## 2009: Pop for puzzles

Clement Gallet (2008-11-11 21:45:54 +0000)
Hi Sorry, I don't have access to the regulations, but I remember it says that when you have popped, you can take away 3 pieces at maximum to solve the puzzle. However, 3 pieces may be not enough, it depends on the type of puzzle. For the megaminx, you may have to remove 4 pieces to solve it. So I think you should correct this rule, matching with the type of puzzle. I have not thinking to much about it, but I would say that the minimum number of pieces you may have to remove is : 2x2 : 1 piece 3x3 : 3 pieces 4x4 : 1 piece 5x5 : 3 pieces Pyraminx : 2 pieces Megaminx : 4 pieces Square-1 : ???
Erik (2008-11-11 23:19:40 +0000)
Doesn't the rule say something like '3 of the same type of pieces' ? On all puzzles 3 of the same pieces maximum are well enough to fix a pop. However I did check the regulations and it did not say anything like that. Indeed 3 pieces is sometimes hard on some puzzles. Especially when 6x6 is ever going to be an official event... Another thing about pops: I think the rule that says on what you can and cannot pop is not very clear. It mentions functional parts etc. I find it a bit unclear about what is qualified as functional and not functional, for example a 4x4 edge and a 4x4 centre or a 4x4 ES centre cap, and a 5x5 corner centre. If the 4x4 cap pops apparently it's ok, but if the corner centre of a 5x5 pops it's not? Regardless of the answer to this question I would like to see this described a bit clearer
Laetitia (2008-11-12 00:39:25 +0000)
"5b3) If after repairing the puzzle, but still during the solve, the competitor notices that the puzzle is unsolvable, he may disassemble and assemble max. 3 pieces to make the puzzle solvable again." So it's 3 pieces, not 3 of the same type And for square-one, I think we don't need to disassemble pieces, but I may be wrong
blade740 (2008-11-12 00:50:54 +0000)
Every state of the square-1 is indeed solvable (although if you pop after cubeshape and then assemble into a different shape, it's nearly guaranteed to be a difficult one. I suppose that's your own fault.)
qqwref (2008-11-12 02:25:22 +0000)
Hi all, I would like to see a video of someone interchanging two 5x5 corners or middle edges on a V-cube while only removing a maximum of three pieces total. If you can do this, could you also make a video showing how to flip a corner on an Eastsheen 4x4, and do a 2-cycle of edges and corners simultaneously on a megaminx (while never removing more than three pieces)? Thanks. Or we could just rewrite the rule to prohibit removing an "excessive" amount of pieces, at the discretion of the delegate. Removing ten pieces to fix an Eastsheen 4x4 corner twist is just as wrong as removing three pieces to flip a 3x3 edge; the number that is reasonable to remove always depends on the puzzle/brand and type of impossible situation. Final question: do the rules prohibit flipping a 3x3 corner (without removing any pieces) if one becomes mistwisted on a very loose cube? Should we allow this?
BryanLogan (2008-11-12 02:35:35 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":1iaq5vyv]Or we could just rewrite the rule to prohibit removing an "excessive" amount of pieces, at the discretion of the delegate.[/quote:1iaq5vyv] Wouldn't this require the delegate to monitor every solve?
qqwref (2008-11-12 02:55:02 +0000)
Nah, if there is such a problem (which doesn't happen often), the judge can call the delegate over and explain which pieces were deliberately removed by the competitor, and the delegate could decide if it's reasonable or not. Of course we should be able to trust the judge, since we cannot be sure that we trust competitors.
TMOY (2008-11-12 14:09:42 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":3vpgqn6p] Final question: do the rules prohibit flipping a 3x3 corner (without removing any pieces) if one becomes mistwisted on a very loose cube? Should we allow this?[/quote:3vpgqn6p] This can be viewed as a pop, and flipping the corner as "removing" it to fix the pop. I don't see any problem with it.
RobinBloehm (2008-11-12 18:29:51 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":2h8lcjps][quote="qqwref":2h8lcjps] Final question: do the rules prohibit flipping a 3x3 corner (without removing any pieces) if one becomes mistwisted on a very loose cube? Should we allow this?[/quote:2h8lcjps] This can be viewed as a pop, and flipping the corner as "removing" it to fix the pop. I don't see any problem with it.[/quote:2h8lcjps] I actually see the problem that it might make the solve easier. Imagine the case you that you get an OLL with exaxtly two corners flipped. You might "incidentally" (who knows) flip one corner during the insertion of the last F2L pair, having only one corner flipped now do your PLL and flip the last corner in place afterwards. I bet this could be faster if you practice it and do VHF2L or even ZBF2L for example. This way you save the OLL or COLL.
magicmania (2008-11-13 04:46:30 +0000)
I think I like the idea that we do not allow fixing POPs at all. Somewhere around the lines of when a POP occurs, the solve is automatically a DNF. I believe competitors should learn to reduce the number of POPs to at most 1 (out of the 5 average solves). Just an idea. - Ilkyoo Choi.
Dene (2008-11-13 08:12:46 +0000)
[quote="magicmania":29r13gvk]I think I like the idea that we do not allow fixing POPs at all. Somewhere around the lines of when a POP occurs, the solve is automatically a DNF. I believe competitors should learn to reduce the number of POPs to at most 1 (out of the 5 average solves). [/quote:29r13gvk] No way. If you pop, you're going to get punished enough for the pieces flying everywhere. Dishing out DNF's for every pop would be a scar on averages, especially for DIY 3x3's, and the bigger cubes.
Laetitia (2008-11-13 11:11:03 +0000)
[quote="magicmania":md3ec4gi]I think I like the idea that we do not allow fixing POPs at all. Somewhere around the lines of when a POP occurs, the solve is automatically a DNF. I believe competitors should learn to reduce the number of POPs to at most 1 (out of the 5 average solves). Just an idea. - Ilkyoo Choi.[/quote:md3ec4gi] What about the events where we have a mean of 3 ? Megaminx, for the official events, and worse, 6x6x6 for the unofficials... You already lose a lot of time when you pop, so if you have two pops (or one for mean of 3), you have a bad average, but still have a chance to go to the second round for instance. Moreover, it could be hard to say if there is POP or not, at least in the case of a POP of one edge, which can be fixed just at the beginning of the POP.
qqwref (2008-11-13 12:09:31 +0000)
There's no point in needlessly penalizing people for something that is fixable and does not break rules. You can't eliminate pops without sacrificing a lot of speed. Tell a fast 6x6 or 7x7 solver who is doing a mean of three that if they get one pop their mean will be DNF, and I don't doubt they will lose 30-60 seconds just so that they get a success...
chevy (2008-11-28 04:41:09 +0000)
Hi all, For pops of center caps, there were a video that Yu Nakajma solves a 4x4x4 using eastsheen , he popped a center peiece during the solve, and he didn't repair it at all, he just solved the cube and stopped the timer. For the rules of pop now, it is considered solved . But I feel terrible about that.Even though the cube is unambiguously solved, but some pieces out of the way while solved is very strange to me. What if there are 4 pieces missing , isn't that very weired ? And for the flipped corner of 3x3x3 , the location of the piece is correct, but the orientation is wrong , to me , it is unacceptable , the cube condition should be taken care . If such defect happens, than the cuber must take responsibility. For the "unambiguously solved state" I think it's fair enough for the competitions , but it's just so weired for me... My opinion to the subject is that" We must repair any kind of defects or it is a DNF"
Pedro_S (2008-11-28 19:11:17 +0000)
but with 4 pieces missing, it's not unambiguously solved (I guess unless the 4 pieces (center caps) are the same colour, in the 4x4 case)
MadsMohr (2008-11-28 22:14:35 +0000)
The case of manipulating the puzzle to make it easier to solve are covered by the regulations. Only wording on if you are allowed to twist a piece in place are not that clear. It says "disassemble and assemble".
BryanLogan (2008-11-30 14:31:30 +0000)
[quote="chevy":2w1hba10]For pops of center caps, there were a video that Yu Nakajma solves a 4x4x4 using eastsheen , he popped a center peiece during the solve, and he didn't repair it at all, he just solved the cube and stopped the timer.[/quote:2w1hba10] 5b) If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve. It sounds like when this occurs, you have 2 choices. Repair or stop. Continuing without repair isn't a choice. If a cap pops off, you should be able to continue without having to put the cap back on, but if pieces come out, you should be required to put the pieces back in. Perhaps this should be clarified in the rules.
TomZ (2008-11-30 15:05:22 +0000)
[quote="BryanLogan":52i8x2rq][quote="chevy":52i8x2rq]For pops of center caps, there were a video that Yu Nakajma solves a 4x4x4 using eastsheen , he popped a center peiece during the solve, and he didn't repair it at all, he just solved the cube and stopped the timer.[/quote:52i8x2rq] 5b) If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve. It sounds like when this occurs, you have 2 choices. Repair or stop. Continuing without repair isn't a choice. If a cap pops off, you should be able to continue without having to put the cap back on, but if pieces come out, you should be required to put the pieces back in. Perhaps this should be clarified in the rules.[/quote:52i8x2rq] [i:52i8x2rq][b:52i8x2rq]5b5)[/b:52i8x2rq] If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)[/i:52i8x2rq] It is.
BryanLogan (2008-11-30 18:43:20 +0000)
[quote="TomZ":2hqg9xby][quote="BryanLogan":2hqg9xby][quote="chevy":2hqg9xby]For pops of center caps, there were a video that Yu Nakajma solves a 4x4x4 using eastsheen , he popped a center peiece during the solve, and he didn't repair it at all, he just solved the cube and stopped the timer.[/quote:2hqg9xby] 5b) If a puzzle defect occurs, the competitor may choose to repair the puzzle and continue the solve or choose to stop the solve. It sounds like when this occurs, you have 2 choices. Repair or stop. Continuing without repair isn't a choice. If a cap pops off, you should be able to continue without having to put the cap back on, but if pieces come out, you should be required to put the pieces back in. Perhaps this should be clarified in the rules.[/quote:2hqg9xby] [i:2hqg9xby][b:2hqg9xby]5b5)[/b:2hqg9xby] If, after the solve, non functional parts of the puzzle are still defect (like a centre cap of a cube) or not fully rotated (like a 5x5x5 centre piece twisted in its spot), but the puzzle is otherwise unambiguously solved, the puzzle is considered solved. (discretion of the main judge)[/i:2hqg9xby] It is.[/quote:2hqg9xby] No, 5b5 refers to if the repair isn't done correctly. If you look at 5b, you have two and only two choices. 5b should be modified to give a third choice (ignore the piece) and clarify which situations you can do this in (I would say only caps). If the center of a 4x4x4 is removed, it seems like 3h would be violated. 3h) No modifications are allowed that enhance the basic concept of a puzzle. Some examples of enhancing the basic concept are: [b:2hqg9xby]new moves are possible[/b:2hqg9xby], 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.
Ron (2008-12-21 17:47:20 +0000)
I changed 3 to 4 for the draft of version 2009. I think we should not make it more difficult by defining a specific number per puzzle. The main issue is that competitors cannot make the puzzle easier to solve by forcing a puzzle defect. Ron