[2010 Ideas] +2 for inner slices

Pedro_S (2010-01-05 20:23:56 +0000)
Yeah, yeah, it's technically 2 moves, but many people do it as one move (just watch some H perm videos) and corners-first people are really punished by this.
MadsMohr (2010-01-05 21:46:04 +0000)
It is, as you say, technically two moves thus it's not a +2 penalty. It would be wrong to have special rules just because it's possible to execute the two moves as a slice move.
TMOY (2010-01-05 22:01:44 +0000)
It's technically one move, counting it as two is absurd.
Lucas (2010-01-06 00:02:21 +0000)
Don't start citing non-existent definitions and technicalities. I propose the following as a way of doing what some people want: Create a definition for STM. Allow speedsolves to be off by any single turn in STM.
Erik (2010-01-26 18:22:01 +0000)
In favor of this :) yes theoretically and FMC-wise an M' or a slice move would count as 2, but practically it's just one move.
Thom (2010-01-27 00:00:21 +0000)
Completely agree (obviously :D) What about turns within the same axis? (LR, for example)
Sebastien (2010-01-27 01:14:27 +0000)
L R practically [b:1ud4xq6u]isn't[/b:1ud4xq6u] one move.
blade740 (2010-01-27 05:47:34 +0000)
I agree. M should be one move, but R L is definitely two.
Erik (2010-01-28 13:38:40 +0000)
[quote="Thom":2k1tu2gx]Completely agree (obviously :D) What about turns within the same axis? (LR, for example)[/quote:2k1tu2gx] LR would clearly be 2 moves and therefore a DNF if this occurs imho.
Thom (2010-01-28 22:07:29 +0000)
Well, I agree - the reason I suggested this is because "turns within the same axis" provides an easy definition.
Gilles (2010-02-04 01:35:58 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":2dsjrupl]It's technically one move, counting it as two is absurd.[/quote:2dsjrupl] Easy one. Ok. Then RU' is technically one move.
Gilles (2010-02-04 01:36:28 +0000)
[quote="Thom":2rto1etq]Well, I agree - the reason I suggested this is because "turns within the same axis" provides an easy definition.[/quote:2rto1etq] That's why it was the rule we had for penalties 2 years ago, don't you remember? Any number of parallel misaligned slices -> +2. It was the only solution because of big cubes. The rule we now have is much better. It is simple, it applies to many puzzles the same way, and any judge can use it easily. You want slice moves judged as 1 move? We talked about this before, it doesn't work with big cubes. First of all, what is a slice on a 5x5x5, 1 slice only or a group of 2, 3, or 4 slices? And what about groups of parallel but not adjacent slices? I remember we already tried to write clear rules allowing groups of slices, it became a nightmare. Example: Slice 1 and 2 misaligned, slices 2 3 4 like a fan but still compatible as a group, slice 4 and 5 misaligned. In some cases, even an experienced judge can't tell, because you would have to compare slices 1 and 5 that are too distant to be compared reliably. People who want slice friendly regulations for speed, [b:2rto1etq]please propose new articles[/b:2rto1etq] (and I'll show you pictures proving that they can't be enforced and that they lead to bad results).
TMOY (2010-02-04 09:41:14 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":lyhkef9d][quote="TMOY":lyhkef9d]It's technically one move, counting it as two is absurd.[/quote:lyhkef9d] Easy one. Ok. Then RU' is technically one move.[/quote:lyhkef9d] Please don't be stupid. Thanks.
Thom (2010-02-05 01:29:36 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":1hphk4mr][quote="Thom":1hphk4mr]Well, I agree - the reason I suggested this is because "turns within the same axis" provides an easy definition.[/quote:1hphk4mr] That's why it was the rule we had for penalties 2 years ago, don't you remember? Any number of parallel misaligned slices -> +2. It was the only solution because of big cubes.[/quote:1hphk4mr] I do not remember. I'd love it personally if we could revert, but I can see that that's not going to happen. [quote="Gilles":1hphk4mr]You want slice moves judged as 1 move? We talked about this before, it doesn't work with big cubes.[/quote:1hphk4mr] I assume the rules for 3x3x3 and other cubes /have/ to be the same.
TMOY (2010-02-05 08:30:44 +0000)
It works very well with big cubes. The "bad" cases are completely weird and far-fetched cases which will never happen on real solves. And even if they happen, the main judge and WCA delegate are not there only to idle time, they can also assist the judge in making his decision.
Gilles (2010-02-05 09:29:47 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":1rslhwnw]It works very well with big cubes.[/quote:1rslhwnw] What exactly is working very well? Propose articles please.
CorneliusD (2010-02-05 09:43:22 +0000)
My suggestion would be, that inner slice moves like M, E, S or r, l, u, etc. get switched to +2 instead of DNF for BLD events, because people often use inner slices in their method and perform them just as a normal move. That would be just fair I think.
TMOY (2010-02-05 09:52:11 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":12e1on8k][quote="TMOY":12e1on8k]It works very well with big cubes.[/quote:12e1on8k] What exactly is working very well? Propose articles please.[/quote:12e1on8k] I've already proposed one last year. Just do a little serach. And the "counterexample" you gave me was really the most improbable you could find. I've never, ever, seen any cube even remotely looking like that at the end of any real official solve. And now I'm realy kicking myself for being naive enough to accept it as a convincing evidence last year. Gilles, if you don't want to discuss the subject anymore, then just don't post.. But don't try to discourage everybody else from discussing it. Thanks.
BryanLogan (2010-02-05 15:11:56 +0000)
[quote="CorneliusD":18jiwhu7]My suggestion would be, that inner slice moves like M, E, S or r, l, u, etc. get switched to +2 instead of DNF for BLD events, because people often use inner slices in their method and perform them just as a normal move. That would be just fair I think.[/quote:18jiwhu7] Like people said, the +2 for BLD can be abused to allow them not to have to remember something. If anything, +2 should be removed for BLD
Clement Gallet (2010-02-05 17:17:20 +0000)
Here is your proposal from last year : [quote="TMOY":dabfb2dq]Count the number of "big slices" on the cube. A big slice is a group of layers where any two adjacent layers are misaligned by less than 45 degrees, and where any layer of the cube adjacent to one of them but outside the big slice is misaligned by more. Only one big slice: cube solved, OK Two big slices: cube off by one move, +2. Three big slices, and the layers of the two extreme ones which are closest to each other misaligned by less than 45 degrees: off by one slice move, +2. All other cases: DNF.[/quote:dabfb2dq] I see 2 problems in that : - it's too complicated - it's difficult to judge if your extreme slices are misaligned or not [quote="TMOY":dabfb2dq]And the UD' slice move on megaminx is a non-problem. I've never seen anybody use such a move, not even people like me which use it intensively on the cube, and dodecahedrons off by UD' do not happen at all.[/quote:dabfb2dq] So it's ok for you if the regulations don't cover all possible cases ?
TMOY (2010-02-05 19:06:08 +0000)
[quote="Clement Gallet":21bw7suu] - it's too complicated[/quote:21bw7suu] [quote="Clement Gallet":21bw7suu] So it's ok for you if the regulations don't cover all possible cases ?[/quote:21bw7suu] What do you exactly want, simple rules or complicated rules ? :P (Personnally, I just want fair rules, period. And current rules definitely don't qualify as such.)
PatrickJameson (2010-02-06 18:33:24 +0000)
[quote="CorneliusD":100f1yml]My suggestion would be, that inner slice moves like M, E, S or r, l, u, etc. get switched to +2 instead of DNF for BLD events,[b:100f1yml] because people often use inner slices in their method and perform them just as a normal move[/b:100f1yml]. That would be just fair I think.[/quote:100f1yml] Roux is becoming quite popular.
Tim (2010-02-07 22:32:01 +0000)
[quote="TMOY":2wzvhrf5][quote="Clement Gallet":2wzvhrf5] - it's too complicated[/quote:2wzvhrf5] [quote="Clement Gallet":2wzvhrf5] So it's ok for you if the regulations don't cover all possible cases ?[/quote:2wzvhrf5] What do you exactly want, simple rules or complicated rules ? :P (Personnally, I just want fair rules, period. And current rules definitely don't qualify as such.)[/quote:2wzvhrf5] He wants simple rules that cover all the cases. Basically, we shouldn't wait until something unusual happens to set the rule for it--the current rule should apply. Without discussing fairness, I would argue that the current rules meet these criteria. As for U D': What if the competitor forgets to do a final U, and then drops the puzzle on a bottom corner such that it misaligns the D layer? It's conceivable. I can't say I've ever seen it happen, but why assume it won't happen?
TMOY (2010-02-07 23:53:05 +0000)
[quote="Tim":7gdg58vn]Without discussing fairness[/quote:7gdg58vn] Unfortunately that's precisely what is discused in thne thread. But of course if we always avoid discussiong the real issues then solutions will always be very easy to find.
Clement Gallet (2010-02-08 11:20:13 +0000)
We are not avoiding anything, because you didn't explain us why you think the current rules are not fair. As you know, fairness is not a simple concept. All you keep saying is sentences without any argument, like : "It's technically one move, counting it as two is absurd." If your argument is : "most people are doing M in one move", I would say that I'm doing (R' U R') more in one move than M. Try to convince us !
Gilles (2010-02-08 23:47:13 +0000)
It's always the same old story, cut plane metric versus slice metric. When you see the cube as slices, it's natural to consider that an inner slice move is a basic move, and it looks very unfair having a DNF because your cube lacks a M move, while people clearly not finishing their last face (U2) get a +2 penalty. TMOY, sorry if I seemed to be refusing dialogue. For the reasons given before (genericity, and practicality - because judges must be able to judge solved states), I think it's the best. My last word about this topic: The problem comes from the penalty rule allowing solves "1 move away" from solved state. Getting rid of these penalties (-> DNF) is a way to make things "fair" for everybody. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=455&start=40#p4258
Ron (2010-02-24 22:21:19 +0000)
Hi all, In scientific approaches there is a difference between QTM, HTM and STM, so they are definitely not the same. We chose HTM and I have not seen a good argument why we should change to STM or QTM. This applies at least for Fewest Moves event. For '1 move away' penalties you could argue that we favour non slice move systems. But I think we should rather go MORE strict (1 move away is DNF) than less strict (M move away is +2). It happened to me twice that I left a slice move at the end of the solve, and I am not even a slice mover. I accepted it as a man, I did not fight it as a purist. Have fun, Ron
TMOY (2010-02-25 11:32:20 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2odn4caa]Hi all, In scientific approaches there is a difference between QTM, HTM and STM, so they are definitely not the same. We chose HTM and I have not seen a good argument why we should change to STM or QTM. This applies at least for Fewest Moves event. [/quote:2odn4caa] I haven't seen any goos reason why we should never change either. Apart from the usual cubing world's lazyness of course. [quote="Ron":2odn4caa]It happened to me twice that I left a slice move at the end of the solve, and I am not even a slice mover. I accepted it as a man, I did not fight it as a purist. [/quote:2odn4caa] It has never happened to me so far and I still think it's a bad rule. Sorry. If you don't want to make it less strict, then OK, make it more strict.
Ron (2010-02-27 23:20:50 +0000)
[quote:11ltb45q]I haven't seen any goos reason why we should never change either. Apart from the usual cubing world's lazyness of course.[/quote:11ltb45q] A solution in HTM will never be longer than the same solution in SHTM. In general an SHTM solution will be 0 to a few moves shorter than an HTM solution. So SHTM would make it less strict. In 2010 I do not see us become more strict (for example by change +2 to DNF), because there is not a large majority for this.
TMOY (2010-02-28 20:02:32 +0000)
[quote="Ron":17j3caie] A solution in HTM will never be longer than the same solution in SHTM. In general an SHTM solution will be 0 to a few moves shorter than an HTM solution. So SHTM would make it less strict. [/quote:17j3caie] Then instead of countig 1 for slices, we could count 2 for face moves. The effect on the event itself would be exactly the same (except that all move counts would be doubled), but instead of being less strict, it would be more strict ? Sorry but this is just nonsense.
Ron (2010-04-11 20:17:57 +0000)
[quote:2ervge17]Sorry but this is just nonsense.[/quote:2ervge17] I do not see what is nonsense about what I wrote. The things I wrote are facts. Maybe they are not facts that support your arguments. Regarding Fewest Moves. If we compare people across competitions in time then changing from HTM to SHTM is a large disadvantage for results in earlier competitions. Maybe the first world record of 29 moves was actually a 21 moves solution. If we compare people within a competition then changing from HTM to SHTM has consequences that I cannot oversee. Has there been good research on this subject? Without decent research I think we should not change anything. We cannot simply say that an HTM solution can be optimised by replacing some double moves by slice moves. We need to compare the effectiveness of different solving methods given the HTM and SHTM metrics. Regarding misalignment. Misalignments and 1 move away cases are (almost always) the result of sloppy solving. I haven't seen any research on this subject. I consider a slice move away as more wrong than a single move away. Based on the standard HTM metrics and the effects these moves have on the cube. I think in some years all 1 move away cases will become DNF, which will remove the inequality that you still see.