2009 : FM allowing mistake (s) ?

Edouard Chambon (2008-12-22 21:43:16 +0000)
Last Week end, it was my first FM solve in competition. I did 37. Another person, Mario, did a 35. But he got DNF as he forgot a ' (prime). To avoid this to happen, I would like to allow little mistakes by the competitors. Now we have to have a good definition for "little mistakes". I thought to : Allow 2 prime-mistakes on ONE letter (writing R instead of R' or R' instead of R) in the solution. If the judge can not find the mistake, he can ask the competitor how he solved and both can find the mistake (s). To my opinion, writing codes on a sheet should not be a so big part of Fewest Moves. What do you think ? Even if that's too late for 2009 regulations, we can still discuss about it, to find a solution.
Bob (2008-12-22 21:49:29 +0000)
I disagree. The competitor should spend the extra two minutes to check that his/her solution is valid. If you do R instead of R' in a setup move for a blindfold solve, you get DNF. I think the same should hold for FMC.
Edouard Chambon (2008-12-22 22:09:09 +0000)
But there is a huge difference between doing a R and writing a R. First is a matter of cubing, second is not.
BryanLogan (2008-12-23 19:37:06 +0000)
So how exactly do you propose this be done? Have the FMC judge track down all people who handed in a sheet that DNF'd? What if they simply forgot one move, instead of just a prime? We require a number of things from cubers. How fast you pick up the cube, how fast you put it down, if you can show up on time, if you can remember to bring your puzzles, can you come to the competition dressed, remaining quiet in the competition area. Asking people to be able to write down something is no different. Yes, it's a huge step up from coming to the competition dressed, but it's honestly not that difficult compared to other things (like actually solving).
Bob (2008-12-23 23:03:18 +0000)
Right. I agree some rules are too relaxed as it is (ie - +2 for an unsolved cube) and that this is a step in the wrong direction. I think the rules need to become more strict, not less. Also, Bryan brings up a good point organizationally. It would be a nightmare to have to track down all the competitors who DNF at a competition. There were 14 at WC2007 and will probably be even more at WC2009.
Ron (2009-01-03 15:02:34 +0000)
We already track down all competitors with a DNF. Sometimes the writing is not clear. Also, we want the competitor to be convinced that indeed it was a DNF. Checking FM solutions is actually a pain. Only a couple of competitors provide a clearly written solution without any mistakes or corrections. I think we should not accept mistakes in FM. We should better be strict. It is so easy to check your solution at the end of the hour. I know one of the FM specialists made several mistakes in past competitions. But he learned from it. :-) Thanks, Ron
Mario (2009-01-03 15:38:21 +0000)
Oh, you talk about me ! I also agree that a mistake = dnf. I think I didn't wrote the good move because I didn't correctly known how much time rest and I couldn't spent enough time to check my solution. It's so ridiculous because I finally wrote a solution that I have found in the first 15 minutes :lol: PS : In fact, I haven't made any mistake but Clement may erased the ' ... (it's a joke).
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.