So this issue came up at Discovery Science Center 2009. Andrew Nelson stopped the timer, and his Square-1 ended in such a way that it was (1,0)/ off. In words: the top (it might have been the bottom, but that is irrelevant here) was (1,0) from being solved, and the slice was turned. I called DNF, and Andrew agreed, but another judge said that it should only be a +2. His claim for this was that (1,0) still counts as a solved state (less than 45°), therefore the Square-1 is only 1 misalignment off (the slice, naturally, being 180° off). For it to be a DNF, the puzzle must be off by [i:22n5dohg]two[/i:22n5dohg] official misalignments, as found in the following regulations: 10e3) If one move is needed, the puzzle is considered solved with a penalty of 2 seconds. 10e4) If more than one move is needed, the solve is ruled DNF. 10f fails to cover this problem: 10f) Limits of misalignment for puzzles: cube shaped puzzles: =< 45 degrees Megaminx: =< 36 degrees Pyraminx: =< 60 degrees The Square-1 is technically not even cube shaped; In fact, it is taller than it is wide. Also, the Square-1 does not function as a cube. Therefore this regulation does not cover the solved state of the Square-1 at all. The only thing that is of any help is: 10h) Other puzzles are solved according to the solved state as defined in the generally accepted goal of the puzzle, with the regulations of the cube solved state applied when applicable. This is the only regulation that could be used to justify giving Andrew a DNF and not a +2. It is obviously against the accepted goal of solving the Square-1 for it to be left in this state. It also seems arbitrary to say that (1,0)/ is a +2, but (-2,0)/ is a DNF, when these are almost exactly the same thing (someone might object to this point, but probably not someone that actually [i:22n5dohg]does[/i:22n5dohg] Square-1). However 10h is very vague, and I feel that this is an issue that should be explicitly stated. I myself cannot think of a way to put it into words such that 45° remains the standard for a +2, but (1,0)/ is a DNF, unless it was stated perfectly explicitly, such as: The Square-1 is treated like a cube shaped puzzle for U and D face misalignments, and the same for slice misalignments. In the case of there being a (1,0) misalignment, and a slice misalignment over 45°, the Square-1 is considered unsolved and a DNF must be given. I would like to know what other people think about this.

I suppose the generalized rule would be something like this: - A 'valid position' of a layer is any positioning of the layer which allows all adjacent layers (that is, layers with a different axis that each share pieces with the original layer) to be turned. - A layer is considered misaligned from the solved position if it is closer to another valid position than to the solved position. (If the judge cannot tell which it is closer to, it should be considered not misaligned.) - A cube which has no misaligned layers is solved with no penalty; a cube which has one misaligned layer is +2; a cube which has more than one misaligned layer is DNF. So for a Square-1, if the puzzle is in the solved state but off by (2/3, 0) it would be considered +2; however if it is off by (-2/3, 0) it would be solved, since in that case the top layer is closest to the solved position than to any other valid position. Andrew's position would be DNF.

[quote="qqwref":gdflyzf1] - A layer is considered misaligned from the solved position if it is closer to another valid position than to the solved position. (If the judge cannot tell which it is closer to, it should be considered not misaligned.) [/quote:gdflyzf1] So, this would be 15 degrees for Square-1, right? That seems to be really really harsh when we allow up to 45 for cubes. Just because a full turn of the Square-1 top layer has more positions, shouldn't mean that the penalty should be stricter.

[quote="BryanLogan":1zr0nv4p][quote="qqwref":1zr0nv4p] - A layer is considered misaligned from the solved position if it is closer to another valid position than to the solved position. (If the judge cannot tell which it is closer to, it should be considered not misaligned.) [/quote:1zr0nv4p] So, this would be 15 degrees for Square-1, right? That seems to be really really harsh when we allow up to 45 for cubes. Just because a full turn of the Square-1 top layer has more positions, shouldn't mean that the penalty should be stricter.[/quote:1zr0nv4p] So what about my case? (1,0)/ The / is the only move by your definition. Yet this position is obviously 2 moves off, and on any other puzzle it would be a DNF.

[quote="blade740":qnsvymdh][quote="BryanLogan":qnsvymdh][quote="qqwref":qnsvymdh] - A layer is considered misaligned from the solved position if it is closer to another valid position than to the solved position. (If the judge cannot tell which it is closer to, it should be considered not misaligned.) [/quote:qnsvymdh] So, this would be 15 degrees for Square-1, right? That seems to be really really harsh when we allow up to 45 for cubes. Just because a full turn of the Square-1 top layer has more positions, shouldn't mean that the penalty should be stricter.[/quote:qnsvymdh] So what about my case? (1,0)/ The / is the only move by your definition. Yet this position is obviously 2 moves off, and on any other puzzle it would be a DNF.[/quote:qnsvymdh] I would probably say that would be a DNF, since it's two moves off. Of course, the other question raised is how much can the / be before it's a +2? Seems like 90 degrees would be the value if we follow all the other rules, so now on the Square-1, we have 15 degrees for one limit, and 90 degrees for the other. Seems kind of odd.

I would have ruled it +2. On Square-1, if it is misaligned by (1,0), I would consider it to be less than the permitted 45 degrees of its solved cube shape, and hence not misaligned. Yes, I will call it a cube shape even if it is not a perfect cube. If it was (1,0) instead of (1,0)/, would you have ruled it +2? I have mentioned this informally at a couple competitions that 45 degrees on Square-1 is different than 45 degrees on a cube, but I don't think our current regulations would be so strict as to give +2 for 15 degrees of misalignment on Square-1.

This is why I was saying that the only way to do make this clear in the regulations is to be completely explicit. I see no problem with the slice being +2 at 45°. Although it isn't completely obvious to tell, you can still see when the slice is 45° off. There is also no problem with using 45° as a +2 for the U and D layers. The only thing that needs to be made clear is that if the Square-1 is left (1,0) off solved, and the slice is turned, even by 1°, it is a +2. Of course usually this won't be an issue because the Square-1 will be placed upright, and so the slice cannot be turned. However if the person leaves the puzzle in the (1,0) position then drops it on its side, and the slice turns: If less than 45°, it should be a +2; if more than 45°, it should be a DNF, as the Square-1 clearly requires two moves to get to the solved state

[quote="Dene":2ch6393a]This is why I was saying that the only way to do make this clear in the regulations is to be completely explicit. I see no problem with the slice being +2 at 45°. Although it isn't completely obvious to tell, you can still see when the slice is 45° off. There is also no problem with using 45° as a +2 for the U and D layers. The only thing that needs to be made clear is that if the Square-1 is left (1,0) off solved, and the slice is turned, even by 1°, it is a +2. Of course usually this won't be an issue because the Square-1 will be placed upright, and so the slice cannot be turned. However if the person leaves the puzzle in the (1,0) position then drops it on its side, and the slice turns: If less than 45°, it should be a +2; if more than 45°, it should be a DNF, as the Square-1 clearly requires two moves to get to the solved state[/quote:2ch6393a] So here you are talking about having to do / (0,1) to solve it, right? If it will be less than or equal to 45 degrees misaligned, I think even being off by as much as (0,3) would be only +2. If the puzzle is off by (0,1) but then falls and becomes off by an additional /, then after applying /, I would consider it solved. But yes, I think it should be addressed explicitly in the rules.

Yea well that's the problem. I think that the Square-1 is not solved as defined by the general goal of the puzzle. I know it's harsh to say that (1,0) in itself is a +2. In fact I don't think it should be. But the problem is that if it's (1,0)/, the puzzle is not 1 move off as defined by the general goal of the puzzle. This is quite a nasty issue. I wonder what other people have done in these situations? I know that I got a DNF in my first ever Square-1 average because it was off by (1,0)/ (actually it was only half a slice, but that is still 90°). And as I said I gave Andrew a DNF for it.

You tried to not give me a DNF but I forced you to. I wouldn't use 90 degrees as the limit for a / move. It's much too likely to be exactly 90. Maybe we should just call 45 degrees on any axis the limit and call it a day.