Draft version WCA regulations 2006 v2

[mrCage]

Hi

I was talking about briefly explaining notation for 3x3x3 cube only. We don't as of yet have fewest moves for other puzzles Speedcubers don't need to be explained notation. Possibly scramblers (who are not cubers) will need to know notation for larger cubes and other puzzles ... A separate description of notation for these puzzles can be made available for scramblers.

For 3x3x3 fewest moves event the scramble (and diagram) won't need to make up more than 1/4 A4 page. Same with some diagrams for the notation. This would leave 1/2 A4 page for jotting down, name, solution, explanation ...

This is enough, and still leaves the backside if running out of space ...

Cheers!

- Per

[ryanheise]

What I'd really like is a fewest moves event that involves only solving with "fingers", not pen/paper/stickers/markers.

I think it makes sense to rename the current event to something slightly more specific, so as to create some room for a second kind of fewest moves event.

I'm not sure what to call the two different events, but I see one as solving "assisted by paper" and the other one "unassisted".

[magicmania]

Art. 3l: New. Puzzles may have at most one logo.

Hello, I'm one of the members of the KCA[Korea Cube Association].

In Korea, Mr. Hwang is buying cubes with the rubik's cube logo, and adding his own company's logo and sells them again. So, the cubes from Mr. Hwang's company has two logos. The rubik's cube logo, and his own company's logo. So, the cubes from this company is not going to be able to be used for competitions. However, I believe Mr. Hwang is a WCA member. Did you talk about this with him?

[Ron]

Hi Magicmania,

No, we did not talk to Mr. Hwang.

Unfortunately that means that you will have to remove one of the logo stickers and replace them with a plain sticker.
Sorry!

Thanks,

Ron

[Ron]

Hi Bob,

I don't think that a logo on the top or bottom should be an issue here, because those faces do not have center pieces.

Mmmm, I must say that I do not like where this is going. Should we make an exception for Square-1 or puzzles that already have 2 logos? Or should we be less strict? Or should we keep it this way?

Thanks,

Ron

[BryanLogan]

One thing that's bugged me for a while:

8a8) The competition must be open to the public.
8b) An open competition is open to anyone
8c) A closed competition may be open to:

Should it be clarified that 8a8 is talking about spectators and 8b and 8c are talking about competitors?

[mrCage]

Hi Ryan !

I don't see how such a fewest moves event will be judged. How to confirm the length of a solution when it's not even written down? Are u gonna do it slow enough that a judge can count the moves? I doubt this is practically possible Remember this will be during official competition. If there are say 10 participants one would need 10 judges then. Or else only one participant will be solving at a time with say only 5 minutes ... Still there is trouble with counting the moves accurately ...

- Per

[Ron]

Fellow cubers,

Today I posted a new update to the regulations.

1) compliance to RFC 2119, which was a big change for many articles. Please review!
2) changed open to accessible in 8a8). Thanks Bryan.
3) improve blindfolded solving text (you can remove blindfold, if you haven't done moves yet). Thanks Dan.
4) added 2 seconds inspection time in case of misalignment (during inspection). The competitor can do the alignment. Thanks Dan.

Stefan, please reply to my post about ending the solve (waiting until the score is written down). I am open to changes, but there is not many people replying on this issue.

Thanks,

Ron

[Gilles]

4) added 2 seconds inspection time in case of misalignment (during inspection). The competitor can do the alignment. Thanks Dan.

I don't agree, for the following reasons:

- What if the competitor wastes 10 seconds asking a judge who do not speak the same language?
- What is a misalignement? PI/2.23?

There should not be any misalignement.
If it happens (judges' fault), the competitor should be allowed to fix a misalignement of slices (respecting 10f), without asking the judge.

[Ron]

Hi Gilles,

Thanks.

First of all, that regulation was in there already. In the former version the judge had to align the faces.

What I changed was:
1) COMPETITOR should align the faces, AFTER notifying the judge
2) 2 SECONDS ADDED to the inspection time, because it takes time and the competitor cannot help it

If you would do this without notifying the judge, then the judge may see some manipulation and think that the competitor is doing a full move. Which would result in a disqualification.

Please come with a good text proposal.

Thanks,

Ron

[Gilles]

1) COMPETITOR should align the faces, AFTER notifying the judge

No, AFTER THE PERMISSION OF THE JUDGE.

Ron, what problem are we trying to solve?

First of all, it should not happen if the judges or scramblers do their part.

Plus, if I'm given a 3x3x3 with a 20 degrees misalignement of a layer, the misalignement naturally disappears as soon as I pick up the cube.
With such a rule, the solve is disqualified, right?

When should this rule apply, starting from what angle? 0.1 degree, 10 degrees, 20 degrees?
What's the difference between fixing a misalignement and manipulating a puzzle? I think Article 10 is the answer.

And I just can't imagine sly competitors counting on such misalignements to try to manipulate their puzzle to make it easier to solve. Come on.

Proposal:

If the faces(*) of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor is allowed to fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the manipulation must not exceed limits given in article 10f).

Thanks.

Thanks to YOU!

(*) Do all puzzles have faces?

[Ron]

Hi Gilles,

Thanks for the text proposal.

The reason why we had this addition, is because there was a discussion about this situation in the Yahoo group a few months ago.
I always collect these discussions, to update the regulations where possible.

Updated, with two small changes (faces->pieces, is allowed to->may).

If the pieces of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor may fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the manipulation must not exceed limits given in article 10f).

The draft version will be closed on July 20 9PM CET.
The new version 2006v2 must be used for all competitions starting July 22.

Thanks,

Ron

[StefanPochmann]

Hi Stefan,

Instead of inventing a new verbal or visual vocabulary, I like the signing idea much better. Judge writes down the result (eg "12.34", "12.34+2" or "DNF") and competitor agrees by signing and disagrees by not doing so.

We do not disagree that your proposal is indeed better.
We may disagree on the practical side here.
In more than 95% of the cases, there is no problem at all.
So why make the procedure much longer (at least 10 seconds per solve) with the risk of getting disqualified where nothing happened (picking up the cube before the time was written down)?
When a quick OK, PENALTY, NO SOLVE would be enough to get things clear?

(Sorry for the late answer)

Yeah, I guess saying ok/penalty/nosolve would work, too. I'd just like to really encourage people to check what the judge wrote down and to not manipulate puzzle or timer before that. And a signature doesn't take 10 seconds, does it? Oh, what's the whole time involved in a single solve? Bringing cube to scramblers, scrambling, calling competitor, judge and competitor go to timer, inspection, solving, the ending procedure. I think the time for the signature would'nt make it that much longer, relatively speaking. Only difference is the Magic because it's fast to solve and there's no scrambling so all attempts are done in a row. For that I think a signature isn't needed after each attempt, but somehow I'd still like to encourage people to check the result the judge wrote...

[Masayuki]

I am translating new version into Japanese.

No inspection event is listed in Articles 9 v2.
But Article G for no inspection was removed.

It is unclear how should we treat no inspection event.

[Tyson]

I think we can be more vigilant about competitors checking their times on their score card after the judge has marked it down for US Nationals. It is certaily a problem when a time gets put up, and then the competitor disagrees with it. Most of the time it's "you should have checked the score card," but having a better system or protocol would cut down on this problem.

As for the fewest moves notation, wouldn't it be possible for a competitor to write down their moves with M/E/S and then translate it to HTM afterwards?

Sure, the downside is they lose some time. With an hour to solve the cube, the time spent translating shouldn't represent a sizable fraction of the total time, though I would agree that advantages are advantages. Perhaps our solidifying HTM would encourage people to practice "fewest moves" in HTM.

[Ron]

Hi Masayuki,

Where in the regulations 2006 v2 is the No Inspection event mentioned?
I can't find it.

Good luck this weekend in Tokyo!

Thanks,

Ron

[Ravi]

Do articles 10e and 10f mean that cubes unsolved by a quarter turn, a half turn, a slice turn, a half slice turn, or U2 D all get a 2-second penalty?

[Ron]

Hi Ravi,

Yes, that is right.
The reason for this is that in some cases it is very hard to tell whether misalignment should lead to a penalty or not, especially on 4x4x4 and 5x5x5. This way we also not favor HTM to STM solvers.
This is the easiest way, although in some cases not the most beautiful way.

Thanks,

Ron