Suggestions for WCA regulations 2008

Ron (2007-11-18 21:33:12 +0000)
Fellow cubers, In the upcoming weeks WCA will be working on the new version of the WCA regulations, version 2008. Here are some suggestions that we have gathered for this new version: 1) inspection time down to 10 seconds 2) new starting procedure (as proposed by Gilles beginning of this year) 3) format of Multiple Blindfolded event 4) procedure for making events official and retiring events 5) explicit brand neutralness 6) improvements on the scrambling of 3x3 and Megaminx 7) qualification rounds and seeding 8 ) improvements for the blindfolds (WCA is working on an universal hygienic blindfold) 9) clarification on the starting procedure of blindfolded solving (current text is ambiguous) 10) standard notation 11) structure of decisions in WCA board 12) next phase of membership of WCA (elections, funding, membership responsibilities and rights) 13) improvements of the definition of the solved state And there is also a list of textual changes as proposed by community. For this we received a list of 63 e-mails and suggestions from earlier messages on the WCA forum. In this thread we welcome additional suggestions for the WCA regulations 2008. For feedback on the suggestions above, please create a new thread on this forum with the title of the suggestion. Thanks, Ron van Bruchem
cada (2007-11-19 04:57:07 +0000)
Formatting: 1c5 isn't in the bullet list with the other 1c#s. Scrambling: I support Stefan's new megaminx scrambling method and the new 3x3 scrambler suggested on the yahoo forum recently. Puzzle defects: I don't know if these need be addressed in the regulations, but I have two questions. If a competitor has a puzzle defect not caused by themself, are they still not given an extra attempt per 5c? At the Canadian open a cube had a corner twist in place during the scramble, the competitor had to fix the cube to finish the solve. Would they have been allowed to end that solve and be given another? Similarly, what if the competitor notices the cube is defect before beginning the solve, but begins the solve anyway? In Canada, one competitor was given the incorrect cube during BLD, noticed this during memorization but chose to attempt the solve. After DNFing the solve, they were given an extra attempt. Feet solving: This is the only event where a mean/average is an official format but not the preferred format. It seems odd to not have the more comprehensive format be the standard. I think mean of 3 should either be the preferred format or be eliminated. Competition results: 9f2 seems to be regularly ignored. One handed: For a pop/defect, can the table be used when repairing the puzzle?
cada (2007-11-19 05:02:33 +0000)
Seems there's no edit option. Is [url=http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=916#916:2bzi1vmk]this[/url:2bzi1vmk] the new starting format you mention? I dislike the possibility of the judge having to stop a solve after the competitor has started, for example of cases where their hands were placed on the stackmat pads incorrectly. I'd like to take care of any problems like this before the competitor could possibly begin the solve. Chris Krueger
StefanPochmann (2007-11-19 10:18:01 +0000)
Two more items for the list: - Get rid of "B Finals". It's such a stupid thing. If you want to give more people another round, simply let more people get to the next regular round. - The rules being easily accessible at the competition.
BryanLogan (2007-11-19 15:39:13 +0000)
Main judge for event - Get rid of it. The final rulings are always going to be handled by the WCA delegate. As long as there is an initial scrambler, and no one sees the scramble before they solve it, it's good. 2d - Allow them to prove their identity later. No need to make people bring their passports. 2e2 - How would NR's be handled if the competitor switched nationalities? More likely example is someone becoming a citizen and losing their old citizenship. 2t - add "or other means". For example, a competitor may be able to start and stop the timer, but need the timer sitting on their lap, without the mat. But just leave this regulation open for the odd situations that can be easily dealt with when they occur, but just can't be anticipated. 3a - Remove "like a " and all following text. They've already been defined. Define solved states and +2's for other puzzles (Square-1, Megaminx, Pyraminx). Get rid of closed competitions or at least discourage them. If the prizes should be restricted to certain citizenship, fine, but at least allow anyone to compete and have their times be official. Leave the B-Final in. It's up to the organizer if they want to have it or not, and even if competitors aren't the fastest, they still want another chance to improve their PR's. What's the 3x3x3 scrambling improvement?
Edouard Chambon (2007-11-25 10:13:57 +0000)
I agree to put down the inspection time. 7 seconds would be fine I think, because nobody solved it in less than 9 seconds. If we decide that the judge do not cover the puzzle (which is a very good idea i think) and if the timer does not start, the competitor has to be blamed. So in this case we can put it at 10 seconds, because it include 1 or 2 seconds to take it and to put it on the table. That's sure that 15 seconds are too much and has no really sense now.
JChoi (2007-11-25 14:54:19 +0000)
I talked to a few people at the Virginia Open and showed them this thread. They said: "15 seconds is fine" "Multiblind format doesn't matter because Matyas is going to win anyway" Also, I talked to a couple people the night before and were talking about the solved state of the magic puzzles and how two tile height is a rather arbitrary value. How was this rule started? Could a change regarding this be considered (to 45 degrees instead or something else)?
Clement Gallet (2007-11-25 15:43:53 +0000)
Oh, I almost forgot : About the Rubik's Clock : Why it has to be a mean of 3 ? Why not an average of 5 ? It's a very fast puzzle to solve, and it's very easy to have a DNF on it. Clément
JChoi (2007-11-25 21:06:33 +0000)
Could a standardized timesheet be made as well? That was talked about in Virginia too.
BryanLogan (2007-11-26 00:47:57 +0000)
[quote="JChoi":gwybm6fx]Could a standardized timesheet be made as well? That was talked about in Virginia too.[/quote:gwybm6fx] A standard template that could be used (and generate the sheets from the spreadsheet registration) would be nice, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be in the regulations. It doesn't affect the competition in any way that would give a non-complying tournament any advantage.
Edouard Chambon (2007-11-26 19:24:31 +0000)
[quote="Clement Gallet":3ktxkhjx]Oh, I almost forgot : About the Rubik's Clock : Why it has to be a mean of 3 ? Why not an average of 5 ? It's a very fast puzzle to solve, and it's very easy to have a DNF on it. Clément[/quote:3ktxkhjx] But not so easy to scramble !!! Grrr......
BryanLogan (2007-12-04 02:11:45 +0000)
4) procedure for making events official and retiring events 6) improvements on the scrambling of 3x3 7) qualification rounds and seeding 8 ) improvements for the blindfolds (WCA is working on an universal hygienic blindfold) 11) structure of decisions in WCA board 12) next phase of membership of WCA (elections, funding, membership responsibilities and rights) Are there links for these discussions? I couldn't find them. Also, is there a draft of the 2008 that we can look at?
Tim (2007-12-04 02:39:35 +0000)
[quote="Edouard Chambon":1g4idh0l][quote="Clement Gallet":1g4idh0l]Oh, I almost forgot : About the Rubik's Clock : Why it has to be a mean of 3 ? Why not an average of 5 ? It's a very fast puzzle to solve, and it's very easy to have a DNF on it. Clément[/quote:1g4idh0l] But not so easy to scramble !!! Grrr......[/quote:1g4idh0l] Is clock harder/slower to scramble than 5x5? I personally don't think so, and 5x5 is average of 5. Also, not a lot of cubers do clock, so there should be a lot of hands willing to scramble.
Kenneth Gustavsson (2007-12-19 13:26:43 +0000)
[quote="JChoi":2jq62hma]...the solved state of the magic puzzles and how two tile height is a rather arbitrary value. How was this rule started? Could a change regarding this be considered (to 45 degrees instead or something else)?[/quote:2jq62hma] This is what I came here to write about and I was also thinking of propose 45 degrees for any angle as the solved state. That because there are far to many DNF's in Magic. But that's not the only reason, more inportant is: "2 tiles thick". There are two types of Magic's, one with thick tiles and one with thinner ones. The thick ones was the common type but the thin type is more and more the one used by speedsolvers. At SCD we had a situation where, I think Matyas was mesuring Eriks sloppy solved magic and he was about to use his thin Magic for that. I told him to use a magic that had thick tiles intead, it was still a DNF. But if it's a close call, like the one Erik Johansson had at WC 2007, he got a DNF (mesured using Matyas Magic) if not he had won (I only heard about this so I don't know if it was a thick or a thin Magic he used then). I'm not asking to change a judgement, that's impossible I understand but the rules must be clear about this.
BryanLogan (2008-01-01 20:44:46 +0000)
For making events official, what about the idea of not acknowledging any records until the event has been official for one year? That way you avoid the thrashing of the record while all the regions wait to have their first event.
optakeover (2008-01-04 13:49:46 +0000)
Nobody replied to Stefan's thread regarding a 0.02 second time on the stackmat at [url:3caqwgek]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=369[/url:3caqwgek]. I think I have found something that would tally with this, and I feel that this should be addressed in the new regulations. WSSA (World Sport Stacking Association) pioneered the use of Speed Stacks® StackMat timers and mats (well of course, they are THE world stacking organisation, right?) and we also use their timers. However, I found text in the WSSA Rule Book that shows much similarity to Stefan's description of the Stackmat behaviour. In the section Definition of Terms: "[b:3caqwgek]Hiccup[/b:3caqwgek] [u:3caqwgek]An accidental slight movement of a hand or hands on the touch pads of the StackMat® causing the Timer to start seemingly on its own. Most often when this occurs the Timer will stop shortly after it starts. [/u:3caqwgek] A Hiccup is not considered a “try”(a stacking term). Simply reset the Timer."
Lucas (2008-01-04 17:45:51 +0000)
[quote:1ool1emc]B1E) ...In case the competitor solves under 10 minutes, then 10 minutes will be his result. [/quote:1ool1emc] Can we take this out? For Magic/Master Magic +2, I suggest this ruling: [quote:1ool1emc]G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top. Penalty: 2 seconds per column (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) not folded flat. G5a) At most 2 columns (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) may be folded over from the solved state. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. [/quote:1ool1emc] What happened to the 2-tile rule? Clock should be average of 5 (not that I'll attend many competitions that host clock), I think. Accidents DNFs have even stopped Stefan and Mátyás from finishing averages... Square-1 should also be avg5, but we don't have to torture our scrambles with it... 6x6x6 or 7x7x7: What if these come out? Are they not allowed until 2009? Speed BLD: I think this should now become an official event; I'll create a separate thread with suggested regulations. Could we also consider allowing 2x2x2 BLD? I personally don't care, but I know people who'd like to do it. It would take extra competition time, so perhaps few competitions would host it, anyhow. Also, WR's would be lucky. [u:1ool1emc]Scrambling:[/u:1ool1emc] Our favorite topic; we've already concluded that current scrambling does not produce random scrambles. EO is 2.5 as likely to be solved [url=http://stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/other_stuff/tools/scramble_analyzer/scramble_analyzer_output.txt:1ool1emc]after 25 random moves[/url:1ool1emc] as it should be (by any common definition of orientation). [quote:1ool1emc]4e) Competitors must solve the same scrambles per round. At the main judge's discretion, scrambling algorithms in preliminary rounds may be randomly chosen from a pool of scrambles, for example to prevent cheating in large competitions.[/quote:1ool1emc] What about combined finals? Or how about large events with no additional finals? Or events with few competitors that get stretched out over a long while (due to breaks, being a side event, or competitors being out for side events)? Now, I suggest the following: [quote:1ool1emc] - Change the standard for 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 to "random-state scrambling". 4g) In order to ensure fidelity and fairness, the WCA encourages random-state scrambling. Random-state scrambling shall be defined by the following procedure (the following may be automated) for each scramble: [list:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]4ga1) A single state shall be selected randomly from all legal puzzle states. [/*:m:1ool1emc][*:1ool1emc]4ga2) A scramble shall be generated that will allow the scramblers to scramble the puzzle into the selected state. The scramble is not required to be optimal. [/*:m:1ool1emc][*:1ool1emc]4ga3) The main judge for an event shall have the discretion to remove unsatisfactorily "lucky" scrambles, but shall be reserved about such an action (to avoid unnecessary bias in selection). A 3x3x3 scramble shorter than 15 moves or a 2x2x2 scramble shorter than 6 moves shall be taken as lucky. [/*:m:1ool1emc][/list:u:1ool1emc] 4h) Due to the high profile of 3x3x3 events and the nature of the 2x2x2 event, random-state scrambling is required for all 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 events. Random scrambles of 50 and 25 random moves, respectively, may be used as an alternative, though this is discouraged. Random-state scrambling is encouraged for all other puzzles, but is currently not required. [/quote:1ool1emc] [list:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]Are 50 and 25 discouraging enough but acceptable as a backup? Scrambles could get lost, or maybe no one has access to a proper scrambler/computer and can only print WCA scrambles generated online...[/*:m:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]Should we allow requests to the WCA for scrambles? (Maybe even require? I don't think it's necessary...)[/*:m:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]So far we only have Kociemba's 3x3x3 solver, and he could probably make a 2x2x2 scramble addition feature (the functionality is already built in). We have a few Java solvers and ACube, but I'm not sure we want to use those yet.[/*:m:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]Should scrambling programs need approval? Should the WCA create a list or provide download of official versions? (Would submissions be taken in this forum?)[/*:m:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]Clock is already random, I understand, but I don't think anything else is necessary to force. We want to generate states that are not any faster (easier) to solve than random ones, and for other puzzles it's not as important. It's possible for Pyraminx and Square-1, though, and there's a 70-move slice-turn solver for 4x4x4 out there. If the WCA begs me, I could learn Java for a random-state pyraminx scrambles, or create something that works with the solver Jaap provides for Square-1... [/*:m:1ool1emc] [*:1ool1emc]Can we also formally allow scrambles to be published 24 hours after the final event?[/*:m:1ool1emc][/list:u:1ool1emc]
BryanLogan (2008-01-05 02:24:05 +0000)
[quote="Lucas":3vn32slm][quote:3vn32slm]B1E) ...In case the competitor solves under 10 minutes, then 10 minutes will be his result. [/quote:3vn32slm] Can we take this out? [/quote:3vn32slm] If you're not sure, then just take the B1d clause. [quote="Lucas":3vn32slm] For Magic/Master Magic +2, I suggest this ruling: [quote:3vn32slm]G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top. Penalty: 2 seconds per column (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) not folded flat. G5a) At most 2 columns (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) may be folded over from the solved state. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. [/quote:3vn32slm] What happened to the 2-tile rule? [/quote:3vn32slm] Can you post some pictures showing the situations? Rather than the 2-tile rule, I think that it should just be some standard height. Then the judge can just see if a some object of that height (a plastic sheet cut narrow) fits under. In fact, there could be a template used to judge +2 for the cubes also. [quote="Lucas":3vn32slm] Clock should be average of 5 (not that I'll attend many competitions that host clock), I think. Accidents DNFs have even stopped Stefan and Mátyás from finishing averages... Square-1 should also be avg5, but we don't have to torture our scrambles with it... [/quote:3vn32slm] Why should clock and Square-1 be treated differently? [quote="Lucas":3vn32slm] 6x6x6 or 7x7x7: What if these come out? Are they not allowed until 2009? [/quote:3vn32slm] Ron talks about the procedures for adding new events. Also, in 2006 there was a v2 of the regulations, so it's not like things couldn't change before the end of the year. [quote:3vn32slm] 4h) Due to the high profile of 3x3x3 events and the nature of the 2x2x2 event, random-state scrambling is required for all 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 events. Random scrambles of 50 and 25 random moves, respectively, may be used as an alternative, though this is discouraged. Random-state scrambling is encouraged for all other puzzles, but is currently not required. [/quote:3vn32slm] [quote:3vn32slm] [*]Are 50 and 25 discouraging enough but acceptable as a backup? Scrambles could get lost, or maybe no one has access to a proper scrambler/computer and can only print WCA scrambles generated online... [/quote:3vn32slm] Well, you can save the current WCA scramblers to your local disk. If you don't have a computer at the competition, are you calculating the averages by hand? If you've lost the scrambles, things are probably highly disorganized and chaos should break out soon. But really, I would never want to see "Random scrambles of 50", because I bet that would very greatly by the scrambler. People will unconsciously scramble a certain way. [quote:3vn32slm] [*]Clock is already random, I understand, but I don't think anything else is necessary to force. We want to generate states that are not any faster (easier) to solve than random ones, and for other puzzles it's not as important. [/quote:3vn32slm] Why isn't it important for the other puzzles? Just because they're not "as popular", I think the WCA should be treating all events equal. [quote:3vn32slm] [*]Can we also formally allow scrambles to be published 24 hours after the final event?[/quote:3vn32slm] I think you mean "require". I think it would be nice. And other stuff as I think about it: Regarding 3n, not the "bring you own puzzle part", but the "be ready when called". Move that out to another rule: "When a competitor is called by an official, they must bring the puzzle to the official. If the competitor is currently competing in another event, the official should try to accommodate the competitor and call him at a later time." You may want to add a statement that says competitors competing in the long events (FMC, big cubes blind, multi-blind), might miss out on an event if they busy doing the long event (you don't want to delay an event forever).
Lucas (2008-01-05 03:49:36 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5][quote="Lucas":cf9wqot5][quote:cf9wqot5]B1E) ...In case the competitor solves under 10 minutes, then 10 minutes will be his result. [/quote:cf9wqot5] Can we take this out? [/quote:cf9wqot5] If you're not sure, then just take the B1d clause.[/quote:cf9wqot5] Well, right now it's technically not allowed. Also, rarely is anything judged to require more than 10 minutes (I've never heard of a judge deciding on this). I remember Chris Hardwick on 5x5x5 BLD getting near one hour and then a 28 (US Nationals '06). What if the time limit was 40 minutes instead of 10, and the judge took the first as an indication for the second? The same could happen to a 4x4x4 BLD cuber who gets a 30 minute-success by being really careful and then gets confident enough on the second for a sub-10? Why was this even put in the regulations? [quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5] [quote="Lucas":cf9wqot5] For Magic/Master Magic +2, I suggest this ruling: [quote:cf9wqot5]G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top. Penalty: 2 seconds per column (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) not folded flat. G5a) At most 2 columns (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) may be folded over from the solved state. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. [/quote:cf9wqot5] What happened to the 2-tile rule? [/quote:cf9wqot5] Can you post some pictures showing the situations? Rather than the 2-tile rule, I think that it should just be some standard height. Then the judge can just see if a some object of that height (a plastic sheet cut narrow) fits under. In fact, there could be a template used to judge +2 for the cubes also. [/quote:cf9wqot5] Templates? At college clubs they don't even have money for covers. :wink: Anyhow, almost every magic competitor yearns for a +2. Magics (unless you got really lucky or wore one in for a while without breaking it) tend to unsnap the last flip beyond control, and so completing an average is a matter of chance. This doesn't give a very accurate ranking at a competition, either... [quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5] [quote="Lucas":cf9wqot5] Clock should be average of 5 (not that I'll attend many competitions that host clock), I think. Accidents DNFs have even stopped Stefan and Mátyás from finishing averages... Square-1 should also be avg5, but we don't have to torture our scrambles with it... [/quote:cf9wqot5] Why should clock and Square-1 be treated differently? [/quote:cf9wqot5] Why should Megaminx, then? (Or 5x5x5 BLD? :D ) Square-1 is very difficult to scramble, and it's easy to make an incorrigible mistake -I think most scramblers have rarely played with one. It also takes longer to solve (and to fix if misscrambled). I'm in favor of avg5 for Square-1, but good luck getting enough support... [quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5] [quote:cf9wqot5] 4h) Due to the high profile of 3x3x3 events and the nature of the 2x2x2 event, random-state scrambling is required for all 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 events. Random scrambles of 50 and 25 random moves, respectively, may be used as an alternative, though this is discouraged. Random-state scrambling is encouraged for all other puzzles, but is currently not required. [/quote:cf9wqot5] [quote:cf9wqot5] [*]Are 50 and 25 discouraging enough but acceptable as a backup? Scrambles could get lost, or maybe no one has access to a proper scrambler/computer and can only print WCA scrambles generated online... [/quote:cf9wqot5] Well, you can save the current WCA scramblers to your local disk. If you don't have a computer at the competition, are you calculating the averages by hand? If you've lost the scrambles, things are probably highly disorganized and chaos should break out soon. But really, I would never want to see "Random scrambles of 50", because I bet that would very greatly by the scrambler. People will unconsciously scramble a certain way. [/quote:cf9wqot5] No... Currently, the only way to easily generate WCA-style random-state-scrambles is CubeExplorer. That requires a Windows computer. And I say "50-move scrambles," not scramblings (4b is still in place). You can use the current random scramble generator, but only with enough moves to ensure randomness beyond a good little doubt. Everybody still gets the same scrambles (except in a large round, etc.)... Maybe 40 moves is fine for 3x3x3? And is "random-state scramble" a good term? (RSS 8) ) [quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5][quote:cf9wqot5] [*]Clock is already random, I understand, but I don't think anything else is necessary to force. We want to generate states that are not any faster (easier) to solve than random ones, and for other puzzles it's not as important. [/quote:cf9wqot5] Why isn't it important for the other puzzles? Just because they're not "as popular", I think the WCA should be treating all events equal.[/quote:cf9wqot5] Sure! Okay, you go write a good random-state scrambler for Megaminx and 5x5x5, and the WCA will use it. :roll: Popular also means more competitors and more chance of lucky scrambles (and more lucky solves, but that's not possible to control). I also prefer much having the confidence of of being able to say "Our 3x3x3 scrambles are completely random." :) [quote="BryanLogan":cf9wqot5][quote:cf9wqot5] [*]Can we also formally allow scrambles to be published 24 hours after the final event?[/quote:cf9wqot5] I think you mean "require". I think it would be nice. [/quote:cf9wqot5] No, I don't. But 4b) is technically never lifted. Occasionally, official scrambles have been released, anyhow (but mainly of notable solves).
Ron (2008-01-05 09:03:17 +0000)
Hi fellow cube fans, Thank you all for your suggestions. [quote:37vz3l1m]An accidental slight movement of a hand or hands on the touch pads of the StackMat® causing the Timer to start seemingly on its own. Most often when this occurs the Timer will stop shortly after it starts. A Hiccup is not considered a “try”(a stacking term). Simply reset the Timer.[/quote:37vz3l1m] We have something like that already. See 11a3) Equipment malfunctioning. [quote:37vz3l1m]B1E) ...In case the competitor solves under 10 minutes, then 10 minutes will be his result. Can we take this out?[/quote:37vz3l1m] Yes, we should take this out. Solution: 1) for events: 4x4 blindfolded, 5x5 blindfolded, 3x3 multiple blindfolded: - we use stopwatch - if asked by the competitor we use Stackmat in addition to stopwatch, valid Stackmat times preceed stopwatch times 2) for events: 3x3 blindfolded - we use Stackmat and stopwatch 3) for events: 3x3 fewest moves: - we use stopwatch 4) for all other events: - we use Stackmat If Stackmat and stopwatch are both used: if time < 10 min we take Stackmat time. Otherwise we take stopwatch time. [quote:37vz3l1m]For Magic/Master Magic +2, I suggest this ruling: G4a) The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface, with either of the two sides on top. Penalty: 2 seconds per column (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) not folded flat. G5a) At most 2 columns (of maximum size 1x3 tiles) may be folded over from the solved state. Penalty: disqualification of the solve. What happened to the 2-tile rule?[/quote:37vz3l1m] OK, I would not mind to introduce penalties for Magic. But prefer to have one penalty for solved state. So: [quote:37vz3l1m]10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) no tiles of the puzzle must be elevated higher than 2 tiles. 10g1) Penalty if 1 tile elevated higher: 2 seconds. 10g2) Penalty if more than one tile elevated higher: disqualification of the solve.[/quote:37vz3l1m] [quote:37vz3l1m]Clock should be average of 5 (not that I'll attend many competitions that host clock)[/quote:37vz3l1m] My theoretical reaction is: yes of course. My practical reaction is: no, it is fine like this and the more time a Clock event will take, the fewer competitions will host it. I think we need a difference between 'main events', 'side events', 'no event'. For 'main events' the circumstances should be optimal, for 'side events' we have to bargain against available time. Side events can have fewer attempts, be on a side stage or in a separate room, be in parallel with other events et cetera. In that case it is more important to HAVE the event, so we can make some puzzle fans more happy. [quote:37vz3l1m]6x6x6 or 7x7x7: What if these come out? Are they not allowed until 2009?[/quote:37vz3l1m] As said earlier, we need a procedure to decide which events are official and which aren't. I would love to have 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 events, but at the moment I see 3 issues: 1) availability of the puzzle 2) time the event will consume in a competition (scrambling, average solving time) 3) timing of the solves, because the solving will often be around the limit of the Stackmat, with some competitors well below 10 minutes, but many competitors around or above 10 minutes. [quote:37vz3l1m]Speed BLD: I think this should now become an official event; I'll create a separate thread with suggested regulations.[/quote:37vz3l1m] Feel free to do this and we will evaluate it. [quote:37vz3l1m]Could we also consider allowing 2x2x2 BLD?[/quote:37vz3l1m] Same answer: we need a procedure. [quote:37vz3l1m]Our favorite topic; we've already concluded that current scrambling does not produce random scrambles.[/quote:37vz3l1m] For 2x2 and 3x3 I will propose to use the new feature of Cube Explorer. If members inside or outside our community would build programs for random state scrambling of other puzzles, then we would gladly evaluate them. [quote:37vz3l1m]4e) Competitors must solve the same scrambles per round. At the main judge's discretion, scrambling algorithms in preliminary rounds may be randomly chosen from a pool of scrambles, for example to prevent cheating in large competitions. What about combined finals? Or how about large events with no additional finals? Or events with few competitors that get stretched out over a long while (due to breaks, being a side event, or competitors being out for side events)? ...[/quote:37vz3l1m] I think we need a separated area where all competitors wait who have delivered their puzzle for scrambling. From there I think we have to separate three situations: 1) a round where all competitors are waiting in the separated area: all competitors have the same scrambles. 2) a round where groups of competitors are waiting in the separated area and groups take at most 30 minutes: all competitors per group have the same scrambles, groups have different scrambles. 3) other situations: there are different sets of scrambles. Competitors get scrambles from any of the sets. Sets are changed at least every 30 minutes. In all cases no communication is allowed about the scrambles until the end of the round. [quote:37vz3l1m]A 3x3x3 scramble shorter than 15 moves or a 2x2x2 scramble shorter than 6 moves shall be taken as lucky.[/quote:37vz3l1m] No, I think we should not do that. And btw. my WR for 2x2 was optimally solved in 8 moves. [quote:37vz3l1m]Can we also formally allow scrambles to be published 24 hours after the final event?[/quote:37vz3l1m] Scrambles can be made public at the end of the round. We should not make it a requirement to do it. Again this is a practical opinion. [quote:37vz3l1m]"When a competitor is called by an official, they must bring the puzzle to the official. If the competitor is currently competing in another event, the official should try to accommodate the competitor and call him at a later time."[/quote:37vz3l1m] I am against this again for a practical reason. If you are called for, you have to come immediately. Otherwise you are delaying the event. OF COURSE officials should accommodate competitors if they need to go to the toilet or have parallel events. But I think we should not make this a right of the competitor. More feedback is welcome. Thanks, Ron
BryanLogan (2008-01-05 16:15:19 +0000)
[quote="Ron":k7bu6kkz] [quote:k7bu6kkz]Clock should be average of 5 (not that I'll attend many competitions that host clock)[/quote:k7bu6kkz] My theoretical reaction is: yes of course. My practical reaction is: no, it is fine like this and the more time a Clock event will take, the fewer competitions will host it. I think we need a difference between 'main events', 'side events', 'no event'. For 'main events' the circumstances should be optimal, for 'side events' we have to bargain against available time. Side events can have fewer attempts, be on a side stage or in a separate room, be in parallel with other events et cetera. In that case it is more important to HAVE the event, so we can make some puzzle fans more happy. [/quote:k7bu6kkz] How about this for a compromise: For events that are Mean of X, define a major and minor penalty. The minor penalty would be something similar to the quarter turn +2 penalty. The major penalty would be something more drastic (for example, if I set my Square-1 down and it does both a top turn and a slice turn). This would be a +5 (or +10, or perhaps an additional percentage). The competitor could have one major penalty per round. A 2nd major penalty results in a DNF. So the net result would be that DNF's would be avoided even more, so you would have to have a major mess up in order to get a DNF average. [quote="Ron":k7bu6kkz] [quote:k7bu6kkz]"When a competitor is called by an official, they must bring the puzzle to the official. If the competitor is currently competing in another event, the official should try to accommodate the competitor and call him at a later time."[/quote:k7bu6kkz] I am against this again for a practical reason. If you are called for, you have to come immediately. Otherwise you are delaying the event. OF COURSE officials should accommodate competitors if they need to go to the toilet or have parallel events. But I think we should not make this a right of the competitor. [/quote:k7bu6kkz] But 9k says it is my right as a competitor to compete in all events. If I'm currently competing in something else, then it's the organization of the competition that would be delaying the event, not myself. Basically, there needs to be something that resolves the conflict between 9k and 2j. I don't know of any incidents where someone has been disqualified because they weren't immediately available, but it's more of a request to have the regulations address this conflict. Also, I used the word "should", not "must". This is because of things like the long-running events.
StefanPochmann (2008-01-05 19:16:05 +0000)
[quote="Lucas":2yehuij6]current scrambling does not produce random scrambles. EO is 2.5 as likely to be solved [url=http://stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/other_stuff/tools/scramble_analyzer/scramble_analyzer_output.txt:2yehuij6]after 25 random moves[/url:2yehuij6] as it should be[/quote:2yehuij6] 30 or 35 moves would already be a lot better: scramble length: 25 probability for 0 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00134[/b:2yehuij6]544044252748545 probability for 2 flipped edges: 0.03673557940805194881 probability for 4 flipped edges: 0.25615535099536977496 probability for 6 flipped edges: 0.44489037738355416974 probability for 8 flipped edges: 0.23149165891662189241 probability for 10 flipped edges: 0.02895679378114915976 probability for 12 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00042[/b:2yehuij6]479907272556887 scramble length: 30 probability for 0 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00071[/b:2yehuij6]453582019896016 probability for 2 flipped edges: 0.03413551120729870472 probability for 4 flipped edges: 0.24785403484597420002 probability for 6 flipped edges: 0.44926647001946396435 probability for 8 flipped edges: 0.23682767083507511291 probability for 10 flipped edges: 0.03074351998249407147 probability for 12 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00045[/b:2yehuij6]825728949498636 scramble length: 35 probability for 0 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00055[/b:2yehuij6]126938328256247 probability for 2 flipped edges: 0.03302660468770472615 probability for 4 flipped edges: 0.24432854828372390481 probability for 6 flipped edges: 0.45060466060883866021 probability for 8 flipped edges: 0.23944745433972727372 probability for 10 flipped edges: 0.03156699807938218484 probability for 12 flipped edges: [b:2yehuij6]0.00047[/b:2yehuij6]446461734068781
blade740 (2008-01-09 01:23:17 +0000)
I think that the lowering of the inspection time would be bad for 2 reasons: 1. It would, in a sense, invalidate all older records, since one could claim that such fast times are easier with a longer inspection. 2. My current speedcubing method nearly always uses the full 15 seconds of inspection. I would be at a disadvantage with less inspection time. From my experience judging, most cubers (especially high-caliber cubers) don't use more than 10 seconds anyway. Is a 15 second inspection really hurting anyone?
Pedro_S (2008-01-09 02:29:12 +0000)
[quote="cada":1ajhjz1r] One handed: For a pop/defect, can the table be used when repairing the puzzle?[/quote:1ajhjz1r] I think so...I can't see how to fix a pop holding the cube with your hand and trying to put the piece in with the same hand :shock: [quote="BryanLogan":1ajhjz1r]Main judge for event - Get rid of it. The final rulings are always going to be handled by the WCA delegate. As long as there is an initial scrambler, and no one sees the scramble before they solve it, it's good. [/quote:1ajhjz1r] agreed --- For 3x3 scrambling, I think the "generate random state, generate scramble for it" idea is good...won't take too long...cube explorer already gives 21 moves or so scrambles instantly, so this won't delay the process...will actually make it faster, as the scrambles will be shorter ---- for megaminx, I support Stefan's scrambler... I scrambled megaminx at Brazil Open and...I must say it's a pain to do it :( specially when you don't have a megaminx to "practice" (I'm getting one soon, so I can even compete at it, but...) looks much easier to do and to follow, and would save precious time ----- what are the proposals/discussions for multi bld format? ----- for the starting procedure/inspection, I really really like Ravi's idea here: [quote="Ravi":1ajhjz1r]Here's my thought: 1. After 10 seconds, the judge starts a countdown: "5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0". 2. If the competitor puts the cube down and places his/her hands on the timing pads by "0", it is a normal solve. 3. If the competitor hasn't put the cube down and placed his/her hands on the timing pads by "0" but does so within two seconds after that, there's a 2-second penalty. 4. Otherwise, it's a DNF. 5. After the competitor is ready (and has indicated this to the judge, within a reasonable amount of time after being asked), the judge says "go", and the competitor must start the solve within two seconds. There could also be a separate no-inspection competition. Happy cubing![/quote:1ajhjz1r] ------------------ I guess that's it for now
Kenneth Gustavsson (2008-01-09 22:10:17 +0000)
Still miss something about the thickness of the Magic tiles. As I wrote there are now thin and thick Magics and therefore we must use something else than "2 tiles thick" as the measure. Two tiles of the older Magics are about 1 cm (was not easy to measure exactly). the newer type is some 6-7 mm. Can't we use "1 cm" as the rule rather than "2 tiles thick" Then to measure, why not construct some simple tool, some little plastic thing?
dandzoan (2008-01-09 23:48:53 +0000)
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but since it involves regulations, I'm going to post it here. I think solves should be started the same way we do it now but there should be less asking if the competitor is ready. I think it should go like this: 1) judge asks the competitor if he or she is ready 2) competitor says "yes" 3) judge uncovers the timer and starts the stopwatch 4) after 10 seconds the judge says "5 seconds left" 5) when 15 seconds are up, the judge says "put it down" 6) the competitor puts it down and the judge covers it 7) the competitor puts his or her hands on the timer, if he or she doesn't, the judge says "put your hands on the timer" 8) when the light turns green, the puzzle is uncovered and the competitor must solve This removes the step where the judge asks the competitor if they are ready after covering it and it eliminates the doubt judges have about whether or not they heard the competitor say they are ready. The competitor should be ready to solve it after they have just inspected it and the light turns green. Also, it still prevents people from looking at the puzzle longer after putting the cube down. This would also prevent people from starting too early before the light turns green. I also think it is easy for new competitors who have never competed before to understand and they are less likely to get penalized for not knowing the rules for competing. -Dan
Pedro_S (2008-01-10 01:00:00 +0000)
thinking better, I think the best way would be judge: "ready?" competitor: "ready" uncovers, starts stopwatch [i:dbuc1byq]at 10 seconds...[/i:dbuc1byq] judge: "5,4,3,2,1,0" when the judge says 0 the competitor must place the puzzle down (if he haven't done it yet) wait for the light, start you can't really look at the cube while placing your hands at the timer and waiting for the green light... and even if you can, it won't be more than what we currently have (at most 3 secs after judge uncovers the puzzle again)
dandzoan (2008-01-10 02:04:17 +0000)
[quote="Pedro_S":y02dtl72]thinking better, I think the best way would be when the judge says 0 the competitor must place the puzzle down (if he haven't done it yet) wait for the light, start you can't really look at the cube while placing your hands at the timer and waiting for the green light... and even if you can, it won't be more than what we currently have (at most 3 secs after judge uncovers the puzzle again)[/quote:y02dtl72] The problem I have with this is that a lot of new competitors don't know how stackmats work. This puts them at a disadvantage and they may get confused. If we lift the covers when the light turns green, it is essentially the same as if they put the cube down and put their hands on the timer and went immediately. New competitors may not know to put their hands on the timers immediately and I don't think they should be punished for this. Covering the cube temporarily will prevent having to give any penalties and it doesn't allow further inspection.
BryanLogan (2008-01-10 02:24:47 +0000)
Maybe it should be clarified that the second covering should be done with the hand, not a case or anything. I would prefer that the procedure be geared towards experienced cubers and inexperienced judges. While the second cover and having the judge wait for the light helps out the new competitors, the new organizer should just explain how they work before the competition. Or perhaps a competitor could just inform the judge that they don't want the second covering. They can inspect, if they finish early, they can put it down, put their hands on the timer, and go when it turns green. I'm not sure how an inexperienced judge could mess this up, since they're not involved after the uncover except for the stopwatch.
StefanPochmann (2008-01-10 09:08:17 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":33cs8t5m]I would prefer that the procedure be geared towards experienced cubers and inexperienced judges.[/quote:33cs8t5m] [b:33cs8t5m]I very much agree.[/b:33cs8t5m] And still support the procedure where the judge doesn't get into the way after the initial puzzle uncovering.
dandzoan (2008-01-10 12:21:03 +0000)
I really don't think the judge interferes much if he just covers the puzzle until the light turns green. The judge would lift the cover immediately and the competitor would start almost exactly as if he or she had started at home. However, we wouldn't have people starting early and then having to deal with penalties or dnfs or whatever the consequence would be in that situation.
Clement Gallet (2008-01-18 16:09:25 +0000)
[quote="Ron]For 2x2 and 3x3 I will propose to use the new feature of Cube Explorer.[/quote] Well, in an ethical point of view, I would really like to have a open source program. We used my computer for several competitions, and I can't use Cube Explorer because I'm not on Windows. So either Herbert could release the source code, or if he doesn't want to, I can try to develop an open source program to generate uniform scrambles. [quote:yicfywoe]A 3x3x3 scramble shorter than 15 moves or a 2x2x2 scramble shorter than 6 moves shall be taken as lucky.[/quote:yicfywoe] Useless. If you want that kind of rule, take a 6 moves limit on the 3x3 and 4 moves on the 2x2. But it will probably never happen ! [quote:yicfywoe] But 9k says it is my right as a competitor to compete in all events. If I'm currently competing in something else, then it's the organization of the competition that would be delaying the event, not myself. Basically, there needs to be something that resolves the conflict between 9k and 2j. I don't know of any incidents where someone has been disqualified because they weren't immediately available, but it's more of a request to have the regulations address this conflict. Also, I used the word "should", not "must". This is because of things like the long-running events.[/quote:yicfywoe] I know that during the swedish cube day 2007, we were at the end of the day about 6 hours late. So the organizers runned at the same time the 4x4, the fewest moves and the 4x4 BLD, and we had to choose, which is against 9k. Also in the upcoming Belgium Open, I probably won't be able to do the 2 attemps of 4x4 bld, 5x5 bld, multiple blindfold, as well as the 2x2, square-1 and OH, all these events in 3 hours. Well, it's not a critisism, Gilles had no choice but to put these long events somewhere. Maybe we can put a distinction between main events and side events ? A rule like "You can't schedule two main events at the same time"
BryanLogan (2008-01-18 16:59:16 +0000)
[quote="Clement Gallet":t90dmhh4]I know that during the swedish cube day 2007, we were at the end of the day about 6 hours late. So the organizers runned at the same time the 4x4, the fewest moves and the 4x4 BLD, and we had to choose, which is against 9k. Also in the upcoming Belgium Open, I probably won't be able to do the 2 attemps of 4x4 bld, 5x5 bld, multiple blindfold, as well as the 2x2, square-1 and OH, all these events in 3 hours. Well, it's not a critisism, Gilles had no choice but to put these long events somewhere. Maybe we can put a distinction between main events and side events ? A rule like "You can't schedule two main events at the same time"[/quote:t90dmhh4] But it's not a problem with main event/side events, it's a problem that may occur because of long events.
BryanLogan (2008-01-24 15:26:32 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan] How about this for a compromise: For events that are Mean of X, define a major and minor penalty. The minor penalty would be something similar to the quarter turn +2 penalty. The major penalty would be something more drastic (for example, if I set my Square-1 down and it does both a top turn and a slice turn). This would be a +5 (or +10, or perhaps an additional percentage). The competitor could have one major penalty per round. A 2nd major penalty results in a DNF. So the net result would be that DNF's would be avoided even more, so you would have to have a major mess up in order to get a DNF average. [/quote] I thought of something I think might be a little bit better: For events that are a Mean of X, if a competitor stops the timer and the puzzle is not in a solved state, the following will occur: Touching the puzzle should not occur if it is immediately obvious the puzzle is not solved. If the judge does need to pick up the puzzle to examine it, they should be careful not to make any turns. If the puzzle is not solved, the judge will inform the competitor and get consent from the competitor that the puzzle is not solved. If the competitor disagrees, the WCA delegate will be called to make a ruling. The WCA delegate's ruling is final. If the puzzle is not solved, the judge will look at the competitor's scoresheet. If a major penalty has already occurred, DNF will be recorded. If a major penalty has not occured, the judge will record the time currently on the stackmat timer. The timer will be reset and the competitor will put their hands on the timer. When the light turns green, the competitor will then finish their solve. Once the solve is complete, the judge will verify the puzzle. If the puzzle is not solved, the time will be recorded as DNF (no +2 penalties will be given in this phase. If there is a +2 case, the time will still be DNF, and the "use" of the major penalty will be consumed). The judge will note this time on the score sheet. These two times, along with 10 seconds, will be noted on the scoresheet: 38.45+1.08+10 The person entering the times into the computer will add up the numbers. This way we avoid having to define major penalties for all the different side events, and the competitor still has to solve the puzzle (so they can't gamble on using a major penalty to avoid some parity algorithm).
JChoi (2008-02-14 21:45:20 +0000)
[quote="Ron":b78zxbnj]OK, I would not mind to introduce penalties for Magic. But prefer to have one penalty for solved state. So: [quote:b78zxbnj]10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) no tiles of the puzzle must be elevated higher than 2 tiles. 10g1) Penalty if 1 tile elevated higher: 2 seconds. 10g2) Penalty if more than one tile elevated higher: disqualification of the solve.[/quote:b78zxbnj][/quote:b78zxbnj] Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not impossible to have only one tile above the elevation for the the solved states of both the Magic and Master Magic? "Two adjacent tiles" would make more sense. But I like this concept of a penalty much more than the current one.
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.