Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!
07/04/01 11:25:05 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Well done eduardo -You're a member of the sub 60 club... do you get a free tee-shirt as a result i wonder?! Nothing wrong with the vids matt. i was jsut suprised that you put them up That's spooky about the dead board before your dream board. it's probably possible to know in advance if you go back far enough that you are approaching the dream baord!! Sne dme the video David. thanks |
07/04/01 08:54:10 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Going back with the loop thing. The dead board before my 10 and my 14 are the same board. Take a look. |
E-mail Website |
07/04/01 02:19:55 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Just saw on the addicts e-group that Eduardo Cros has broken the minute barrier with a 58. Owen, you'll have to email me to get the video (I don't know your address, and I can't be bothered going through the old pages on the guestbook to try to find it), though it should be up on Damien's site when he next updates it, which shouldn't be too far away now. |
07/03/01 04:26:00 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Yeah, I too experience the loop phenomenon, Owen. I think my loop with the dream board is being put on the back shelf for a while :) But really, I do experience situations where it feelslike Im playing a whole set of boards over again. I play and it just feels like a dream or something; the excat same boards come up for about five minutes; it's like deja vu. Thats really hard to explain, but Im sure all the int. players out there have experienced it. Thanks for brining that up Owen, and is there a problem with your 20's? |
E-mail Website |
07/03/01 11:56:10 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | WOwzeRS! I didn't realise that you were gonna put up my 2 20s that i have on video Matt! |
07/03/01 11:39:10 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Thats correct Matt. I take screenshots of any sub 80 or sub 22 i get. Apart from them which one or two reoccur, i've noticed many boards that i did not finish reoccur.. within a day or two aswell. I don't know what the whole randomness thing is but it seems that on my pc, i get "loops" where alot of boards that i played yesterday might come up today... It's very weird! Well done on the 50 David! Where can i get the video? today i got 71 2 days ago i got 73. they are my best results in the last few days. |
07/03/01 11:27:16 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Yeah, I dont know, Marc....Just a thought. What I was getting at in that post when I cut myself off, was that if there was a net, it would have to be finite. How else could you explain the recurrence of boards? And I also want to clear something up. All the possible boards - for int. for this example - are equally probable to occur, therefore equally as probable to reccur. The reason we see certain boards that seem to come up more often than not is that they are fast boards that are often record-setting boards. The slow boards come up just as often, but we dont recognize them. |
E-mail Website |
07/03/01 09:58:31 AM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Matt: If boards were picked around a random spot on a very large randomized board, how do you explain the fact that you've had "shifted" boards, where the shifted-off part reappeared on the other side? There should have been another pattern there, according to your theory. But it's an interesting thought... |
07/03/01 06:46:47 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Best expert: | 54 |
Best intermediate: | 15 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | I just saw David's 50 video and can easily see a difference between his style and mine. He clicks and moves around the board faster than me while his clicking efficiency is a bit less than mine. I guess I really need to work on my clicking speed if I want to catch the guys ahead of me. |
07/03/01 01:35:31 AM | |
Name: | Joe |
Best expert: | 235 |
Best intermediate: | 50 |
Best beginner: | 10 |
Comments: | I don't know why, but I've been hooked on this game for the past two weeks, playing it constantly. I never knew times like this existed! Thanks for the tips. |
07/03/01 12:55:14 AM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Comments: | David's 50 video is fantastic ....... |
07/03/01 12:50:08 AM | |
Name: | Georgi Kermekchiev |
Best expert: | 88 ops.. |
Best intermediate: | 26 |
Best beginner: | 4 |
Comments: | Nice theory Matt, As mine density varies, it is possible to have such a big predesigned pattern (net or whatever) for the main three levels. The problem with custom level still remains - maybe it is generated randomly ... who knows. Anyway I just dropped another 4 sec from my expert time ... and now I feel quite comfortable in 80's ... Ye, big deal - you will say :-)) .... but I am satisfied :-)) Have a nice day everybody ! |
07/02/01 09:38:07 PM | |
Name: | christine |
Comments: | hey damien! its christine! i left a message in your email! |
07/02/01 08:29:30 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | What we need is for Damien to finish his conversation with that Donner guy, the creator of minesweeper. He could explain everything. |
07/02/01 07:12:11 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | And I just watched Barry's 50....Wow! Can he click fast or what? I was trying to figure out a pattern he cleared and by the time I finished, he's across the board. You just need a good board and Im sure you can get 45 or 43. |
E-mail Website |
07/02/01 07:10:02 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Just alittle theory about the board generator: I've noticed many a board that is basically a shift of another board. I've has a board that was my 10 board, shifted left about six rows and up about 10. The patterns that were shifted appeared on the oppsite side of the board. I'n sure many of you have experienced this too. What I'm thinking is that there is a huge pattern of infinte mines and patterns that stretches forever (?) in a 2-dimensional plane. When you make your first click, which is never a mine, a random spot if picked on that net and whatever size board is positioned around that spot. But there's still a discrepancy between the mine densities of the levels, and why cerain boards come up again and again.....HEY! That brings up another idea for a theory or whatever, but I'll spare you for now and type at you later. So what do you think about the board generator? |
E-mail Website |
07/01/01 04:32:53 PM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: | Well done David - guess you're next in line for a membership to the sub-50-club - go for it! I am taking inter more serious now - it's actually quite fun. I messed up a board that would have given me a new record of 13 or 14 with three non-guessing-clicks, next to eachother, left - I have more than 200 sub-20's, 22 sub-17, so I'm not quite up on Damien's level yet. I'll keep on trying once I get back to my own computer in a few days - I'm visiting my parents these days and I'm not really comfortable with the way I sit at this computer - the mouse being at the side of the keyboard (I guess that's the standard in normal homes with computers used for other things that minesweeper). Bye - Lanyje |
07/01/01 01:39:41 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Congrats on your 50 David. |
07/01/01 09:03:23 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | David, congrats with the 50. Shame you didn't get into the 40's. I saw in your profile that your birthday is April 25th. Same for me. You're exactly 1 year older. Just wanted to say that. See you guys. |
07/01/01 08:49:09 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Matt, you just beat me to the post... I think you put the wrong URL in your last entry, judging by the message I got from the page :) . The thing with my 50 on video is that if I hadn't faffed around at 36sec and a bit at 43sec, I could have had a 48... but then I may have died, so I guess I will just live knowing that I can break 50, and hopefully will soon. |
07/01/01 08:46:47 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Got a 50 on video today (yes,I finally used Camtasia again!). E-mail me if you want it, though I imagine it will be uploaded to Damien's site next update, which is only in a few days. |
07/01/01 07:37:48 AM | |
Name: | matt mcginley |
Comments: | Congrats Manu and Barry. Break 50 soon Barry, you've been next in line for a long time... I just want to clear one thing up. I said something, then somebody interpreted it, then somebody blew it way out of proportion. I did NOT memorize that board. I did not sit down one night and remember all the spaces and patterns. I watched my 14 video so many times....With each viewing, I noticed more slip-up's then previously and grew more and more discontent with my playing. Incidentally, I corrected those mistakes subconsciously and consciously, like everybody does when they watch a video and see a mistake. Going with the denotation of the word, "memorize", I most certainly did not. And lastly, after watching my 10 video, I realize that especially without a timer jump, 9 is possible. But it's someone else's turn to get that board, and maybe a 9. |
E-mail Website |
07/01/01 05:24:31 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | Today I got 2x21, 4x22, 4x23, 6x24, 5x25, 5x26, 5x27, 12x28 and 7x29. Still no sub-20 Am I not good enough or is it just bad luck? |
06/30/01 10:13:41 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Comments: | ::cont'd:: ... imagine what I'll do when I get that thing again! What is the most efficient path..." Anyway, I guess I basically stick with the opinions of my fellow Cedar Rapidian, Dan Cerveny, because that is just a freak board, and someone with good logic and quick fingers realized that it was a gold mine. Still, I have no intention of memorizing it myself, but I would consider any record set on it perfectly valid. Happy sweeping, all! Lance |
06/30/01 10:12:29 PM | |
Name: | Lance Votroubek |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 18 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Dang! All this talk about people beating their records and new world records and that kind of thing makes me all the more pissed that my computer got fried by lightning. Right now I'm using our family's acer p1 60mHz, circa 1994, with a sh!tty mouse and everything, and an unreliable connection to the internet... I can't wait for insurance to cough up the money for me to either get a new pc or get mine fixed. My goal at the beginning of the summer was 2-another sub-20-65, but I am out of practice now, so who knows. As for the arguments from the past couple days- congrats matt, I'd love a copy of that video. As for the discussion of if matt's the best intermediate player, I like the point of whoever said that matt is just doing large scale what we all do small scale by memorizing the pattern of the board, but minesweeper is generally supposed to be a game measuring the time that a person uses to reaction to a novel arrangement of patterns. If it had been meant to see who was the fastest on a particular board, well, it would have been programmed to only use that board. By "randomizing" the structure of the boards, the programmer(s) sought to eliminate/minimize the effects of recognizable boards. By all of us congregating at one minsweeper fansite, and showing all of our best times and boards, we have taken away much of that randomization. People like Matt (whose record I consider as valid as any other) would probably not have realized that there was one particular board that makes 8 seconds on intermediate possible, and therefore would likely not have memorized it from the gameplay, strategy, and videos of others who have happened across it. I have gotten that board once, and without any memorization I got an 18. Most people would thing "hey! sweet time!", and maybe not think twice, but by seeing that at least 6 people have gotten their records off that board, it is within logical reason that someone would think "18 seconds the FIRST time... imagine what |
06/30/01 09:07:50 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I've been playing minesweeper quite a bit today and I'm beginning to have a new appreciation for intermediate. |
06/30/01 01:19:37 PM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | I think that is a very good conclusion Joe. |
06/30/01 01:07:31 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | ok, so you were in favor of averaging times dan? i just remember that i was, and nobody agreed with me when we had that arguement. sahdee. anyway, all you people who are saying damien is the superior intermediate player are clearly in favor of averaging, which i used to be and kind of still am. well, whatever, matt and damien are both studs. woo. cant wait for the site to be updated. |
06/30/01 01:01:16 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I understand what David says about expert not preparing you for intermediate because of the lack of flagging in the latter. I need to elaborate a bit on my thinking. In my case, flagging vs. non-flagging is not an issue. The speed at which I am able to clear both expert and intermediate almost solely depends on my ability to recognize patterns and react with a mouse click. I may need a few minutes to adjust my style of play when switching to intermediate, but I am quite comfortable flagging zero mines or a hundred mines. |
06/30/01 12:33:31 PM | |
Name: | Manu |
Best expert: | 68 |
Best intermediate: | 16 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | - Finally hit a 2 on beginner... - I've already seen a 7 on beginner, I think I have kept the screenshot somewhere. - When I wrote my bio for Matt's site, 2 or 3 weeks ago, I didn't think that what I said about the way to break the 10-barrier on inter was going to be confirmed so soon... - I don't think that 6 sec can ever be reached one day on inter, 7 may be possible ( but not by me unfortunately ;) ). |
06/30/01 12:22:41 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Best expert: | 50 |
Best intermediate: | 15 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | I'll do something rare here and admit defeat, though not because of the golf analogy, which is flawed (as most sports analogies are, what with Minesweeper being such a different style of game). What converted me back to the averaging idea was that it doesn't really matter how Matt got his 10. If he wasn't such a web-active person, he wouldn't have told us that he had memorised his board, and I don't think it would be that easy to tell from the video that he had done so (it looks to me like a bit of luck and efficient clicking). So, all that should be used in the judging of players "goodness" is the best n times... And that is where Damien's squillion sub-20's make him #1. And also I disagree with Dan on another thing raised earlier. I don't think Expert prepares you for Intermediate as well as Intermediate. Intermediate play requires no-flagging (look at the 10 video - only 2 flags out of 40); this, with a couple of exceptions (Mike Lowder and Paul Kerry I think) does not happen much on Expert. On a happier note, I got a 50! But I'm a bit disappointed that it's not in the 40's though... maybe soon. |
06/30/01 10:40:11 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I think Damien is equally as good at expert and intermediate. That said, I think Lasse could be at least as fast as Damien at intermediate if he put some real effort into it. |
06/30/01 10:30:10 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Hi All Damien is just to good. He has it down to an art at playing int is seems, more so than expert. And by the way I actually had started to work out the most efficient clicks for the " Dream Board" long before Matt got his 10. Unfortunately i've never got the darn board! I even thought that we should exclude that board from the ranking buti know that's not probable or fair but that board is just too friendly! Apart from that all i have to say is thanks georg.... for sending me that video of lasse playing int! |
06/30/01 09:42:12 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | I have to say that's brilliant Dan. |
06/30/01 08:20:55 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I just received an email from The Finer Miner himself, and he asked me to relay this message. *** Congrats Matt!! Well done! I don't believe I'll ever get 10 on that board because I get too nervous if I recognize something good...but since I believe I've shown you don't need that one board to break 16, I hope to knock your ten. Optimistically by christmas..man, you set me back a ways. 18 months ago the record was 17, and I broke it one month after gernot got 15, then I finally broke 15 two months after gernot got 12, then errgh you got that 10. Dah-arn! Matt is rather well set up if he can deal well with expert. The page will be updated approx. July 5-8th...it's going to be a lot of work. CIAO *** In addition, he is firmly in support of my "best intermediate player" argument. ;) Joe, I was the person who instigated the "average the 5 best scores" argument. You must have me confused with someone else. One more thing... The Finer Miner told me his intermediate score list and I now think it is safe to say he is the superior intermediate player. He got more sub-20's in six hours yesterday than Matt has total. The guy has 34 sub-17's, for crying out loud. Wow. |
06/30/01 06:01:37 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | I don't know about the "7" Dean. I get it quite often on intermediate. That means that whether it's strange I get it quite often, or that it's strange you almost never get it. If you understand what I mean... |
06/30/01 05:21:00 AM | |
Name: | Dean Smith |
Best expert: | 76 |
Best intermediate: | 25 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Is getting a 7 (not time but the number 7) rare on intermediate because after having never seen any before, I got one yesterday and another today. Weird. And yes I would say that winmine 3.1 gives more favourable boards than winmine98. It seems to happen more often that easy boards come on that version than the version I use. I propose that from now, everyone converts to winmine 98 as then it would be a level playing field so to speak. I know I might get roasted for this but I'll take that risk! |
06/30/01 03:13:32 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | Yeah, the video-section says: To video: Download Camtasia....blablabla. |
06/30/01 03:11:48 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | No-one is an arrogant dick. I don't think you sound like one, Dan. You just have very good arguments (although you won't convince me). Matt, I'm not trying to memorize the dream board (yet). I'm still trying to sub-20. Kimmo, I don't know how they count them. Although I don't video myself, I think I saw you need the program "Camtasia" or something. I actually thought you can get it in the video-section of this site. (Not sure about that). Good luck |
06/30/01 02:30:47 AM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | another thing, dan. you said that matt concentrating on intermediate wasnt one of the things that made him the best int player in the world, because playing expert prepares you well for intermediate. well, that may be, but you dont increase your chances for the dream board by playing expert. i have always said that resillience is one of the three components of a good minesweeper player, and while that isnt a skill, it is something that goes into being the best. a player could have all the minesweeper skill in the world with memorizing patterns and hand speed, but if they only playan hour a week or so, they're not going to get a time better than 17 or 18 because they dont play enough. matt plays intermediate more than it is probably healthy, and for that he has been rewarded with the dream board three times, and he has capitalized on that. the others dont have that kind of resillience. matt = best intermediate player, whether or not he will admit it :) |
06/30/01 02:00:27 AM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | dan, werent you against calculating the world's best players by averaging their 5 best times? wtf? everything you've said today seems to be in favor of that. |
06/29/01 09:05:29 PM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | For a while I played a few minutes Int every day, starting with 2 clicks to try to force the dream board to come up, to see how common it could be. I didn't actually get it, and I don't know the whole board layout. (just that easy to remember top right corner 42). I start all my games in the middle of the board now. I used to start all my games in that corner anyway (matter of habit... check this guestbook a long time ago!), on intermediate, I don't do that anymore, I start in the middle of the board in a random flurry (an altogether better tactic actually!). I kinda hope that if I get the dream board, I fluff it ^_^ |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 06:24:21 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I really wonder how many people are trying to memorize dream board now...;) |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 01:02:39 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I wish the preview feature actually showed you what your post will look like. |
06/29/01 01:00:57 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Matt, >If anything I think that I have proved to be a >faster sweeper then Gernot You know how I feel about expert vs. intermediate, so when you can beat Gernot's 59 I'll consider you a faster sweeper than him. >If I get a 57 or 55 sometime soon, will all of >your opinions sway? The fact that you have not been able to break 60 on expert, yet, does not delegitimize your 10 on intermediate by any means. I certainly recognize you as the current world record holder for intermediate and I plan on working hard to beat your 10. When I started this rant and subsequent string of rebuttals a couple days ago, my point was solely to refute what I considered to be a wrong claim(by others, not Matt) that your 10 on the dream board clearly made you the best intermediate player. >I realize that I cannot say any of the above >without sounding like an arrogant dick. In my opinion, nobody who has partaken in this discussion has sounded like an arrogant dick. Of course, some of you may think I do, I don't know. I've tried to keep my argument as friendly as possible. >when it all comes down to who has the fastest >time (singular 'time' here), The rankings >remain... Nothing to argue here. |
06/29/01 11:55:32 AM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | Hi Just a note. I don't doubt Matts ability. I'm well aware of the fact he's going to sub 60 when he can be bothered to put up with expert! I'm just disgruntled with Intermediate, that's all ^_^ |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 11:48:59 AM | |
Name: | Scott Forby |
Best expert: | 73 |
Best intermediate: | 25 |
Best beginner: | 4 |
Comments: | Yeah, hey. these are my best times |
06/29/01 11:32:48 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Best intermediate: | 10 |
Comments: | When Gernot got a 12, after a 15, dropping three seconds off his already world record time, on the dream board, did anyone doubt his world record holder and fastest int player status? If anything I think that I have proved to be a faster sweeper then Gernot, getting a 14 on my first real go at the board, then dropping 4 seconds and subsequently 2 off the world record my next shot. If I get a 57 or 55 sometime soon, will all of your opinions sway? Will I all of a sudden be deserving of my 10? Will all your inhibitions about my status as a minesweeper be dropped? Think about that.... I realize that I cannot say any of the above without sounding like an arrogant dick. With that, I do think that Damien is the fastest int. player by sheer volume, but when it all comes down to who has the fastest time (singular 'time' here), The rankings remain... |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 11:21:10 AM | |
Name: | Kimmo |
Best expert: | 83 |
Best intermediate: | 26 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Yeah, I got a new record (83)! How do you guys count for example how many sub-60's you get? Do you have a program that counts them? And what program does make videos and where could I get that? Thanks! |
06/29/01 11:12:38 AM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Comments: | ..cont.. AFAIK the concept of Minesweeper is about being able to uncover an unknown combination of mines. Learning logical/mathematical patterns is fine. However, abusing bugs is well, for lack of a better word, cheating. I don't want to take from the achievements of the people who have fast scores on a 'dream' board or two. Even if they have a little knowledge beforehand, one still has to make the clicks, avoid making mistakes and so forth, but it seems like a very dodgy area to me. I don't dismiss Intermediate/beginner out of hand. They are fun romps, but it just seems to concrete the fact that Minesweeping ability is judged by expert alone, better than anything else. |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 11:11:24 AM | |
Name: | Paul Kerry |
Best intermediate: | On which board? ^_^ |
Comments: | Just some thoughts and opinions ... I was clocking times of just under 200 at Minesweeper before I learned any patterns. Over the course of a few months, I learned the 1-2-1 pattern, I learned 1-2-2-1 pattern and various others. Eventually I had memorized an entire load of patterns that the game creates once in a while, or maybe much more often. Matt too, has memorized a pattern. It is though, a quite bizarre, extremely rare pattern, involving 40 mines in a 16x16 area, in a board of the same dimensions. That, to me, seems like the same skill all of us use, every day, in every game, to get good scores. We know certain patterns will be present in a game and we take advantage. On the flip side.... Damien has pattern on one of his pages, about a combination that can come up which always works the same way, even though there are 2 possible solutions to it. I actually consider that something of a bug, thankfully I don't know how to 'abuse' it! Could the same be said for memorising an entire board that is guarenteed to come up eventually? Minesweeping skill is practically thrown out of the window and it just becomes a mouse test. ..cont.. |
E-mail Website |
06/29/01 10:44:41 AM | |
Name: | Owen |
Comments: | Dan - You have saved me loads of typing and thinking.... for i agree entirely with you and think your comparisons and arguments are very apt and worth mentioning. I don't know how the others have come to e conclusion that matt is the best. Obviously no offense to Matt (sorry) as we are talking about the general reasoning behind the subject and not him specifically. I'd make comparisons and debate it but Dan has already said enough. Matt has the world record. He's not the best int player in the wolrd. Just offhand, if I had to say who is I'd say Damien - just from looking at his videos and also his consistency to preform. He'd probably make more sub 20s in the same 100 boards than anyone else. That said, i haven't seen dan , sriram, david or lasse play int on video. Dan - I find it very funny that you are the best golfer in the world! i can't belive we haven't heard of you on tv yet! |
06/29/01 10:12:44 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | David, I just can't understand what you are thinking about when you made your post. --- In short, Matt has changed the description of the best sweeper on intermediate by getting the one score of 10sec. --- Please explain how you can make such a broad statement as to call someone the best at intermediate level, which consists of thousands of different boards, when that person has the very best board memorized and was lucky enough to get it three times. It seems to me that up to this point Matt is the best at that one particular board, not necessarily intermediate in general. If I memorize how to do some incredibly difficult math problem that nobody else can figure out and that most people haven't even tried, apparently you would call me the worlds greatest mathematician. It would seem that it wouldn't matter to you if the complement of my math knowledge is simple addition and subtraction. |
06/29/01 09:55:01 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | David, that's fine, but I've also changed the definition of the best golfer in the world to someone who holds the best score at the Airport National golf course in Cedar Rapids, IA. |
06/29/01 09:50:22 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | I just thought of a good analogy to support my logic. I live in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I know for a fact that Tiger Woods has never played the Airport National golf course here in town. Some guy, I'll call him Joe Golf, holds the course record for that particular golf course(a very short, easy course, par is 63 or something), with a score of 50. Now, going by the logic of several recent posters, Joe Golf is the best golfer in the world because Tiger has never beaten 50 at the Airport National golf course in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Of course, if you get Joe Golf and Tiger Woods to play matches at courses all over the country, Tiger would break out the can of whoopass. I just remembered that I've gotten a score in the 70's at the Airport National golf course, something Tiger has never done. I guess that means I am a better golfer than Tiger Woods. Cool. ;) |
06/29/01 09:40:44 AM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Okay, some more thoughts from me now... Some may remember that I agreed with Dan absolutely back last time we had a major discussion here. Now I am disagreeing with him purely because Matt's 10 was on intermediate. Now, Matt played in a way that Dan, Lasse, etc. don't - by having a board memorised. His goal was to get that one great score (sort of, I think; this is what happened anyway). I would agree with Dan if someone were to suddenly get a 43 on expert, without the consistency of Lasse's 2000 sub-60's, because there won't be anyone willing to find good expert boards and memorise them - too much time is required, and too much memory :). Expert will remain the ultimate test of skill... but let's not bring that up again. In short, Matt has changed the description of the best sweeper on intermediate by getting the one score of 10sec. |
06/29/01 09:31:56 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Roelof, Matt's 10 and 14 were both done on the dream board. Thus, if you take that board away his best time is 16. Also, when I talk about the handful of fastest players needing the same conditions, I am only concerned with that one board that is so much faster than anything else. |
06/29/01 08:14:36 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | I don't know if that's true Dan, it remains guessing. You probably won't have the chance to prove it. Nobody knows what the scores would be if Matt, Lasse, David, Sriram, Damien and you would play exactly the same boards under the same conditions. And as much as eachother of course. So you have to think for yourself who's the best intermediate player in the world (if there is one). For me, it's Matt, but I can imagine you have another opinion about it. Roelof By the way: Matt has one 14, 16 is not his second best score. I now that's just one sub-16 more, but it is an important detail. |
06/29/01 06:47:17 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | ...cont from below... One more thing. I think someone below may have implied that Matt has a leg up on the rest of us because he concentrates on intermediate. Wrong. Frankly, I think playing expert prepares you for intermediate at least as much as repeatedly playing intermediate. One last thing. Someone below says Matt is the "best" intermediate player because he scored the best under ideal conditions. Well, if all of us have competed under those same ideal conditions and still were not able to get 10 seconds, then I'll call Matt the "best". However, I still haven't even seen that dream board once. I know I can get 10 under those conditions, along with a handful of other people. I liken this to a sprinter running the 100 meter dash by himself, with a strong tail wind, and then getting called the "best" sprinter because he finished first. Give me, Lasse, David, Damien, and some others here three chances at the dream board just like Matt, then maybe we can toss around the "best" label. |
06/29/01 06:46:33 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Once again, I have to vehemently disagree that getting any particular score on intermediate makes anyone the best at that level, especially when there is an element of memorization involved. In my mind there is a big difference between "the single game world record holder" and "the best sweeper". If someone is widely considered to be the "best sweeper", that person should be able to go head to head against anyone and beat them the majority of the time. To use a professional sports analogy, the "best" team is crowned only after several intense rounds of playoffs. The Lakers just proved they are clearly the superior NBA team. Over the past few years, the Yankees were clearly the superior baseball team. Nobody calls the Clippers the best NBA team because they beat the Lakers one day in January when the planets were aligned or something. Put the Clippers against the Lakers in a 7 game series and the Lakers would kill them. Back to minesweeper... everyone knows there is one intermediate board that is by far the easiest board. There are no other comparable boards. Matt has proven himself to be the fastest on that board, and that board only. If you take away that board, his best intermediate time is 16. He has played intermediate more than any other player here(probably 1000x more intermediate playing than me), and he has probably seen every possible board a few times. I would infer that if he is clearly the best intermediate player, he would have several sub-16 scores by now on boards other than the dream board. To sum up, I would put Lasse or Damien or David or myself up against anyone on intermediate. I'd also put Matt up against anyone. I find it very difficult to single out any one of those names as the "best" intermediate player. ...cont... |
06/29/01 04:28:59 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | You are very fast at expert level, Sami. |
06/29/01 03:23:34 AM | |
Name: | Sami Silto |
Best expert: | 3 |
Best intermediate: | 22 |
Best beginner: | 81 |
Comments: | Mika! Mitä sie sekoilet, pelaamaan sitä miinaharavaa, että pääset eliittiin mukaan... |
06/29/01 02:21:00 AM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | heh heh. yeah i thought it was you, just didnt know for sure. |
06/28/01 11:53:17 PM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Well said, Joe. I couldn't agree more (of course, it was me who said those things a while back, so one wouldn't expect otherwise... ;)). |
06/28/01 11:37:43 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | i agree with david. matt has made an art out of persuing the intermediate record and completely ignoring expert, and for that he should be rewarded. matt's the best low level (intermediate/beginner) player. damien's a very close second, but i think someone said it best when we were discussing the whole average thing for calculating best players. someone said that whats most important is how well we do under ideal conditions, that that's what we shoot for by setting our best times, that that is, after all, the only we way we break our records. well, matt trained very hard for the ideal condition, and when the ideal condition occured, he performed nearly flawlessly, and thats why he's the best intermediate player in the world. hell, minesweeper's memorization anyway. we've all trained ourselves to react to certain situations, such as patterns, and thats what makes up a whole game anyway. is it really any different if matt just did that on a bigger scale, memorizing the whole board? i think not. good job, homie. :) |
06/28/01 08:47:16 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | Just to make one point clear from my thoughts in the post below. Matt getting a 10, breaking the record by 2sec, makes him the best int. player in the world. He is just using a tactic that no-one else has before (at least not that effectively). |
06/28/01 08:45:28 PM | |
Name: | David Barry |
Comments: | I think that Matt getting a 10 by knowing the board is a turning point for how the best int. players will play - if you need to memorise boards, so be it. To me at least, this is not a turn for the better, but if it generates faster times, then the int. record holders of the future will all memorise the best boards, whether I or Dan or whoever like it or not. I don't think I will start memorising the best int. boards for well over a year (it took me at least that long to convert to not flagging half the mines on that level), but I think that more and more people will use this tactic, and those who don't will be left behind (sort of like me with my 18 when I didn't believe in not flagging half or more of the mines on int.) On a different subject, it is interesting to note that the record holders in int. and expert both use the Win 3.1 version of Minesweeper. I wouldn't say this proves anything, just interesting to think about. |
06/28/01 07:08:20 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | Mike Lowder retired, and Im pretty sure Gernot did too, after his 59. Mike Sledd is the person we need to contact. I've gotten THE board thrice now, flubbed it up once. Im updating my site soon with some interesting articles and a mouse review. I've already updated the hall of fame lists, if you want to visit those. |
E-mail Website |
06/28/01 03:37:30 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | someone should try to contact those fellas |
06/28/01 03:02:38 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | MIA = Missing in action. I just mean I haven't seen Mike Lowder since he got his 53 several months ago. |
06/28/01 02:16:42 PM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | I might be an amateur, but what is the MIA list? Don't know where Stania is. |
06/28/01 01:17:00 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Add Mike Lowder to the MIA list. |
06/28/01 01:05:45 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | anyone know where on earth Gernot Stania is? |
06/28/01 12:59:43 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Matt, nope, I don't blame you at all. In fact, right now I am just taking a break from trying to do exactly what you did. I started playing intermediate a couple hours ago. Just in the last hour I've gotten 4 sub-20's and about 12 20/21's, but I haven't gotten a 10-15 capable board, yet. Matt, do you know how many times you've gotten the dream board? I need to play int more often so I have a better chance to get it. |
06/28/01 11:44:25 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I like the sprint-ish aspect of int. more than the endurance of expert. |
E-mail Website |
06/28/01 11:43:04 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Comments: | I think people might want me to comment here. I cannot claim to be the fastest intermediate player. Sure, I have a 10, the world record, but my next best time is a 14, then 16. If you look at people like Damien or Lasse who have nearly three or four times the amount of sub-20's I have, you will see the fastest int. players. Im fine with being ranked third in int. by means of totals. Damien and Lasse deserve to have the 10 more than I do. Dan you're right. The board was all luck, good mine layout, and I did memorize it so that all I had to do was get it and BAM! I had it...But do you blame me? Would you have done anything different? ;) Well, now Im off to expert to get a 59 by November 22... |
E-mail Website |
06/28/01 10:20:40 AM | |
Name: | Owen Fox |
Best expert: | 66 hehe |
Best intermediate: | 17 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Matt- Fair play to you man... you've surpassed the thought boundries of Intermediate.... 10 is an amazing record. I remember saying to my friends over a year ago when my record was 20 that 15 MIGHT be possible!! Dan i did mean damien ye! sorry!! I guess you are quite political in nature seeing how you tried so hard not to step on anyones toes about who is the best in the world! But you are more or less right about that.... I'd say sub 10 is possible.. Again, congratulations Matt. think about this : You are now of a rare group of people who have owned a world record at ANYTHING in the world, including minesweeper! Same goes for you Lasse.. I don't think 44 will be beaten by anyone apart from yourself in many years... I wonder if i'll be proved wrong soon? |
06/28/01 10:11:54 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | You're right about the luck-element Dan, so I agree with you (with pain in my heart) that you can see best on expert how good a player really is. But still, I don't think anyone is better than Matt at intermediate. |
06/28/01 08:17:31 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | After thinking about Matt's 10 game a bit more, I'm inclined to mostly dismiss my previous rant because it too strongly implies that memorization was the key to getting a score of 10. The key to getting the 10 is clearly the friendliness of the board itself. My feeling is that it doesn't matter to me who gets what score on that board. If Lasse or Sriram post here tomorrow that they got an 8 on that same board, that still doesn't mean they are definitely the superior intermediate player. If I get a 7 on that board I would feel awesome to hold the record, but I still would not consider myself the best intermediate player in the world. This rant goes back a few months when there was a lengthy discussion on this guestbook about whether intermediate or expert is the best indication of a player's speed. Of course, I am a big proponent of expert. I feel stronger than ever that intermediate is way too dependant on the friendliness of the mine layout. Expert has reasonably friendly boards and reasonably unfriendly boards, but there is MUCH less difference between each board than with intermediate, and the chances of there being an expert board that is far friendlier than any other is almost zip. Keep in mind that I'm aware Matt never proclaimed himself as the best intermediate player in the world. I'm just rebutting a couple statements made by other posters. I wonder if I've just started another heated discussion on the expert v. intermediate topic. |
06/28/01 07:50:33 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Congrats Matt. I know I am going to take some heat for this, but I must disagree that Matt is definitely the fastest intermediate player in the world. Keep in mind that his two fastest games, 14 and now 10, were done on the same single board that is clearly faster than any other board we can get. It is clear from watching the video that Matt has the board mostly memorized. Take the upper right portion of the board, for example, where it is necessary to guess. It is clear that Matt knows exaclty which squares to clear. My point here is that I doubt Matt, or anyone, would be able to get a 10 on that board if they had never seen it before. All that said, Matt should be a proud intermediate world record holder. I'm wearing some goggles now, so I am prepared to have Matt throw some pies at me. |
06/28/01 05:37:37 AM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Best expert: | 72 |
Best intermediate: | 10 |
Best beginner: | 1 |
Comments: | Thanks guys. The timer jump is the exact same one as in my 14. When I calculated my "real" time using Windows Media Player, I got 9.4 seconds. Despite that, I really dont think that 9 is possible. I flew through that board entirely from my subconscious, and the little misclick wouldn't have gained me a whole second. Im not trying to say that no one will ever beat me, I'd love to see someone get a 9. But Im pretty sure 10 is the fastest you can go on that board. Will somebody find a faster board? ... |
E-mail Website |
06/28/01 04:36:38 AM | |
Name: | Lasse Nyholm |
Best expert: | 44 |
Best intermediate: | 15 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Congratulation Matt - I just saw the video, that was very well played!! - do you just sit and wait for that board to show up? I can't wait to get that board myself - I've been trying to break my inter-score these days, but haven't been below 16. I've got my 2000th sub-60 though (44x1, 47x5, 48x5, 49x4, 50x15, 51x37, 52x74, 53x89, 54x167, 55x196, 56x265, 57x324, 58x397 and 59x421). Matt: now you just need to get 50 on expert, then you'll have a total of 61 like me :) Good luck - Lanyje |
06/28/01 02:23:33 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Best intermediate: | still 21 |
Comments: | I just don't know what to say. When I first visited this site I thought the world records would never be broken. And now so quick after eachother expert and intermediate are broken. Just incredible. Well Matt, now it is absolutely sure who's the best intermediate player in the world. I'm still trying to sub-20 by the way... Congrats |
06/28/01 12:55:13 AM | |
Name: | Khor Eng Tat |
Comments: | Damn it! Can't believe my eyes. Just one word Matt - Awesome!! Now that the near impossible is now possible, when are we going to stop in Intermediate??? You've raised the bar up four or five steps higher Matt! Congratulations! |
06/27/01 09:05:01 PM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Incredible, Matt! Congratulations. I saw the video and seeing you fly through it makes me wonder why I only got a 16 on that board ;) You're finally the best Int player around. Enjoy it. |
06/27/01 08:28:30 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | nto to take anything away from matt's acheivement. good job dawg! |
06/27/01 08:18:21 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | there was a 2 second jump too. 8 is definitely attainable. |
06/27/01 08:16:53 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | nevermind, matt, you dont have to send me it, saw it on your site. you're psycho. and that could have been a 9, i saw you eff up in that corner. dizzam. that same damn board, too. someday someone could get an 8 on that, i think. nuts. about 2 years ago i was thrilled to break 10 on beginner. |
06/27/01 07:59:57 PM | |
Name: | Joe Nuss |
Comments: | matt's kind of a jack ass. ;) just joking. thats fuckin crazy, bro. i had a feeling you'd break the record someday. crazeh. now just work on that expert time :) |
06/27/01 05:42:14 PM | |
Name: | Matt McGinley |
Best intermediate: | See below |
Comments: | Words cannot describe how I feel right now. My hands are shaking and my chest is full of butterflies. It has taken me almost a minute to type the above lines. "Why so nervous, Matt?" you ask? A new frontier has been opened upon the minesweeper board. I'm in my 30,000th click of the day and only a 21, 22x2 and a 23 to show for it. Well not as of five minutes ago. Do you want me to get to the point already? Too bad...We need more suspense... I was fairly sure that my 14 would never be broken. I was fairly sure the world record was safe (yes, the world record). I was fairly wrong. Do you want to know what my time was? Do ya really? Are you shaking in anticipation? I am...Well, here ya go. The new intermediate world record: 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 I have the video. Mail me or visit my site soon. |
E-mail Website |
06/27/01 01:21:55 PM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Comments: | Owen, you mean you wish Damien would get ungrounded, not Dan. From what I've heard, we might look for some action with this site in July. Way to go with the 66, Owen. |
06/27/01 12:52:34 PM | |
Name: | Owen |
Best expert: | 66 |
Best intermediate: | 17 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Matt and Emmanuelle - I think i've gone ahead of you both again thanks to my new expert record of 66..... hehe! I've been waiting on this for ages it seems, but i just found out that my old record stood for only just over 2 months...! it seems like way longer than that. I wish Dan would get ungrounded.. HOw is Srirham doing in his tennis does anyone know? I only came online to tell you all the good news so i may as well go now. Bye All and good luck! |
06/27/01 11:53:45 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Comments: | By the way, my scores are now together 100. Nice |
06/27/01 10:28:44 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Best expert: | 76 |
Best intermediate: | 21 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Yes baby! Finally sub-80. I had to wait for it for a very long time and I was so close every time. I'm very glad. See you and good luck, Roelof |
06/27/01 08:13:17 AM | |
Name: | Dan Cerveny |
Best expert: | 54 |
Best intermediate: | 15 |
Best beginner: | 2 |
Comments: | Just got my first 56, so I don't have any holes in my score list now. I have at least one 54, 55, 56, ... etc. Now maybe I am free to go lower than 54. I bet that lone 56 was the force holding me back ;) |
06/27/01 03:20:13 AM | |
Name: | Ryan P. Gazder |
Comments: | Nopes the middle button is set to HyperJump (after a 2 sec delay) and not to double click. So a click on the middle button results in a regular MouseDown. Does anyone else here use HyperJump? (nifty li'l s/w app that comes bundled with Logitech Mice) In fact another thing that I noticed is a similar reduction in button/reflex when I inverted the mouse orientation from right-handed to left-handed... and got similar results (this time I tried it with the middle finger of my right hand). And once again I'm tempted to think that since the right and left buttons are used the most with the middle button being used the least, their spring tension does tend to lose resilience over time (wear and tear) I replace rollerball mice once every 3 months or so (Optical rodents are very expensive in India) |
E-mail Website |
06/27/01 01:05:56 AM | |
Name: | Female Surfer |
Comments: | Hi People I have been moving from place to place. Currently, i am in chennai. I will be meeting sriram in 5 hours time. I shall let you know more about him soon. |
06/26/01 02:10:40 PM | |
Name: | Marc Schouten |
Comments: | Ryan: Maybe you've got your middle button set to double-click? I have and when I use it, a lot of clicks are counted as 2 clicks. I also use my middle finger for the right button. Whenever I use the middle button, it's with my index finger. |
06/26/01 02:05:49 PM | |
Name: | Ryan P. Gazder |
Best expert: | 71 |
Best intermediate: | 19 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Salaams o Sweepers, I keep reading this but don't post too often (I do believe this is my third, but who's counting anyway?) I tried the "World Mouseclicking Championship" (that Java link someone posted)and here's what I found: about 35-45 clicks on average using my right hand index finger and the left mouse button, whereas about 61-65 clicks using the same finger and the middle button. Does this have something to do with the middle button being used a lot less and therefore more resilient? Another thing I want to ask: of all sweepers using a 3-button mouse, which fingers do you use? (me, I use my index finger on left and middle finger on the tight) I actually wanna know if anyone uses their ring finger instead of middle finger on the right button (I've tried it and don't quite like it much, but then it depends on how you started playing) |
E-mail Website |
06/26/01 04:10:12 AM | |
Name: | Roelof Smit |
Best expert: | 81 |
Best intermediate: | 21 |
Best beginner: | 3 |
Comments: | Another second from my expert score... Mmm, let's say it's always nice to see that dialogue box. |