I think the rules for Magic right now are poor. This is to be expected since it was the first year with penalties in Magic, but I think the 2009 regulations should take into account some things that were overlooked in 2008. 10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The maximum elevation of the bottom side of the puzzle at the end of a solve is two tiles higher than flat. 10g1) If one tile or two adjacent tiles are elevated too high or folded, and the puzzle is otherwise solved, then the puzzle is considered solved, with a penalty of 2 seconds. In all other cases the result is DNF. * Why not three adjacent tiles? Or all the tiles? What if you put the Magic down on the Stackmat timer somehow by mistake. If too much of it is on the Stackmat, three adjacent tiles will be more than two tiles higher than flat. Should this be DNF? What if the Magic takes on this shape at the end of the solve: _/\ ? According to our rules, this is DNF. * If two tiles are folded, the penalty is +2. If three tiles are folded, the penalty is DNF. From the solved state, it takes no more effort to fold two tiles than to fold three. Likewise, fixing the case with three folded tiles is no further from the solved state than the case with two folded tiles (in the sense that it is one "move" to fix). We need consistency. Both should be +2 (or both should be DNF). * The maximum elevation of the bottom side of the puzzle is two tiles higher than flat. The issue here is that different Magics have different tiles that are of different thicknesses. The old tiles are somewhat thick, while some of the newer Magics have thinner tiles. Do we mean two thick tiles? Two thin tiles? Two of the tiles of the Magic you are using? If you use a Magic with thinner tiles, do you have less room for error? * Measuring two tiles above flat is difficult to do if the puzzle is raised in the center instead of the edges. This is mostly pertaining only to Master Magic since the Magic is rarely raised that high in the center. I suppose in most cases, if it is raised this high in the middle, it is more than two adjacent tiles, so it is DNF, but see my first * point. Is there a way we can make an accurate measurement in the puzzle's center? * What if tiles are raised in two separate places? Or if some tiles are raised and others are folded? I assume these are DNF according to this part: "In all other cases the result is DNF." Perhaps the case where there are folded and raised tiles could be explicitly mentioned for clarification? Anyone else have feedback on this?

In my opinion, if ANY PART of the magic is higher than two tiles high, there should be a penalty. To take into account the case of 2 or 3 folded tiles, you could have a situation where you have 3 folded tiles without getting a penalty, as long as they are not 2 tiles higher than the mat. so conversely, if NO PART of the puzzle is higher than 2 tiles high, there is no penalty. As for the Magic landing on the Timer, it should be fine if it's only the tip of the Magic, as long as the tile (or tiles) on the timer is (are) not higher than two tiles high with respect to the mat. If you allow complete landing of the Magic on the timer, it will be too hard to determine if a tile is too high with respect to the plane in which the Magic landed on the timer. This wouldn't be fair for people who land on the mat correctly; if someone knows that they never really land their Magic flat, they could attempt to land it on the timer on purpase to make it harder to judge. I think that at least, a DNF should be applied if ANY ONE tile is raised at an angle superior to 45 degrees. At most, we could get rid of the +2 seconds penalty and state that if any part of the magic is higher than two tiles high (Maybe systematically two THICK tiles), it's a DNF, and conversely as said before,if NO PART of the puzzle is higher than 2 tiles high, the solve is good. It might be a bit harsh, but that's what I apply to myself when I practice. +2 seconds penalty on Magic is already a real killer anyway, and Ron has mentionned the fact that there should be a reduction of cases in the rules where you have penalties, so as to tend towards a situation where it's either a good solve or a DNF. This would also solve the tile thickess issue. If we choose thick tiles systematically, it would leave a bit more leeway for error for a Magic that is clearly solved, but the trade-off being that if any part is higher than the two thick tiles, it's a DNF. As for the Master Magic centers, I don't know...

I think we made a mistake in Regulations 2008 to add a penalty for Magic. From my experience most of the time the elevation of parts of Magic is caused by Magics with bad (too tight?) strings. I wonder why competitors cannot prevent it in the first place. The reason it is two adjacent tiles is of course because that is a typical final move of the Magic solution. I would be happy if we could get rid of the penalty again. All parts must be lower than 2 tiles, otherwise DNF. Agreed?

[quote="Ron":2kn83c1j]I think we made a mistake in Regulations 2008 to add a penalty for Magic. From my experience most of the time the elevation of parts of Magic is caused by Magics with bad (too tight?) strings. I wonder why competitors cannot prevent it in the first place. The reason it is two adjacent tiles is of course because that is a typical final move of the Magic solution. I would be happy if we could get rid of the penalty again. All parts must be lower than 2 tiles, otherwise DNF. Agreed?[/quote:2kn83c1j] What if the magic lands on the stackmat timer? I don't think this should be DNF.

[quote="Ron":3rqgy11e] I would be happy if we could get rid of the penalty again. All parts must be lower than 2 tiles, otherwise DNF.[/quote:3rqgy11e] I would like if it stayed. I don't think it's caused any real trouble, and it's only made it less annoying/stressful for competitors. However, I do agree that the rules need refinements. When I suggested +2, I gave 3 tiles as the maximum. How about defining it in terms of "folds" away from solved, where a fold is a rotation around sets of connected tiles?

I didn't see any changes to the 2009 regulations for the Magic. I say we either get rid of +2 for Magic or we have to rewrite the regulations for it (better is to just delete the possibility of +2).

Ron, if you remember my report after HO I suggested to control somehow the amount of practicing befor/during the solves. Magic competitors need it but (i think) it cannot be never-ending. So I think regulations should control it somehow.

[quote="Pitzu":2pm12ew0]Ron, if you remember my report after HO I suggested to control somehow the amount of practicing befor/during the solves. Magic competitors need it but (i think) it cannot be never-ending. So I think regulations should control it somehow.[/quote:2pm12ew0] That's just enforcement by the organizers. You wouldn't let someone take up a station and "warm-up" on a 3x3x3 there, so why for magic?

[quote="BryanLogan":lun6j7h9][quote="Pitzu":lun6j7h9]Ron, if you remember my report after HO I suggested to control somehow the amount of practicing befor/during the solves. Magic competitors need it but (i think) it cannot be never-ending. So I think regulations should control it somehow.[/quote:lun6j7h9] That's just enforcement by the organizers. You wouldn't let someone take up a station and "warm-up" on a 3x3x3 there, so why for magic?[/quote:lun6j7h9] There's nothing in the regs against letting people warm up on 3x3x3. And indeed, I often see people practice on the timers before/between rounds. I think we should allow practice, but allow its limitiation up to the discretion of the organizers. (I think a conventional standard like a stop-watch-timed 1-min warmup for Magic is good.)

I don't think that this needs to be regulated. Competitors should practice before the round if they want practice. If a competitor is not ready, warn them and disqualify them. Some practice is okay, but don't let it hold up the competition.

[quote="Bob":2yt29xuf]I don't think that this needs to be regulated. Competitors should practice before the round if they want practice. If a competitor is not ready, warn them and disqualify them. Some practice is okay, but don't let it hold up the competition.[/quote:2yt29xuf] I agree. There doesn't seem to be any problem the way it is now.

[quote="Bob":2ugc3fuq]* The maximum elevation of the bottom side of the puzzle is two tiles higher than flat. The issue here is that different Magics have different tiles that are of different thicknesses. The old tiles are somewhat thick, while some of the newer Magics have thinner tiles. Do we mean two thick tiles? Two thin tiles? Two of the tiles of the Magic you are using? If you use a Magic with thinner tiles, do you have less room for error? * Measuring two tiles above flat is difficult to do if the puzzle is raised in the center instead of the edges. This is mostly pertaining only to Master Magic since the Magic is rarely raised that high in the center. I suppose in most cases, if it is raised this high in the middle, it is more than two adjacent tiles, so it is DNF, but see my first * point. Is there a way we can make an accurate measurement in the puzzle's center? * What if tiles are raised in two separate places? Or if some tiles are raised and others are folded? I assume these are DNF according to this part: "In all other cases the result is DNF." Perhaps the case where there are folded and raised tiles could be explicitly mentioned for clarification?[/quote:2ugc3fuq] These particular issues remain unaddressed in 2009 Regulations (much more important than people practicing too much). Also, the idea of 2 tiles tiles flipped is +2 but 3 tiles flipped is DNF bothers me because these both occur (typically) because the magic is dropped, not because someone forgets to make the flip. [quote="Ron":2ugc3fuq]I would be happy if we could get rid of the penalty again. All parts must be lower than 2 tiles, otherwise DNF.[/quote:2ugc3fuq] Even this is problematic because Magics come in (at least) two tile thicknesses. The thicker tiles I have seen are approximately 30% thicker than the thin tiles, so this is quite a difference.

What about all angles of the Magic must be 45 degrees or more? If any is greater, it's a DNF.

[quote="BryanLogan":2v90eobe]What about all angles of the Magic must be 45 degrees or more? If any is greater, it's a DNF.[/quote:2v90eobe] That is better than 2 tiles, but MUCH harder to measure on Magic than on a cube.

[quote="Bob":3ssem59j]I don't think that this needs to be regulated. Competitors should practice before the round if they want practice. If a competitor is not ready, warn them and disqualify them. Some practice is okay, but don't let it hold up the competition.[/quote:3ssem59j] I was WCA delegate at Hungarian Open. Before Magic the main judge didn't want to allow any practicing for competitors. I said everybody can practice 3 times. After Magic, before Master Magic some competitors complained: Competitors: - Why only 3 times? Me: - Let it be 5 times?! Competitors: - As much as we want. Me: - You cannot practice as much as you want. Finally we agreed in the following: after arriving to the table the competitor has an overall 5 minutes to practice and measure his 5 official solves. OK Bob, I had never experienced any problems in these events until I became a WCA delegate and everybody was f***ing me from both sides. The main judge wanted zero practicing, the competitors wanted unlimited practicing. That's why I say it should be regulated somehow.

I don't like the "2 tiles" regulation because it is simply not very much distance. Too-tight strings will often cause misalignments of more than this, and the timer is higher so if it lands on the timer (or anything else, what if a pen gets in the way during the solve or something like that?) there is a problem. I would support the 45 degree thing, although even that is difficult. How about this: no part of the puzzle may be higher off the ground than 3cm? If you don't have a ruler this is 1/2 of an Eastsheen 4x4, and equals about 30 degrees of fold on my magic. This is also significantly higher than the timer, so just having the puzzle landing with a few tiles on the timer will not cause a +2. I really think a +2 should only be awarded when the puzzle is clearly a flip away from solved, as opposed to just being not completely flat (which is in my opinion the Magic equivalent of a misalignment on 3x3).

[quote="Pitzu":hrqzo78z]OK Bob, I had never experienced any problems in these events until I became a WCA delegate and everybody was f***ing me from both sides. The main judge wanted zero practicing, the competitors wanted unlimited practicing. That's why I say it should be regulated somehow.[/quote:hrqzo78z] I agree it can be annoying. What I did at Westchester Open was to call a name. If the competitor is not ready, I skip them. I went through all names in this process. The next time I called that name, the competitor had the option to do their solves or not do them at all. I think this allows enough time for practice and is fair enough. I allowed one or two solves if necessary for competitors when they came to my station, but after that they were required to start. [quote="qqwref":hrqzo78z]I don't like the "2 tiles" regulation because it is simply not very much distance. Too-tight strings will often cause misalignments of more than this[/quote:hrqzo78z] Then the competitor should use a looser puzzle. [quote="qqwref":hrqzo78z]and the timer is higher so if it lands on the timer[/quote:hrqzo78z] Competitor should be more careful. [quote="qqwref":hrqzo78z](or anything else, what if a pen gets in the way during the solve or something like that?)[/quote:hrqzo78z] Judge's fault - new solve should be awarded by Article 11 [quote="qqwref":hrqzo78z]How about this: no part of the puzzle may be higher off the ground than 3cm? If you don't have a ruler this is 1/2 of an Eastsheen 4x4, and equals about 30 degrees of fold on my magic. This is also significantly higher than the timer, so just having the puzzle landing with a few tiles on the timer will not cause a +2.[/quote:hrqzo78z] Okay, this is better than 2 tiles because it is more specific, and I'd rather have to keep rulers around than protractors. It is also more consistent (two elevated tiles as opposed to three elevated tiles, which should be the same penalty in my opinion). I like this one. [quote="qqwref":hrqzo78z] I really think a +2 should only be awarded when the puzzle is clearly a flip away from solved, as opposed to just being not completely flat (which is in my opinion the Magic equivalent of a misalignment on 3x3).[/quote:hrqzo78z] I think 3x3, Magic, and all other puzzles should both be DNF for misalignment instead of +2, but that doesn't seem likely for 2009.

[quote="Bob":xnxqe5r3][quote="qqwref":xnxqe5r3]I don't like the "2 tiles" regulation because it is simply not very much distance. Too-tight strings will often cause misalignments of more than this[/quote:xnxqe5r3] Then the competitor should use a looser puzzle.[/quote:xnxqe5r3] You're speaking as though a magic can be loosened easily, like a DIY cube. Not everyone owns or has access to a loose magic. [quote="Bob":xnxqe5r3][quote="qqwref":xnxqe5r3]How about this: no part of the puzzle may be higher off the ground than 3cm? If you don't have a ruler this is 1/2 of an Eastsheen 4x4, and equals about 30 degrees of fold on my magic. This is also significantly higher than the timer, so just having the puzzle landing with a few tiles on the timer will not cause a +2.[/quote:xnxqe5r3] Okay, this is better than 2 tiles because it is more specific, and I'd rather have to keep rulers around than protractors. It is also more consistent (two elevated tiles as opposed to three elevated tiles, which should be the same penalty in my opinion). I like this one. [/quote:xnxqe5r3] This is a great idea. It removes a lot of ambiguity, and also solves the problem of this shape _/\, which is currently a DNF even though it is way closer to being solved than having 2 tiles folded under/over. This also does a better job of regulating raised tiles in the center of a master magic.

[quote="DavidWoner":t8qntqgt][quote="Bob":t8qntqgt][quote="qqwref":t8qntqgt]I don't like the "2 tiles" regulation because it is simply not very much distance. Too-tight strings will often cause misalignments of more than this[/quote:t8qntqgt] Then the competitor should use a looser puzzle.[/quote:t8qntqgt] You're speaking as though a magic can be loosened easily, like a DIY cube. Not everyone owns or has access to a loose magic.[/quote:t8qntqgt] Well, sort of: 1) I know of some people who have lubed a Magic before (I have tried this myself, but the paper got a bit icky. The Magic can be taken apart, the tiles can be sanded. It might require a bit more effort than the cube, but it is certainly not difficult. 2) You don't use a new DIY without practicing and wearing it in, do you? I mean, unless it is already very good out of the package. Same goes for Magic if you are serious about it. I have worn some of my old Magics so much from just practice (and no other adjustments) that you might think strings were missing. With practice, they become very loose. Strings break all the time when I practice. Every time I break a string, I have to practice to loosen the string, but it often does not take long. 3) Did you know that Rubiks.com used to sell a DIY Magic? (See http://www.geocities.com/jaapsch/puzzle ... htm#making). Granted they are no longer available, but you can take apart a Magic and put it back together just like a Rubik's DIY cube.

[quote="Bob":34qfogjq][quote="BryanLogan":34qfogjq]What about all angles of the Magic must be 45 degrees or more? If any is greater, it's a DNF.[/quote:34qfogjq] That is better than 2 tiles, but MUCH harder to measure on Magic than on a cube.[/quote:34qfogjq] Why not 90 degree? - It's in my opinion the middle state between "solved" and "one step away from solved" (two tiles folded) - It's easy to recognize and - I think it will never happen

[quote="Bob":2f7co6c1]2) You don't use a new DIY without practicing and wearing it in, do you? I mean, unless it is already very good out of the package. Same goes for Magic if you are serious about it. I have worn some of my old Magics so much from just practice (and no other adjustments) that you might think strings were missing. With practice, they become very loose. Strings break all the time when I practice. Every time I break a string, I have to practice to loosen the string, but it often does not take long.[/quote:2f7co6c1] Actually, I don't really wear my DIYs in. When I get new cubes I usually get them to a tightness I like and then just lube them, and if it's not good like that I will change the tightness or lube it again. Some cubes need to be worn in but some don't. For Magic I think it is harder to wear it in because the puzzle is very noisy and solves are only a second long. I can just play with a 3x3 for more than an hour because it is different every time, but to solve a Magic over and over for an hour would be pretty crazy. I would compare it to typing for an hour versus pressing the same key over and over for an hour. Besides, there is the issue of broken strings... I have trouble solving a Magic for very long without breaking a string unless I am being careful (but if I'm not going for speed, what's the point of practicing Magic at all?). Sometimes I even borrow someone else's Magic at competition, but unlike 3x3s not everyone who has a Magic practices all the time, so they're often pretty tight. My experience is that not everyone has the same circumstances that allow them to get a loose puzzle, so it is unfair to be overly harsh about misalignments.

Lots of ideas, but nothing sounds conclusive for 2009 version. [quote:24refndb] * The maximum elevation of the bottom side of the puzzle is two tiles higher than flat. The issue here is that different Magics have different tiles that are of different thicknesses. The old tiles are somewhat thick, while some of the newer Magics have thinner tiles. Do we mean two thick tiles? Two thin tiles? Two of the tiles of the Magic you are using? If you use a Magic with thinner tiles, do you have less room for error?[/quote:24refndb] It is unclear that the size of the tiles of that specific version is taken? I saw someone use a Mini Magic, so I used another Mini Magic to measure the elevation. [quote:24refndb] * Measuring two tiles above flat is difficult to do if the puzzle is raised in the center instead of the edges. This is mostly pertaining only to Master Magic since the Magic is rarely raised that high in the center. I suppose in most cases, if it is raised this high in the middle, it is more than two adjacent tiles, so it is DNF, but see my first * point. Is there a way we can make an accurate measurement in the puzzle's center?[/quote:24refndb] Yes, it is harder to measure. But it is even harder to make a good regulation on how to solve it otherwise. [quote:24refndb] * What if tiles are raised in two separate places? Or if some tiles are raised and others are folded? I assume these are DNF according to this part: "In all other cases the result is DNF." Perhaps the case where there are folded and raised tiles could be explicitly mentioned for clarification?[/quote:24refndb] You could have one tile on one side and one on another side. This would be +2 and not DNF under current regulations. Not a big deal for me.