I didn't have a clock before, but now I do and realise that DNF is pretty harsh when you are a "1 hour" move away from solved. I don't think half a turn should be +2, but at least 1 or 2 moves.

I'm against this. It's very hard to determine what 'one move' exactly is when doing clock. Besides this, on a twisty puzzle it's easy to see that a puzzle is almost solved. On a clock this is quite different. I think we got rid with the loads of averages that were DNF before by changing the format to average of 5 already.

What about this: The solved state of the clock is when all arrows on both side pointing to the 12 hour (straight up). For each side of the clock, if one or more arrows are pointing to "11" or "1", the penalty is a +2. All errors must be to the same hour (no combination of 11's and 1's). Errors on both side of the clock result in a max of +2.

Do you mean only 11s on one side and only 1s on the other one ? Since two opposite corner clocks are always mirroring themselves, this is the only possible interpretation of your suggestion. With only 11s or only 1s on the whole puzzle it would be unsolvable. BTW most such states are definitely more than 1 move away from solved.

Instead I think it should be literally one move to decide if its a +2. If a person can pick up the puzzle from the table and turn one dial a single turn to make the puzzle solved, I think that should be a +2. It shouldn't based off how the puzzle looks. The +2 is meant to allow for 1 move of error, and if someone can pick the puzzle up and do one move to make it solved, I think that should qualify for a +2 instead of a DNF.

[quote="TMOY":2117ypca]Do you mean only 11s on one side and only 1s on the other one ? Since two opposite corner clocks are always mirroring themselves, this is the only possible interpretation of your suggestion. With only 11s or only 1s on the whole puzzle it would be unsolvable. BTW most such states are definitely more than 1 move away from solved.[/quote:2117ypca] I did this for the corner case, but also for the case where you could have edge or center clocks being off. Dan, the reason I didn't suggest yours is that I frequently see just a single clock off, which can't be fixed with a single turn.

[quote="BryanLogan":1qxwyjfd]Dan, the reason I didn't suggest yours is that I frequently see just a single clock off, which can't be fixed with a single turn.[/quote:1qxwyjfd] If the clock is off by only one corner or one edge, it's deifinitely not a +2. It's like having a wrong U' or U move on a 3x3x3 in the middle of the solve and at the end saying: Ahh, it's one move off. Otherwise i agree with Dan, if the puzzle is really one move off (in the same pin position the competitor left), it should be a +2. It would cover only two cases (expecting that all the pins are up): 1. All the clocks are on 11 in the front face. 2. All the clocks are on 1 in the front face. The case when all the clocks are one move in the back should be DNF, because that requires moving the pins and the wheels which are at least two moves. In my opinion.

[quote="Olivér Perge":3dwlb0rw][quote="BryanLogan":3dwlb0rw]Dan, the reason I didn't suggest yours is that I frequently see just a single clock off, which can't be fixed with a single turn.[/quote:3dwlb0rw] If the clock is off by only one corner or one edge, it's deifinitely not a +2. It's like having a wrong U' or U move on a 3x3x3 in the middle of the solve and at the end saying: Ahh, it's one move off. Otherwise i agree with Dan, if the puzzle is really one move off (in the same pin position the competitor left), it should be a +2. It would cover only two cases (expecting that all the pins are up): 1. All the clocks are on 11 in the front face. 2. All the clocks are on 1 in the front face. The case when all the clocks are one move in the back should be DNF, because that requires moving the pins and the wheels which are at least two moves. In my opinion.[/quote:3dwlb0rw] Just to reinforce this, we allow 45 degrees on 3x3, which is 1/8 of a full move 1 hour on the clock is just 1/12, so it's less than we currently allow on 3x3

[quote="Erik":di9c25v8]It's very hard to determine what 'one move' exactly is when doing clock.[/quote:di9c25v8] Only because it has never been properly defined. [quote="Olivér Perge":di9c25v8] The case when all the clocks are one move in the back should be DNF, because that requires moving the pins and the wheels which are at least two moves. In my opinion.[/quote:di9c25v8] How do you define the back? What if the puzzles flips over when the competitor drops it? That is like saying a 3x3 off by a D move is a DNF. I have always thought a clock in state of +2 should be "One hour turn of any dial, [i:di9c25v8]regardless of peg position.[/i:di9c25v8]" This is because the pegs are always UUUU when the puzzle is dropped, even though they may have been dUUU when the puzzle left the competitors hands. This is because the surface was not designed for clock, and changes the state of the puzzles. Saying one turn regardless of peg position prevents single edge/center/non-12 corner cases from being considered +2, and also encompasses the state that is dUUU U=-1 (and similar) away from solved in addition to the cases Oliver mentioned.

[quote="DavidWoner":3vvlgi1s]How do you define the back? What if the puzzles flips over when the competitor drops it? That is like saying a 3x3 off by a D move is a DNF. I have always thought a clock in state of +2 should be "One hour turn of any dial, [i:3vvlgi1s]regardless of peg position.[/i:3vvlgi1s]"[/quote:3vvlgi1s] I see your point and actually it does make more sense. When we count the moves for clock, we don't count the moves for pins (or pegs), only wheels. And also it would cover more cases which is of course better. Only thing we need is defining all these cases and judges for clock who know these cases.

[quote="Erik":2twsw8co]I'm against this. It's very hard to determine what 'one move' exactly is when doing clock. Besides this, on a twisty puzzle it's easy to see that a puzzle is almost solved. On a clock this is quite different. I think we got rid with the loads of averages that were DNF before by changing the format to average of 5 already.[/quote:2twsw8co] Hi I´m completely agree with Erik. Average 5 is the perfect solution. Rubik`s Clock is fully resolved or is DNF. That's the difference with the other puzzles and forces us that we should be careful about how to solve it. Mean 3 is not fair, but average 5 is perfect. [u:2twsw8co]I also think that Rubik's Clock and Square 1, should do as multiblind differentiate the past with present. It is different to compete with mean 3 to compete with average 5. The times in the same list but ordered as multiblnd.[/u:2twsw8co] Greetings

Again I want to stress that I think we should move a way from LESS STRICT to MORE STRICT. In 2009 we went to Average of 5 for Clock. This 'solves' the problem of an incidental 1 move away for Clock. I do not want to create a new problem of defining 'one move away' for Clock.

My apologies for going off topic. Ron: you mentioned it a lot of times in your posts here about the regulations for 2010. You want things to be more strict but I haven't seen many arguments on why you want this exactly. I don't really see the rest of the people here share the same line of thoughts so I'm wondering what your thoughts behind this are.

[quote:3qgt9ybw]Ron: you mentioned it a lot of times in your posts here about the regulations for 2010. You want things to be more strict but I haven't seen many arguments on why you want this exactly. I don't really see the rest of the people here share the same line of thoughts so I'm wondering what your thoughts behind this are.[/quote:3qgt9ybw] Our regulations are pretty forgiving regarding mistakes by the competitor. With most events having an 'average of 5' format now, everyone has the room to make one mistake, either a solving mistake or an alignment mistake or any other mistake. (Almost) Everyone is getting better, more consistent and the differences are getting smaller, so an alignment mistake is often an average killer. I do not want to become more forgiving than we already are. I think we should encourage competitors to get rid of bad habits or sloppy solving. I also think that our regulations should be as simple as possible. That includes a clear decision on SOLVED or NOT SOLVED, nothing in between. We haven't reached the point yet where we can get rid of penalties. Although I would love to see some penalties (like misalignment) becoming DNF in 2011. We still have an issue with some puzzles creating the misalignment themselves after releasing the puzzle.