The Authoritative Minesweeper Guestbook

Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!


04/15/01 05:09:00 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: :)

04/15/01 04:24:44 PM  
Name: female miner
Comments: Hey Owen: Given the specimen that you have provided, I would hazard to guess that the secret isn't intelligence.

04/15/01 01:56:17 PM  
Name: Matt McGinley
Best beginner: 1x2 2x12 3x182 4x708
Comments: A 2, seven 3's, yet only five 4's today. Seems odd, to get more 3's than 4's.

04/15/01 01:50:45 PM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Best expert: 57
Best intermediate: 16
Best beginner: 3
Comments: Dean, go to the "Videos" section of this site and watch them.
 E-mail   

04/15/01 09:44:40 AM  
Name: Dean Smith
Best expert: 99
Best intermediate: 28
Best beginner: 6
Comments: Hey, this is a really good website. I only went online to find out the world record as I thought that I was one of a select few in the world who have broken the 100sec barrier on expert. But looking at the times here, you could say i'm only a 'beginner'expert. The times just seem to beggar belief - I mean how is it physically possible to get under 60sec. That is unbelievable! Hope to improve on my times and make it into the hall of fame soon! Bon chance!

04/15/01 09:40:33 AM  
Name: Owen
Best expert: 69
Best intermediate: 19
Best beginner: 2
Comments: Yo all!! Have a guess what i just did? I played minesweeper for the last hour.. I beat sub 70 Got 69 WHAT A MANOUEVER!! yes i'm really happy about that!! is Damiens e mail address thefinerminer@hotmail.com?

04/15/01 07:37:50 AM  
Name: Owen
Best expert: 71
Best intermediate: 19
Best beginner: 2
Comments: HI everyone. Just a few things to say... I've made the best players list... it's hard for me to belive that i have come that good! I haven't played minesweepre for more than 15 mins at one go in the last week cause the pc is here in my bros room - limited access. How oftan do you people play? Watching the videos of brilliant players on camatasia inspires me to become better and i also notice some sub second saving tricks. thanks for you good influence guys.... :O) And finally. I think the reason why there are more guys at higher levels in minesweeper is because they have more testosterone which gives you more drive and persitance to succed generally. Thats all! Bye everyone.

04/14/01 11:27:47 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Best expert: 83, 85, 87x2, 89x4
Best intermediate: 22, 23, 23, 25, 26x3
Best beginner: 2, 3x3, 4x18
Comments: woo! 2 seconds on beginner! 83 on expert! 8 more total to get off to be on the best players list! yeah! i always set records all it once. cool how that works out. well, hope damien is unbanished from the internet soon.
 E-mail   

04/14/01 06:14:10 PM  
Name: Jon EVans
Best expert: 97
Best intermediate: 30
Best beginner: 7
Comments: I thought with a time of 97 that I'd be the best player in the world - I've only started looking on the net today for some other times. All I can say is; am I wrong?? I think I need to practice
 E-mail     Website  

04/13/01 11:00:38 PM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: Yes, Matt, you did tell me.
 E-mail   

04/13/01 06:10:34 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Ok, last post from me.... David...Did I not tell you that you could easily beat your 18? I knew you could do it....and, ummm....I told you so.
 E-mail   

04/13/01 06:09:01 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Barry, Im sorry , but I may have lost your retort to my "preferences" essay. Oh well... Somebody Im not too fond of hacked into my website and isnt allowing me to log-in anymore, but I copied all the content on the site to my hard drive, so that I can set up a new page soon.
 E-mail   

04/13/01 05:08:25 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Some people can be really stupid... Dont email me, dont visit my website, and if you do visit my website, disregard EVERYTHING you see there. And Please dont email me.... Thank you, Ill notify you when this crisis is over.
 E-mail   

04/13/01 04:34:53 PM  
Name: Ryan Peckyno
Comments: Ok, I made several grammatical errors (i.e. regurgitating).
 E-mail   

04/13/01 02:45:42 PM  
Name: Ryan Peckyno
Best expert: low 80s
Best intermediate: low 20s
Best beginner: 2
Comments: Ohhh...and I apologize if any of my previous posts on "optimal strategies" triggered any rethinking of the "ranking system". This issue has been beat to death but my quick two cents (without regurgiting arguments) is to keep it the way that it is. If you really want to get technical about this whole deal you would have to have people determine the minimum # of clicks required the particular board that they achieved and determine the rate of clicks/second for that board...blah, blah, blah. Many beginner boards cannot be solved in under 3 seconds, nor can many intermediate be solved in under 14 seconds, etc. Just keep it the way it is and it should merely serve as a reference.
 E-mail   

04/13/01 02:33:56 PM  
Name: Ryan Peckyno
Best expert: 80's
Best intermediate: 20's
Best beginner: 2
Comments: I have played this game 1 time in the past few months. I just got "board" of the game and thought that greater marginal gains could be achieved elsewhere. But I am still interested in the NP/P complete problem. I received some information about this but I would still like to look at some more. I think it is pretty interesting...and think that I have a very good understanding of how the game works and relates to this problem (but can still learn more). Any information welcome. Maybe if ya'll offer a million dollars for the fastest sweeper in the world then I'll play again. Then again, maybe not. Please send to x13248@exmail.usma.army.mil. Thanks, Ryan
 E-mail   

04/13/01 09:26:18 AM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: I have been playing about half an hour a day recently, due to school commitments. Now that we're on a break for a week I might get a few more hours. Today, I got frustrated with minesweeper for the first time ever... I clicked on what I thought was the last square, not realising that a) it was a mine and b) I had missed a square somewhere else. 47 seconds on the clock. Oh well :(
 E-mail   

04/13/01 08:36:19 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: David, have you been playing expert much lately? If so, have you come close to beating your current record of 51?
 E-mail   

04/13/01 12:14:46 AM  
Name: David Barry
Best expert: 51
Best intermediate: 15
Best beginner: 3
Comments: Yep, new best int. time... today was the first time ever (or at least for well over a year) that I decided to concentrate on intermediate for a few hours... it took about 40min for the new best time window to pop up. In the past I've mostly played intermediate after getting a new best expert time, or as a short 5min warmup before expert. ET Khor, looking at the bext players list, Victoria Stevens (60) and Helen Toomik (63) seem to be the best females. But definitely the list is male-dominated.
 E-mail   

04/12/01 06:34:53 PM  
Name: Dave
Best intermediate: 25
Best beginner: 9
Comments: REALLY GREAT SITE! IT HELPED A LOT!
 E-mail   

04/12/01 01:01:00 PM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Best expert: 57
Best intermediate: 16
Best beginner: 3
Comments: Just got my second 57 expert game. I felt I was going pretty fast and I was disappointed when the "new record" window didn't pop up, but I am pleased I was able to break into the 50's again. One thing I've noticed lately is that I am finishing games much more frequently now, so now I just have to improve my absolute best times.
 E-mail   

04/12/01 10:10:51 AM  
Name: Lance Votroubek
Best expert: 75
Best intermediate: 18
Best beginner: 2
Comments: Not to preempt that question, but I just thought I'd update everybody on my minesweeper averages. I don't think anyone would consider me a fluke on intermediate anymore. I have not gotten an 18 or 19 since that one, but I have gotten 20's and 21's, and on expert, I have gotten several more 70's scores, including a few 76's. My average minesweeper (total) time is now below 100 seconds - 99.4. Anyway, have a great day, and happy sweeping! Lance
 E-mail   

04/12/01 07:02:46 AM  
Name: Khor Eng Tat
Comments: Hey, just a thought that occured to me. Is it just me, or is it that most (if not all) of us serious minesweepers are males?

Just wondering.....are there any females out there?


04/10/01 07:54:32 PM  
Name: Graham Currie
Best expert: 95
Best intermediate: 29
Best beginner: 3
Comments: WOW ! AMAZING ! I've been playing for a year and "on the web" since just today. I had no idea that there were so many of us ! This was the third site i visited. Its superb. I thought the world records would be rather fast. I'd vaguely 'calculated' that the 'best possible speeds' would be 1 - 10 - 40 , and am quite amazed by how close those scored are. Love you all.
 E-mail   

04/10/01 06:20:53 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Intermediate (thats all I will play after I get my 1,000th 4, on beginner and retire) is irking me. I get 4x22, 10x23 and 9x24, and then a 19. I was playing for about two hours last night, and I was getting pissed because all I was getting was the "moderately" fast boards. No zingers except the 19, which was kind of fast I guess. Im getting every game on video, so If I break my int. record, expect to see it on my page.
 E-mail     Website  

04/10/01 11:34:57 AM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Dan: It's been going allright, I guess.. I haven't been playing very seriously in the past two weeks. That's not to say that I haven't played much, but most of it was while doing something else like surfing the web. If I check my screenshots (which I make whenever I get a 62 or below), I find that I have gotten two 62's, a 61 and a 59 in the past two weeks, another 62 and a 59 in the past month or so. I am getting more 63-65's than ever, but I do have a feeling that my absolute top speed has gone down somewhat, as I'm not screwing up a lot of would-be-50's games. This doesn't bother me a lot, cause I know the speed will come back and when it does, because of my improved consistency, chances will be better of getting a 50's game. Right now I'm trying to pay attention to intermediate, because that 19 is bothering me, but I'm not very succesful. It just doesn't have the same thrill as expert... I haven't gotten below 22 today.

04/10/01 10:59:45 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: Marc, how is your sweeping going? Although I have not gotten any new 50's scores, I have really lowered my average in the past week. I've gotten 60 four times in the last 3 days, along with many other low to mid 60's. I have had several 'almost 50s' games, but managed to screw up each time. Damien's parents, cut the guy some slack. At least let him update the darn records list.
 E-mail   

04/10/01 09:30:38 AM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Some parents really need to get their priorities straight...

04/10/01 08:07:37 AM  
Name: Ken Moore
Comments: Damien has been abducted by his parents. They will release him when graduation gets more attention than sweeping. Emails sent to the hotmail address might get deleted because it only has a couple meg capacity.
 E-mail   

04/10/01 07:29:45 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: Hey Damien, don't forget to put my name back on the best players list when you updated the site.
 E-mail   

04/10/01 01:39:54 AM  
Name: Georgi Kermekchiev
Best expert: 102
Best intermediate: 31
Best beginner: 5
Comments: Hi Everyone, Probably I am the first bulgarian to leave a message here :-) I've started playing Minesweeper few months ago and at this time I am too far from the good players .... Anyway I am sure quite soon I'll get master results :-) Thanks Damien for this site! Since I've found it, it motivates me to become better and better :-)
 E-mail   

04/09/01 01:13:01 PM  
Name: Owen Fox
Best expert: 71
Best intermediate: 19
Best beginner: 2
Comments: Just thought i'd say that i got Camatasia working so I might send in some videos soon enough if i get any good scores... Another thing i thought i would mention is that this pc is in my Bros room so i cannot play whenever i want. Usually i play for around 35 mins a day average. see ya'll!!
 E-mail   

04/08/01 02:34:45 PM  
Name: Owen Fox
Best expert: 71
Best intermediate: 19
Best beginner: 2
Comments: Yo everyone! I just got 71 less then 2 mins ago! There was no shouting or anything like i didn before - just a YES, DEADLY! thoughts of ringing my friends Cian and Corm flodded my mind and .... I was just happy. i played for the last 45 mins. i got a few 80s but no sub 80. It wasn't even that good of a board. i knew aweek or so ago that i could definately sub 70. i will soon..... hopefully! Well done Lasse. I think you are brilliant at the game.... How many hours a day do you play? Congrats on your 4th 47 Would someone mind telling me the story about Jaou? DID he cheat? Matt, I respect your liking more than most about Intermediate and Beg. Although others focus on expert i think it is good to have variety in everything- Variety is the spice of life i say! Bye everyone. thanks to anyone who answers my question :O)
 E-mail   

04/08/01 05:57:39 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: I agree with Joe. Maybe in the world record lists, we could have that person's next best two or three times (if they keep them) in text next to their record. That way we could still display the people, who keep them, best cpouple times, and the poeple who dont keep their top three or four times wouldnt be penalized. Good idea Joe. And I dont have a single screenshot of any 4 sec. beg. board, much less all 700-something I have right now.
 E-mail     Website  

04/08/01 02:00:31 AM  
Name: Anonymous Surfer
Comments: Just "board" and catching up on a bunch of old posts.
 E-mail   

04/07/01 11:45:50 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: damn, im posting my ass off tonight. last one, i promise. here's what you could do, damien. we could just have pictures for each person's record (since half the pics on there dont work anyway) and for the rest you could just right matt....4 (x1004 or whatever) oooh, i think that would be tight. that way you could still include all the way up to 6, 36 and 90, and not take up so much space with pictures, or even that much really with text. okay, im very pleased with myself. im retiring for the night. read my crazy crap. :)
 E-mail   

04/07/01 11:37:59 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: um, in case i didnt explain my little idea well, which i think i didnt, ill add to it. some players third and fourth best scores and so on would be on there, too. so, yeah, all thousand or so of matt's 4s would go on there. i guess thats probably not happening, eh? well maybe under 4 for beginner? eh, i dunno, maybe it's not feasible. i think it would be cool, though.
 E-mail   

04/07/01 11:32:56 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: hey, i have a wacky idea. since i particularly have been pushing for a way for damien to display each player's top 5 times, wouldnt it be cool if the world record section (not the best players section) displayed all the best boards, rather than just each players' best? for instance, all three of lasses' 47s would be on there, since they are the three world record boards. this way, we could say how strong each player really is. of course, then we couldnt include everything up to 99. probably only under 60 times could go in there, then. eh, maybe that's not such a good idea, i'd be off the list then :). still, something to think about, i think that would be tight. it's only one picture for each board, anyway, maybe it wouldnt be that hard to do.
 E-mail   

04/07/01 11:27:53 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: hey how the eff did you get 1 twice, matt? that's crazy! :) are you the only guy with more than one? ive known you had two for a while, just remembered when you told this dude.
 E-mail   

04/07/01 02:29:08 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Big update to my website today. Two more profiles added as well as a rants section with essays about same boards, what minesweepers have in common and the whole Joao scandal. Go there!!!!!
 E-mail     Website  

04/07/01 05:22:30 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Best intermediate: 17
Best beginner: 1
Comments: Although I cant talk for the expert 56, I can say as to why you are in disbelief. When I was at 7-55-247, I wanted to know how it was possible to get a 1 second beginner, now I have two of them. If you just keepplaying, and playing and playing, you will start to develop your own way of playing, whether it be marking or no marking. Everyone here on those world record lists started out like you are right now. And take a look at the expert videos in the videos section. Lasse's 52 doesn't work, so if you want to see that one, email me and Ill send it to ya. Good luck sweeping.
 E-mail     Website  

04/07/01 03:04:13 AM  
Name: Steve
Best expert: 172
Best intermediate: 52
Best beginner: 9
Comments: As you can see, my times are not so good. and right now, i cant see that it is possilbe to get times like 56 on expert. i mean, how do you do it? it just isnt possible to move aoround the board that fast. ami just being dumb? is there some other way? and how is not marking an advantage? surely you forget which mines are which and end up killing yourself?
 Website  

04/06/01 03:54:14 AM  
Name: Khor Eng Tat
Comments: You're right Barry. For Win2000, all the settings in winmine.ini are built into the registry.

04/06/01 03:39:30 AM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: I think it would be more likely that the high scores in Win2000 are built into the registry, like they are with Freecell. But i don't have Win2000, so I can't say for sure.
 E-mail   

04/06/01 12:32:25 AM  
Name: Khor Eng Tat
Comments: Matt, I think the winmine.ini file you found is for the Win98 ver of minesweeper. There isn't a .ini file for my Win2K minesweeper too. If u try changing the .ini file, it won't affect the high scores for the Win2k minesweeper

Could it be that Microsoft have integrated the high scores into the minesweeper.exe file itself, thus stopping us from fiddling around with the high scores.

And yes, i think the skipping of the first second problem is gone.

And no matter what operating sys you're using, you can just copy the Win98 or Win3.x version into your computer and just play (they will generate the winmine.ini automatically).


04/05/01 05:21:31 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: the winmine.ini file might be there but I just didnt find it like I normally do when I do a file search/find for it in the start menu.
 E-mail     Website  

04/05/01 04:32:27 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Dan: I'm using win2k with the 98-version of the game. You could just install both versions. If it's true that winmine.ini isn't used by the 2k-version, they should be able to function on the same system. Then you could use the 98-version for beg and the 2k-version for int and exp. I haven't tried this, as I haven't installed minesweeper when I installed win2k and I don't have the installation cd here.

04/05/01 04:11:43 PM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: I think I'm just going to install Windows 2000 on my system. That way I can use the new version of minesweeper and also have an operating system that isn't buggy(hopefully). Of course, then I won't be able to play the 8x8 beginner board anymore. Maybe I'll try to get a 2 before I upgrade.
 E-mail   

04/05/01 08:48:20 AM  
Name: Khor Eng Tat
Comments: One thing i noticed about Win2000 minesweeper is that pressing the ESC key will not minimize the minesweeper window (unlike previous versions, which would)

so makes it harder to minimise it when ur boss suddenly walks past you while you're happily clicking away!


04/05/01 07:59:36 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: I just got a copy of winmine 2000, but it apparently won't run on Windows 98.
 E-mail   

04/05/01 07:02:55 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: Matt, I spent last night trying to find a copy of Minesweeper 2000, but was unsuccessful. I know I can get it from my brother, but I have to wait til he gets home from work this evening. The fixing of the time bug is more than enough insentive to upgrade to winmine2000.
 E-mail   

04/05/01 06:50:46 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Another thing about minesweeper win2000, I cant find the winmine.ini file. Maybe it has a different name, or maybe you just cant access it, but Im bummed now because I erased some pretty good scores from this computer (2-21-999). This might do something to prevent cheating, however all the other cheats still work...
 E-mail     Website  

04/05/01 05:58:08 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Is there a way to upload the minesweper file that comes with windows on to a website so that people could download win2000 minesweeper? I think that if we give everybody access to the better version of minesweeper, times will improve somewhat, especially on beginner! but according to all the posts on here, no one cares about beginner...... I can see it now, an old man talking to his grandkids over a toasty fire: "Yep...back in the day when I played the minesweeper, we didn't have no new-fangled 9x9 board. Why, we was just fine and content on our 8x8. And sometimes, the timer would jump and we wouldn't even see that there 1 on the timer! Alls we would see is the dag-nabbed 2! You kids have it good I'll tell you what....youre spoiled." Yeah, that would be Lanyje right there...:) Some other things that mnake win2000 minesweeper the best. It has the look of the type of board Lasse and I play, not the kind of board that comes stock with win98 that Damnien, Sriram and Dan play. I really like that. And it has a "sound" feature that makes a bongo like souns every second, an explosion sound when you hit a mine, and a little Arabian type ditty when you finish. It gets annoying but it's pretty neat. and the "new record window tht pops up is not movable, but the best times one is. Other than a different font, it's the exact same as the stock mines with win98.
 E-mail     Website  

04/04/01 04:40:42 PM  
Name: Damien Moore
Comments: Holy! That is hard reading through 100 guestbook entries in a row! Anyways, a few thoughts: First, Sriram did not get a 47...that was a prank on his buddy David, but he did get a 49, so he "merely" tied with Lasse. Secondly, although I've been toying with averaging, it doesn't work. For instance, it would be effective on expert, and even int, but it seems a waste of time of beginner. And how many to average? 5 seems good, but why not your top 100? It'd be more accurate. And, the major reason: very few people even know their next best scores. It's strange to me, cause I know every score I've had since last year, but a lot of people tell me, say, their expert score, and can't even remember their int and they haven't played for years. Only those of us who started playing competitively when this site appeared have an inkling of our best scores, so it would be impossible to rank players without unfairly ranking those who only know 1 or two of their best scores. (Also, it'd be alot of work to write everybody, and I also hold to Marc's views). About win2000: damn it. I've going to have to ask Mr. Donner about it, because it is doubly unfair to those of us who have played since the beginning and especially those who no longer play, and it screws the lists. I suggest people download the old version (3.1 is the best) but 20 years down the road...I wish I had an answer. And, finally...I hope to update the site around the 15th...I still don't have full computer access. See ya, and good luck.

04/04/01 08:24:07 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: I tried the hot water hand thing, and my hands felt really loose and my clicking was fast, but alas, the fastness wore off and I went back to my normal playing, whatever that is.... And Im away from home right now on break, so Im just playing beginner on my dad's laptop which has Windows 2000 Professional. The thing I found out was that besides the smallest board is 9x9, the timer jump bug is totally gone. That 1 on the timer stays there for a WHOLE second, every game...I got a couple 3's that would have been 4's, and some 4's that should have been 5's. Just want to share that with you.. And I don't have my little sheet right now, but I'm sure I've gotten my 4 sec. number 600.
 E-mail     Website  

04/03/01 11:11:52 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Best expert: 58
Best intermediate: 19
Best beginner: 2
Comments: As is probably everyone who's been following this discussion :) By the way, since someone (was it David? Hard to keep track with so many messages) said that Sriram used Damien's suggestion of warming your hand in warm water, I thought I'd give it a try. And coincidence or not, but I got a 61 (my first, after 1x58, 3x59, 3x62) almost immediately. The fastest that I got before that yesterday was 68. It really does feel like you're clicking faster when your hand is warmed up this way. The problem is that the effect wears off very quickly. I don't know if I'll be using it more, but it sure was worth a try.

04/03/01 11:01:06 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: hah, yes it is. what a stud! :) marc, you're right again, it is amazing that sriram has been playing less and has still gotten that 47. respectable, none the less. i guess i could argue that that just means he's gotten good quick, and doesnt necessarily mean he's better than lasse, but at this point, whatever, im fighting a losing battle. oh well. im still interested to hear what damien thinks of all this, :) later
 E-mail   

04/03/01 05:03:36 PM  
Name: Anonymous Surfer
Comments: that's class

04/03/01 11:03:11 AM  
Name: Lasse Nyholm
Best expert: 47
Best intermediate: 15
Best beginner: 3
Comments: Hey guys - thanks for all the nice words. Just here to tell you that I got my fourth 47 yesterday - over the last few days I've been near a 46 but I guess it doesn't count. About average - I'll let it be up to Damien. It was never my goal to be the best overall-sweeper, so Sriram is welcome to hold that title - and he deserves it. But I will try to beat his expert-score (and mine) as soon as possible - number one on expert, was and is still my goal. I'll go out and enjoy the magnificent spring-weather now - Lanyje
 E-mail   

04/03/01 07:16:42 AM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: A point well made, Matt.

04/03/01 07:07:57 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: that last post was mine...
 E-mail     Website  

04/03/01 07:07:10 AM  
Name: Anonymous Surfer
Comments: Obviously Sriram and Lanyje have the same 47 time. Maybe Sruiram only has 100 sub-60's, as compared to Lanyje's 1000+. Although Lasse will always be a legend in minesweeper, I think that he has had more than ample oppurtunities to go fdaster than 47. Sriram, with his two-opening starting style has just developed a skill of hunting down the best boards and playing them. In 20 years, if there is "legends" page that gives bio's of the best minesweepers ever, I dont think anyone would argue with me that Lanyje's name would be at the top of the list. First to sub-50, over 1,000 sub-minutes, expert world record holder for what? a year or two? I dont know, but a long time, eh? Lasse Nyholm = minesweeper legend Sriram Sridharan = fastest minesweeper ever (2-14-47)

04/03/01 03:09:28 AM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: A thousand sub-60s, while extremely impressive, should be viewed in their proper perspective: they're a byproduct of the quest for better records. Probably, at some point, getting a 1000 sub-60s has been Lasse's main goal, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that he'd give them all up for one 45 second game. I think the world of Lasse and clearly he's been the world's best sweeper for a long time. But he's not Minesweeper God, he's just a guy. And now another guy has come along and bettered him. It was bound to happen, just as someone is bound to beat Sriram. Probably Lasse himself :)

04/03/01 03:09:04 AM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Joe: A few notes: You say you think that if the creators of the game had incorporated a top-5 list, we'd be looking at the game differently. First of all, I don't think that it would matter a lot, but that's just a feeling I have. Secondly, the creators of the game *haven't* included a top-5 list. Argue all you want, the creators of the game have thought it best to consider only the best time. Some of you might say that this is because they didn't want to go through the trouble of making a top-5 list or that they simply didn't consider it, but fact remains that they did it the way they did and as such, it is as much part of the game as the 2-second bug or the fact that we play 16x30x99 on expert games. It's part of what defines the game and as I've said before, I think it's perfectly in keeping with the spirit and character of the game. Then you say you can't believe I think Sriram is an equal expert player to Lasse. You say that's simply not true, that Lasse is in a class by himself in Expert. Frankly, I'm a little puzzled as to how you've reached this conclusion. Obviously, he's one of the all-time great Minesweepers. A thousand sub-60 games is a major landmark. But we don't know how many sub-60s Sriram has finished. In fact, because he doesn't post here, we hardly know anything about him. For all we know, he could have 2000 sub-60s. Does the fact that he's been around for a shorter period of time make him any less of an expert? I think, if anything, it makes it all the more impressive that he's gotten a 47. My best expert time is 58 seconds. I've probably had a couple of hundreds of sub-70s. Numbers-wise, I think it's fairly safe to say that a sub-70 means the same to me as a sub-60 means to Lasse. For me, getting a sub-70 isn't a memorable event. It's nice to get one, but it's become routine. The games I get really excited about are the ones in the low 60s and high 50s. (cont'd; did you expect anything else? :) )

04/03/01 01:05:23 AM  
Name: Khor Eng Tat
Comments: Gosh! It takes forever to go through all the messages. Anyway...

As many have said in earlier messages, I totally agree that the bottomline is - this is Damien's site, so he'll do what he wants. Ya, ya, we're entitled to our opinions and feedbacks, but why complicate things? It's obvious that there are TOO many ways to compile a best players' list. And it's quite obvious that we prefer the way that would give us the slight edge (i.e I'm a consistent B and I player, but not consistent in E, eventhough I have a fairly good score - 66. So obviously, I would stick with the current system).

I do quite like the athletics analogy. A 100m sprinter reacts fast and explosive. A 400m runner is fast and steady. A 200 is in between. But who's to say that Michael Johnson (a 400 runner) is a faster and better than Maurice Green (a 100m runner)? You just can't.

Fact is, think about this, if you were to average 50 (eg. 50,50,51,52,53) and I average 60-70 (eg. 61,64,65,70,71). And one day, i get a good board and score a 45. I'd be damn happy about it, and i'd be first on the experts' list. Of course, you're the more consistent and perhaps better player here, but the thing is, I'm still happy and you're probably pissed about it. So what if it's a fluke? so what if it's luck and doesn't represent my true ability? it's unfair to the more consistent players who can't get a good score, but that's how it is in sports, and in life. The best man always win, not the more consistent one.


04/02/01 10:13:04 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: eeee....im obviously for averaging, as you've all seen. marc, you said the essence of minesweeper is getting the one "best time" you can. very true, right now anyway. i think, however, that this has happened as a result of the way damien has it set up, rather than because it is fundamental to the game. what if the minesweeper creators originally had top 5 for each level on the best scores list? i think we'd look at the game a little differently. i guess im a little outvoted here, but thats what democracy's all about, eh? :) it's damien's decision in the end, anyway. i just cant believe marc thinks sriran (no offense at all intended, bro, you're a lot better than me and easily a top 5 sweeper) is an equal expert sweeper to lasse. that's just simply not true, lasse is in a class by himself in expert. oh well. here's another thing ill say: a lot of people are making it seem like top 5 times is a lot of all the games people play on the whole, when in reality it's still an extremely small percentage. it still is only the very best games under ideal conditions, it still shows a player's true speed. arrgh, i dont know, to me averging sounds like totally the right thing to do, but i dont think there's any convincing you guys. that's ok though, im only one person. oh well. i think damien should try to keep records of each players 10 best for each level anyway, more because it would be interesting. :) i for one am one of the most inconsistent players around i think, so i guess it's ironic im arguing so hard for an averaging system. heh, funny. well, later guys!
 E-mail   

04/02/01 05:05:41 AM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: It looks as though the argument over the averaging system comes down to our basic beliefs - whether or not we think that 18, 25, etc. is better that 21, 21, etc. (as Marc does) or not. I don't, some others don't, many would agree with Marc. I guess it all comes down to what Damien thinks.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 10:51:17 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: I truly believe that in using an averaging system, we would be negating the very essence of the game. Best times are what define a minesweeper more than anything. Think about the fun Lance must have had in trying to get on the list? What if we would have used an averaging system? He might have qualified for the list by getting, for example, his fourth 76. What's the fun in that? To some of you it might sound like I'm preaching the Zen of Minesweeper, but all I'm saying is: why use a convoluted, arbitrary ranking system when we've already got a simple, elegant one that is in keeping with the spirit and character of the game? Well... It looks like I've failed in keeping this one short - again ;) I hope I've made my sentiments clear. I really like this discussion and I think everyone's doing a great job in trying to get their point across. I'll be checking back regularly, of course.

04/01/01 10:50:40 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Well... I've had my fair share of this discussion so far, so I'm going to try and keep this short. Obviously, as any who's read my posts will know by now, I'm against averaging scores. The reasons for this I've outlined extensively, but the one I feel most strongly about is one that is getting too little attention for my taste. Most of you in favour of the averaging system seem to believe that a person who has, say, 56, 56, 56, 57, 57 on expert is a better player than someone who's gotten 55, 60, 61, 62, 63. I strongly and fundamentally disagree with this. I believe the person who's gotten the 55 is the better player, simply because he's proven he can perform better than the person who's gotten 56. It doesn't matter to me that he's only proven it once, he's the one who's put his potential to best use and gotten the better time. The reason why I don't believe Paul's ahtlete analogy and Dan's argument that put together in a room with Lasse, he'd get beaten up, hold is the following: Minesweeper is not a head-to-head game and in that, it's fundamentally different from competitive sports. We don't play Minesweeper to beat others; we play it to test ourselves, to stretch our own limits. It's only when we start comparing our skills that need arises for some quantative measure. And what better way to compare skills than one that best represents our efforts to stretch our limits, one that, in my opinion, best represents the fundaments of the game: our best times. Think about it: what is it that makes this game great? What is the reason we're all out there playing? It's the reward we get when we break our records. The determination in trying to beat our best times, the agony of getting so close for the zillionth time, the rush we get when that box pops up and the fraction of a second when your eyes move to the clock to see your time that seems to last an eternity.... That's the stuff we're playing for! (cont'd)

04/01/01 06:59:31 PM  
Name: Paul Kerry
Comments:

However, this is Damiens site, so his rules go. However, for it to remain "authoritative", maybe some thought needs to be given to this issue!

Cheers

 E-mail   

04/01/01 06:59:04 PM  
Name: Paul Kerry
Comments:

Some interesting discussion here, I've been reading with great interest.

IMHO the current "Best 45 players" list could be more accurately called something like "the top 45 expert players, who may be a position higher or lower, due to persistance and luck on easier levels". That's about all it is. In effect, it pretty much just recreates the expert records page. I think that makes it pretty redundant, though it is useful for checking the beginner and intermediate records of those who have the best expert times :P

Athletics analogies are flawed, because athletics is all done on an even playing field, exact same conditions every time (I don't include weather and temperature :P). But.. I'm going to use an athletics analogy anyway.

Athlete A, is truely the greatest 100meter runner of all time. He has run 9.47 several times, and has about a thousand sub 9.60 times.

Athlete B, is a good athlete, who can consistantly run 9.70, but has never run faster than 9.60. However, one day of the season (say the middle day), Athlete B ate his weetabix for breakfast, had a mars bar for lunch time, and ran in the "zone" he clocked an outstanding 9.12, a fabulous time indeed. However, apart from that one performance he was a 9.7 athlete.

Over the course of the season Athlete A beats Athlete B every single time, apart from that one crazy race.

IMHO, this clearly says that Athlete B is the world record holder. However, the better (i.e. the best) athlete is Athlete A.

As for someone who talked about "easy", "intermediate", and "expert". I agree. Who ranks doom players ability by their ability on the easy setting? Who ranks an athlete running down hill with a tail wind? Not me!

I'd prefer some system which takes into account a few expert scores, and gives less weighting to intermediate and beginner than at present.

However, this is Damiens site, so his rules go. However, for it to remain "authoritative", ma

 E-mail   

04/01/01 06:53:55 PM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: If I ran this site I'd use expert averages, but it doesn't matter to me which way Damien has it set up. Using averages wouldn't affect my position much. I've just enjoyed battling it out in a friendly debate over the past few days.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 06:07:00 PM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Just a little experiment I did about the weight a certain level carries: I took my scores and Lasse's scores, and got the mines/second, much the same way the best players list does, but I did it for each level. Then I took those three and averaged them. I had something like 4.1 mines/sec., while Lanyje had only 2.something mines/sec. ALL beacuse I have a 1 in beginner and he only has a 3. I had a point with that, but I forgot it.... And lets try to staighten things out here... Who's FOR averaging and who's AGAINST averaging? I am against it...
 E-mail     Website  

04/01/01 04:41:31 PM  
Name: Lance Votroubek
Best expert: 75
Best intermediate: 18
Best beginner: 2
Comments: yeah, and the best players list is exactly where I want to be. I have played too much minesweeper in the last two or three months, all with the goal of getting on that crazy list. I have a yellow post-it note on my computer monitorn that says "Goal by April 1: 72". I didn't acheive it, because I was able to shave more off of intermediate, once I changed my playing style a little, to "qualify" for that list on the next update. If we add together my records - which by definition means best scores - we get 95. But if we average my top five games from each level and add them together, we get 103 - 4 seconds too slow. And believe me, I understand the point of trying to weed the flukes out of the best players list, but regardless, those fluke games are STILL games that have been WON, and it DID take skill to win them, so their skill should be recognized. Ok, probably a small portion of my feelings have to do with me being one of the people who would be cut, but very soon I will be having more time to play again, and I will get scores to prove that my bests are not flukes. The only way I can resign myself to this argument is by the understanding that it is called the best players list, and not the 45 players with the fastest records list, but the problem is - that is what is implied. Anyway, obviously, my feelings on this matter are that the best times should be the judge. In a bowling tournament, the person with a 115 average who somehow bowls a 300 game still gets the ring. If the 7 seed in the Big Ten Basketball Tournament wins the final, they still get the trophy. If the 9-8 NFL team beats the 16-1 team in the Superbowl, they still get the ring and the parade. You get my point, and those are my views. Have a good one! Lance
 E-mail   

04/01/01 02:15:40 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: in response to lance's last post: yeah, i loce that feeling to, it's awesome. and think about it, setting a record would boost your top 5 average whole lot, so it would still be a good feeling. not to mention damien would still have the world records for each level, so you could still get put in there. the top 5 averaging would just be for the best players list.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 02:13:07 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: continued from last post: anyway, that's only like a 2% decrease, so shouldnt be reflected that much in the rankings. i mean, think about if someone chopped 50% in expert. that would be crazy, right? that's how much it's weighted in your score, a 50% decrease in beginner means almost nothing in your ranking, while even a 10% decrease in expert would be incredible. and dont say there isnt huge room for improvement in expert. lasse took off 3 seconds when he held the world record in expert. the world record holders in beginner cant even take off 1. expert is pre-weighted, as it should be, being the hardest level. woo! more! :)
 E-mail   

04/01/01 02:11:52 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: haha, this is nuts, i think this is the most traffic the guestbook has ever seen. there's like 20 new posts since i posted last night! heh, well cool, i think this is an important subject. alright...where to start....first marc. he's the best arguer out of all you people, he's actually gotten me to change my views, or least see what he's saying twice now. he was very accurate in saying that in minesweeper we are playing specifically for lucky boards, so why penalize people for getting them. very true. however, let's change the example a little bit. every one's been focusing on say a 14,20,20,20,21 against a 20,20,20,21,22.....let's look instead at one person with 5 14s, and another with a 13 and his second best time is 20. how could we possibly say that the second sweeper is better, based on one board he got? even if their only difference is that the first person just got better boards than the second, i think you'd still have to give the ranking to the first person just for playign enough to get those boards. someone (dan maybe? im not sure) said that resilliancy doesnt represnt a players true skill. i agree, it doesnt show your rue minesweeper skill, but good boards are such an important factor, i think it essentially makes you a better player if you play enough to get really good boards. does that make sense? it's not a skill to play over and over again, but i think it should be reflected in the rankings. now, finally, someone else said they dont think expert is really weighted against everything else, and i cant agree with that at all. if a player chops 2 seconds in beginner, like you said, that's a HUGE percent decreas in time. like 50%. that's nuts. i dont care if it's a lucky board, thats part of what minesweeper is about. if the same player chops only 1 on expert, i dont think they got the faster either, i think that's representative of a good board, too. anyway, that's only like a 2% decrease, so shouldnt be reflected that
 E-mail   

04/01/01 12:31:11 PM  
Name: Lance Votroubek
Best expert: 75
Best intermediate: 18
Best beginner: 2
Comments: I do see the point behind all of the "average the 5 best times to find true speed" ideas, but these are record books, not average books. I still feel good once my top five scores in the levels are averaged (2.6, 22.4, and 78), but the thrill is in seeing that "you've achieved the fastest time...." window popping up, and the disappointment comes when you tie or come really close. It's still a thrill, and it feels good to get so close, but we all want to see that window, so we may as well count only the scores that are the fastest - and I'd be saying that if I had five or fifty-five 18 second games on intermediate, and a hundred 70 second games on expert. Lance
 E-mail   

04/01/01 11:45:08 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: I use the same method when I play intermediate. Matt, keep playing expert and you'll be down to 60 in no time.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 10:45:12 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Just want to metion two things: 1) I dont use the f2-click-f2-click method in intermediate. I use f2, but Im usually just moving the mouse around the board and pressing f2 whenever I get blown up. 2)I just missed a 67 by three clicks
 E-mail     Website  

04/01/01 10:22:26 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: It wasn't my intention to ruffle any feathers with my post. Matt, I know from experience that is takes real skill to get less than 20 on intermediate(I still consider 57 as a better indication of my skill). That said, if you can consistently get 17 on intermediate, you should have no problem getting 60's on expert if you spend a little time on it. I also don't consider expert anything more than a sprint, as the idea is to go full speed the entire time. One more thing to consider. There might be a reason the creator of minesweeper labeled the three levels "beginner", "intermediate", and "expert", rather than "small", "medium", and "large". Just a thought.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 09:24:00 AM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: Matt, it looks like you posted your last message just before me.... I would say that your 17 isn't a true reflection of your minesweeping skill. If it were, you would have a MUCH better expert time. I think Dan already mentioned mine density... on expert, you do get lucky boards, but they are less frequent and less significant than those on intermediate.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 09:20:13 AM  
Name: David Barry
Comments: On the point of the combined times (adding up beginner, intermediate and expert), I think Joe's idea of expert being heavily weighted anyway is flawed. Take, for example, someone who's just cracked the sub-100 total list. Average scores might be 4, 24 and 71. From this point, a 2 in beginner will give you a bigger boost to your score than a 70 in expert, even though when he got the 2, he was lucky, and when he got a 70, he probably improved his actual speed. (As for resiliency... click-F2-click-F2-click-F2 may be resiliency, but let's be honest, it doesn't reflect the skill of a minesweeper. Same for intermediate, as Dan said.) Now, onto the averages... I think that for the separate level pages, only the best time should be used. But when Damien says, "Ranking of the World's Best Sweepers", the lucky 49 that Dan mentioned in his last post becomes relevant. (I am assuming here that we have kept beginner and intermediate to their own separate pages.) Marc mentioned that someone who plays 5 times as often will have 5 times as many lucky boards. This is true. However, one of the constants in minesweeper is improvement. The player who plays five times as often will always, from this point on, have better times than the other (assuming equal rates of improvement). Assuming that both his average score and his lucky score increase at roughly the same rate, it won't matter a lot whether an average is taken or only the best time is considered. It is for those cases, such as Lance's best of 18 and second best of 23 or 24, that the average is a better method. When comparing how good minesweepers are, surely we have to take into account the fact that Lance is normally a lot slower than someone who has a best time of 20. Having thought about this a bit, I don't think that we should weight the best time any more than the next 4. Just a straight average of the best five scores is best, when considering how *good* minesweepers are.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 08:39:01 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: Dan, In sports I am a sprinter. I dontknow why this comes out in minesweeper but it does. I heavily favor beginner and intermediate because of the short burst of speed that it is. Minesweeper is all about speed , right? If that's so, then why do you discrimiante against the level that involves the TRUE test of speed, intermediate? Beginner is all luck, but intermediate tests your reactions, reflexes and efficiency. You can get extremely friendly boards in inter. and expert! Why your 57 video is just about a bunch of intermediate boards stuck together! A fabulous board! If you look at Lasse's 47, wow, another very friendly board! The luck involved in intermediate is the sameluck involved in expert. If you want a TRUE test of skill, make everybody play the same board and see who's faster....but thats not possible so we here in the minesweeper community will continue to reply on luck and a good board.... And if anyone besides Dan htinks that my 17 is NOT the true representation of myminesweeper skill , tell me....It was no fluke either (Ive gotten three of them)
 E-mail     Website  

04/01/01 08:25:32 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: Continuation from last post ...You might be able to open up a big area with your first click on expert, but that will just mean there is a higher concentration of mines in the rest of the board which could make it more difficult. When I play expert, I just open up enough of an area so I can get some kind of flow going...that is all that is necessary. On the subject of scores for beginner and intermediate, all you have to do is look at the records list to see my point. Everybody and their mother can get 2 or 3 seconds on beginner. Intermediate is better, but still is not the best indication of who is faster than who. Take Lasse and myself, for example. I think Lasse's record is 15, mine is 16. That doesn't mean much if you want to know who the faster sweeper is. Lasse is clearly much faster than I am, but you have to go to expert level to see the difference emerge. I think Matt's intermediate record is 17, while his expert record is only 80. I am confident that his true skill is indicated by the 80 on expert. Summary: Expert is nearly totally dependent on clicking speed and efficiency. Beginner and intermediate are greatly influenced by the friendliness of the mine patterns in individual games. If you can open up 80%+ of the board with one or two clicks(beg. and int.), consistent skill is obviously not important enough. Man, I don't think I wrote this much in college.
 E-mail   

04/01/01 08:22:25 AM  
Name: Dan Cerveny
Comments: Wow, my post a few days ago about a ranking system using averages really got people talking. I understand the arguments made by everyone about the current system. I think I have a good way of explaining my thoughts: Lasse's best times are something like 47x3, 48, 49. My best times are 57, 58, 59x7. On about two occasions in the past few months, I had a real shot at getting 49 but screwed up the games near the end. Let's say I finished one of those games with a 49. The current rankings would show myself right up there in speed with Lasse. However, if you put the two of us in a room to see who the best sweeper is, Lasse would smoke me. Lasse can obviously get low 50's in his sleep, while I really have to be having an extraordinary day to get low 50's. Typically I get mid to upper 60's. The point is that the very best time each of us has attained is not necessarily an indication of our typical speed. We have world records lists that show us who has gotten the absolute best score while either getting a lucky board, waking up with magical fingers and reaction time one day, or whatever. I see a player ranking list as something that should show who has unquestionably earned the title "fastest sweeper" or "5th fastest sweeper", etc. Now all that being said, the current ranking list still appears to be a decent indication of ability. I think it could be better, however, if beginner and intermediate scores were not used(See next paragraph). I'll try to keep this real simple. The bigger the board is and the higher the mine concentration, the more even the playing field is. Getting record scores on beginner or intermediate require boards in which most of field can be cleared with a few clicks. That is why we all sit there constantly starting new game after new game trying to open up one or more giant areas(beg. and int.). This process really doesn't help much when playing expert. Expert boards are all very similar, with a few outliers. You m
 E-mail   

04/01/01 07:27:37 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Comments: This is pretty much a whole new discussion, but it kind of goes along with everything else. People were talking about outliers and abnormally fast records, as compared to that persons other records (i.e., 14, 20, 20, 21, 21). I think that as you get faster and faster, the chances of that happening are very slim. Staying with that, I think that 12 is not the fastest that you can go in intermediate. I think that Frank Wester's 18 board is at most a 12, if not a 10 or 11. And for Gernot to go that fast (12) with that board, he had to have recognized it a couple seconds into that game, then clicked in the big openings he rememebered and played the board from memory. But do you blame him? And Im still pissed that I missed that board...
 E-mail     Website  

04/01/01 07:21:59 AM  
Name: matt mcginley
Best expert: 80
Best intermediate: 17 (3x)
Best beginner: 1 (2x)
Comments: Wow, I want to respond to everyhting here but that would take too long so Im just going to shorten everyhting to get it all in. Patrick, as for strategies on beginner, I use a methosd that no one else does. It's kind of like Sriram's expert method. What I do is Put my mouse over one spot in the middle of the board, and just repeat F2-click-F2-click-F2-click, until I get a reasonable opening. I think this method is great in that it kind of filters out all the pointless, slow games and ionly gives you the fast games. It's worked so far (1x2 2x7 3x141). Lance, the wierd board are in the beginner videos section, videos 2-1, and 2-4 I think, they arent really that wierd but just damn good boards eh? And It's about time I break my damn 17 record. I've gotten 17 three times, and one of those was on not thatfast of a board. and Im just contemplating about giving up on expert. I hate expert. I try to play it alot, but it just sucks....expert sucks.
 E-mail     Website  

03/31/01 11:32:40 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: The best way to approach the ideal situation is to play as many games as possible, thus reducing the effect of coincidences. You mention resiliency. While I agree that resiliency is one of the characteristics of a good sweeper, I don't believe that it in itself should be considered when trying to determine a person's skill. The reason for this is that in the system that I'm supporting, resiliency automatically leads to a more balanced situation. The more games you play, the better the chances of getting perfect boards, the more accurately your times will reflect your true skill. Therefore, when you use your single best times as a measure of skill, you're already considering and rewarding resiliency implicitly. Well... another long story. I realise that I'm using a slightly different approach here from the one used in my previous posts, but my ideas are still being formed on the subject. Let me know what you think.

03/31/01 11:31:10 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: I'll try and respond as well as I can: You say that you think a lucky board misrepresents a person's true skill. That's where I think you're wrong. When someone finishes a lucky board -or as you call it a good board, which I must agree is a better term-, the resulting time is the best he can do under (near-)perfect conditions. I'd say that almost by definition, that is exactly a person's true skill! The problem is that, due to the random nature of the boards, not many people get to play under ideal circumstances and therefore don't get to show their true skill. Averaging their best times isn't the solution, because the average is lower than a person's best time and therefore further removed from a person's potential record (i.e. the time reflecting his true skill). So in my opinion, if you're looking for a system that represents a person's true skill, averaging isn't the way to go. A time gotten on a perfect board is as fast as a person can be and therefore the best indication of his true skill. When he hasn't had a perfect board yet, the best approximation of the indication of his true skill is his best time on a less-than-perfect board. This is the system that we're using right now: rank according to best time. If you're trying to approach the ideal situation -i.e. the situation in which everyone has times that reflect their true skill- you should use times that lie as close to that ideal situation as possible. And not use times further removed from that situation to get an average that has nothing to do with a person's true skill. An average would only say something about the number of games a person finishes near his record (notice: I say "number", not "percentage"!), and this is not influenced by a person's skill, but by the number of games he plays and his style of playing. (cont'd)

03/31/01 11:28:59 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: yes, lance is on point. ive been saying that, did you readmy last two. luck, represnted as tenacity for playign the game over and over and getting good boards, is a major characteristic of minesweeper, and should be reflected in rankings. jeez, didnt i just say exactly that? i even said beginner is based mainly on that, lance, go back and read my earlier posts. well anyway, i just think top 5 should be used to even out the really extreme ones like lance's. it's not like we're throwing his 18 out, just making his scores represnt his abilities more, though that 18 is also part of his abilities, representing his resilliance in playing enough to get a really good board.
 E-mail   

03/31/01 10:47:31 PM  
Name: Lance Votroubek
Best expert: 75
Best intermediate: 18
Best beginner: 2
Comments: The interesting part of this whole discussion is that, by keeping records, we are LOOKING for the extreme. We WANT to record it, because, hey! it's the most interesting part of the game. A fantastic example is myself. On intermediate, my record is 18s. My second best time is 23, which I have gotten twice (and two 24's to round off my top five). And, to make it worse, my 18 is the SAME board that six other people have gotten super fast times on. But a fast time was EXACTLY what I was looking for, and I finish a lot of games, not just clicking crazy fast to get a lucky score. And what about beginner? Getting a good score on beginner is 95% luck. 1 second scores are 98% luck, and are exceedingly rare. By averaging my best scores there of 2-2-3-3-3, all you get is my average top five lucky games. All a record is is your best time, it doesn't have to be a benchmark of your abilities at all times. I can almost guarantee you that most people have only achieved their record no more than three times, because any more than that would give a better chance at beating it. My best expert time is 75, and I have gotten only three scores in the 70's - 75, 76, and 78 (80 and 81 finish my top five). So, to sum up, there is a reason that the minesweeper record window pops up only when you get a new best time, and not when you tie or come really close to it, and that reason is that the extremes matter. Anyway, I hope I added something worthwhile to this conversation with my convoluted examples. Have a good one! Lance
 E-mail   

03/31/01 10:39:45 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: ok, i read what i said before about a lucky board throwing off a player's true skill and now i sound hypocritical...basically, i think it does to a point and thats why we should average the top 5, but i dont think it matters so much that it renders even a top 5 useless....does that make sense? to be honest, i dont even really know what type of ranking system you're arguing for, marc, what is it again? just the the #1 time? ill try to get into this again after i hear your response.
 E-mail   

03/31/01 10:34:07 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: damn, this is getting complicated now. okay, i think your and my main difference is that i dont like to call what you call "lucky" boards lucky. i like to call them good boards. in my opinion, if a player plays 5 times as many games as another and gets 5 times as many what you call lucky and what i call good boards, they deserve it, and their score should reflect it. besides, playing alot is what makes people good anyway. i think by the time anyway gets 5 20 second boards, that means they're a solid 20 second board player, and you cant call those lucky anymore. i totally understand your arguement, you took it a step deeper than me. i just think people who get "lucky"/good boards should be rewarded for resilliancy, which i firmly believe is one of the three main characteristics of a good sweeper, along with hand eye coordination and pattern recognition. you agree that luck is involved, and that we can't get around it. i dont call it luck, i call it resilliancy, and i think it's a good thing, and that not only should we not avoid, but it should be incorporated into people's scores. see? sounds weird but i hope i explained it well.
 E-mail   

03/31/01 09:54:04 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: In response to Joe's last message (you must have written it while I was putting together that huge post of mine... ;) : You say that it doesn't matter whether people are pushing or going for consistency, because they will get their five lucky times anyway due to the large amount of games played. You're not taking into account, then, that some games are luckier than others. If a person finishes a lot of games, he's more likely to get more of the "luckiest" games than the person who doesn't finish a lot of games. On average, his lucky games will therefore be faster than the other person's games. So no matter how many games you use when you're averaging, the person who finishes more games will always have the better average of his lucky games. And this is exactly the "style-bias" I meant earlier, that a weighing system will inevitably incorporate.

03/31/01 09:32:06 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Well... It's taken me some time to formulate my thoughts, but I hope they makes sense. If my reasoning is flawed or if you simply disagree with me: by all means, let me know. You're right, Joe: this is a fun topic :)

03/31/01 09:31:27 PM  
Name: Marc Schouten
Comments: Joe: I don't argue the fact that statistics are involved. They are and statistical anomalies do influence the rankings. But I believe my arguments from the previous post still hold. Here's why: Consider two persons of equal minesweeping skills. Person one plays five times as many games as person two. That means that person one is likely to have five times as many lucky games. Say that they both normally finish their intermediate games not faster than 25 seconds. Say that their lucky games are finished in 20 seconds. If person two has 1 20s game, then person one has five. That means that person one's five best times are 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, and person two's are 20, 25, 25, 25, 25. It might still be possible to make up a system that uses the 5 best times that realistically reflects person two's skill, but this has become impossible for person one, as his best times are all lucky games. Of course, this is an extreme and simplified example, but it makes my point: any chosen system will always be arbitrary. The same reasoning applies when you consider people's playing styles (pushing hard and finishing few games vs. going for consistency and finishing more games). The core of the problem is that we're not interested in averages. We're interested in extremes. Statistical methods are aimed at reducing the effects of extremes in relation to the average. What the weighing systems that have been proposed so far are trying to do, is to average the extremes and this can only be done by interpreting, not by objective statistical methods. There's no question about it: luck is involved. But the only way to effectively root out its influence is to play as many games as possible. The more games you play, the more lucky games you'll have, making them stand out less. In a way, making them "normal" games. So here's what everyone has to do to make the rankings more reliable: PLAY MORE GAMES! Now who can object to that? :) (cont'd in next post)

03/31/01 09:09:38 PM  
Name: patrick klein
Best expert: 61
Best intermediate: 18
Best beginner: 4
Comments: Yea Baby! new record on intermediate for me. First time I did a record in like a month. I still can't do any better than 4 on beginner. What kind of strategies do you guys who do under 3 on beginner use. Is it just plain old dumb luck or what. Because it seems impossible to do anything faster than 4.
 E-mail   

03/31/01 08:57:59 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: heh heh, im posting an awful lot today :) one more thing i forgot, in reference to marc's post. he said a lot of players play just to get one fats time, meaning they dont finish a lot of games. alright, thats true, but i kind of think that they do that because of the way damien has it now, with only your best score mattering. they know they can screw up as many games as they want as long as they have that one jewel in their crown eventually. i think a lot of players could just simply change the way they play in that aspect pretty easily. also, i dont think they'd really have to change the way they play that much, after all, it would only be 5 times. i think just about everyone finishes 5 games decently, that's an extremely small percentage of the total games an average sweeper plays. so, yeah, i posted my ass off, im done, read my stuff fellas, this is a good topic, lets not let it die. and im still gonna keep my videos only hopes alive for sometime down the road, im afraid i dont have too many supporters in that subject, though :)
 E-mail   

03/31/01 08:33:02 PM  
Name: Joe Nuss
Comments: ok, i didnt actually read marc's post fully, and a lot of it makes sense. he convinced me at least that we shouldnt rank the top 10 times. however, i still have to argue with him that track and field is a lot different than minesweeper because there is luck involved in minesweeper. generally statistical anomalies just dont happen in track. a guy runs his hardest all the time, and it's nearly impossible with the timing systems that they have to produce an abnormally fast time that doesnt properly represent the runner's speed. in minesweeper, however, a lucky board can throw off your true skill, especially if the time you get on that board is an outlier from your other times. now that isnt to say such a time should be thrown out, because as i argued earlier, resilliancy in waiting for such a good board is to be rewarded in minesweeper. however, it should be weighted aginst boards that more accurately display a player's actual skill, and by averaging the top 5 or 3 (im leaning more towards 5) scores, this can happen. i still think this topic is fun, i hope damien follows through on all the attention it's getting. i think i might be willing to help him sort through times at the end of a month and help him average or something if we could get a system like this to work on the site. yeah! minesweeper! #1! :)
 E-mail   



Guestbook courtesy of Bravenet Web Services - All FREE!