I like that idea of a second or two penalty, but I have another thing to say. There needs to be a standard measurement. Not just 2 tiles of the table, because tiles are different. Some tiles are thinner, some thicker. Lets say I solve, and am off the table a bit. The jusde uses thicker tiles to measure, and I get a DNF. If he or she used thinner tiles, the time might have counted. My 2 cents.
Peter Greenwood --- In [email protected], "timbreynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Unfortunately, if one "ear" of the magic is folded down, that's DNS. > I got one of those at Rutgers. > > You might say that if, to solve it, the puzzle must reach a point two > tiles above the table, it's DNS. > > I'm not a huge fan of that rule, I might argue that it should be a 1-2 > second penalty. Just like on the cube, there's solved, almost solved, > and not solved. But I haven't solved magic in about a month, so it > doesn't really affect me much any more. > > --- In [email protected], "David Skolnik" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey everyone, I've had this ongoing disput with a friend for a while > > now and its time to settle it. On the 2006 version of the WCA rules > it > > says that the Rubik's Magic it can be solved if the puzzle is two > > tiles higher than flat. Does that mean the last step of the > > transformer does not have to be done? Or even the last two steps..? > > Or does it mean that the puzzle itself must be flat not partially > > bent? > > -David > > > 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/
