Draft version WCA regulations 2006 v2

Ron (2006-07-08 05:29:19 +0000)
Fellow cubers, There is a draft version available of the WCA regulations 2006 v2. [url:3kqzp3c6]http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regulations_draft_2006v2.html[/url:3kqzp3c6] Your feedback is very welcome in the WCA forum: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum The deadline for this new version is July 22, 2006, so that the regulations can be used starting with the competitions end of July. The focus areas for this new version are based on the feedback we had from our community: 1) no extra attempts anymore for puzzle defects 2) improvements for ending the solve (penalties instead of DNF, stopping with hands not specifically with fingers) 3) regulations on the number of rounds and people progressing to next round 4) No Inspection events not official anymore (focus on one main event) 5) simpler text where possible The full list of changes can be found here: [url:3kqzp3c6]http://www.speedcubing.com/events/regulations_history_draft_2006v2.html[/url:3kqzp3c6] It is never possible to make everyone happy. Still we aim that the WCA regulations are fair and accepted, based on a majority view of our community. Ron van Bruchem
StefanPochmann (2006-07-08 19:04:46 +0000)
7e) I still suggest to remove "preferably" since otherwise you allow an unreasonable noise level. The word "reasonable" offers enough tolerance. 1g+5c) Which rule dominates? Overall) "Half Turn" Metric doesn't make much sense for most non-cube puzzles. Ending the Solve) I still suggest to not let the competitor touch the puzzle until the judge has written the result and the competitor has acknowledged it. And "History of changes" should maybe link to the draft version right now. When I first looked at the new draft I scrolled down to the changes and almost missed the new changes.
Gilles (2006-07-08 23:37:33 +0000)
[quote="StefanPochmann":1wznjkzv]1g+5c) Which rule dominates? [/quote:1wznjkzv] Can you think of a case where both could be applied? Please give an example.
Ron (2006-07-09 07:40:56 +0000)
Hi Stefan, Thanks for the feedback. 7e): updated History of changes): updated Half turn metric): although the word may not be 100% correct, I think the explanation is. Ending the solve): I agree that that is the best, but I would not want to give a penalty if a competitor touches the cube after the judge has said OK. In general I hardly see people waiting for the judge to write down the result. Most of the competitors leave the stage already. Risking that the time is written down incorrectly. 1g): the update was necessary because even judges can make mistakes. :-) I expected some feedback from your side on the 2e. :-) Looking forward to more feedback from all community members. Thanks, Ron
StefanPochmann (2006-07-09 22:53:49 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":3jfg0gx4][quote="StefanPochmann":3jfg0gx4]1g+5c) Which rule dominates? [/quote:3jfg0gx4] Can you think of a case where both could be applied? Please give an example.[/quote:3jfg0gx4] I have and fix a puzzle defect and then get a 1g distraction. According to 1g the main judge may award another attempt but 5c prohibits it. [quote="Ron":3jfg0gx4]Ending the solve): I agree that that is the best, but I would not want to give a penalty if a competitor touches the cube after the judge has said OK.[/quote:3jfg0gx4] No? There's already the [i:3jfg0gx4]"may not manipulate the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle"[/i:3jfg0gx4] rule with a "disqualify solve" (!) penalty. Um, how does a competitor know that the judge has inspected the puzzle? I hardly ever see a judge really inspect the puzzle, let alone *say* he did. Heck, I've had at least one judge with whom I didn't share a common language. Next competition, expect me to finish with two flipped edges not visible to the judge. In the last solve of a round, so that he'll let me take the cube with me. [quote:3jfg0gx4]In general I hardly see people waiting for the judge to write down the result. Most of the competitors leave the stage already. Risking that the time is written down incorrectly.[/quote:3jfg0gx4] Yeah, we should somehow encourage good behaviour, i.e. the whole procedure. I admit I still often forget it, too, but more and more often I do wait and check. But watch this: http://grrroux.free.fr/VideosFrance2006/Sechet.avi [quote:3jfg0gx4]I expected some feedback from your side on the 2e. :-)[/quote:3jfg0gx4] Yeah, I almost did. But the identification sentence is ok. Except that I'd rather show my passport simply "for identification" than to "prove" my identity (the latter is a [i:3jfg0gx4]"guilty until proven innocent"[/i:3jfg0gx4] mentality which I don't like). And 2e1 is only a permissive rule. It allows me to represent Germany, for example. But it doesn't force me to, so I can choose to *not* represent it (which I explicitly did in my Euro2006 registration). And it doesn't prohibit me to represent let's say Canada or any other country. So it's pretty much a meaningless rule. Similarly, 2e2 allows some people to do something, but it doesn't prohibit others to do the same or anyone to do it several times a year.
BryanLogan (2006-07-10 12:36:18 +0000)
For 2e, not all people have a passport. Most have some form of ID (like a driver's license), but when you have younger competitors, they may not have that. By 2e1, it takes away the "id-card" option for representing your country. So if I want to compete in the US Nationals for the USA, does that mean I need to pack my passport for my trip from Minnesota to California?
mrCage (2006-07-10 12:58:16 +0000)
Hi Ron/Gilles/Masayuki/Josef/Alfonso/cubers :) Here's my comments for the new regulations draft : 3f) Why not simply be specific and say that maximum tile thickness is say 2mm ?? 3l) Why must it be on a center and why only one logo? Some of the original Revenge cubes did indeed have 2 "logos" or 2 tiles with something printed. One of them on a corner. Will these original ones need to be restickered for competition? 4b) Are inner slice turns on larger cubes really 2 turns? Is this to comply with the new way of scrambling where only blocks of outer layers are being used? So that say (Rr) on 4by or 5by is 1 turn and r is achieved by (Rr)' R ? 4e) I suggest that cubes be scrambled with random orientation of colors. This is handy to avoid cheating by studying scrambles given out to other cubers. Random orientation also makes the scramble even more random so to speak. Is this done in order that scramblers can compare their scrambling with a drawing of the correct scramble applied with correct orientation? 5b5) "a non functional part" - will this mean only one part? Or is it enough to have unamibigious situation? Say one broken edge-center and one broken corner-center. Wording is not too clear :? 7b) What if there is a podium? Does the 1.5 m rule still apply? And how about specifying the minimum distance between contestants tables also? Just an idea ... 8a7) Does the number 10 make up all participants in total in a competition. Or must of the events have at least 10 participants? I suggest the latter (typically 3x3x3 speeding) 8a9) Should we specify a required minimum audience? Say 10 here also? 9b) Is a best-of format allowed even for a final? Could a best-of final and an average-final for the same puzzle count as 2 different events at a competition? Administration - How about having the competitor sign the sheet after each solve (to avoid disputes later) ? Fewest moves - I suggest we take into the regulations that scrambles must be machine written (printed) and also supplied with a diagram/photo of the cube scrambled with official orientation (white top and green/blue front). Also only accept solutions that are FULLY written out. Not with parts that need to be inserted into eachother. It should also be clear whether using notation udfbrl is allowed and what they should mean if allowed. r could mean R m' (fingertrick notation) or just m' (not so common but is in use). General remarks =========== I suggest that me make it compulsory that each competitor sign some paper that he understands the rules (wca and special competition rules set out) in order to be able compete. This can be done at the final registration on site 8) Also disqulaify those who refuse to sign this agreement ... I also suggest that each rule mentioned for articles A to F be numbered just like the articles 1 to 10. This is a technicality, but makes it easier to refer to particular points within the regulations :lol: Kind regards, -Per
Ron (2006-07-10 20:42:48 +0000)
Hi Per, Great feedback! Thanks. 3f) changed to 1.5 mm (which is the thickness of Mefferts tiles). 3l) the reason why we want to limit the logos is because you could use that to mark f.i. all F2L pieces. It must be on the center because that is the normal position of the logo. We are aware of the fact that old 4x4x4s have more than one logo, and sometimes on a corner piece. It should not be a big problem to change your puzzle to obey the regulations. Sorry. 4b) this is not a problem for scrambling, because we use multi-slice scrambling. For the solved position any misaligned slice results in the penalty, which could be one or more. 4e) I think we better keep it this way. For big competitions we already have 4g. In the future we may see completely random scrambles per competitor. Not for now. 5b5) updated, change 'non functional part' to 'non functional parts' 7b) yes, this also goes if there is a podium. I often see the chairs placed a good distance from the competitors. But unless we want to compete in a cage, there is no way to prevent people from coming closer. Judges and competitors can of course ask people to step back a little. I prefer not to say anything about the distance between the competitors. We often have one table with two mats. Sometimes this becomes a narrow place to compete. But I would not want to cancel a competition or have fewer events because the tables are too close. Maybe for a future version? 8a7) is indeed the way it is written now, so 10 persons per competition, not per event. There was one competition where we had 9 people in 3x3x3, but additional person in Magic. That made in 10 people. I think it is OK now, but I hope we can grow so that this will never be an issue anymore. :-) 8a9) future version? The problem with audience is that you cannot force people to come and watch us. :-) 9b) yes, best-of format is allowed, f.i. for blindfolded. We have 8a11 to prevent abuse. Rubik's 3x3x3 Cube is an event, so if you would have two events (even with different formats), then it is still the same event. Administration) What do other people think of signing after each solve? As I already said, I hardly see people watching the judge write down their times. Personally I am not in favor of changing this, because it will take more time per competitor and thus more time overall for a competition. Fewest moves) Printed algorithm: I try to do that but somehow I always forget it. :-( What we could do in general is to make guidelines (so not regulations) of a decent preparation for a competition. We should not make this a regulation, because what would happen if my printer isn't working? What do you think? Notation: I agree. Could you please write a short description of the notation? Signing that you understand the regulations) We could add that to the registration forms. Personally I do not mind at all. I do not think Zidane had to sign upfront that he understood the soccer regulations, and even if he did: he did not follow the regulations in the final. So why bother? I am happy that in cubing people in general follow the regulations quite well. :-) Adding article numbers to A to F) I promise to do that for next version. The problem is that the current articles A to F are written in procedure style. Adding letters would make it harder to read. Anyway, thanks for your feedback! My todo list has grown... Thanks, Ron
Ron (2006-07-10 20:46:26 +0000)
Hi Bryan, Thanks for your feedback! You are right about 2e1 and 2e2. I changed the passport to nationality. Thanks, Ron
Ron (2006-07-10 20:59:03 +0000)
Hi Stefan, About 5c) You are right. Is this any better? [quote:3qyrwdv4]If a competitor has a puzzle defect, this does not give him the right to an extra attempt.[/quote:3qyrwdv4] About: Ending the solve) I propose the following and would like to have your feedback. The judge has to say the following after the solve: 1) correct solve: say OK 2) penalty solve: say PENALTY 3) did not finish: say NO SOLVE I chose these words because they do not sound alike. After that the competitor either agrees by doing anything other than saying NO or STOP. What do you think? If someone knows good signs to add to this, then please let us know. Like: OK is thumb up, PENALTY is hand up, NO SOLVE is horizontal move of the flat hand with palm down. The problem is the cultural differences. Thanks, Ron
Ron (2006-07-10 21:01:45 +0000)
Hi fellow cubers, One additional change I would like to do is conform the WCA regulations to RFC 2119, which is a standard for the use of MUST, SHOULD et cetera. Check out http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html What do you think? Thanks, Ron
Bob (2006-07-11 03:03:39 +0000)
Regarding the logo sticker: What about Square-1? Can you place the logo on any piece? I had logos printed on the white side so that it was easier to have them made by cubesmith. It's on a corner because white has no centers. Should there be a restriction to which side that you are allowed to have a logo on?
mrCage (2006-07-11 06:35:39 +0000)
Hi Ron! For fewest moves we do use the standard notation :) UDFBRL - normal xyz - normal mes - normal However for udfbrl there are 2 different interpretations possible: One is that udfbrl all turn 2 outer layer : r = R m', d = D e and so on. The other one (not common) is that udfbrl all just turn an inner (slice) layer : r = m', d = e and so on. For this reason i would prefer to make a regulation that only FBUDRL, xyz and mes being used in competitions, since there is no ambiguity. For scrambling speed events it's no big deal. The metric is time 8) If we only make some recommendations about scrambling printouts and not formal regulations, it's fine for now. But eventually it should be a regulation. Normal scrambles for speeding are also printed out so surely scrambles for fewest moves can be printed out as well :lol: Using Jaap's scrambler it's easy to provide diagram(s) of the scramble(s) as well. - Per
Gilles (2006-07-11 17:14:45 +0000)
[quote="mrCage":1wi9tent]Hi Ron! For fewest moves we do use the standard notation :) UDFBRL - normal xyz - normal mes - normal [/quote:1wi9tent] Sticking to UDFBRL only (by the way, we should include diagrams to explain the notation) is much easier. Do we really have to propose orientations, double-layers and inner-slices? And since HTM is recognized as the official metric, there's no reason to use M, E, S.
mrCage (2006-07-11 18:13:42 +0000)
Hi :) I didn't propose we use double-layers. But i have seen the udfbrl notation used for fewest moves (fewest moves challenge). And it's ambiguous so i suggested leaving them out!! However orientations are used all the time by many in noting down solutions for fewest moves, so judges must understand them if we are going to use them. I agree we can manage solely with UDFBRL, but i guess many will find that limitation hard :? The idea of a diagram with the official notation is good. This notation could be on the same sheet as the given scramble. I guess this sheet should be designed to contain all of the following : - the scramble (+ diagram of scrambled cube?) - brief explanation of notation allowed - fields for submitting the solution containing : contestant name (+ nationality?), round, solution, explanation to solution, room for special comments I can design this sheet if needed. Kind regards, - Per
StefanPochmann (2006-07-11 19:01:33 +0000)
[quote="Gilles":pb6ft0wc]And since HTM is recognized as the official metric, there's no reason to use M, E, S.[/quote:pb6ft0wc] I often do think in inner slice turns. Why should I have to translate to a restricted notation when the well-known standard notation supports expressing how I think?
StefanPochmann (2006-07-11 19:04:55 +0000)
[quote="Ron":8uy56k2c]"If a competitor has a puzzle defect, this does not give him the right to an extra attempt."[/quote:8uy56k2c] Yes, that is good. [quote:8uy56k2c]About: Ending the solve)[/quote:8uy56k2c] Instead of inventing a new verbal or visual vocabulary, I like the signing idea much better. Judge writes down the result (eg "12.34", "12.34+2" or "DNF") and competitor agrees by signing and disagrees by not doing so.
Ron (2006-07-11 20:18:24 +0000)
Hi Stefan, [quote:3anr25cm]Instead of inventing a new verbal or visual vocabulary, I like the signing idea much better. Judge writes down the result (eg "12.34", "12.34+2" or "DNF") and competitor agrees by signing and disagrees by not doing so.[/quote:3anr25cm] :-) We do not disagree that your proposal is indeed better. We may disagree on the practical side here. In more than 95% of the cases, there is no problem at all. So why make the procedure much longer (at least 10 seconds per solve) with the risk of getting disqualified where nothing happened (picking up the cube before the time was written down)? When a quick OK, PENALTY, NO SOLVE would be enough to get things clear? Thanks, Ron
Gilles (2006-07-11 20:23:00 +0000)
-) Even if people have a notation for permutation of last-layer pieces, you can't accept it. HTM metric => HTM notation. That's pure logic. -) After years of cubing, I still can get confused with notation for orientations, and I'm not the only one. -) Simple rules are better. -) You can have you own notation, translating to UDFBLR is only a matter of looking at centers' colors. And you know I'm not against using inner slices and adequate orientations :wink:
Ron (2006-07-11 20:44:38 +0000)
Hi Per, If we add notation (which is quite normal of course), then we have to add notation for all puzzles. Including 4x4x4/5x5x5, Square-1 and Megaminx. I also think we should include slice moves and rotations. Who is willing to make such a notation page? Requirement: let it be small. :-) Thanks, Ron
mrCage (2006-07-12 01:22:09 +0000)
Hi :-) I was talking about briefly explaining notation for 3x3x3 cube only. We don't as of yet have fewest moves for other puzzles :) Speedcubers don't need to be explained notation. Possibly scramblers (who are not cubers) will need to know notation for larger cubes and other puzzles ... A separate description of notation for these puzzles can be made available for scramblers. For 3x3x3 fewest moves event the scramble (and diagram) won't need to make up more than 1/4 A4 page. Same with some diagrams for the notation. This would leave 1/2 A4 page for jotting down, name, solution, explanation ... This is enough, and still leaves the backside if running out of space ... Cheers! - Per
ryanheise (2006-07-12 03:23:09 +0000)
What I'd really like is a fewest moves event that involves only solving with "fingers", not pen/paper/stickers/markers. I think it makes sense to rename the current event to something slightly more specific, so as to create some room for a second kind of fewest moves event. I'm not sure what to call the two different events, but I see one as solving "assisted by paper" and the other one "unassisted".
magicmania (2006-07-12 17:42:25 +0000)
Art. 3l: New. Puzzles may have at most one logo. Hello, I'm one of the members of the KCA[Korea Cube Association]. In Korea, Mr. Hwang is buying cubes with the rubik's cube logo, and adding his own company's logo and sells them again. So, the cubes from Mr. Hwang's company has two logos. The rubik's cube logo, and his own company's logo. So, the cubes from this company is not going to be able to be used for competitions. However, I believe Mr. Hwang is a WCA member. Did you talk about this with him?
Ron (2006-07-12 20:16:10 +0000)
Hi Magicmania, No, we did not talk to Mr. Hwang. Unfortunately that means that you will have to remove one of the logo stickers and replace them with a plain sticker. Sorry! Thanks, Ron
Ron (2006-07-12 20:18:48 +0000)
Hi Bob, I don't think that a logo on the top or bottom should be an issue here, because those faces do not have center pieces. Mmmm, I must say that I do not like where this is going. Should we make an exception for Square-1 or puzzles that already have 2 logos? Or should we be less strict? Or should we keep it this way? Thanks, Ron
BryanLogan (2006-07-13 01:00:08 +0000)
One thing that's bugged me for a while: 8a8) The competition must be open to the public. 8b) An open competition is open to anyone 8c) A closed competition may be open to: Should it be clarified that 8a8 is talking about spectators and 8b and 8c are talking about competitors?
mrCage (2006-07-14 09:28:02 +0000)
Hi Ryan ! I don't see how such a fewest moves event will be judged. How to confirm the length of a solution when it's not even written down? Are u gonna do it slow enough that a judge can count the moves? I doubt this is practically possible :? Remember this will be during official competition. If there are say 10 participants one would need 10 judges then. Or else only one participant will be solving at a time with say only 5 minutes ... Still there is trouble with counting the moves accurately ... :( - Per
Ron (2006-07-14 11:06:36 +0000)
Fellow cubers, Today I posted a new update to the regulations. 1) compliance to RFC 2119, which was a big change for many articles. Please review! 2) changed open to accessible in 8a8). Thanks Bryan. 3) improve blindfolded solving text (you can remove blindfold, if you haven't done moves yet). Thanks Dan. 4) added 2 seconds inspection time in case of misalignment (during inspection). The competitor can do the alignment. Thanks Dan. Stefan, please reply to my post about ending the solve (waiting until the score is written down). I am open to changes, but there is not many people replying on this issue. Thanks, Ron
Gilles (2006-07-14 19:36:31 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3tyxkpjx]4) added 2 seconds inspection time in case of misalignment (during inspection). The competitor can do the alignment. Thanks Dan. [/quote:3tyxkpjx] I don't agree, for the following reasons: [list:3tyxkpjx]- What if the competitor wastes 10 seconds asking a judge who do not speak the same language? - What is a [i:3tyxkpjx]misalignement[/i:3tyxkpjx]? PI/2.23?[/list:u:3tyxkpjx] There should not be any misalignement. If it happens (judges' fault), the competitor should be allowed to fix a misalignement of slices (respecting 10f), without asking the judge.
Ron (2006-07-14 20:49:37 +0000)
Hi Gilles, Thanks. :-) First of all, that regulation was in there already. In the former version the judge had to align the faces. What I changed was: 1) COMPETITOR should align the faces, AFTER notifying the judge 2) 2 SECONDS ADDED to the inspection time, because it takes time and the competitor cannot help it If you would do this without notifying the judge, then the judge may see some manipulation and think that the competitor is doing a full move. Which would result in a disqualification. Please come with a good text proposal. Thanks, Ron
Gilles (2006-07-15 00:12:02 +0000)
[quote:s2cnp8ia]1) COMPETITOR should align the faces, AFTER notifying the judge [/quote:s2cnp8ia] No, AFTER THE PERMISSION OF THE JUDGE. Ron, what problem are we trying to solve? First of all, it should not happen if the judges or scramblers do their part. Plus, if I'm given a 3x3x3 with a 20 degrees misalignement of a layer, the misalignement naturally disappears as soon as I pick up the cube. With such a rule, the solve is disqualified, right? When should this rule apply, starting from what angle? 0.1 degree, 10 degrees, 20 degrees? What's the difference between fixing a misalignement and manipulating a puzzle? I think Article 10 is the answer. And I just can't imagine sly competitors counting on such misalignements to try to manipulate their puzzle to make it easier to solve. Come on. Proposal: [list:s2cnp8ia][i:s2cnp8ia]If the faces(*) of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor is allowed to fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the manipulation must not exceed limits given in article 10f).[/i:s2cnp8ia][/list:u:s2cnp8ia] [quote:s2cnp8ia]Thanks. :-) [/quote:s2cnp8ia] Thanks to YOU! (*) Do all puzzles have faces?
Ron (2006-07-15 06:19:34 +0000)
Hi Gilles, Thanks for the text proposal. The reason why we had this addition, is because there was a discussion about this situation in the Yahoo group a few months ago. I always collect these discussions, to update the regulations where possible. Updated, with two small changes (faces->pieces, is allowed to->may). [quote:1l3dbm3v]If the pieces of the puzzle are not fully aligned, then the competitor may fix it, only to align the faces (for cubes the manipulation must not exceed limits given in article 10f).[/quote:1l3dbm3v] The draft version will be closed on July 20 9PM CET. The new version 2006v2 must be used for all competitions starting July 22. Thanks, Ron
StefanPochmann (2006-07-20 23:19:15 +0000)
[quote="Ron":3e500oji]Hi Stefan, [quote:3e500oji]Instead of inventing a new verbal or visual vocabulary, I like the signing idea much better. Judge writes down the result (eg "12.34", "12.34+2" or "DNF") and competitor agrees by signing and disagrees by not doing so.[/quote:3e500oji] :-) We do not disagree that your proposal is indeed better. We may disagree on the practical side here. In more than 95% of the cases, there is no problem at all. So why make the procedure much longer (at least 10 seconds per solve) with the risk of getting disqualified where nothing happened (picking up the cube before the time was written down)? When a quick OK, PENALTY, NO SOLVE would be enough to get things clear? [/quote:3e500oji] (Sorry for the late answer) Yeah, I guess saying ok/penalty/nosolve would work, too. I'd just like to really encourage people to check what the judge wrote down and to not manipulate puzzle or timer before that. And a signature doesn't take 10 seconds, does it? Oh, what's the whole time involved in a single solve? Bringing cube to scramblers, scrambling, calling competitor, judge and competitor go to timer, inspection, solving, the ending procedure. I think the time for the signature would'nt make it that much longer, relatively speaking. Only difference is the Magic because it's fast to solve and there's no scrambling so all attempts are done in a row. For that I think a signature isn't needed after each attempt, but somehow I'd still like to encourage people to check the result the judge wrote...
Masayuki (2006-07-26 02:19:05 +0000)
I am translating new version into Japanese. No inspection event is listed in Articles 9 v2. But Article G for no inspection was removed. It is unclear how should we treat no inspection event. :(
Tyson (2006-07-26 09:10:33 +0000)
I think we can be more vigilant about competitors checking their times on their score card after the judge has marked it down for US Nationals. It is certaily a problem when a time gets put up, and then the competitor disagrees with it. Most of the time it's "you should have checked the score card," but having a better system or protocol would cut down on this problem. As for the fewest moves notation, wouldn't it be possible for a competitor to write down their moves with M/E/S and then translate it to HTM afterwards? Sure, the downside is they lose some time. With an hour to solve the cube, the time spent translating shouldn't represent a sizable fraction of the total time, though I would agree that advantages are advantages. Perhaps our solidifying HTM would encourage people to practice "fewest moves" in HTM.
Ron (2006-07-26 20:55:45 +0000)
Hi Masayuki, Where in the regulations 2006 v2 is the No Inspection event mentioned? I can't find it. Good luck this weekend in Tokyo! Thanks, Ron
Ravi (2006-07-27 22:05:34 +0000)
Do articles 10e and 10f mean that cubes unsolved by a quarter turn, a half turn, a slice turn, a half slice turn, or U2 D all get a 2-second penalty?
Ron (2006-07-28 11:07:58 +0000)
Hi Ravi, Yes, that is right. The reason for this is that in some cases it is very hard to tell whether misalignment should lead to a penalty or not, especially on 4x4x4 and 5x5x5. This way we also not favor HTM to STM solvers. This is the easiest way, although in some cases not the most beautiful way. Thanks, Ron