Fellow cubers, Hereby I announce a draft version of the WCA regulations 2006. We took into account all the remarks that were made by the community, and two major changes: 1) no pops allowed in average rounds 2) 3x3x3 one-handed, 4x4x4, 5x5x5 are now average of 5 in finals Please review the draft version at: http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regulations2006.html The change history can be found at: http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regul ... y2006.html For feedback please use this forum. Our goal is to finalise the regulations at January 9, 2006, so that we can use them for the first competition of 2006 in San Francisco. Thank you very much for your feedback. Ron van Bruchem

Hi Ron, Why only add average of 5 for 3x3x3 one-handed, 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 in the finals? And not for the square-1 and the megaminx (and maybe also other puzzles)? Another question: When is a square-1 one move away from the solution? Michael Fung

Hi Michael, I think Square-1 and Megaminx (and some other puzzles) are not popular enough yet. That combined with the average time taken for these puzzles makes me think the current mean of 3 is good enough for now. Maybe in 2007? You could consider Square-1 a normal cube puzzle. In that case you can still apply the 'connecting slice' regulation. And the 1 turn away regulation. Thanks for your feedback. Ron

4h) The Clock scramble program doesn't show random pin positions at the end. 5d) Extra attempts for puzzle defects in mean-of-3 rounds should either be allowed or forbidden. But not depend on the competition. Otherwise results between competitions can't be compared. 7e) Delete "preferably" in "must preferably have a reasonable noise level". Otherwise you allow unreasonable noise levels. The word "reasonable" is enough. 8d) What's the difference between "qualification times" (forbidden here) and "time limits" (allowed in 8f)? 8e) This one is missing. 8g) So if I exceed the time limit in my first solve in a round, then I'm thrown out of that event? If I ever get into that situation again, I will stop the timer right before the time limit, even if the puzzle is not solved. A DNF is better than a disqualification. 9c) "perferred" is a funny typo. 9c) I think Clock is fast and popular enough to make it average-of-5 instead of mean-of-3. It's also the event that has seen the most disqualifications becaus of DNFs. I know officially I have never DNF'ed, but it did slow me down a bit because I need to be very careful. A - Scrambling) [b:p4cj4w2u]"scrambled puzzles must be checked for correct scrambling by the judge"[/b:p4cj4w2u]. Wow, this is the first time I noticed this, even though now I see it has been in the previous version. Has this rule been followed so far? A - Inspection) The judge should say "5 seconds left" instead of "5 seconds". Just to be sure. A - Starting the Solve) [b:p4cj4w2u]"The competitor may not have any physical contact with the puzzle before he begins the solve".[/b:p4cj4w2u] Better say "before he starts the timer". A - Ending the Solve) [b:p4cj4w2u]"A judge may disqualify a solve for touching the puzzle or resetting the timer before he has inspected the puzzle".[/b:p4cj4w2u] There's no reason *at all* for the competitor (or the judge) to reset the timer after a solve, so it should simply be forbidden. And I still think it would be better to not let the competitor touch the puzzle until after the judge has written down the result and the competitor has agreed to it. That's safer, and it encourages the competitor to actually check the written result. B - Starting the Solve) [b:p4cj4w2u]"The judge confirms that the timer has been reset and is ready for use".[/b:p4cj4w2u] Replace "timer" with "stopwatch". The former sounds more like the stackmat. D) [b:p4cj4w2u]"competitor may only use his bare feet ".[/b:p4cj4w2u] Can I also wear socks? I don't really like to touch my cube with my feet, especially if I'm sweating like in Florida. That's the #1 reason I didn't participate in that. Btw, what do scramblers/judges say when they have to touch a "feet-cube"? H) [b:p4cj4w2u]"The puzzles must be completely flat on the surface".[/b:p4cj4w2u] I'd add something like "except if exceptions are defined". Argh, that sounds ugly. But you know what I mean. Otherwise this conflicts with the "two tiles higher than flat" rule.

Stefan, Thank you very much for your great feedback. I processed all your remarks except for: 4h) I requested Jaap to change his Clock scramble program. 7e) I think we should stick to preferably. It is not about the language, but more about that an organisation team has problems controlling the environment. We don't want competitions cancelled because one competitor thinks that the noise level is unreasonable. Reasonable is personal taste. 8e) Yes, if you exceed the time limit, then it is up to the judge to decide whether you can continue the round. A special case is when the long solve was caused by a puzzle defect. 9c) Although scrambling the Clock does not take as long as a Megaminx or Square-1, for 2006 we should stick to 'mean of 3'. I promise if we have more than 50 competitors in 2006, then I will propose 'average of 5' for 2007. Please understand that making a time schedule when you have many events is always hard, especially with volunteers and everyone wanting more events. For 2006 I am looking at more combined rounds, like we did for Dutch Open 2005. So we do 1 round for most events, where the best competitors have extra attempts to make an average. There is always a lot of overhead for starting a round. A Scrambling) I removed this sentence. It is very impractical and double work. This is a job of the scrambler, although in preliminary rounds I have never been too strict about checking the scramble. Especially the Square-1 and Megaminx are a pain. A Inspection) '5 seconds' works fine now. Again thanks for your feedback. Ron

Stefan took a few of my remarks. I've only got three left. 8a9) Even if I agree upon the importance of an audience, I find a rule about a minimum amount of spectators a bit silly. In Article 9 of the previous regulations, it was said that at least two competitors must take part in any event to be recognised. This is not included in the new draft. Intentionally omitted or just a misstake? If strictly following 8a11 and 9f together, it seems impossible to have 'unofficial' side-events. For instance, at the recent Swedish Cube Day we had 2-cube onehanded. I think that such events should be allowed during official WCA competitions but not necessarily result in an official WCA world ranking. Maybe it would be appropriate to include a paragraph stating which events that are subjected to an official world ranking. Thus, keeping 8a11 as it stands (ALL events approved in advance) but specify in 9f which events that are ranked. /Anders

Hi Anders, Thanks for your feedback. Here my responses. 1) Agreed. But it is also silly to have a regulation that is not SMART. I changed it back, but we need to look into this subject for next version. For now it is enough that the WCA board accepts the competitions. 2) Added to the change history. The WCA delegate should only agree on events that are true events. We do not want to have a 50 meter freestyle record like Alexander Popov set, alone in the pool. 3) I do not understand your fear. You can have any event you like, as long as 1) the events are true events no one-man-shows or extra attempts for someone to set a record, and 2) you follow the correct format and regulations. It should be clear now which formats we prefer for world rankings. It would be stupid if you would not use the preferred format, because then your competitors would not be on the world ranking. I will be more strict on this subject in 2006 than in 2005. Thanks! Ron

Ron, 3) If you are happy, then I am happy. However, one might interpret the draft as follows: If the WCA delegate approves an odd event (one-handed magic, solving with teeth, or whatever), several competitors take part and the full regulations are followed, then WCA are forced to make a world ranking for this event. Is this the intention? Maybe this can be solved by clear instructions for WCA delegates. /Anders

Hello Ron =) I have one thing: Article C: "During the preinspection and solve the competitor may only use one hand" Why do we have to use one hand during inspection? (change to that, "pre" is not needed, it is like an inspection before (pre) the inspection =) I think this rule is fun but is it really needed? And another thing: how often is this rule followed? (we did it at SCD after I asked Anders if we had to =)

Hi Kenneth, If you do one-handed, then why not inspect one-handed? We follow it in the competition we run. Thanks, Ron

Hi puzzle friends, Today I uploaded new scramble programs for cubes and Clock. For cubes we added the option of a random orientation. Just check the orientation check box and you will see extra text about the orientation of the cube. For Clock we added the random pin positions at the end of the scramble. As described in the regulations. This of course all thanks to Jaap Scherphuis who kindly created the WCA official scramble programs. Thanks, Ron van Bruchem

Hi puzzle friends, At the moment we think we handled all suggestions for the WCA regulations version 2006. The only discussion point left is the Solved State, where we need a better description of the penalties and DNF for cubes. The regulation text is too compact on this subject. We also need some extra pictures to describe the intention of the regulations. The goal is to have a clear description that anyone can understand. These pictures and the added text will follow this weekend or on Monday. After that the draft version will become the official version for 2006. Thank you all for your suggestions and feedback. All the best for 2006. Ron van Bruchem

Thanks for including the option of a random orientation of the cube in the scrambling programme. One idea popped up. Maybe it will not add anything, but why not use this random orientation of the cube for scrambling, thus replacing the follwing paragraph: 4d) Cubes are generally scrambled with the white (or the lightest colour) face on top and green (or blue or the darkest face) on the front. Sorry for this last minute suggestion... /Anders