[2010 ideas] 45 degrees on magics for +2 or not

Erik (2010-01-06 18:17:00 +0000)
The +2 rule as it is now with the '2 tiles above' thing is really confusing people, leading to a lot of +2's and misunderstandings and is judged wrong a LOT of times. Mostly this is caused by not checking with another magic, or using a magic of another thickness. The latter is stupid anyway since this would benifit people who use a thicker magic. On a lot of master magics I've seen that the strings are just so tight that they always stand up a little more than 2 tiles resulting in a +2 although the puzzle is [b:f2cexuaz]clearly[/b:f2cexuaz] solved. In comparision with a 3x3 which has a 45 degree turn away from solved, I'd say that master magic looks 'more solved' than that 3x3. All other penalty's deal with 'half' a move anyway so why not do the same for magics? Therefore I propose that the new way to determine a +2 or not on a magic is simply that one part of tiles can stand up to a maximum of 45 degrees. This would also allow most of the solves where the magic accidentaly lands on the timer. I discussed this subject with Arnaud a lot of times, he actually came with it, so I'm safe to say that this is an idea that we both support, and I hope all of you do too. Erik (and Arnaud)
Olivér Perge (2010-01-06 19:13:55 +0000)
I agree with Erik. It should be 45° for magics for +2, not two tiles.
BryanLogan (2010-01-07 03:57:41 +0000)
Why not 90 degrees? A few reasons: - A "full move" on a Magic is 180 degrees, so 90 would be half. - 90 is much easier to measure with the eyes. It's especially good that all competitors can see they have a penalty. - The chances of people getting 45-90 degrees should be small anyways.
Ron (2010-02-13 23:44:49 +0000)
Solved in WCA Regulations 2010. 45 degrees angle for max. 2 tiles.
Erik (2010-02-16 17:37:14 +0000)
Actually I reconsidered and discussed with a lot of people that half a move would be 90 degrees (seeing the 45 degree rule on cubes is also half a normal move), maybe easier to judge and in line with the other +2 rules. Still 45 degrees is much better than 2 mini tiles :)
BryanLogan (2010-02-25 03:18:25 +0000)
10c1) If a Magic or Master Magic is partially resting on an elevated object, then the puzzle is moved from the object to a flat surface, without changing the state of the tiles, before the Solved State is evaluated. I disagree with this. You can't move a puzzle before evaluating the penalty state, especially with something like magic, where moving it could eliminate the penalty. 10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The maximum angle that tiles may have compared to the connecting tiles is 45°. Isn't this actually suppose to be 45° compared to the table? A "perfect" magic would have an angle of 180° with the connecting tiles.
Ron (2010-02-27 23:11:56 +0000)
Hi Bryan, Actually, now that we defined the 45 degrees there is no need for this anymore. Because the 45 degrees are relative to eachother whereas the current 2 tiles are relative to the surface. Thanks, Ron
BryanLogan (2010-02-28 01:54:27 +0000)
[quote="Ron":2ccjx8q7]Because the 45 degrees are relative to eachother whereas the current 2 tiles are relative to the surface.[/quote:2ccjx8q7] If you go relative to the other tiles, 10g should then be: 10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The [b:2ccjx8q7]minimum[/b:2ccjx8q7] angle that tiles may have compared to the connecting tiles is [b:2ccjx8q7]135[/b:2ccjx8q7]°. * 10g1) If one or two tiles have a [b:2ccjx8q7]smaller[/b:2ccjx8q7] angle with one or two adjacent tiles, 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.
Ron (2010-04-11 20:44:35 +0000)
Thanks Bryan.
StefanPochmann (2010-04-17 19:37:32 +0000)
[i:3lkkpilw]"If [b:3lkkpilw]one[/b:3lkkpilw] or two tiles have a smaller angle with one or two adjacent tiles"[/i:3lkkpilw] One is actually impossible. The new rules are forgetting that it takes two things to create an angle (namely between them). Consider the usual situation where the magic is flat except two tiles standing up. Here, [b:3lkkpilw]four[/b:3lkkpilw] tiles have a too small angle with an adjacent tile. The new rules only allow one or two and thus call this a DNF. This should be fixed, as it's clearly not what was meant.
Ron (2010-04-18 20:04:37 +0000)
Hi Stefan, Thanks for your feedback. Yes, you are right. Anyone a suggestion on how to fix this in English? It should be either 2 or 4, but that would be confusing as well. Have fun, Ron
sagrsccr (2010-04-19 01:23:36 +0000)
I still find it frustrating that in competition, if a section with 2 tiles lifts up, it's a +2 yet if 3 tiles lift up it's a DNF. Why is this? What's wrong with 3 tiles lifting up that is such a huge difference from 2 tiles lifting up?
Ron (2010-04-19 06:29:08 +0000)
I changed it to: [quote:1jp0jji1]If one or two pairs of connecting tiles have a smaller angle with each other[/quote:1jp0jji1] in the April 19 version.
Pedro_S (2010-04-20 17:06:21 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3hkqc08i]I changed it to: [quote:3hkqc08i]If one or two pairs of connecting tiles have a smaller angle with each other[/quote:3hkqc08i] in the April 19 version.[/quote:3hkqc08i] Is it out already?
Ron (2010-04-20 21:20:56 +0000)
[quote:40s28tm8]Is it out already?[/quote:40s28tm8] Yes, on April 19. ;-) Maybe F5?
Pedro_S (2010-04-21 00:10:19 +0000)
Sorry, I was waiting for it to show "Version: 2010 final, April 19, 2010", didn't noticed the "last textual revision"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.