## Article 10: Soved state

anders (2008-03-19 19:57:58 +0000)
I think that article 10e4) is intended to read ”If more than one move [i:ckuye77j]in HTM[/i:ckuye77j] is needed...” My opinion is that this is unfair in respect to cubers that often end their solves with a slice move.
Ron (2008-03-21 13:59:21 +0000)
Updated the HTM in version draft 4a, March 21, 2008. Yes, it may be a disadvantage for corners first solvers. I have been to many competitions, and I have never seen this happen though. Thankks, Ron
anders (2008-03-21 15:44:04 +0000)
[quote="Ron":1wf66odx] Yes, it may be a disadvantage for corners first solvers. I have been to many competitions, and I have never seen this happen though. [/quote:1wf66odx] It has not (yet) happend to me, but it has been very close several times during one-handed solving.
Gilles (2008-03-21 19:15:24 +0000)
[quote="anders":2t1bqndn]My opinion is that this is unfair in respect to cubers that often end their solves with a slice move.[/quote:2t1bqndn] I (almost) always end my solves with an inner slice move, But I wouldn't say it is unfair. We should not be unfair, but that's not a reason to write rules that make all methods equal when they are not (for fewest moves, it would be far more "unfair").
Gilles (2008-03-21 19:34:38 +0000)
[quote="Ron":uu00agkq]Updated the HTM in version draft 4a, March 21, 2008.[/quote:uu00agkq] You put HTM in 10e3 and 10e4 while the definition of a move is given in 10e1. So it looks that maybe there are 2 definitions. And HTM is a bad word here, since the rule applies to other puzzles than cubes. Chris is right when he proposes not to include new technical words like "cut plane" if there's no need. Please translate to English with the appropriate words. [quote:uu00agkq]10e) A puzzle is solved when all face colors are reconstructed and all the parts are aligned within certain limits. * 10e1) [i:uu00agkq]Pour chaque couple de parties adjacentes coulissant l'une sur l'autre[/i:uu00agkq] (for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) that are misaligned more than the limit described in Article 10f, these two parts are considered to need one move to be solved. * 10e2) If no move is needed to bring the puzzle to solved state, the puzzle is considered solved without a penalty. * 10e3) If one move is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a penalty of 2 seconds. * 10e4) If more than one move is needed, the solve is ruled DNF.[/quote:uu00agkq] (If you think it is necessary, but it shouldn't, you can add to 10e1 something like: "For cubes, it matches the definition of HTM - Article 12a") Thanks.
anders (2008-03-21 19:58:27 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":6dtoo4xr][quote="anders":6dtoo4xr]My opinion is that this is unfair in respect to cubers that often end their solves with a slice move.[/quote:6dtoo4xr] I (almost) always end my solves with an inner slice move, But I wouldn't say it is unfair. We should not be unfair, but that's not a reason to write rules that make all methods equal when they are not (for fewest moves, it would be far more "unfair").[/quote:6dtoo4xr] I have no problems to accept "unfair" rules if the rule-makers are aware of the degree of unfairness and that other variants of the rules are considered to be worse for some reason. And yes, it's more "unfair" in fewest moves, but that's a separate discussion (I had ten slice moves in my fewest moves solution at French Open...)
Gilles (2008-03-21 20:26:33 +0000)
[quote="anders":1nipjrnn]I have no problems to accept "unfair" rules if the rule-makers are aware of the degree of unfairness[/quote:1nipjrnn] We are aware it's a disadvantage for centers-last cubers. As Ron says, it doesn't happen often. In the old rule (that was badly written), any number of parallel misalignments was allowed. One reason for it was because of the narrow threshold angle on the 5x5x5. Now with the 45° limit, there's less need for it. [quote:1nipjrnn]and that other variants of the rules are considered to be worse for some reason.[/quote:1nipjrnn] There's a good reason I think: Consistency. Having the same simple principle for judging solved states for all puzzles is a good thing. If the spirit of the old rule is applied on the Megaminx, it's possible to have 3 misaligned sides and it's still a +2. Same for the Pyraminx, you don't solve the tips of the puzzle, it would have been a +2.
Ron (2008-03-24 06:39:37 +0000)
We removed the word 'cut plane' in version 4c. Please check if it is clearer now. Thanks, Ron
Jason (2008-04-01 09:18:07 +0000)
Hi there, Concerning the solved states of different puzzles, I would like to draw attention to the Pyraminx and the Rubik's Magic/Master Magic. Under the newly proposed rules, th pyraminx is considered to be in a solved state as long as a slice misalgnment does not exceed 60 degrees. When looking at a pyraminx with a 60 degree slice misalignment, it desn't appear completely solved. That in itself may not be a major issue, but when you compare this solved state tolerance for a Magic/Master Magic, something seems wrong. Under the proposed regulations, "The maximum elevation of any part of the puzzle at the end of a solve is two tiles higher than flat". In other words, the gap between the table and the bottom side of any tile must not exceed the thickness of ONE tile. Yet, when looking at a solved Magic/Master Magic but with, say, a couple of tiles on the edge with tile elevation of three tiles higher than flat, you can see that the puzzle itself is clearly solved from a common sense point of view, especially when considering what is accepted as being solved for the pyraminx. Magic strings may be tight and as a result, edges may not even stay flat anyway. I think the tolerance should be relaxed to at least three tiles higher than flat. In light of the amendements in what is considered to be solved for other puzzles, three tiles seemsto be completely reasonable. Jason
Gilles (2008-04-01 13:05:21 +0000)
Hi Jason, The PI/3 angle for the Pyraminx works as for the cubes (PI/4) or Megaminx (PI/5), it's half the way to a clearly different color configuration, and that's the angle that was already used in competitions. Gilles.
Jason (2008-04-01 13:29:18 +0000)
yep, fai enough fr the Pyraminx, but my main point was concerning the Magic/Master Magic
Ron (2008-04-01 21:04:39 +0000)
Hi Jason, Thanks for your feedback. [quote:1eb9w69h]In other words, the gap between the table and the bottom side of any tile must not exceed the thickness of ONE tile.[/quote:1eb9w69h] Yes, indeed the text needed clarification. It looks like we had a different definition of the word elevation. I changed the text to: [quote:1eb9w69h]The maximum elevation of the bottom side of the puzzle at the end of a solve is two tiles higher than flat.[/quote:1eb9w69h] Updated in version 4e, April 1, 2008. Is this fine now? Thanks, Ron
Jason (2008-04-02 07:03:54 +0000)
Hi Ron, Thank you vey very much for your reply. Yep,that's great