http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/res ... ts=1#333fm [quote:82sl224u] 10 Gaël Dusser [b:82sl224u][i:82sl224u][u:82sl224u]535[/u:82sl224u][/i:82sl224u] [/b:82sl224u]France[/quote:82sl224u] Hi, This is pathetic. Kindergarten fun. We should do something, like decide a decent upper limit. 100? Gilles.

thanks Gilles, i like how you are open minded this was, as you can imagine, just for fun, and i asked Clément before, to know if it was possible for me to do a "Most Moves Solve", and it was ok. So, now, where is the problem? where is the problem? Gaël

[quote="gagou9":34qu8hun]So, now, where is the problem? where is the problem?[/quote:34qu8hun] Where's the fun? Where's the fun? (solution sequence)(RR')^1000... I beat you. Ah! It's like watching track and field, and see a clown running backwards. An insult to people of the community who like to take competitions seriously, even if they're are fun.

yep! you take it as an insult, but for me it was just to be the last one on the results list... nothing else. i repsect people who like working to find a fewest moves solution, i don't think it is an insult for them, if some poeple was shocked, or nervous just knowing i participate just for fun, they could tell me. if someone wanted me not to try to find a "most moves" solution, i will not do this... i wanted to find a way to solve the cube with the most moves as it is possible, not using cheatings like "(RR')^1000" for example. I tried using only J-perm, it was about 500 moves, i did it in competition... i think it is not a bad mind, is it? bye, Gaël

WCA Regulations 2010: maximum number of moves is 80.

ok, it's a good solution to that question! see you!

[quote="Ron":2qxildrf]WCA Regulations 2010: maximum number of moves is 80.[/quote:2qxildrf] Not bad, but could we also allow organizers to impose limits on total moves (and/or total number of written moves, including, say, cube rotations).

I'm guessing that Lucas wants to remove the possibility of exploiting the rules by allowing a competitor to submit a solution with 80 moves and 80 cube rotations. Would it be best to have a fixed limit on the number of cube rotations or should the limit be a fixed number of instructions? (move + rotations)

[quote="MadsMohr":3qigktn8]I'm guessing that Lucas wants to remove the possibility of exploiting the rules by allowing a competitor to submit a solution with 80 moves and 80 cube rotations. Would it be best to have a fixed limit on the number of cube rotations or should the limit be a fixed number of instructions? (move + rotations)[/quote:3qigktn8] I would say a combined limit should be fine. If someone has really big issues, then they need to practice more on writing down their notation or just translats colors to sides to sides and have no cube rotations in the solution.

Should we make it against regulations for FMC competitors to have bad handwriting, as well? I think it would be far easier to fix all these problems by simply stating that the judges and organization team have the right to disqualify any FMC solves where the solution as written is disruptive to the flow of the competition.

[quote="BryanLogan":1aw01m0t][quote="MadsMohr":1aw01m0t]I'm guessing that Lucas wants to remove the possibility of exploiting the rules by allowing a competitor to submit a solution with 80 moves and 80 cube rotations. Would it be best to have a fixed limit on the number of cube rotations or should the limit be a fixed number of instructions? (move + rotations)[/quote:1aw01m0t] I would say a combined limit should be fine. If someone has really big issues, then they need to practice more on writing down their notation or just translats colors to sides to sides and have no cube rotations in the solution.[/quote:1aw01m0t] I agree. And personally I think 80 is too soft. To be "good" at FMC these days, you need to be getting under 30 moves. Personally, I think over 40 moves is a poor attempt. Naturally it would be unfair to refuse people because they aren't yet all that good at FMC, but I think a 60 combined limit (rotations and moves) is a better idea. My point is basically that if someone is taking 80 moves, ignoring rotations, then they really should not be doing the event in the first place. Just like someone that takes 10 minutes to solve the cube OH shouldn't be doing the event. They can work on it, and compete when their times are more appropriate.

[quote="Dene":1o54sj8s][quote="BryanLogan":1o54sj8s][quote="MadsMohr":1o54sj8s]I'm guessing that Lucas wants to remove the possibility of exploiting the rules by allowing a competitor to submit a solution with 80 moves and 80 cube rotations. Would it be best to have a fixed limit on the number of cube rotations or should the limit be a fixed number of instructions? (move + rotations)[/quote:1o54sj8s] I would say a combined limit should be fine. If someone has really big issues, then they need to practice more on writing down their notation or just translats colors to sides to sides and have no cube rotations in the solution.[/quote:1o54sj8s] I agree. And personally I think 80 is too soft. To be "good" at FMC these days, you need to be getting under 30 moves. Personally, I think over 40 moves is a poor attempt. Naturally it would be unfair to refuse people because they aren't yet all that good at FMC, but I think a 60 combined limit (rotations and moves) is a better idea. My point is basically that if someone is taking 80 moves, ignoring rotations, then they really should not be doing the event in the first place. Just like someone that takes 10 minutes to solve the cube OH shouldn't be doing the event. They can work on it, and compete when their times are more appropriate.[/quote:1o54sj8s] Yes, but we don't have any limits for OH. Just the default "10 minutes unless otherwise specified". Personally, I think we should require most of the events to have a 10 minute limit so that they're all stackmat times. This avoids people trying to set a 30 minute OH solve time, just like how people have set FMC in the hundreds.

The current regulations for time limits are another discussion, but I think that the current way is pretty good. I think it's fine that organizers could select time limits to fit their competition. The limit is intended to remove the ridiculous long solutions and not a limit for what is a good solution. I agree that is might seem like a high limit but it's only 4 times the WR.

The new E1a only mentions moves, does this mean that it still is a legal solution to also use 80 cube rotations?

[quote:2ikpxdvx]The new E1a only mentions moves, does this mean that it still is a legal solution to also use 80 cube rotations?[/quote:2ikpxdvx] Mmmm, I think 80 moves is what should count. If someone would be funny by doing 1,000 rotations what should we do?

Rule his attempt as DNF due to unrespectful behaviour towards the judges. You could also set a limit to 10 cuberotations. Seriously, who needs more than that?

[quote="Ron":3cctukjv][quote:3cctukjv]The new E1a only mentions moves, does this mean that it still is a legal solution to also use 80 cube rotations?[/quote:3cctukjv] Mmmm, I think 80 moves is what should count. If someone would be funny by doing 1,000 rotations what should we do?[/quote:3cctukjv] You should limit the total number of [i:3cctukjv]written moves[/i:3cctukjv]. I don't think anyone has actually been against that. It prevents the abuse of cube rotations, and doesn't restrain anyone who can actually do FMC. I'm actually still not in favor of an "arbitrary" cutoff in the regulations; I'd prefer if the organizer is allowed to set the limit (subject to constraints/delegate approval). But a general 80-move limit is reasonable and effective.

[quote="SebastienAuroux":13zvp6h5]Rule his attempt as DNF due to unrespectful behaviour towards the judges. You could also set a limit to 10 cuberotations. Seriously, who needs more than that?[/quote:13zvp6h5] Well, in theory, people don't need any cube rotations. I agree with Lucas, and just have 80 be the combined turns and rotations limit.

Regulations 2010: 80 (moves and rotations).