Just an idea to toss around, what about official rules and regulations for robots? That way there can be official records, and it might increase the number of cube solving robots out there. Also robots could then be built to meet the specific regulations. And it maybe be possible that these regulations would disqualify any previously existing robots either because the cube must be scrambled and then inserted, the cube must be inspected without movement, anything like that. Just an idea to bring some traffic back to the idea of robots. -Evan

Hi Evan, Feel free to make a proposal. Ron

Hey Ron, How would I go about doing that? Anything formal? -Evan

Hi Evan, No, the formal stuff will come later. Just tell us what you think about things like: = should it be a regular cube? = how should we scramble? = how should we offer the puzzle to the robot? = how long should the inspection time be? = should the robot recognize the position itself? = should an external computer be allowed? = how should the robot make the moves? = how should we measure the time? and so on. Have fun, Ron

Alright, let's see 1) Should it be a regular cube? I believe that modifications should be allowed to a certain extent. For example, a Rubik's game cube, which is legal in competitions (it is right?) has a whole in the center of every tile. The mefferts assembly cube has a single off center hole in every center tile The question is, to what extent should modifications be allowed? Are wholes in cubes ok? If so, how big, what shape, how many, and where will they be allowed? I propose that as long as you can unambiguously tell when the cube is solved it should be ok. And no modifications which are used to help differentiate between colors or sides should be allowed. But this should be further discussed. 2) How should we scramble? I believe the scrambles should be done by hand, just as with regular scrambling, which leads into the next point. 3) How should we offer the puzzle to the robot? I have to conflicting points of view about this. A) An operator should be allowed to place the cube in his/her robot. This itself should have limits. I do not believe that my current robot for instance should be allowed as it takes way too much time and effort to get a cube in and out. B) As an analog to human solving, the judge places the cube in a specified place, either on the table or a part of the robot, and the robot then operates on the cube and leaves it solved where it started. Option A seems more plausible, but who said anything about making this easy? Once again these should be discussed. 4) How long should inspection time be? At this point it makes the most sense for me to have the inspection time at 15 seconds, same as humans, seems like a logical/easy choice. Also it seems to me as though more comparison can be made between humans and robots if we have closely related regulations. 5) Should the robot recognize the position itself? Yes, I believe it should. And I think that no moves should be allowed to be made on the cube, just as with humans. 6) Should an external computer be allowed? I think so. If they aren't, then what is to stop someone from taping a computer to the robot and saying it isn't an external computer? As long as the operator does nothing other than press a button to start the solve, i think it's ok. And that brings up the question, should the operator be allowed to do that? or should the robot have to decide on it's own when to start the solve after it has been turned on? Or should the judge press a button to signify the start of inspection time, the end of inspection time, and the beginning of solve time? 7) How should we measure time? That is a very good question. Video analysis is a pain. It would be hard to create a robot to use the stackmat, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing. A program running on the robot that times it? A function that is written into the program? If that is the case, there either has to be a standard function for each programming language that may be used, or we would need a program judge to make sure that it does indeed give the correct time. This is a tough one to decide. All of these points need to be discussed and decided upon in further detail, but I think this should be enough to start the conversation. -Evan

1) Setup of the robot must be done by the human competitor. Tournament officials are not required to provide any tools. 2) The competitor will have access to a power strip with at least two outlets within 3 feet of the robot competition area. This outlet will have the same shape and voltage level as the hosting countries outlets used for consumer appliances (110V in the US, 220V in Europe, ?And other areas?). The competitor is responsible for any adapters that may be required. The hosting site should provide a UL-approved (Europe version of UL?) power strip that must be used between the robot and the site's power system. Even if this power strip has more than two plugs, the competitor may only use two plugs. No robots should be plugged directly into the wall. 3) A competitor will have a minimum of 1 hour to setup their robot in the designated area. The designated area will be at least 5 feet by 5 feet. No table will be provided. If a competitor needs a table, the must bring one. 4) Each human competitor is limited to one robot per event. 5) A tournament official will examine the robot before it is brought in. If the official believes a robot to be unsafe, they can ask for clarification about their safety concern. If after the discussion they still feel the robot to be unsafe, the robot may not compete and the robot may not be used for unofficial demonstration. 6) The robot must use a standard cube. No additions may be added to aid in the robot holding the cube. Stickers or tiles may be used. The only exception is a single hole in the center of the cubie face that is circular and measures ??? centimeters across (the same size as a game cube). 7) Competitor is liable for any damage done to the tournament site property as a result of their robot, which it occurs during the competition or when the robot is moved in or out of the site. A tournament official will scramble the cube by hand and hand it to the human competitor. 9) The human has 2 minutes to load the cube into the robot. They may choose the orientation of the cube. 10) If the robot does not contain its own timing mechanism, the judge may use a stopwatch to calculate the time. The robot must give an indication when it starts the solve, either via a light or sound. 11) The robot will have no inspection time. (I say this because soon computers will be fast enough the search alogirthm will be almost nothing). 12) Competitors are responsible for the security of their robot. The tournament officials are not responsible for any damage or theft that may occur.

OK, so most of what you say makes perfect sense. The only part that really stands out to me is number 6. Mefferts assembly cube doesn't fit this description, and as far as I know is a legal cube for competition. And what about the game cube itself which has a hole in ever tile? As far as the operator having 2 minutes to put the cube in, sounds good to me. But, at the same time I feel that this is catering to existing robots, instead of setting rules based upon principle. I think it would be best to make the robot competition as much like the human competition as possible. I think we should (or at least it would be cool if we did) have the judge put the cube down in a given place, then have the judge flip a switch/push a button on a robot. The robot then gets 15 seconds inspection during which it is allowed to pick up the cube if need be, but must set it back down before starting. At the end of the 15 seconds (or sooner) the robot picks the cube back up and solves, then returns the cube to the table/platform/whatever. Would it be hard to make a robot do that and quickly? Yes. But that's the whole point, it's a challenge. And yeah my robot right now can beat a human, but because they aren't following the same rules, is it really comparable? -Evan