Viewing Page 20 of 36 (Total Entries: 3560) |
![]() |
|
Jul 30th 2003 at 11:37:02 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
110 |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
I just set a new personal 3bv/s record on intermediate and felt like sharing it with you guys although I do realise that it's nothing special for most of you. I cleared a 71 3bv board in 29.99 (-1) seconds which gives a 'score' of 2.44 3bv/s! ![]() ![]() I've got a question: How good do you have to be to be included in the active ranking? Take care and good luck everyone! ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 30th 2003 at 08:19:03 AM |
|
Name: |
Active Ranking |
Comments: |
**** Deadline Friday @ 20:00 GMT/ 4pm EDT **** |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 12:56:28 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
It's normal to get better 3bv/s-values on higher 3bv boards. I just lost an 244-3bv board with 7 clicks left to go. 3bv/s up to that point was 3.33 - That would've been sweet. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 11:37:31 AM |
|
Name: |
David Morgan |
Best expert: |
72 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
eeek! had an expert board with a 3bv of 233 today!...i did lose though Is it just me or does every1 end up with lower 3bv/s on boards with a lower 3bv? (and when I lose the 3bv/s is even higher still ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 10:10:27 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Lynch |
Comments: |
Well done Dennis. I am back home to Ireland for the 30th. Just enough time to submit AR scores. I will also be getting a new mouse laster in August so I hope the Logitech can help me break my mediocre times. Good luck to all. |
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 09:21:01 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Made my first good time with my new mouse: 63.49 sec, 145 3BV, actually a quite good time for me ![]() It took 2 hours of play to get it ![]() Congrats to Kimmi and Dennis on their new records ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 05:37:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
110 |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Elmar, thanks for always being so supportive! You're a very positive thinker and quite a nice guy! It's always nice when somebody's cheering for you, so thanks for doing that Elmar. I really will try to sub 100 soon... I've already been close lots of times but then I screw up... Well, 110 isn't too bad either on a 177 board... at least for me it isn't! ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 05:33:08 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 --> 126,27 --> 124,31 --> 110,99 (In ONE day! :-)) |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
Wow, I've just improved my expert record by 22 seconds in one day! That is quite nice but not really surprising since I haven't pla*** expert for such a long time! My 110 was made on a 171 3bv board so I'm sticking to the 170s ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 05:32:10 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Dennis, congrats! Keep going, I'm sure you can easily go sub100!! ![]() I once got two 63s in a row both 3bv131! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 04:28:27 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 --> 126,27 --> 124,31 |
Comments: |
I did it again! And guess what! This was also a 177 3bv! What's the chance of that? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 03:19:36 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 --> 126,27 |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
Thanks, Yannig for reminding me that I suck! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 02:13:42 AM |
|
Name: |
Yannig |
Best expert: |
80 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
3 |
Comments: |
Dennis, you suck! Just play a little expert and stop bugging telling you have to! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 29th 2003 at 01:51:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
Zeta, I think 91 on expert is really good! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Good luck and happy sweeping! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 08:34:23 PM |
|
Name: |
Zeta |
Best expert: |
97 -> 91 |
Comments: |
Woot. ... Darn all you awesome guys making me look bad. ::waves fist:: |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 03:27:28 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Best expert: |
57 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Kimmo, congrats on your 15, allthough that means you've passed me in the rankings. ![]() Now I'm back on page 3 of the database. I'm gonna have to work on that. AR: 60x2-16-3 ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 02:06:45 PM |
|
Name: |
Stephan |
Comments: |
My mouse crashed as well (after I got really angry of several missed boards by stupid mouse errors)... Now, I have to search for a new one that fits my requirements for fast sweeping. Lance, you can catch up in the AR now... |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 01:46:41 PM |
|
Name: |
Kimmo |
Best expert: |
55 |
Best intermediate: |
15 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Hee! I'm happy to report a new record first time in about half a year: 15 sec on 36 3bv intermediate board. It's only 1 sec but still.. I also scored the second ever(!) 2 so my AR is at the moment 2 - 15 - 60. Well, keep sweeping but not too much. Remember that it's summertime (+30 degrees here in Finland)!! Bye! |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 12:06:18 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Just bought a new mouse... My old one broke, so I had to buy a new one. Nothing special, $10... ![]() I hope I get used to it soon ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 11:47:48 AM |
|
Name: |
Zeta |
Best expert: |
99 -> 97 |
Best intermediate: |
28 |
Best beginner: |
4 |
Comments: |
Yay. |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 11:22:34 AM |
|
Name: |
Yannig |
Best expert: |
80 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
3 |
Comments: |
Just lost a 120 3bv board on the last click, the timer was at 76s. It wasn't even a gues... ![]() ![]() I think 9x9 boards shouldn't be accepted. It just isn't fair for the people playing 8x8. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 08:55:16 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
Daniel, too bad the observatory is closed. I hope you're having fun anyway. I was wondering... Today is the 28th so what do you mean by saying that you'll be back by the end of this month? In a couple of days? Or did you mean by the end of August? Anyway, have a GREAT time! ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 07:50:20 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Lynch |
Comments: |
Unlikely Barbara. I do not think this site is connected with any minesweeper games via such a pop up board. Greetings from Brno, where the observatory I came to visit is closed until the day I leave. Typical! I will be back sweeping at the end of this month. |
![]() |
|
Jul 28th 2003 at 02:05:30 AM |
|
Name: |
Barbara Kirkland |
Best beginner: |
30 seconds |
Comments: |
On July 27/2003, I received a pop-up memo asking that I register this record, however, I hit o.k. too quickly. I believe that pop-up menu/request came from The Authoritative Minesweeper??? Do you have any way to confirm?? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 27th 2003 at 01:09:31 PM |
|
Name: |
Stephan |
Comments: |
I didn't forget you, James from Edmonton ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 06:30:57 PM |
|
Name: |
James |
Best expert: |
74 |
Best intermediate: |
20 |
Comments: |
Yahoo! I am back from 2.5 months of treeplanting and I feel great. I am sure you all forgot about me. Cograts for all the new personal records I missed. It great to be back in civilization! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 05:19:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21x2 |
Best beginner: |
1 (9x9) |
Comments: |
I just tied my record on intermediate today. I got another 21 (21,3 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Speaking of 3bv/sec records... I got a new record on beginner today: 3,71 3bv/s... Nothing special, but still! By the way, it was on an 8x8 board! ![]() Congrats to everyone else who's gotten a better 3bv/s record! ![]() ![]() Good luck and happy sweeping! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 03:17:19 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Hehe... guess what! I have just made new 3BV/sec record too ![]() 219 3BV in 80,35 sec = 2,76 3BV/sec (or 2,77 if you doesn't count the decimals) ![]() My old record was 2,73 but on an easier board, 199 3BV I think, so I think the old record actually were better,, but what the hell... ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 02:14:02 PM |
|
Name: |
Brian Cornell |
Comments: |
I too have just made a new 3bv/s record for myself, a 59 on a 199 3bv board, 3.37 3bv/s. I also tied my expert record of 53 seconds today, so hopefully a new expert record is coming soon. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 01:30:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Ok, it's up. That's the third new 3bv/s record since I got my 57. I've improved from 2.82 via 2.89 and 3.00 to 3.09. But damn, I want a new record!! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 01:23:34 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Dito! ![]() Just set a new 3bv/s record! 226/(74-1)=3.09 ![]() Previous best was 3.00. Got it on video and will put it on my site later. ![]() Happy Sweeping, Expert rules!!! ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 26th 2003 at 08:02:12 AM |
|
Name: |
Dan Cerveny |
Comments: |
Ditto. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 08:27:12 PM |
|
Name: |
Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: |
I agree with Paul, and that'll probably be my last words in this discussion. I just wanted to let you know that I've broken my XP-expert time with a 43 (134 3BV) a few minutes ago, but unfurtunately I clicked "delete" on camtasia instead of "stop", so I don't have the video, I do have a screenshot though. Sorry 'bout that. I'll hurry back to the game to improve and get you another video, hopefully! - LanyjĂŠ |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 06:20:49 PM |
|
Name: |
Paul |
Comments: |
I know I'm like a broken record, but I'll say it once more, just for the record ![]() We could just stop attempting to rank people by their 1/4 of an inch sprint times, and just forget beginner in all attempts to rank people. By all means as a novelty, keep the beginner records listed, the best times, afterall, ARE the best times. But do they mean anything to top players? No. And that's what most of the lists here, and the AR are about, no? (A note: keep one beginner list, just note with the time what size board it was done on, each reader is free to decide what they like about the difference between board sizes. Or keep two separate lists, what does it matter? :-p) A good int board ~30 3bv, a good time ~15 seconds. A good expert board 130 3bv, a good time ~55 seconds. A good beginner board ~3 3bv... it almost stands to (somewhat dodgy :-p) reason that every top player, on their day, will reach that particular 1/4 of an inch before the clock has a chance to tick. On a very good day, I'm sure a slightly higher beginner 3bv would be no obstacle either. Certainly for the AR, it is already a joke. How many times does anyone need to read "I play beginner for 5 minutes each period, to get a time" or "I play beginner until I get a 3" to realise that beginner is devaluing the AR. Just because we CAN use it doesn't mean we HAVE to. I'm not saying it proves nothing, but can it be used to distinguish between the skill of two decent Minesweepers? No. So why the heck keep it for reasons other than sentimental value? |
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 04:37:01 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I'd say it's more like type 2, because it's just pure luck. But i don't think that happens very often. On most 2-3bv boards the second click is somewhere you don't click normally, in a corner or on the edges. About type (1); There's just a hand full of 2-3bv boards. So most people who get a 1 on one of them have probably seen the board before. That brings us back to the intermediate problem with memorized boards. For example, take the board Gareth mentioned which I'd say is the most popular one. If you get that board you know instantaneously that you have to click somewhere on the right edge. So even type (1) 1s take some advantage of board cycles. |
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 04:04:23 PM |
|
Name: |
Gareth |
Best beginner: |
1 (type 3) |
Comments: |
My only 1 on a beginner board was a 2 3BV (one of the squares was on the far right, 3 from the top, the other square was a big open patch), and was obtained from sheer frustration. I remember last year when I cleared the big open patch, looked around a bit, found a square I needed to click on, then clicked on it, and all of a sudden I had finished. The best time window appeared (at the time my best on beginner was a 3), but the time was 2sec. Then, the VERY NEXT DAY, I cleared an open patch, realised it was the same board, clicked on the right square, but it was still only a 2. I'm not sure if it was the timer bug or if I just wasn't fast enough, maybe a bit of both (it would have owned if I'd gotten 1sec for both of them, oh well). So I thought to myself: "that board seems to appear quite regularly, maybe I should just click that other square first from now on". So I did, and I still do. Eventually I got that 1, although it wasn't for quite a while (3 or 4 months I think). I didn't know the complexities of the board cycles, or how often they occurred, I was just hoping that it would eventually appear. (It has appeared once since then, but my first click at the time was in the top left corner, causing a mine to shift position and turn the board into a 4 3BV) Hey Elmar, if you started a beginner game, did 2 purely random clicks at the beginning, and accidently finish the game then and there, what type would that be? Type 1? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 02:28:20 PM |
|
Name: |
dave w. |
Comments: |
i was wondering what the fastest time someone can beat a 24 by 30 grid with 200 mines. if anyone trys this just post your best time here |
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 12:06:29 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
my first 1 was on a 2 3bv, my second a 1-click bug so the timer didn't stop (matt had this too...it seems the original version isn't programmed to respond to 1 click flukes), my third was a 2 3bv as well as my fourth, my fifth was a 2 3bv 9 x 9 board, and my sixth was a 2 3bv. i have never tried to take advantage of the board cycle on beg, but i know two people for sure who have...it's just harder to prove than intermediate manipulation so i don't know how to deal with others who i can't prove. |
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 11:55:44 AM |
|
Name: |
David Morgan |
Comments: |
I for one have never tried to use board cycles for anything, but I don't have a 1 yet! I don't think that minesweeper from win2000+ will work on earlier OSs though, so if we are sticking to one size and not wanting to use custom settings it'd be pretty unfair to use 9x9 boards, since some people wouldn't be able to get them without the custom option... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 05:28:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
I was wondering... if win98 users can have the advantage (sometimes) of a slower timer, why can't XP users have the advantage of 9x9 grids? ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 05:09:52 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Yep, just a typing error. |
![]() |
|
Jul 25th 2003 at 04:54:59 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Well, my 1 sec is type (1) and on a 8x8 grid... Is everyone else's 1 sec just made with the knowledge of board cycles? ![]() Elmar, I have seen you have written 54-14-1 a couple of times now. Is it just a typing error? ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:40:54 PM |
|
Name: |
Gareth |
Best beginner: |
1 (on an 8x8 board) |
Comments: |
There are several reasons why I think 9x9 should be accepted: (i) In the newer versions of windows, the beginner board is 9x9. In some versions you can't even get an 8x8 from custom. If people want to be ranked, then find out that they have to download some other version just to get another 3 seconds or something to their total, there is a good chance theu just won't bother. (ii) Once you start playing 9x9, the 8x8 just seems congested. 9x9 gives you clearer boards more often, and so you will get better times and more of them. (iii) As a consequence of the increased frequency of nice boards, 9x9 is more fun to play on, and people will more likely play on this one (this is pretty msimilar to reason (ii)) That's pretty much it. I also think that of the 1sec boards that people will get 9x9 boards, more of them will be "honest" 1 seconds (ie. type (1) in Elmar's previous post) than there will be on 8x8 boards (personally, my 1sec is of type (3) in Elmar's previous post). |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:01:16 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Best expert: |
57 |
Best intermediate: |
14 |
Best beginner: |
1x2 (2) |
Comments: |
I don't really think it's "harder" to get a 1 on 8x8. If anything it takes more time. Let's face it, anyone can get a 1 on beginner if he's willing to spend enough time on it. There are 4 ways to get a 1: 1. You could just play and hope for a 2-3bv board, react fast enough and not get screwed by the timer bug. (The honest way, but I think only few people have done it this way.) ![]() 2. You can play and hope for a 1-click board. The chances on this one are pretty slim. ![]() 3. You can take advantage of board cycles. Find a 2/3-3bv board and just keep hitting those two/three spots for a few hours. But there's still the problem with the timer bug. (This one is probably the option most people have chosen.) ![]() 4. You can take advantage of board cycles to get a 1-3bv board. No problem with timer bug, no skill needed. And it doesn't take as long. (I got two 1s this way. The first one took me 2.5h the 2nd 0.5h) ![]() I'm not proud of those 1s in any way. Well, maybe for the fact that I didn't waste as much time as other people did. However I'm proud of my 2 that I got on a 6-3bv board. But that doesn't show in any rankings. The only reason to keep beginner in the rankings is the fact that it looks nicer to have three scores. 54-14-1 For that reason I'm in favor of allowing 9x9 beginner scores. That way I'd only have to waste 5min each AR-period. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 04:21:43 PM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
David, I think the timer lag only appears on slow computers. I did the same experiment on my pc. I had camtasia running and started tons of mp3s, but there was no lag either. I guess my PC is just too fast. But if you check out the videos in the videos section you'll see what Martin was talking about. The 9 ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 02:26:32 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
it is considerably harder to get a 1 on 8 x 8. there have only been a half dozen cases of 1 click 1 sec boards on 8 x 8, but i have received triple that on the 9 x 9. considering that xp has only been in existence a fraction of 3.1, i think this is suggestive. of course, paul has a point that it still happens, but it is more rare. as well, with the timer jump, a good player is more likely to get a 2 or a 1 on a fluke board because he has to react faster than the timer skip. also, xp has 81 versus 64 squares making it really easy. when xp came out, i got several 2's and a 1 within my first 20min of play, and thus i do not like allowing it without a time penalty for ranking. |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 11:54:59 AM |
|
Name: |
David Morgan |
Best expert: |
72 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
right, I think I've changed my mind... for the purpose of active ranking I think either should be allowed, since not allowing the 9x9 boards will put off new people from joining the community for sites like this one, I think people should be allowed to submit either or both... then the lost should be used in working out the persons sum, and if the sum and all 3 scores are tied the lowest of the other beginner scores could be used to differentiate rank or something (just an idea) Why did i change my mind? because who cares? until I started sending my times into the active ranking thing I hadn't played beginner for months 2 more things: 1)I started games on the XP and 3.1 at virrtually the same time (without a jump at 1 sec), and after over 550 seconds, I can't see any difference in the speed of the 2 clocks (they are slightly out of sync, but only by the same amount as they were when they started) 2)I can change the board to 8x8 on the XP version, didnt realise that you couldn't on other versions |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 10:32:33 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Dennis, the timer on the older version jumps to 2 sec when the windows clock does. Therefore it requires quite a bit of luck to get a 1. But on int and especially exp it's actually easier to get good times because the timer is slow. I think it's about 5% slower than the actual time, and therefore you can win about a second every 20th second ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 08:35:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:50:59 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Comments: |
PART 2 ...if at all penalise? I don't I don't really see the point since there's no big difference... All you would be doing was to favourize the really good players who have all kinds of versions on their computer and who are afraid of the 9x9 board (which WILL become more and more normal) simply because a record obtained on that board can't be directly compared to the 8x8 board records and because it might seem like less of a challenge, although we all know that beginner isn't really that big of a challenge anyway and anyone with patience and a little skill can get a 1! Lasse Nyholm: Hi guys. I think 9x9 should be accepted because it's the new "official" beginner-size. In time more and more people will be playing that size, and at the same time it will be harder and harder to find an older version of the game. Besides, I think it's a good size for beginner RE: I couldn't have said it better myself! If the new offircial size isn't accepted then it won't be long before no one will be able have their beginner records accepted because no one will be able to get an old version of Minesweeper! (Lasse, good luck getting a 40 or lower on expert! ) Paul: Of course, fluke 1 click 8x8 boards still require skill RE: I think I've already commented on this but... YES, it's VERY hard to get a 1 once you get a 1 3bv board! Gareth, I totally agree with you on that! There, I think I've made MY opinion clear now! |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:43:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Daniel Lynch |
Comments: |
Greetings from Praha! I've been competing in the Czech Chess Open these past few days. Great fun altogether. Good to see the discussion board is rolling. Happy Sweeping to all. |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:30:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Wow, that really started a discussion, huh? I'd better comment on some of this since I'm the one who started this discussion about "beginner's luck" so to speak! ![]() Elmar: I thought win2000 has a 9x9 grid as well... Re: It does have a 9x9 grid as well... The question is: where do I find a version that doesn't have 9x9? Chris: I have no idea why all beginner scores aren't accepted regardless of what board they are on. If you think about the boards really aren't that much different, plus the majority of scores are based on luck. RE: EXACTLY! It's TOTALLY based on luck, at least once you acchieve a decent level in Minesweeper it is... then anyone can get a lucky 1! And although the odds might be lower, then you might get a lucky 1 3bv board on an 8x8 beginner board as well... That happened to me on the internet when I played on an 8x8 beginner board, so even if my 9x9 nine 1 doesn't count, then I guess my 8x8 does count even though it was made on the internet... 'Cause a 1 3bv is a 1 3bv and anyone would get a 1 on that no matter where they played the game! Anyway, I have screenshots of both of my 1's! David Morgan: I don't think scores on 9x9 boards should be counted, its not like people can't use the custom option to have 8x8 boards or just get an older version of the game RE: First of all, if you got your record on a custom list or on another version, it would show on you 'Best Times'... Secondly I have tried to change the custum settings to 8x8 but it won't let me go lower than 9x9! Damien Moore: Started an XP beg list that i haven't poseted yet, but it will be kept seperate from 8 by 8 XP beg will be allowed, but it will be penalized 2sec in the ranked lists. so, a fluke 1click xp game becomes 3sec for ranking, which is easily attainable and beatable by anyone with skill, on the standard board RE: Exactly! I mean, it's certainly easier to get a 2 on an 8x8 than getting a 1 on a 9x9, so why penalize 2sec and not 1, if at all |
![]() |
|
Jul 24th 2003 at 05:27:14 AM |
|
Name: |
Gareth |
Comments: |
I also think that 9x9 boards should be accepted, simply due to the low availability of 8x8 boards and the fact that people will not want to go out of their way to find a version that will give you 8x8 boards. On the other hand, I do not agree that 9x9 boards are similar in difficulty (ie. only slightly easier) to 8x8 boards. If you think about it, a 9x9 board has over 25% more space than an 8x8 board. I played some 9x9 on my new computer this afternoon for about 15-20 minutes, and I must say that I got "nice" boards much more often than on the 8x8. Although 15-20 minutes isn't much to go by, maybe I just had a lucky day. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 04:56:11 PM |
|
Name: |
Paul |
Comments: |
Of course, fluke 1 click 8x8 boards still require skill ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 01:23:06 PM |
|
Name: |
Lasse Nyholm |
Comments: |
Hi guys. I think 9x9 should be accepted because it's the new "official" beginner-size. In time more and more people will be playing that size, and at the same time it will be harder and harder to find an older version of the game. Besides, I think it's a good size for beginner, cause the density of mines is lower than on intermediate, as the inter-density is lower than expert's. I would personally like to be allowed to play the 9x9 instead of the 8x8, cause then I wouldn't have to change between versions when playing (I know it's only for a couple of minutes every period, but still). Well, as you probably know, I don't care too much about beginner-level, just wanted to say that in time, 9x9-boards will be the only size out there, if it continues to be MS's official choice for beginner. We might aswell accept it. Got a new 44 today in my new minesweeper-setup, my second mayor setup-change this year. I've moved together with my girlfriend and am now using her comp, since the screen is bigger than on my tablet-PC. I'm still playing XP, don't worry, and I'm hoping for a new record before school starts in september. Good luck to all of you, Lanyjé |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 12:04:21 PM |
|
Name: |
Damien |
Comments: |
What I've been doing about beginner: Started an XP beg list that i haven't poseted yet, but it will be kept seperate from 8 by 8 XP beg will be allowed, but it will be penalized 2sec in the ranked lists. so, a fluke 1click xp game becomes 3sec for ranking, which is easily attainable and beatable by anyone with skill, on the standard board |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 12:00:47 PM |
|
Name: |
David Morgan |
Best expert: |
72 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
I don't think scores on 9x9 boards should be counted, its not like people can't use the custom option to have 8x8 boards or just get an older version of the game At the end of the day it doesn't matter whather its 8x8 or 9x9 but i think we all should be using the same sized boards, and seeing as every1 has been using the 8x8 ones for so long we may as well stick with what we've got how about we all email MS and tell them if their next OS doesnt have 8x8 beginner boards we'll all being using linux? lol |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 11:44:00 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Maybe it would be a good idea to calculate the chances of getting 1, 2 and 3 3BV boards on both 8x8 and 9x9 grids. Then it would be easy to compare the scores. If it's just as hard to get a good board on a 9x9 grid, then maybe it also could be allowed ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 10:18:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Chris |
Comments: |
I forgot to add the most important part. Windows will most likely continue to release the board as a 9 x 9. It won't be long before the 8 x 8 becomes obsolete. |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 10:16:37 AM |
|
Name: |
Chris |
Best expert: |
78 |
Best intermediate: |
22 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
I have no idea why all beginner scores aren't accepted regardless of what board they are on. If you think about the boards really aren't that much different, plus the majority of scores are based on luck. Also, who the cares about beginner? It's only good for people who are starting to learn the game. Intermediate and Expert provide the only challenges, each in their own way. |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 09:06:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
I thought win2000 has a 9x9 grid as well... ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 08:43:29 AM |
|
Name: |
Alex |
Comments: |
Great! It appears if you put an 8 and a ) together you get ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 08:41:56 AM |
|
Name: |
Alex |
Best beginner: |
1 on xp |
Comments: |
Dennis: It does matter when you think about it. Cos xp has a larger board (9x9) than other versions of minesweeper(8x ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 07:16:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x4 -->1 |
Comments: |
FINALLY! I did it! I got a 1 on beginner! All it took was patience I guess as I got it on a 1 3bv board... ![]() ![]() This is a big day for me! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 03:30:48 AM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
I was wondering Dennis, do you play beginner on the XP version of minesweeper? It seems like the 9x9 grid is getting more and more 'legal', since nobody really cares which grid their times are made on ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 03:27:33 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x4 |
Comments: |
Elmar, that really sucks! Do you have it on video? If you do, would you mind sending it to my e-mail? I still can't believe that I was 0.02 seconds from getting a 1 on beginner! ![]() ![]() ![]() Good luck! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 03:04:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Rats!! I just lost an estimated 11sec game after 7.09 secs. 3bv39 - 3bv/s was 3.6 I only had to do 16 more clicks in 6.9 secs to beat my record. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 12:54:58 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best beginner: |
2...2...2 and 2 |
Comments: |
When will I get that 1 on beginner I wonder. I am getting close but I need that last bit of luck. Last night I got a 2 3bv and was TOO fast because I accidentally hit the wrong one although I should have probably just slowed down a bit and it could have been my 1... Then just now I got a 3 3bv and I finished it... Well, the timer said 2.01 seconds!!! Damn!!! Couldn't that have been 1.99 seconds instead? ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 23rd 2003 at 12:54:45 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best beginner: |
2...2...2 and 2 |
Comments: |
When will I get that 1 on beginner I wonder. I am getting close but I need that last bit of luck. Last night I got a 2 3bv and was TOO fast because I accidentally hit the wrong one although I should have probably just slowed down a bit and it could have been my 1... Then just now I got a 3 3bv and I finished it... Well, the timer said 2.01 seconds!!! Damn!!! Couldn't that have been 1.99 seconds instead? ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 03:59:31 PM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Comments: |
Wow, Martin! Sounds like things are really working out for you these days! ![]() ![]() I've gotten a 24 and a 25 today plus a couple of 28's and 29's but I find it hard to beat my 21. I got my 21 on a 35 3bv board and the day after that I got a 26 on the exact same board. Of course I didn't realise that until afterwards but then I realised that it'll probably take me a while to get good it enough to beat it. I know I will beat it sometime but I'll need quite a bit of practice. I've just promised myself to start playing expert when I manage to get a sub 20 on intermediate so please be so kind to remind me if or when that happens! ![]() Good luck everyone and happy sweeping! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 01:43:26 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Comments: |
Add a 17 on int ![]() AR so far: 62-17-? |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 12:56:47 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Best expert: |
59 |
Best intermediate: |
15 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Yes! I'm back on track! I've just made my first sub70 since I came back: 62 sec, 142 3BV ![]() ![]() The last couple of days I've made some quite good 3BV/sec ratios, but none of them were sub70's, so it feels good to make such a good score. Happy sweeping! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 09:31:46 AM |
|
Name: |
Zeta |
Best intermediate: |
28 |
Comments: |
I just started playing intermediate without flags and have gotten 31 twice this way... Not too good around here, but I'll be beatin' my record in no time. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 09:07:29 AM |
|
Name: |
Case |
Comments: |
yullo newcomers... i'm terrible right now, havent played in at least 4 months now. i cant even win a game because i changed my mouse speed to make it hurt my wrist less. i'll have to go back to minesweeper settings and eventually try to get sub60 expert. |
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 05:13:12 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x2 |
Comments: |
Elmar, congrats on your playing! Very nice ARs! ![]() ![]() About the expert board... You're right, I should give it a try but it's just hard to play it when I'm not used to flagging. I know that you don't have to flag on expert but it is rather complex if you don't and it would certainly take a lot of time to get really good at. However, I suck at flagging so I usually get scores around 140 and that's just pathetic! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 03:32:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Elmar |
Comments: |
Woohoo, I just tied my last period's score within the first hour of serious playing. AR: 60-16-3 And that 60 (3bv146) would've been another 58 if I hadn't missed a field. Dennis, you should definetly give expert another try. I think I was around 70 when I had an int score of 21. And the guessing isn't really all that bad on exp. Welcome Zeta and welcome back Matt! |
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 02:47:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x2 |
Comments: |
Wow! It's GREAT to see so many people write in the guestbook! Martin is back from biking and Matt is here too and it's great to finally meet the int. legend! ![]() ![]() ![]() I've slept 13 hours and am ready to rock that int board! ![]() Good luck everyone! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 22nd 2003 at 01:33:05 AM |
|
Name: |
Stephan |
Comments: |
@Alex: 88 is high, but of course not the highest board available. I think intermediate boards with 3BV over 100 are rare, my worst one was 112 I think. @Case/Matt: good to see you alive. Come back!!! |
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 11:04:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Case |
Best expert: |
61 |
Best intermediate: |
13 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Maaaaaatt come back... score a 7 legit so we no longer have to think about the 8's and 9's people got on memorized boards!!!!! |
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 06:11:59 PM |
|
Name: |
Matt |
Best expert: |
51 |
Best intermediate: |
10 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Played for the first time in months today and got a 13 on a 45 3Bv board. |
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 05:44:52 PM |
|
Name: |
Zeta |
Best expert: |
99 |
Best intermediate: |
28 |
Best beginner: |
4 |
Comments: |
Hiya. I'm new around here and am good enough to be on the site. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 03:32:34 PM |
|
Name: |
Alex |
Comments: |
Just wondering what is a high 3BV for intemediate? Cos I just got a board with a 3BV of 88. Is that high? Moderatly high? What is the highest 3BV other people have got? PS I did finish the board, but, I wasn't really concentrating, I was playing on my less familiar millenium windows as opposed to xp and the high 3BV caused me to finish it in an embarassingly high time of 32 seconds. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 02:27:33 PM |
|
Name: |
Martin Toft Madsen |
Best expert: |
59 |
Best intermediate: |
15 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
I know the feeling Traian... I usually say to myself that I probably would have screwed up the board at a later point anyway... That helps a little, but it's always a shame to blow your chance on such a board ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 01:22:30 PM |
|
Name: |
Traian |
Best expert: |
80 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Here is a nice story about bad luck...: Yesterday morning I woke up with the feeling of a great day for sweeping on expert. And I start playing. After a half hour or so, I begin a new game and I felt strange. When I reached 10 seconds (the board already opened up really nice) the phone rang. I had to answer it and I left my game running. After I came back, I sat back on the chair. I don't know, I guess I thought "Let's see how good this board was" (I use Countrec) and I clicked on a mine on purpose. I screamed!!! 102 3BV!!! How can I be so unlucky!? I met with the guy that called me and I nearly slapped him, but he doesn't understand my passion for minesweeper, so he just laughed in my face. What do you guys think? Will I ever get a greater board in this life? |
![]() |
|
Jul 21st 2003 at 03:32:24 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x2 |
Comments: |
Matt, congrats on the record breaking! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 08:53:43 PM |
|
Name: |
Matt M. |
Comments: |
beginner and intermediate*, sorry. |
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 08:52:25 PM |
|
Name: |
Matt M. |
Best expert: |
110 --> 104 |
Best intermediate: |
30 |
Best beginner: |
4 |
Comments: |
hey everyone, i wrote here a while back...i think my best expert at the time was about a 125...i've been working at my 110 for a while now and i finally broke it today, not even seriously trying! i don't understand the system you guys use to tell what the board looked like, but i can tell you...it was a great board. ah, a 104 for me feels really awesome...i know if i keep at it diligently i'll get even faster! it doesn't look like i'll ever beat my beginner and expert times though. they're tough for me! my expert still has some room for improvement...ok...Ciao! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 12:44:56 PM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best expert: |
132 |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Donald, I still remember what it's like to be where you are on intermediate right now. When My record was 39 I suddenly got a 33 and I had a really tough time beating that or even getting close. Then suddenly out of the blue came a 28. It took me more than 3 months to beat my 28 but now, not even a month after I beated my 28 I have gotten 65 sub 30s. I don't flag mines. It takes a while to get used to but it's more challenging and you save time once you get used to it. But you'll need patience to get better. However, I think anyone can sub 20 if they are really determined and play a lot! ![]() GOOD LUCK! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 11:44:08 AM |
|
Name: |
Donald Schmidt |
Best expert: |
127 |
Best intermediate: |
37 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Beginner in 2 is luck! For me getting better than 37 in intermediate and 127 in expert is tough. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 09:54:14 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Comments: |
Alex, too bad about that 29 3bv! I know what you must feel like... I'm still pretty pissed off about that 23 3bv where I really should have gotten a sub 20!!! But of course I'm interested in seeing your screenshot because apart from the 23 3bv I don't think I've ever had a sub 30 3bv! So if you'd send a copy of that screenshot my way then I'd appreciate it! ![]() ![]() I wonder if anyone has ever gotten a lower 3bv than 23... ? ![]() ![]() By the way, I got my first 22 last night! It was on a 30 3bv so that's a pretty nice board as well. Now I've gotten everything between 21-100 on intermediate I think! ![]() Good luck everyone! ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 09:12:09 AM |
|
Name: |
Alex |
Comments: |
Just been playing int on Millenium windows(urghh!). Got a 29 3BV. Messed it up after 16 seconds. May not seem that special after Dennis' 23, but it is the lowest 3BV I have had. I can mail the screenshot to anyone on the offchance they are at all interested. |
![]() |
|
Jul 20th 2003 at 01:50:12 AM |
|
Name: |
Jason |
Best expert: |
109 |
Best intermediate: |
39 |
Best beginner: |
6 |
Comments: |
wakka wakka |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 19th 2003 at 10:31:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Grzegorz Gorny |
Best expert: |
61 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. ![]() All month without sweeping and i'm out of form ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 19th 2003 at 09:26:31 AM |
|
Name: |
Dan |
Comments: |
Active Ranking has been updated. |
![]() |
|
Jul 19th 2003 at 04:45:51 AM |
|
Name: |
Dennis Lütken |
Best intermediate: |
21 |
Best beginner: |
2x2 |
Comments: |
Apart from my inabilities on the expert board I consider myself a pretty good player by now. I still haven't gotten a sub 20 on int. yet and I won't consider myself REALLY good until I do. Damien, Dan or whoever else has the Global mines 2.0 version. Could any of you guys email me that version because I think that would save me a lot of time because I wouldn't have to count the 3bv's of a board and also because it sounds like a really cool game and I think it would motivate me to keep playing like crazy! ![]() Congrats to all recordbreakers and good luck to everyone! ![]() ![]() Dennis. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 10:04:29 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
hey JC...if you press f2 you'll save a lot of smiley face time. a lot of beginner's fluke out and get a random 2-click game...the reason why most of the good players have it is because the are more likely to be able to take adantage of a really easy board, and they play more and so have a higher probability of acheiving it. i have five 1sec games...two were random 2-click boards, and the others required finding the remaining square or two. |
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 07:54:19 PM |
|
Name: |
JC |
Best beginner: |
5 seconds |
Comments: |
OK how do you get a beginner's score of 1? I guess if you just click a square once and click the happy face over and over again, you'll get a score of 1. But I notice that only the really good players get scores of 1. Is it just luck? |
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 07:38:15 PM |
|
Name: |
adele |
Best expert: |
114 |
Best intermediate: |
37 |
Best beginner: |
6 |
Comments: |
My sister and I have Minesweeper competitions, trying to beat each other's expert scores (right now my 114 is the best.) I find it fascinating that minesweeper is a worldwide phenomenon, and not just a family obsession... I'll have to keep working to beat that 43 now!!! |
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 06:45:57 PM |
|
Name: |
JC |
Best expert: |
163 |
Best intermediate: |
41 |
Best beginner: |
5 |
Comments: |
What is a good score if you have no brain power? I just flag and double click. Also, how do I increase my brain power? I consider myself average in math (C in pre-calculus.) How smart do you have to be to get a record? |
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 09:11:07 AM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
I haven't been sweeping much lately, but I've tried a couple of other games. Has anyone of you played "Lemmings 2" ? I have some trouble saving all 60 lemmings from the last Highland-level. Does anyone know if it is possible to complete without using an exploder? Anyway, I see that someone claims that Lemmings come from Norway. I don't know if that's scientificly "proved", though... |
![]() |
|
Jul 18th 2003 at 06:19:16 AM |
|
Name: |
Alex |
Comments: |
XF: Congratulations!! i know what you were going through. i had 5 23s before I got a 21. |
![]() |
Viewing Page 20 of 36 (Total Entries: 3560) |