--- In [email protected], Tyson Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Haha, I remember that too. It was certainly most impressive. Macky > was trying to do 12 solves without a pop because we thought about > putting that type of record into the record books. (We've gotten rid > of it... it's too long!) Anyway, he went into the competition saying > that he wasn't going to pop at all, and the piece flies out, and we're > all sitting behind the judge's table, Mark and I, and we're thinking to > ourselves, what's he doing? Why didn't he take the pop? > > That was one midair leap short of a glorious day. > > Tyson Mao > MSC #631 > California Institute of Technology > > On Dec 24, 2005, at 5:25 AM, thomkirjava wrote: > > > Indeed, I remember macky's sub-20 pop, that was amazing :) > > > > ~Thom > > > > --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Dan, > >> > >> If popping is of no fault of the competitors, then logically one would > >> award infinite number of pops no? On a less serious note, I think the > >> elimination of popping will increase the amount of action during a > >> competition. In cup stacking, (darn cups), if you knock over a stack, > >> you have to fix it before you can proceed, which means if a cup flies > >> off the table, into the audience, bounces of someone's head, lands in > >> a > >> suitcase, and ends up on a plane to Moldova, you better be ready to > >> run > >> through Eastern Europe. > >> > >> Just imagine the spectacular dives for pieces as Leyan pops (even > >> though he never does), the piece flies through the air in the > >> auditorium, he leaps off the stage, catches the piece, fixes it in > >> midair, and then falls asleep in midair? > >> > >> A glorious day indeed! > >> > >> Tyson Mao > >> MSC #631 > >> California Institute of Technology > >> > >> On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:15 AM, Dan wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Tyson, > >>> > >>> I really object to the idea of not allowing POP's. I'm not 100% sure > >>> of the reasoning behind this rule, but I assume it's to prevent > >>> people from abusing it (ie when you have a bad solve you > >>> deliberately force a piece). But let's be honest, how many of the > >>> top20 solvers in the world have ever needed to/wanted to commit this > >>> offence? Maybe I'm being ridiculously too trusting, but it just > >>> doesn't seem to be a problem as far as I can see. I really really > >>> can't see any of the top guys who can already solve in <15 secs > >>> average being selfish enough to force the cube. And also, not > >>> allowing a POP could completely ruin a competitors chance of winning > >>> a title. A genuine POP is not the fault of the competitor at all, > >>> and yet the new rule would be punishing them, since it completely > >>> changes the approach to solving the cube. You don't want to risk > >>> anything, especially if your cube is not quite as stable as other > >>> competitors cubes. SO it also means that if you have a poorer cube > >>> you are less likely to have a chance of making 5 solves! AND of > >>> course, after you have POPped once, it's very unlikely that you > >>> could recover it and beat someone who hasn't POPped, if you didn't > >>> get the extra solve. I'm sorry for not putting my case very > >>> succinctly, but hopefully you can see I feel quite passionately > >>> about this rule change. I think the reasons for not changing the POP > >>> rule far outweigh the reason for changing it. > >>> > >>> As regards the other rules, especially making all averages out of 5, > >>> I am fully in favour of :) > >>> > >>> Per, Tyson, I am also in favour of allowing stickers in Fewest Moves > >>> Competitions. Just as speedcubers are allowed to use a variety of > >>> techniques, (some might use a corners first method, others might use > >>> Fridrich, and ChrisH might be using ZB), even though those who > >>> aren't using a particular technique might know nothing about it and > >>> not be able to use it in their solves. So not allowing stickers > >>> because it gives people an advantage over those who don't know how > >>> to use stickers to their advantage is not a valid reason I think (if > >>> that is indeed the reason for not allowing stickers, again i > >>> slightly assumed I think). If competitors would supply their own > >>> equipment, then I can't see any reason for not allowing stickers or > >>> sticker equivalents. > >>> > >>> Thanks for listening, > >>> > >>> DanH :) - www.cubestation.co.uk > >>> > >>> --- In [email protected], Tyson Mao <[EMAIL > >>> PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Everyone, > >>>> > >>>> For all competitions in 2006, we will be making the following > >>> changes > >>>> in the regulations: > >>>> > >>>> 1. No POPs will be allowed. The competitor will not be awarded > >>> an > >>>> extra solve if there is a puzzle defect during the solve. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Record standards for 3x3x3 OH, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 will be > >>> Average of > >>>> 5. The current world records set in the format of Mean of 3 will > >>> stand > >>>> for six months to allow time for the current world record holders > >>> to > >>>> retake their world records under the new format. > >>>> > >>>> Note: In blindfold cubing, +2 penalties are awarded. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! Please let us know if there are any major objections. > >>>> > >>>> Tyson Mao > >>>> World Cube Association > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
