog (May 1, 2013)

I understand that my numbers are not all that accurate either, but with so many variables it is impossible to get an exact answer. This is the same reason weight loss programs don't work. There are to many variables in a persons metabolic rate and such to know exactly how to make them lose weight the easiest way they possibly can. Even though my numbers are not accurate, I think it should get Vincents point across that this isn't an accurate representation of the world wide speedsolving community.

Both of your points include a larger group even than what Pyjam said even further proving my point how little 380 is. You may also want to include the fact though that he took all of speedsolving.coms members, yet only the 3x3 solvers from the WCA. As I said earlier, theres just to many variables.


----------



## Pyjam (May 1, 2013)

It's a poll not a referendum. The idea is to get the temperature.

Be honest. If there was 60% of no, I would have said : OK, people don't want them.
Here, we have two yes for one no.


----------



## applemobile (May 1, 2013)

Bob said:


> Not true. You are making two (very wrong) assumptions:
> 1) All of Speedsolving.com's members are members of the WCA
> 2) The world wide speedcubing community is only those who have competed officially




3) Every member only has one account.


----------



## Kirjava (May 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> 3) Every member only has one account.



I assume the amount of people with more than one account is minimal.


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 1, 2013)

I seem to remember voting yes almost 3 years ago. I have changed my mind to a firm no now after reading both sides.

IMO, as I have previously stated, you are more likely to vote if you are going to vote yes and I also think that a lot of people vote yes before they know why they are not allowed.


----------



## irontwig (May 1, 2013)

Pyjam said:


> Larger, yes. Much larger, I don't know.
> WCA has 21743 members who's doing 3x3x3 : http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#most_persons
> Speedsolving has 17415 members : http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/memberlist.php
> 
> However, I see your point.



Well, I'm not sure of the reliability, but apparently the mf8 forum has 166,803 members and 1,643,470 posts.


----------



## Pyjam (May 1, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> I seem to remember voting yes almost 3 years ago. I have changed my mind to a firm no now after reading both sides.


I created this poll one year ago, then the two threads were merged.



irontwig said:


> Well, I'm not sure of the reliability, but apparently the mf8 forum has 166,803 members and 1,643,470 posts.


There's an incredible number of chinese speedcubers, I suppose.


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 1, 2013)

Sorry. I remember voting when the poll opened and just checked the date of the OP.


----------



## Pyjam (May 1, 2013)

You're welcome. It's confusing because I'm also the author of the title of the present thread, but not the author of the first message.


----------



## YaFace (Jul 31, 2014)

Read the regulations

Article 3:

3d) Puzzles must have coloured parts, which must be one of the following: coloured stickers, coloured tiles, *coloured plastic,* or painted/printed colours. *All coloured parts of a puzzle must be made of a similar material.*


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 31, 2014)

YaFace said:


> Read the regulations
> 
> Article 3:
> 
> 3d) Puzzles must have coloured parts, which must be one of the following: coloured stickers, coloured tiles, *coloured plastic,* or painted/printed colours. *All coloured parts of a puzzle must be made of a similar material.*



*sigh*


----------



## G2013 (Jul 31, 2014)

So you say that they approved stickerless cubes?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 31, 2014)

WAIT WHAT I DIDNT SEE THAT.

I thought he did some silly bump, but gah, it seems like they did approve stickerless cubes. (meh)


----------



## Ronxu (Jul 31, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> WAIT WHAT I DIDNT SEE THAT.
> 
> I thought he did some silly bump, but gah, it seems like they did approve stickerless cubes. (meh)



3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.


----------



## G2013 (Jul 31, 2014)

Ronxu said:


> 3h2) Puzzles whose coloured parts are visible inside the puzzle are not permitted.



I searched for that when I saw YaFace's post, but I didn't found it, so that's why I've asked if WCA approved stickerless cubes.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 31, 2014)

G2013 said:


> I searched for that when I saw YaFace's post, but I didn't found it, so that's why I've asked if WCA approved stickerless cubes.



This was posted in the thread about the 2015 regulations:



Kit Clement said:


> The WCA Board has given WRC clearance to allow stickerless cubes for 2015. (Provided that clear, carefully written regulations will be made in time, which shouldn't be an issue)
> 
> Thus, we would like to shift discussion to tiles and pillowed cubes.



So not yet, but probably next year.


----------

