Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!
08/21/01 04:33:14 AM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Lance: Windows ME and 2000 are two different systems. The Win2k version does have a 9x9 beginner board and doesn't have a .ini file (although all the info that is in the .ini file in the Win9x and ME versions can be found in the registry for the win2k version...) |
08/21/01 03:41:56 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | No, Damien, the shift I was talking about was 6 over 2 up....Im sure of it. And I have seen another shift more often than that one but I can never get it saved. I think I've missed it practically every time I've gotten it because I recgonize some patterns and say, "Hey! This is the dream board...I should get a fast time!" But I did manage to finish in 19 once. The second shift is something like <-5,-2> |
E-mail Website |
08/21/01 03:17:06 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | Go and fuck yourself DiFebo |
08/21/01 12:29:18 AM | |
Name: | Michael Kenyon The Illinois Enema Bandit |
Comments: | I hear that ben drucker is a fag. And he likes to lick asshole. In fact, he likes to lick matts butthole. Tossing Salad. |
E-mail Website |
08/21/01 12:25:50 AM | |
Name: | The Illinois Enema Bandit |
Comments: | All of this is well and good, but the fact of the matter remains that damien is still a virgin (except in the ass) and that his only companion is his dog, peanut butter, and his scrotum. |
E-mail Website |
08/20/01 11:18:11 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 18 |
Best beginner: | 1 |
Comments: | I know this issue isn't being discussed anymore, but I thought I'd just put in my little bit of info: A long time ago it was brought up that apparently Windows2000 set a new size to the beginner boards - that they were now 9x9 instead of 8x8 - around the time of Joao. I don't recall what happened in the end of that discussion, and I don't feel like looking through months of guestbook postings to find out, but I have recently purchaced three computers with WindowsME pre-installed (2 HP's and a custom built system - long story), and all three had regular beginner boards of 8x8, and all three also have the winmine.ini file, so apparently there really isn't a difference. If it was already discussed that this was the case, then I probably look like a moron, but regardless, it's more info! ;-) Lance |
08/20/01 04:34:24 PM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | I just got my second 58. More than 5 months after my first and this time I've got it on video. I'm sending it to Damien, of course. Let me know if you want it before it appears on the site. My best times are now 2x58, 4x59, still no 60s, a whole bunch of 61s and 62s. |
08/20/01 02:59:24 PM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best expert: | 85 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 3 :-) |
Comments: | Finally Damien, I've already thought that photo gallery will remain just an idea. I am waiting to see you guys :-) This evening I felt the force in my hands :-) ... and decided to break my expert best. At first I started to warm up with intermediate and in a few minutes I tied my best with 22, then switched to beginner and to my surprise a nice board occured and I scored 3 ! Anyway, after an hour in expert my finest result was 87 :-( Sure it is a matter of time to get a sub-80 one :-) Good night everybody ... |
08/20/01 02:26:44 PM | |
Name: | Damien |
Comments: | Two things: 1. The shifted dreamboard that Matt got twice is 6 over and 2 down (?) I believe. I have had that board once, and now it seems that everyone else is getting that one particular shifted dreamboard: Why have no other shifted versions been found if the random generator shifts all the time? 2. Unfortunately, Robert Donner can't help with the randomness question because although he made the one for the pre-Microsoft version, Chris Johnson did that part and I have been unable to locate him so far. 3. Maybe I'm behind the times and Matt has started something, but I would like to go with Georgi's suggestion of a pic hall for all those who are ranked. Send'em in... |
08/20/01 09:14:52 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | Thanks for the tip Daniela, but I've never had any problems with my hotmail-account, so the problem'll probably be that the mail is too big. Could you try my parents' account: smit.devries@worldonline.nl ? I'd be very surprised if that wouldn't work. Thanks for the trouble. |
08/20/01 08:46:32 AM | |
Name: | Daniela |
Comments: | Roelof, I tried to send the screenshots again but it did not work. Maybe you should visit www.gmx.at and get a GMX mail account. You won't have problems with it. |
08/20/01 05:09:48 AM | |
Name: | Ben Drucker |
Best expert: | 75 |
Best intermediate: | 19 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | I suppose I'll have to write a program to test my theory, which I don't have time to do right now. When I'm done, I'll post the results. |
08/20/01 04:16:36 AM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Comments: | Ben, Nice theory ! You say that if "started (the program itself opened, not a new game started) at 12:00:00 AM, and again at 6:12:16 PM (or 2^16 seconds later), the initial games would be the same, assuming same board size and number of mines", I think it the same as to start minesweeper at 12:00:00 AM and then to set your clock back to 12:00:00 AM and to start minesweeper program again exactly at same time. Unfortunately this gives (when starting new game from exactly the same square as before) different boards !? ... and the theory remains just a nice theory :-) or I am missing something ? |
08/20/01 04:07:39 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Best expert: | 71 |
Best intermediate: | 21 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Got a 80 and a 79 today. Things are going to be fine. |
08/20/01 02:53:55 AM | |
Name: | Khor Eng Tat |
Comments: | I'm Chinese! But born in Malaysia (so i'm Malaysian Chinese). Currently living in UK though (for the time being). Not many of my friends play Minesweeper "seriously". But yea Owen, I think it's because of English. I think in general, not many Chinese or Japanese are that proficient in English. |
08/19/01 09:05:53 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Best expert: | 52 |
Comments: | Got my second 52 tonight. I had a brain fart right at the end, too, so I might have blown a 51. If sure wish I could run Camtasia smoothly on my system. |
E-mail Website |
08/19/01 01:35:44 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | matt one of yopur videos you lost a gmae on a 50-50 with two squares left undug. the clock was on 13. I got that board too with a shift in the left corner. I have screenshot if you want to observe differance |
08/19/01 01:30:35 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | First of i owuld like to say that i played minesweeper for 30 mins on my ownpc today and got 74, 75, and 77x2. On cians pc i played for 35 mins or so and captured on video 20x2 and 21x2 adn 22x2. Secondly, I wished to make the point that there must be hundreds of good sweepers in china or japan.. geoirgi beat me to the point but i feel that the japenese and chinese musn't access english minesweeper sites - this one in particualr - very oftan. matt i will send vids if you want. |
08/19/01 11:35:18 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | OK, I just looked quickly over the guestbook: Congrats Dan, Owen, Lance, Georgi, Lasse and eveyone else who broke their record. Daniela, I'm sorry about the e-mail, I think the problem is - as you suggested - my hotmail-account, I think it'll work now. Georgi: good idea about the photo-gallery. I'll send in my photo (although I'm not sure if you want that...) Last but not least: I played one expert and one int. game today and my scores were 85 and 29. Now I can live with that... |
08/19/01 09:34:01 AM | |
Name: | Ben Drucker |
Best expert: | 75 |
Best intermediate: | 19 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | As far as board order is concerned, being a programmer, I will try to clear up this matter somewhat. It is assumed that the initial board is determined by the time of the day, in seconds, truncated to the 15 or 16 lowest order bits (0 - 32767 or 0 - 65535), due the fact of how random number generation is seeded typically. This would mean that minesweeper would not remember the last board generated before the player closed Minesweeper. This would mean that when Matt said he got the same board more than once in the same day, he must have closed Minesweeper in between getting the board the first time and the second time (correct me if I'm wrong), since I doubt if he played tens of thousands of games in that time. This should also mean that if minesweeper is started (the program itself opened, not a new game started) at 12:00:00 AM, and again at 6:12:16 PM, the initial games (as well as subsequent games) would be the same, assuming same board size and number of mines. As far as boards and mines shifting, there isn't much I can offer on that, since that phenomenon is obviously specific to this game and has little to do with programming and computers in general, and since I don't have access to the original source for Minesweeper, I can't really say much about it at this time. |
08/19/01 08:56:24 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | Buongiorno! Did you guys miss me? Hope so. I'm going to spit out the guestbook this evening... Saw my name on the lists (isn't it cool: Roelof J. Smit?) Saw also that I'm (shared) # 46 of the world. Now that's cool. See you later. |
08/19/01 07:35:13 AM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best expert: | 85 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 4 |
Comments: | One in every 4 men on the world is chinese. I just wonder why there is no one good sweeper from China ? I do not think minesweeper is unpopular game there. Or I am wrong ? |
08/19/01 06:49:37 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I posted those two boards On my site if you want to look. |
E-mail Website |
08/19/01 06:35:28 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Oh adding another perplexing aspect to this, I was on the defunct world records site (I think) and found a screenshot of Steve Welch's 17. It was the same board as Frank Wester's 18 on this page, except there were 4 (yes, 4) mines in different spots. Maybe the board generator just spit out two boards that were incredibly similar, but that margin of difference is very odd considering that we have only seen one-mine differences, or none at all. |
08/19/01 05:34:12 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Damien, more info from the creator of minesweeper would really help this board generator discussion. |
E-mail Website |
08/19/01 05:05:27 AM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: | On Matt's page you can see that Mark Peters' record-board is a little like the dreamboard - the difference is like 10 mines or so - but still it looks a lot like the dreamboard. I have played to shifted dreamboards - still not the real one - hope I get it soon. One of the shifted boards were shifted like Matt has described (6,2) - funny/strange. Have fun - Lanyje |
08/19/01 04:47:01 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I have actually seen many one-mine-difference boards, Dan. You can check way back in this guestbook (when my int score was in the 30's) and see that I had found a board that was the same, save for one mine, as someone's 19 board. But youre right, explaining that phenomenon will be difficult. |
08/18/01 07:29:37 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I just remembered something that makes this board thing even more complex. Matt, you should remember this. Go to my web page and check out the 15 screenshot and first 16 screenshot. They are exactly the same boards except one mine in the upper left of the 15 board is moved 5 squares down and 3 squares to the right on the 16 board. Anyone care to share some theories about this strange occurence? I certainly have not seen any other cases like this. |
E-mail Website |
08/18/01 03:39:10 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I think Ihave figured out the shifting phenomenon in relation to the board order theory Barry brought up. I have a video on my page of a game that is a shift of the dream board. The shift can be represented by this vector equation: <6,2>. Now, given that Barry discovered that the ten, or so, boards preceeding the dream board were the same in a couple of his trial runs, I checked to see if the two boards preceeding my two videos of shifts of the dream board were the same, and indeed they were. But what was even more intriguing, was the fact that those two preceeding boards were shifted by the same vector as the subsequent dream board appearances. This leads me to a new theory: A set order of boards is given. If a first click is made where a mine would have been located, on a certain board in that set order, the current board is shifted. The subsequent boards following the first shift board are all shifted by the same (random?) vector. Yes yes, sounds nice....but I've had the exact same board show up not 24 hours after itself; this blatantly contradicts the 14,000 board loop discovery...Oh well. Does anyone have anything to add to my theory? |
08/18/01 12:24:48 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | So many cowards...so little time. I wonder if the enema bandit likes those enemas; either that or he's too stupid to think of a name that doesnt blatantly contradict his chides. |
08/18/01 11:38:16 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | My friend cian has lowered his records to 3 22 76 His Brother corm has lowered his records to 2 21 72 |
08/17/01 07:56:16 PM | |
Name: | The Illinois Enema Bandit |
Comments: | I heard that Damien has never been laid. Except by a man. |
E-mail Website |
08/17/01 07:25:43 AM | |
Name: | Female Miner |
Comments: | Hello to everyone!! I met Sriram in India. We played some minesweeper for half an hour. He is so fast!!! By the time you realise what is going on, he clicks. WOW! His best score was a 50 and mine was a 121 in that half hour. I had a wonderful vacation! I hope you guys did as well. Byee |
08/15/01 05:14:59 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Oh and about Lance and Ray's 1 sec. boards, I've had it once, and I finished in about 0.00001 seconds, but the timer skipped so quickly, I got a 2. |
E-mail Website |
08/15/01 02:59:20 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Yeah, I agree with Owen in that the experiments that deal with loops and the order of boards should be abandoned. |
E-mail Website |
08/15/01 02:28:55 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Great work david! fair play send the vid lance maybe you should keep that technology to yourlsef david and try not abuse it. it would wreck the game |
08/15/01 02:26:17 PM | |
Name: | Damien |
Comments: | Lance, you lucky man! That's the same beauty of a board that Ray Kovarik made his on (i just noticed I never posted his pic) and I've had the board twice...first time i did it in 2 because after my first click I headed left instead of right, and the second time I did it in less than 1 but the timer skipped...would've been m,y third, but, you made it. |
08/15/01 01:00:30 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 18 |
Best beginner: | 1!!!! |
Comments: | Very impressive, David! Great job thinking of a way to scientifically test this stuff! I am looking forward to reading everything you have left to post! Just to change the subject, only briefly, I just got a 1 second beginner board! I know it's only luck to actually get that time, but it's still a good feeling! I am sending it to Damien, and if anyone else wants it, just email me! Ok, back to more interesting conversation... discuss amongst yourselves! Lance |
08/15/01 12:28:06 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | (starts below, next msg) The dream board came up twice in each of the first two trials, and each time it did, the twenty preceding boards were the same, as well as the first few that followed. I assume that if I could be bothered to check, the twenty and few would become thousands. It did not show in the third trial, even though a full loop of boards was completed. After running it, I then started doing the same thing as the program, starting in the top-left, clicking across the board, and checking to see if that board had come up. It didn't in five tries. Statisticians may like a bigger sample size, but they will have to wait till tomorrow for that, because I'm too tired and lazy right now. Also, on the third trial (and maybe the others, I'll check tomorrow), despite there being a complete loop (two in fact), the frist few boards only showed up once. In conclusion, I have more to do. :) I will post results here when meaningful ones come through. Now, onto other issues dealing with this... This program, once a bug or two has been ironed out, could quite easily be abused. eg, I run the program, it finds a few boards, then I search for where they come in the great order of boards. I then see how many to go until the dream board, then let the program do the 3000 boards or whatever, leaving about 10 remaining before I get the dream board. I then watch Matt's 10 video over and over, play the board, hopefully get a 9 or whatever, then run the program again for 14800 boards, and repeat ad infinitum. Having thought about this, I kind of hope that there is something extra going into the randomising of the boards, and that it is not just the bugs in my program that are making it look that way. Anyway, I think I'll end this message here, let's have some good discussion about this, anyone wanting the details/source of the program can email me. |
08/15/01 12:27:09 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Hello there everyone, I have some new light and darkness to shed upon the "finite loop" of boards. A few days ago I mentioned to Damien that what we need is some good Windows programmer to write a program that records all of the boards. I thought that this would have to be done in C++, so I figured that I wouldn't be able to get anything like that working before the end of the year, but as luck would have it, I typed Windows API into Google and one of the top sites was an extensive reference for Visual Basic, which I have a reasonable grasp of. The API in VB turned out to be very simple to use, and a few hours later I had a program that played a Minesweeper Intermediate board and wrote it to file (actually about 160 boards per file, to save space). I made the program run just over 33000 boards (figuring that there would be 2^15 = 32768, hoping that there weren't 2^30 = 65536). It started by clicking in the top-left corner, and moving across square by square, going down to the next row after 16 clicks. As the first square is never a mine, this will not be a 100% accurate method, but by being consistent, at least the loops should show themselves. The program isn't bug-proof, and I can't be bothered trying to work out precisely what's wrong with it, but here are some early results: Firstly, I ran the program three times, with the second trial giving loads of missed nwe games (see next paragraph), the third trial giving a few and the first trial looking fairly good. The finite loop of boards seems to last about 14875 boards or so. I can't get an exact number because it seems like the program doesn't always hit the smiley face and start a new game all the time. But in the better trials, the gap between boards was about 14870 to 14900. (cotd) |
08/14/01 08:15:43 PM | |
Name: | Case |
Comments: | Damien, most of your links are cut short, a good number of them point to http://metanoodle.com/SOMEAVI.AVI but they need to be pointing to http://metanoodle.com/minesweeper/SOMEAVI.AVI |
E-mail Website |
08/14/01 12:45:25 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | I got an 18 on cian and corm's pc yesterday but unfortunately they were ripping cds and camtasia wasn't playing - So no video unfortunately ;( got 74 yesterday |
08/14/01 10:46:20 AM | |
Name: | Damien |
Comments: | Hi AJ. I can't figure out what's wrong...when I get my comp back next week with the files I will re-link and reload the videos. It appears that most of Matt's intermediate games work but I don't know why all the others that have been there for months have stopped. |
08/13/01 05:37:39 PM | |
Name: | Jeff S. |
Best expert: | 92 |
Best intermediate: | 30 |
Best beginner: | 4 |
Comments: | Well I just dropped my expert record by 10 seconds!!! I'm guessing it had to be a dream board. I've been playing alot this summer and I got my total of all 3 from a 146 to a 126. |
08/13/01 10:52:47 AM | |
Name: | AJ |
Comments: | Damien, I know you've been working hard at this site but I just thought I'd point out that the video section is all but dead as most of the links don't work! I really want to see David Barry's 50 video and get ideas on how to improve in expert. At the moment in a bit of a rut as I've been at 73 for ages, but I have found a new like for intermediate recently. |
08/13/01 04:33:00 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Me too! i'd like any low score non flagging videos.... Well done lasse. I knew it was only a matter of time before you beat your record. And it was great meeeting you too! It was very strange indeed! |
08/12/01 10:39:55 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Comments: | I thought I heard a while ago that there might be a mike lowder video of no-flagging a low-time game... does anyone have this that they'd care to share with me? I'd appreciate it. Or, if you yourself have a low-time no-flagging game that you'd like to share, I'd appreciate it! Lance |
08/12/01 12:32:19 PM | |
Name: | Damien Moore |
Comments: | Congrats Lasse and Owen! Anyways, about Matt's comment on good games. I find that in the fastest games only a few flags are used, but I think you are suggesting that the good games are from less flagging. I see it as the good games result from boards that don't require much flagging as opposed to games you don't flag much in. My computer will be out of commision for the next few days. i cleaned out my e-mail, so it should work Lance. ttfn |
08/12/01 08:02:11 AM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Best expert: | 44 |
Best intermediate: | 14 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | So... finally I have beat my inter-score - I've been playing inter like crazy the last days, getting several 15's and tons of sub-20's - I've also been playing expert-non-flagging and have gotten a 67. I remember someone mention in January, when I thought I would retire, that I should cut my total down to 60 - this is now done, but I would still like to break my interscore a little lower. Owen, thanks for the visit, it was strange and fun to meet another sweeper in reality - congrats on your new record. Bye - Lanyje |
08/12/01 05:05:13 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Best expert: | 65 |
Best intermediate: | 17 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | After playing Minesweeper for nearly 40 mins for the first time in 5 days, i beat my expert record - got 65! yeah! i completed 2 other games os scores 92 and 86 today. |
08/12/01 03:29:54 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Hi guys i havenb't read any recent posts here - i'm just mentioning that i met lasse and went into his appartment and played some minesweeper with him!!! It was deadly... i was really perculiar though as you can imagine. one stranger who plays minesweeper from ireland meets another sweeper from another counrty.....! |
08/11/01 06:05:36 PM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Sub-60 in solitaire is just a matter of waiting for the right board to come along. Kinda like Minesweeper ;) Whenever I play (which is rarely), I try to sort of stare at the board, not really focus. That way I can see the entire board, using some sort of peripheral vision. I find it faster that way than when you focus at each column individually. Of course, it helps if you know the trick of doubleclicking a card to move it to the top instead of dragging it... I got a game of 57 using these techniques. |
08/11/01 05:51:46 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Hey Matt, just how on earth do you get a 1 in beginner? Or an 10 in intermediate? Or a 44 in expert? :) I've just started trying to play Solitaire quickly, and my best time is now 110 sec, about 7050 points I think. |
08/11/01 02:33:38 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I dont see how people can finish a solitaire game in 60 seconds or less....Is there some sort of trick where you dont have to place all the cards, or what? And how the hell do you get those thousands of points, mmmm? |
E-mail Website |
08/11/01 12:16:21 PM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | You can give me credit for my quote *g* Its taken out of context though. Its simply (supposed to be) a statement that there is potential in no-flagging. Until recently, metanoodle.com didn't particularly recognise that fact. |
E-mail Website |
08/11/01 09:50:32 AM | |
Name: | Case |
Comments: | heh, i didn't say i wasn't trying to mark less mines though. i've gotten better at not marking on intermediate, i almost got 24 last night after posting the last times. I've seen the videos of the fastest int. times, and i can't quite mark that few mines, but i'm getting there. I really just want to get to around 20, i know i won't get under 20 any time soon without having to completely restyle the way i play. |
08/11/01 07:10:14 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Best expert: | 68 |
Best intermediate: | 10 |
Best beginner: | 1 |
Comments: | If you mark more than 15 mines on a given int. board, you will not score well on any board. I usually mark from 0-20 mines; my fastest games are usually ones where I mark 10 or less mines. You have to mark in a lot of situations, but int. is generally open areas, so if you mark 30 mines, Case, your int. score will not improve. I think Damien can back me up on that. |
E-mail Website |
08/11/01 12:09:07 AM | |
Name: | Case |
Comments: | oh, and i'd like to see the screenshot of your custom board. I used to do that sort of thing to challenge myself before i found this page with a lot of faster times to strive to achieve. And I play intermediate for about the same amount of time every day as expert, but i've still only got 3 sub 30's in nearly 3 weeks. |
08/11/01 12:04:35 AM | |
Name: | Case |
Comments: | I mark a lot of mines... usually at least 30 of the 40 on intermediate. I think i marked all but 3 or 4(!) in the game i did a 25, because it was before I used the game auto-finishing to my advantage. In expert I normally mark about 90 of the 99. |
08/10/01 11:01:00 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 18 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | #1: I just won another game on my custom board! I've only won once, until today, with settings of 24x30, 202 mines. I have a screen shot, if anyone is interested. It was even won in a decent time, 281 seconds. My first one was 370 seconds or so, and my dad made a couple of the guess at towards the end of that one, so it's nice to claim one of my very own. Of course, it came when I was thinking deeply about something that is important to me. If only it had an 8 in it somewhere, I would have sent it to Matt... #2: Case, your minesweeper time is a bit disproportionate. You should focus more time on your intermediate (for instance, play it exclusively for a week). If you're anything like I was when I was exactly where you're at, you're probably marking far too many mines. I only mark about 40-70% of the mines on intermediate, depending on the layout of the board. Good luck! Those times will drop fast, I'm sure. Lance |
08/10/01 10:45:55 PM | |
Name: | Case |
Best expert: | 74 |
Best intermediate: | 25 |
Comments: | huzzah, I dropped my expert record to 74 today. Almost won one in under 70 too, it was a good day. I only wish I could go faster on the intermediate board. My intermediate record disproportionate to my expert times. I rarely do under a 30 on intermediate; my expert games are always won in the mid-80's/upper 70's now. Or am I wrong, and that's an average intermediate score for someone with my expert times? |
08/10/01 11:50:24 AM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | Just some first click thoughts, not necessarily rules. In a successful game, one will eventually take advantage of middle openings and corner openings regardless of the first click. However, if one is more successful starting games, one will get more chances to take advantage of both sets. Corners can be tricker (in my experience, anyway). I, for one tend to play faster at the start of games than later on. I wonder if that speed isn't best utilised in a tricky corner? i.e. if the corner opening sucks, maybe its best to start there! Corners are regular guessing spots, starting in one at least reduces the chances of having to guess in it on the final click *g* I agree that some corner openings are fairly awful (no choice but to guess). However, *any* opening is better than no opening. Also, in a fast game, one will have to deal with all areas of the game at one point or another anyway, what does it matter if initial options are limited? Edge guessing is a pain. Openings in corners generally uncover at least some of an edge too, so there is an (albeit sometimes very slight) advantage to corner clicking in that it reduces chances of edge guessing late in a game. I, for one, tend to find it easier to remember where I have and haven't cleared when corner starting. Of course, if I marked more mines, that wouldn't be such a problem. I wonder quite how useful 'good' middle openings are, they look nice for sure, but are they so much better? Note, I'm not exclusively a corner starter. |
E-mail Website |
08/10/01 11:02:32 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Ummmmm, maybe my logic is flawed, but since corners touch only 3 other squares, wouldn't the chances be 3/3? |
E-mail Website |
08/10/01 09:48:46 AM | |
Name: | Damien Moore |
Comments: | Thanks David for some math back-up. The exact wording from my tip section is: Corners touch only three other squares, while most others touch eight. Thus, the chance of getting a GOOD opening is only 3/8ths (37.5%) what it could be. The same with edges; touching only five, you only have 5/8ths (62.5%) your potential for a good start. Start away from edges and corners. The middle has the most POTENTIAL. Someone thought I was saying that edges don't yield more openings. As David pointed out, sure, edges give more openings but they are much smaller, and thus have less potential for a good opening than the middle. Often a corner will be e,pty and surrounded by three 1's which is useless if you want to win quickly. |
08/10/01 07:19:11 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I have to agree with David about the trivial nature of some of the complaints about the site. The title sounds good and nothing should be read into it. The first brief section about flagging/no-flagging should not have been taken so seriously. |
E-mail Website |
08/10/01 04:00:58 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Okay, I just read the essay on where the first click should go by Paul and Matt. I have a much more general explanation for why corners give zero-sqaures (ie, openings) more often than edges and they in turn more often than in the middle. Assume a 16x30 expert board (480 squares), 99 mines. Considering a square from the corner: There are three squares around it, and none must contain a mine for it to be a zero. Let us consider them in turn: The probability that the first square is not a mine is (479 - 99) / 479. (479 because there is already one square known not to have a mine - that which was clicked.) For the second, it becomes (478 - 99) / 478. For the third, (477 - 99) / 477. Now, to combine all these probabilities together, we multiply them. The resulting product is 0.498, or close enough to 1/2. For edges, this process is continued for the extra two squares, and we get 0.313, or a bit under 1/3. For middle squares, it is 0.195, or about 1/5. The obvious conclusion is that corners give the most frequent starts. However, you only get half of the numbers to play with on average, so I will stay frist-clicking in the middle. I have done a test of these, but the results are on my home computer, and I am not at home, so I can't post them here. |
08/09/01 11:46:00 PM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best expert: | 4 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 85 |
Comments: | Although I flag on average 90 mines in Expert, I am very impressed from non-flagers style. A great imagination and experience is required to play this way. I tried to play with no flagging, but I am awfully slow ... In fact in my best expert game (85sec) I flaged 94 mines :-), my second best (86sec)- 92 and in my third best (87sec)- 84 flagged mines. There is no logical explination. It should be the very opposite way :-) But all these gives me hope that I am getting faster ... |
08/09/01 11:35:34 PM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Comments: | Come on, guys this dispute is pretty boring. I do respect all of you. The name of this site is of no importance. What I do find most precious is the content. So, Matt and Damien, keep on the great work on your sites. They are really a fine place for all of us that are trying to excel in that game ... |
08/09/01 07:17:50 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Hey, Damien, just so you know, there was at least one person who realised that the "flaggers hit back" or whetever line it was wasn't to be taken seriously. I am actually rather amused that a lot of you out there are bickering over quite minor points - authoritative or not, who cares? It's just a title. I do, however, think that it IS a good thing to discuss flagging/non-flagging, just keep to the point at hand. |
08/09/01 01:09:25 PM | |
Name: | Damien Moore |
Comments: | Thanks Lasse. Matt, feel free to give all the advice you want...I've never complained and never will. I quite enjoy reading your opinions. Sorry that you read "arrogant" into my message...I meant it to be neutral. As I've said, the "Victory for Flaggers" was a teaser...I found it amusing. Once again, sorry to those who have taken it as an insult. As well, I do not believe my technique is the best...it has a long way to go. I do not believe flagging is best (that was read into my teaser page), and I do not believe no flagging is better. And of course, neither is wrong or right, especially if you hold as I do that right and wrong are social concoctions. I will apologize for and correct any line you can find where I belittle you or your website. As far as I know, I have written no articles related flagging/clicking as I am currently still working on a new section specifically to talk about it. once again, sorry if you read arrogance into the dictionary definition. I felt it was necessary because the part of Paul's article that attacks the title for this site (i.e., that it can't be authoritative if only one person created it, or if that person changes his views etc) was a waste of his time because it has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. (Paul did make some other points as well, and they were all useful, just that the dictionary def allows for imperfectness in something authoritative). As far as I know, any tension that may exist is because that flagging teaser was interpreted in an unintended way, and that one or two people either disagree with the meaning of authoritative or simply have the valid opinion that they don't like it. My hope is that we can all admit I am at fault for not making the jest clear enough (with it's overly big title) and that some failed to see that: In reality, this has all been rather amusing in the afterlight. Hey, Lasse, how'd your bike trip go? |
08/09/01 01:05:33 PM | |
Name: | Kimmo |
Best expert: | 73! |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Oh yeah! Finally I joined the club: 3+22+73=98<100!!! |
08/09/01 11:02:20 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | OK damien, I know what "authoritative" means. I dont know why you are telling me in that arrogant manner. Im fairly sure that Paul also knows what it means, or else he would not have written that essay of his would he? And what provoked you to post that pompous page of "Victory for Flaggers"? Who the hell said no flaggers were competing? Like Lasse said, their just opinions; we each have our own style of play, and nobody is "wrong", in the denotation of the word. Im sorry if me giving advice, that is wrong in your eyes, to beginners offends you to the point of starting a battle, but christ! Where do you get off calling your personal style of play the best (oh, excuse me...authoritative, rather)? I have tried so hard to remain neutral through this, but I may have to break out sometime soon. This is just plain insulting, Damien. |
E-mail Website |
08/09/01 09:44:57 AM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: | Hey guys - a lot of tension is building up in this guestbook, maybe it's time to go out and enjoy the weather or something else to get thoughts away from minesweeper - there's several different opinions on how to play the game the right way, and we have to respect other persons' opinions - don't get too overheated guys - let your sweeping do the talking and remember that it's just a game. I'll tell you again to remember to go out and have fun with friends - play some pool, dance with girl, drink a few beers and have fun. Think about it and treat eachother as you want them to treat you - blablabla - have a nice day - Lanyje |
08/09/01 09:35:02 AM | |
Name: | Damien Moore |
Comments: | This is for Matt and Paul, as I believe Paul has written something on Matt's site about it. "Authoritative" Commanding, imperative; possessing authority; proceeding from competent authority." [Oxford, 5th ed.] |
08/09/01 05:50:14 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I think that an "official" minesweeper site should not be a personal homepage, but rather an informational site put on by the microsoft corporation. And when are you going to follow up your interview with Rob Donner; the first one gave us exactly diddly squat as to anything we are pondering! |
E-mail Website |
08/09/01 02:31:11 AM | |
Name: | Daniela |
Comments: | I love boards with a high mine density. A month ago I finished a board with 250 mines. It took me a whole day to finish it. When I'm bored I try this in a 24*30 grid with 190 mines: I open a few squares so that I don't have to guess any more. Then I stop the timer and flag every second square. After this I restart the timer and start playing. When I remove a flag I have to open the square and I should finish the game before the timer shows 999. If you play this a few times, you will be able to finish more games without flagging. |
08/09/01 01:24:25 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | I've no wise and profound comments to add to those already present in the flagging debate, I'll wait till I'm back in Muscat with a good mouse before trying anything new... and I can't be bothered right now to give it a lot of thought. However, I was having a look at some of the tips, and I noticed that in the Variation tip, there was a reference to the "Duracell Bunny". It is an ENERGIZER Bunny. Duracell copied it. Onto less important things: I think the ranking system would be improved if you simply removed the beginner times. I think Paul would agree with me on this one, I recall somewhere him saying that having the beg. times was just plain silly. |
08/09/01 12:30:36 AM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Comments: | also, damien, can you give me one of your "overflow" email addresses? I've been trying to send you an email, but I've been getting a hotmail error saying
">>> RCPT To: |
08/08/01 11:02:43 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Comments: | I also screenshot every game that I get below 20, for the last 2 months. My games before that didn't get screenshot. |
08/08/01 10:58:49 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Comments: | I understand exactly what you are talking about! I play 24x30 quite often with 202 bombs (just a random number), and I have only beaten it once... I have come close several times, I just got down to 6 a couple weeks ago, but generally my best daily game is about 25, and maybe 3 times a week I dip into the teens. It is kind of a fun thrill to get down to low numbers. Lance |
08/08/01 09:55:48 PM | |
Name: | Rick |
Comments: | When I play Minesweeper, I don't play for speed. I set the board to its maximum size (24x30) and vary the number of mines. The most mines in a game I have won is 200. It took me 2 years(!) of playing this configuration to win a game. I was wondering if anyone is aware of any discussion in the Minesweeper community of this variation of the game? |
08/08/01 09:02:16 PM | |
Name: | Damien Moore |
Comments: | Got a 15 and five 16's today. Just shy of my hundreth 17th... Flagging. The cases I posted were to show a situation where flagging is more efficient than straight clicking. In both examples flagging takes 2 clicks, regular takes 3. About Paul's insight about sometimes a flagger will be at the far end from the protruding square, in a worst case scenario it would be equal timewise to clicking, but, my method, which I was going to explain later, IS faster: I start pressing the right button a fraction after the flag button, so while the flag button is still depressed I slide off and the right button finishes coming down. In a worst case scenario, flagging would be 1/5th of a second faster per instance, and if approached from the nearest end could be a 1/3rd of a second. These sound small but it is the little bits that add up. As Paul sort of pointed out, in many situations flagging and clicking take the same time wether or not in theory one is more efficient. With my slide-off technique, flagging comes out on top in those situations just barely. I'll save the rest of my arguements for the section I will put up soon. As for your scores Paul, you're a great player and I would really regret not being able to list your correct scores (which I haven't yet been informed of). I ignored your first request in the hopes your were miffed at that instant of time. If I've been unfair or nasty, please let me know so I can correct the situation. I really want to keep you on the lists and rankings. |
08/08/01 06:59:43 PM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | If the tanks are out! In your first example on whatever the heck that new section is, how efficient is the double clicking? If the mouse pointer starts off above the scene, you have to move all the way down there first, right click, and then move up to double-click. A no-marker just moves down and left clicks three times: All done. Not too much difference in speed there, surely? And what about if the next logical place to continue sweeping is down from the displayed area? Regardless of where you start as a marker, you have to mark, up, click, and then change direction again, from the square you double clicked on. A non flagger may well be able to start at the top, mark all the flags going down, and their momentum will neatly carry them to the next area. What is fastest in that case? Flagging is obviously better in places, I don't doubt that. But come on, the example proves diddly squat. The second example also, doesn't mean anything. If the mouse pointer starts at the right hand side, double clickers are making work for themselves. Incidently, when did the no-flag / flag war break out? I missed it! Finally, Damien, I asked ever so politely via e-mail, but it apparently has been ignored, so I'll ask where I know you read. Please remove my (incorrect) scores from your site. |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 09:33:32 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I am quite comfortable marking 65-80 mines. If I mark more than that, my time suffers from overmarking. If I mark less than that, my time suffers from over-emphasizing efficiency. |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 09:22:09 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Well I've just equalled my 68 no marking...it was so close to a 67...so close. In all my best games, I've marked only two mines. Email me for the video. |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 09:11:05 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I've had a weird situation about two months ago and I just found the picture of it today. Here's what happened. I was playing mines on another computer than the one I usually use and it was running very slowly because of memory leaks and it hadn't been restarted in about twelve years. Anyway, when I would start a game, the timer would stay at 1 for however long the game was open. That is, it was like using the doubleclick+Esc. cheat except I didnt have to anything, the timer just stoppped. You can view the picture at my website's guestbook. |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 07:53:28 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Well, to each his own. I think the top sweepers in the world will have a very hard time no flagging (if they choose to experiment) because of the volume of mines they mark in their videos. Take Lasse for example....Wow |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 06:57:12 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I don't doubt that practicing no-flagging can help my speed, but after a few hours I just couldn't stand it anymore. I could finish a lot of games if I went slow(100+ seconds), but I always feel the need to go fast. I think my problem yesterday was that I would left click on squares I would normally flag, even though I knew a square was a mine, and trying to go fast only exacerbated the problem. |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 06:15:02 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | That's surprising Dan...Im loving no flagging; I 've never had more sub-70 opportunities in my life! Im finishing more fast games and becoming much more efficient in congested areas (which seem to be prevalent in the fastest expert boards). |
E-mail Website |
08/07/01 02:02:16 AM | |
Name: | Daniela |
Comments: | I'm trying to play without flagging too. I liked it immediately. Maybe I will not flag again. |
08/06/01 07:38:59 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Dan, I sort of know what you mean about the no-flagging business, but I found that with a few days' practice my times improved quite a bit. I started getting 130's, but I think I was close to getting a 75 or so a week or so later. Not quite a 50, but maybe if I had kept with it for 6 months or so, I would be getting times in that region. Mike Lowder was the quickest of the no-flaggers, and he said that he had been on target for sub-50's without flagging. Of course, he had also been playing the game for a long time, so perhaps it is more efficient from an inprovement perspective to flag most of the time. |
08/06/01 05:15:42 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Best expert: | 52 |
Best intermediate: | 13 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | I spent some time today playing expert using the no-flagging method. I've never had a more frustrating day of sweeping. I finished two games, a 94 and 85. I screwed up every other game, and if I hadn't stopped playing I think I would've gone mad. A flagger trying to go without flagging must be like an alcoholic trying to go without alcohol. |
E-mail Website |
08/06/01 02:28:57 PM | |
Name: | AJ (AKA Anoop Jayakkar) |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Well after breaking the taboo that was 25 seconds a week ago by getting a 24, I have now managed to beat that again ,twice, by firstly getting a 23 and just now a 22! Also Damien the David Barry 50.avi link does not work so could you please fix it as I want to see it. Thanks. |
08/06/01 02:01:05 PM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best expert: | 85 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 4 |
Comments: | Hi guys, It is very funny that we are talking to each other from a long time, share our thoughts, critics and ideas, bragging with our best results and look for encouragement ... but we haven't seen each other. We are virtual players... Damien, I think it is good idea to find a place on your site for a picture gallery - I will be the first to send a photo ... We all have a common passion - this little and genius game, that make us a special society. Let us become more familiar with each other .... of course it is a matter of personal choice. What do you think ??? Anyway, an hour ago I gained one more expert second :-) |
08/06/01 01:10:17 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Best expert: | 66 |
Best intermediate: | 17 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Great ONe Lasse! I'm really looking forward to going now and especially since i'll be able to visit the best minesweeper in the world!! hehe ;) should be a great visit. i'm bringing my running shorts too so i'll be able to check out loads of the landscape hopefully. I'll be running probably around 12 miles or more while i'm over there apart rfom any walking i'll be doing. I also hope to watch some the world champioships apart from anything else.... can you recommend anything lasse? any good places to go to maybe?..... |
08/06/01 12:34:27 PM | |
Name: | Damien |
Comments: | Wish I had a good excuse for going to Denmark, or Oman, or Iowa you know...still waiting until I stumble into some lost piles of dough... Congrats Dan...I was feeling comfortable as the N. American champ, but you're 1 sec behind now...luckily I have no serious Canadian comeptitors, but you have Matt, and a guy who I don't want to believe who claims a 9 on int...I'm still checking it out. Darn that dreamboard...at least until I break my record on it for a change rather than all you. The last three times the world record was broken(15, 12, 10) it was the dreamboard. See you, I have to sweep. |
08/06/01 09:32:15 AM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: | Hi Owen - I'm back in Copenhagen tuesday (tomorrow) evening - my adress is Drogdensgade 16 (ground floor/left side) on something called Amager, which is in the southeast part of Copenhagen - feel free to come by. |
08/06/01 07:59:58 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | sorry about that i meant lasse.... |
08/06/01 07:56:03 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Hi damien and anyone else who can help me i was wondering where damien lives in copenhagen? |
08/05/01 08:12:21 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | could someone send me the pic od paul kerry's exp game without flagging? i'd like to look at it. i once got 92 without flagging |