New rule: [quote:37kb95ko]10e) A puzzle is solved when all face colors are reconstructed and all the parts are aligned within certain limits. * 10e1) For each two parts (defined by a cut plane, for example two parallel adjacent slices of a cube) of the puzzle 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 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:37kb95ko] Old rule: [quote:37kb95ko]10e) Cube puzzles are solved when all sides are restored to solid colour states. If one or more parallel slices need to be turned to reach the solved state then: * 10e1) If all slices comply to regulation 10f, then the cube is considered solved, without a penalty. * 10e2) If one or more adjacent slices do not comply to regulation 10f, then the cube is considered solved, with a penalty of 2 seconds.[/quote:37kb95ko] The new regulations are stated more clearly, but also more is much more rigid than the previous rule. Under the previous regulation, it is evident that, on a big cube, a U u away would qualify for a 2 second penalty, but under the new rule, this is a DNF. I might add that this affects Eastsheen users more than Rubik's users, and also possibly more of a problem for larger NxNxN cubes (more slices). I thought that the WCA wanted to be fair for all cubes and solvers? [quote:37kb95ko]10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The maximum elevation of any part of the puzzle at the end of a solve is two tiles higher than flat. 10g1) If one tile is elevated too high or folded, the puzzle is considered solved, with a penalty of 2 seconds. 10g2) If more than one tile is elevated too high or folded, the solve is disqualified.[/quote:37kb95ko] As I already have stated before, one tile being elevated too high is near impossible; this would occur as the result of a bad puzzle. Because of the way a Magic is strung, two tiles would have to be elevated too high, not one. Unless this is changed to two tiles, this change is unnecessary; it just lets people with defective puzzles get away with finishing an average. That of course, is on a regular Magic. On Master Magic, I believe it is more likely this problem may come up, but regardless, the fact that the pair(s) of tiles at the end of the flipping step on either puzzle is more problematic than merely one arbitrary tile on the puzzle.

Might I also add that two tiles is still an arbitrary value...

agreed that u or M move away should be +2...

Why is the limit 45 degrees now? The original regulation with judging face alignment by the edges of the cubies was decided because there's no objective way to measure a 45 degree misalignment short of equipping all the judges with protractors. It's worked so far, any reason for changing it? Will cube clubs have to go out to stationery stores to buy protractors now?

[quote="JChoi":3luil3st]Might I also add that two tiles is still an arbitrary value...[/quote:3luil3st] How about a single column? Or a single fold? Still doesn't care about bad Master Magics where both ends flop. And we should keep in mind that this should apply to any solution, not just the ones currently used. And I think that 45 degrees +2 is not good compared to the old rules. It's not about "more solved than not"... If we really don't like slice moves, how about +4 for u or U2 off (but QTM is not defined...)?

I dont do magic, still i dont understand that talk about a single tile cant be too high!? [img:1aiey56d]http://www.unicube.tw/Magic/PIC/Magic_Finished.JPG[/img:1aiey56d] Couldnt it be so that a single tile, for example the leftmost, is too high, and the two adjecting tiles is a bit up, but not too high?

It's possible, but in practice, it's not that likely. I have a new Magic that is strung too tight, and it is very common to have 2 tiles sticking up too far, but it almost never happens that the situation you're describing occurs. Jon's comment above is simply pointing out that the new rule as worded will have almost no change on the number of DNFs in competition. But if the rule were changed to allow 2 tiles instead of just 1, we would see far fewer DNFs. (And I think that would be a good thing.)

[quote="Lucas":19pilo1c]How about a single column? Or a single fold? Still doesn't care about bad Master Magics where both ends flop. And we should keep in mind that this should apply to any solution, not just the ones currently used.[/quote:19pilo1c] I think that a "single column" or a "single fold" makes more sense. To a spectator, I would bet that he or she would not understand why one competitor would get a DNF and another guy does not, even if the two solutions *looked* identical. [quote="Lucas":19pilo1c]And I think that 45 degrees +2 is not good compared to the old rules. It's not about "more solved than not"...[/quote:19pilo1c] I think that the majority of us can agree on this. [quote="Lucas":19pilo1c]If we really don't like slice moves, how about +4 for u or U2 off (but QTM is not defined...)?[/quote:19pilo1c] The rules already "really don't like slice moves"... I just don't think that this particular new rule makes much sense.

[quote="Shelley":2uzkcyxf]Why is the limit 45 degrees now? The original regulation with judging face alignment by the edges of the cubies was decided because there's no objective way to measure a 45 degree misalignment short of equipping all the judges with protractors. It's worked so far, any reason for changing it? Will cube clubs have to go out to stationery stores to buy protractors now?[/quote:2uzkcyxf] -) There has already been problems when judging 5x5x5. Very narrow angle (penalties more strict for big cubes), and border of corner not touching the other slice at the limit angle. Tomorrow, we'll have to judge even bigger cubes. -) 45° is already what we've got for the 2x2x2. -) Judging visually 45° on even size cubes is very easy. Judging on odd size cubes is easy. -) Same angle for all cubes. Homogeneous criterium.

Sure, most of the time judging 45 degrees will be relatively easy. But what about the really close cases? Can you visually distinguish 45 degrees from 46 degrees? With the old rules it was fairly objective; it is not past the line or it is past the line.

I am surprised noone mentions the great pictures that Gilles created! [quote:3hb5xokt]As I already have stated before, one tile being elevated too high is near impossible; this would occur as the result of a bad puzzle[/quote:3hb5xokt] It happened at least 5 times in each competition I organised. [quote:3hb5xokt]Why is the limit 45 degrees now?[/quote:3hb5xokt] It is a universal solution for all cube puzzles. It is more fair for 4x4 and 5x5. It is clearer for 2x2 and Square-1. In the end I think it is easier to judge. For the really close cases it is up to the main judge. There are also really close cases now, and they are solved similarily. [quote:3hb5xokt]I dont do magic, still i dont understand that talk about a single tile cant be too high!? Couldnt it be so that a single tile, for example the leftmost, is too high, and the two adjecting tiles is a bit up, but not too high?[/quote:3hb5xokt] Yes, that is possible. Given the feedback I changed it from one tile to two adjacent tiles. Updated in Draft 4, March 21, 2008. Thanks, Ron

Proposals: -Leave the 3x3x3 misalignment boundary as is ("old" rule). -Use definite boundaries as defined by edges and planes. Example: 4x4x4: For an incomplete U turn: Viewed from above, the middle edge on the front face of the U layer must not cross the plane between the r and R layers.

Sorry - middle edge refers to the "edge" between the l and r layers.

Hello, Why not allow 45 degrees of a single slice to be +2, and of two slices to be a DNF? I don't see why those who end with slice turns should be penalized with DNFs while those who end with face turns should receive a +2, and I haven't seen many people who like the stricter DNF rules either.

@DarrenKwong Don't you think such a set of rules would be a bit awkward? @Paiev I'll write an answer later, based on a photograph.

[quote="Gilles":3pfuhuwp]@DarrenKwong Don't you think such a set of rules would be a bit awkward?[/quote:3pfuhuwp]

[quote="Paiev":y38hsxub]Why not allow 45 degrees of a single slice to be +2, and of two slices to be a DNF? I don't see why those who end with slice turns should be penalized with DNFs while those who end with face turns should receive a +2, and I haven't seen many people who like the stricter DNF rules either.[/quote:y38hsxub] The new rule is generic, applying the same logic for all kinds of twisty puzzles. Even if it would be possible to make an exception for cubes, look at the following pictures: http://grrroux.free.fr/wca/nsw5.jpg You cannot judge if you need only 1 inner-slice move to bring the puzzle to solved state, since you can't compare directly U and D layers. Ajacent parts only can be compared.