The Authoritative Minesweeper Guestbook

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

  First Page
  Prev Page
  Post
  Home
Next Page  
Last Page  
Viewing Page 13 of 23 (Total Entries: 2239)

May 24th 2004 at 12:31:07 PM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

I'm strongly suggesting that the records will be hold within one list. If we start getting different list with different versions it will end in chaos and it will not do any good for anyone.
I would pretty much suggest the same as Lance. If it was possible for all to switch to the clone on int, then that would be the solution, but it isn't possbile for everyone and it wouldn't be fair for those who doesn't play anymore.
Keep the present records (and probably remove all sub10's and maybe some other "too good" scores made on easy boards - I don't know about Matt's 10, but it almost seems mandatory to keep it, doesn't it? ), and only accept e.g., as Lance suggests, sub15's made on the clone.

About the timer speed of the different versions: As far as I know there is a timer jump in the 98 version, which means that the minesweeper timer jumps to 2 seconds whenever the Windows clock switch to the next second. On the other hand the timer is slower on the 98 version (1 second is a little less than a real second), meaning it's easier to get lower times.

The best time on the clone is, as far as I know, a 11.97 sec made by Al (can't remember his last name) on a 25 3BV board.

PS. Nice AR profile, Damien. Some useful history facts about minesweeper

Email Email     Website Website    
May 24th 2004 at 11:07:03 AM
Name:  

Gergely

Comments:  

First, I don't see any difference in difficulty between the clone and the MS versions. I did my best on both exp and int on the clone. However, I like the 98 skin: my former record was made on win98 and the new one with this skin .
Second, for the dreamboard stuff: what's the point in playing/searching the DB? Consider that noone will be better with playing exclusively on it. OK, maybe he/she will be upper on the all-time list, but the others behind him/her can win in 1on1-competition. Does it worth playing this way? I vote for opening a new, clone-intermediate record list in the bestever. This separate list could be trusted - and the old records would not be lost. If one wants to play the dreamboard, should do that and that's comparable with the others as well.

What do You think?

   
May 24th 2004 at 10:29:27 AM
Name:  

-

Comments:  

oops... sorry for double post

   
May 24th 2004 at 10:28:52 AM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best beginner:  

2 seconds

Comments:  

To the anonymous person who got 3 seconds: well done! You're not the best in the world, I'm afraid, but that's still pretty good!

   
May 24th 2004 at 10:28:49 AM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best beginner:  

2 seconds

Comments:  

To the anonymous person who got 3 seconds: well done! You're not the best in the world, I'm afraid, but that's sitll pretty good!

   
May 24th 2004 at 09:31:42 AM
Name:  

Dan

Best expert:  

44

Best intermediate:  

11

Comments:  

I don't see any difference between any of the minesweeper versions including the clone. I recently switched exclusively to Rodrigo's clone.

Someone asked about the best clone int time so far... I was able to get a 12 a couple weeks ago, but I don't know if anyone has done better.

Email Email     Website Website    
May 24th 2004 at 08:04:20 AM
Name:  

Me

Best expert:  

haven't tried

Best intermediate:  

haven't tried

Best beginner:  

3 seconds

Comments:  

Hi! I just decided to come here, because I recently played a game of minesweeper and just clicked around for beginner, and by chance I won in 3 seconds! I was wondering if it qualified in any records?

   
May 24th 2004 at 07:15:10 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

I had to reply to this, because I am interested in people's response.
@Matti: My friend swears that win98 is faster than 2000 or xp. I think it's because he can't reach his old record. Either way, I play both 98 and 2000 and see no difference. My best time at expert is on 2000. My best non-DB int is a 25, and I have done it on both versions. I would like to hear some conclusive evidence that one version is/isn't faster, because I can't see it. Mybe if I was faster, but who knows?

   
May 24th 2004 at 07:09:43 AM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

Thank you Lance. I will admit that I was waiting for you to post again, because some of it did seem like a direct shot at me. I know that people cheat. If a guy sits there for hours passing up every board except the one or two that he memorizes, then of course that would be wrong. I also said before that any score I get on the dreamboard would not be submitted to the AR or as a true record, but I am going to stand on my 21. I don't expect the community to accept every outstanding score, but some of them are legit. I will drop it for now though. I tend to make wild statements and I don't want to get into that. I personally don't have a problem with your proposal either. Why should I though? I am not anywhere near sub-15. All it means to me is that I can still play the MS versions. What is the known intermediate record on the clone anyway? The fastest I have seen was Martin's 14. Well anyway, I only have a little while to play, so I am going to go, but thanks again.

   
May 24th 2004 at 07:08:08 AM
Name:  

Matti Halme

Best expert:  

71

Best intermediate:  

17

Comments:  

Just to be sure: Win 2000 has a timer different to earlier versions (slower) and thus the scores made with it aren´t compareable to those made with Win 98/3.1. Am I correct?

And personally I quite don´t like the idea of playing the clone; the 2nd Int time I got was 19 and the average of my scores is around 21 or 22 - that´s way too good. I don´t really think that I can cheat myself - if I truly want to see whether I have improved I play 98 or even 3.1.

   
May 24th 2004 at 03:20:15 AM
Name:  

Dave Morgan

Comments:  

(oops - I meant to say write (not right) as the start of my last post)

I for one wouldn't be in favour of stopping new int times from being submitted, and I don't think the other people who didn't want times from the MS version to stop counting would be in favour of that solution

Email Email    
May 24th 2004 at 02:25:04 AM
Name:  

Peter Davies

Best expert:  

200

Best intermediate:  

48

Best beginner:  

4

Comments:  

I completed minewsweeper in 4 seconds on beginner and I was wondering if I could be added to your list. I have the sreenshot saved, but when I e-mail thefinerminer, it doeesn't go through. Where should I e-mail the sreenshot?

Email Email    
May 23rd 2004 at 11:34:12 PM
Name:  

Lance

Comments:  

Michael Repton touched on an idea that I have proposed, at least privately to some people, that I now wish to address publically. Stephen emailed me and asked me what my proposed solution to the situation would be, and I wish to quote my reply now, slightly revised:

"I propose an amnesty program - all intermediate scores achieved on the minesweeper program prior to this date would be considered legit, with the exception of the 5, 7, 8, and 9 seconds achieved on the dreamboard or scores achieved with similar methods of intense preknowledge of the board, as I think the 7 might have been done on a board other than the dreamboard, and from now forward all intermediate times that are below 15 seconds (that is, 14.99 seconds or less) - or some such time - must be achieved on an accepted clone of the minesweeper program. Right now that means it must be Rodrigo's program, but it leaves room for the community to decide if Curtis' clone, or some other, should be accepted. I think the vast majority of people who visit the community have scores greater than 15 when they first arrive, giving them time to learn about and switch to a clone. If their scores are lower than 15 already, then it should not take much effort to use the clone to achieve another game that is low and considered legit. I think this is a pretty simple and fair idea. Yes, many people say that Rodrigo's clone is more difficult on intermediate than the original, but I think being easier is a flaw of the original game that Rodrigo has carefully weeded out, at the request of the community. You'll notice, too, that my proposal does not require everyone who has come and gone from the community to have their scores invalidated, and it allows for people to trust future low scores on intermediate, instead of question with intense suspicion."

What do you think?

Happy sweeping,

Lance

ps: @James - you are correct that I went a step too far accusing you of being a cheater. I appologize for that.

Email Email    
May 23rd 2004 at 03:59:11 PM
Name:  

Dave Morgan

Comments:  

I did right a long post about this, but then my browser crashed (I guess that's what I deserve for the large amount of beta stuff I use)

I understand what you're saying now Martin, and although the post I lost was concerned mainly with arguments and counter arguments about it, I do agree with you

And yes Dennis, I'm too selfish to want the only versions of minesweeper to be allowed the ones that I can't play

Email Email    
May 23rd 2004 at 12:23:19 PM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best intermediate:  

*wonders how he got into this debate*

Comments:  

As a lowly 23-int player it is probably not my place at all to say these things, but...

(1) "IF we agree that the MS version should be accepted, well then board cycling will have to be part of the game, because there is no way to ever know whether a given player had knowledge of a given board!"
In a way, true; but couldn't you just refuse those scores that you KNEW were made dishonestly, like the 5 someone mentioned? (Or maybe say that the MS version is ineligible below a certain cutoff point, for example 12?) After all, most people aren't cheaters.

(2) "Calling someone a cheater is pretty serious and you should look at the circumstances before you go jump to conclusions."
That is absolutely true and it needs to be said more often, which is why I'm quoting it.

   
May 23rd 2004 at 12:02:48 PM
Name:  

Daniele

Comments:  

I dont' think that refusing times obtained on DB is the right way...in this way, the actual records will be no more reachable!!!

    Website Website    
May 23rd 2004 at 11:35:03 AM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Best intermediate:  

25 x 3 ====> you guessed it!!! 25 x 4

Comments:  

ARGHHHH. Am I doomed to stay at 25 forever???

   
May 23rd 2004 at 09:35:26 AM
Name:  

Roli

Comments:  

Just wanted to say that I pretty much share James' attitude and he's not alone. I never lied to you though I could have: I never practiced any board including DB on another program and I did not use board cycling to get it. That was and is my opinion on fair play. Knowing that the game shows up wouldn't seem fair to me. I don't want to defend my score or what; just stating my opinion to the matter... I will post lateron to the clone issue again when I got more time. Regards, Roli.

   
May 23rd 2004 at 09:29:52 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Best expert:  

61

Best intermediate:  

11

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

I have been away, studiying for exams for a while and will be for quite a while yet but I took some time to read through all of these posts to check out what was going on in here... I feel it would be appropriate for me to state me opinions on this issue since Stephan Bechtel mentioned me and my 11 on a non-DB!

When I got my 11 I got it by playing a board I already knew. I had NO idea it was going to come up but I recognised it almost instantly. I somehow agree with both camps on this... IF we agree that the MS version should be accepted, well then board cycling will have to be part of the game, because there is no way to ever know whether a given player had knowledge of a given board! IF on the other hand we decide to ban the MS version (int) altogether then this would please me immensely! I've been wanting this for a VERY long time now and I've been fighting to get rid of the int times obtained on the MS version because a lot of those times were most certainly made by using board knowledge, whether conscious or unconscious!!! I did recognise the board on which I got my 11 on consciously but I'm sure I've gotten lots of nice times on the MS version where I didn't notice that I had had the board before. That doesn't mean, however, that I can't have made use of implicit memory (as psychologists seem to like to call it) so accepting clone scores for int only is the only fair solution to the game and everyone who plays it competitively. This would mean that my best int time would be listed as 14 but I don't really care! I'd be willing to make that sacrifise because it's in everyone's best interest. The real question is: are the rest of you top players out there really too selfish to be willing to make that sacrifise?

   
May 23rd 2004 at 09:08:16 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

@Malte: Go to the FAQ section of this site and it will explain 3BV. Go to topics/randomness and the first board example you see will be the dreamboard. It's very easy to recognize and play if you get it.

@Chris: Yes, we are talking about the original versions. I have seen examples of the dreamboard for every MS version, but I have only actually seen it myself on the win98 version. I currently play win98 and win2000 versions equally. I have only seen the dreamboard twice that I know of. Both were in win98 about 7 weeks apart. I don't know how the cycle works, but consider that I have been playing win2000 longer than 98, so it must be closer to random than people are implying. In my experience, what little it is, the clone is harder. I only have 23 sub 30s, but 20 of them were on MS versions. The best I have done on the clone was a 28.99.

Sorry you guys got lost in all this, so I thought I would answer your questions.

   
May 23rd 2004 at 08:47:55 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

I am going to address one of Martins comments. In case no one saw Martin replied to a post of mine in the past where I asked him a lot of questions and he was very thorough. I get the impression that he's a pretty smart guy. Here's the Deal: Let's say Martin sits at home one night and has nothing better to do than hit F2 over and over again. He get's lucky, finds the dreamboard and he posts an 8. That is going to affect the top 10 of the rankings. There would be no way to prove how he came to the time other than his word. People would claim that he cheated. BUT....who believes that Martin would do this? I don't believe that he would. If he found the dreamboard through the course of normal play, and recognized it from the first opening, then any time he posts would be fair. This whole thing started when Stephen Arnason posted on here that he got an 11 on the dreamboard. I don't know Stephen, and I haven't been involve with him on here, but I am inclined to believe that he didn't sit up late one night figuring ways to cheat.

We have to put some thought into these situatiions. Every Jackass that comes on here and posts times of 6-7-99, or 5-39-45 gets questioned and then they back down. I would say that those guys are outright lying or cheating. But that's not what's happing. You have a guy come on here who has been in the top 20 for the last few weeks and he says "hey guys, I got lucky, found the dreamboard, made an 11." Next thing you know, people want to ban all MS versions of the game, and anyone who ever heard of the dreamboard is a cheater and so is their mother. I got called a cheater myself and I have never posted such a score. Calling someone a cheater is pretty serious and you should look at the circumstances before you go jump to conclusions. There are people on this site that have ignored all that and then they take a flying leap, because jump is no longer an adequate word to describe it.

   
May 23rd 2004 at 07:40:01 AM
Name:  

Dan

Comments:  

Active Ranking has been updated.

Email Email    
May 23rd 2004 at 06:10:41 AM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

Maybe I didn't express it very well. What I ment was that you don't have anymore knowledge by pattern recognition than what anyone could deduce by looking at the numbers, in contradiction to board memorizing, where you know something you can't deduce, no matter how hard you try.
I hope you understand what I mean

Email Email     Website Website    
May 23rd 2004 at 05:46:52 AM
Name:  

Dave Morgan

Comments:  

You have a huge advantage over someone who doesn't know the patterns - it makes the game much easier to win, and means you can do it much faster

If you consider a board to be one big pattern, then yes, it is the same thing, and to be honest I don't have a problem with DB times (except ones like Elmar's). This is coming from someone who has only recognized an int board once (despite having spent a lot of the few years I've been playing playing more int than expert, and often spending 5+ hours a day just playing int), not including the one time I got the dreamboard and died pretty soon after

DB times can be accepted or not as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care, but the current best int time on the best ever list was done by someone who had memorized the board, and Matt's had memorized it when he got his 10, so to stop accepting the DB and letting those records stand seems odd to me

I'm still not convinced about the clones though - as far as I know no-one has tried to crack them/the video format yet for a start...

Email Email    
May 23rd 2004 at 03:22:04 AM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best intermediate:  

still 23, just so you know I don't cheat

Comments:  

I'd just like to reply to this:

"If you see 1-2-1 and your brain tells your hand to mark-open-mark and you do it all in less than 1 second including reaction time and then you do it again 4 more times on the same board it is not a deduction. It is pattern recognition. It may have started as a deduction, but it is such a common practice that it is no longer such."

That's not true; it is still a deduction. If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C. If one reasoner is able to deduce C from A directly without going via B, then all credit to him, he is likely to get there faster. This is completely different from knowing where the mines are before you click.

And James – aren't you being a little ingenuous when you say it's cheating if you know where the mines are before you click, but OK if you only know where they are after you click? Because to me, that's just knowing where they are before you click, but for part of the board, not all of it.

   
May 23rd 2004 at 03:13:01 AM
Name:  

Chris

Best expert:  

93

Best intermediate:  

29

Best beginner:  

3

Comments:  

I havn't been playing that long, hence i don't consider my times that brilliant yet. I have tried to download the clone in the past but it didn't seem to work so I have only ever used the original version that came with my computer. I have seen people say it was tainted and the scores on different versions cannot be compared. Is it the original thats easier than the clone and has this dreamboard thing on and the cycles you all speak about or the clone because i do not understand at all. Does all this mean i should try and get the clone again then?

   
May 23rd 2004 at 02:19:00 AM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

I neither think that learning patterns is the same thing as memorizing boards. If you learn patters, you really have no advantage over somebody who doesn't know the patterns and has to deduce where the mines are. You're probably faster at clearing the fields, but that's it. If you know the board, you know something that nobody is able to deduce. You could actually finish the board with your eyes closed.

I agree that shutting the MS version out isn't the solution, but if you see (I don't know if you have) some of the 8's or 9's made on the dreamboard, I think you will see the problem. There IS at least one who has been hitting F2 14.000 times or something like that, to get the dreamboard. Now, how would it be possible to see wether or not this has been done or the board just showed up by chance?

Email Email     Website Website    
May 22nd 2004 at 11:33:31 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

Okay, this is the last one for the night. I have thought about a lot of stuff, but I want to wait and see if there are any replies. I wouldn't really care if it stopped right here, but I bet it won't. I must say also that I have been in a lot of arguments in forums such as this. Big surprise, right? Anyway, this one is starting to rank up there on the all time list. Two funny things I thought about though while re-reading all of these. First off, I never said anything about practicing a specific board. Not this week anyway, and when I did before, it wasn't the basis of my argument. Did you read that before Daniel, or did you just jump to that conclusion by yourself? Second, the only thing I ever said about board cycles was "If one person is better at memorizing board cycles than another, that's life. " I never said anything specifically about it being fair to know the board BEFORE it happened. More Jumping, guys? The only reason I said those specific words was because I was responding to someone who used those words. My whole basis for the argument is being able to recognize a board AFTER the first click. I also feel that some people are remembering too much from the prior argument. That's all I am going to say for now. I am going to drink my rum now and I will not be checking here again for at least 8 hours. Good night.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 09:03:19 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

Fair sweeping to me means hitting the smily face with your mouse and then clicking anywhere on the board that you want to. You play any opening you get for as long as you deem necessary. If you don't want to play a particular board then don't, but you will probably waste more opportunities than you save. If you want to practice custom games with the reasoning that it will help you, then that is fair. I happen to have an edit board with concentric circles that I practice just to see how fast I can mark or open a long string of squares. As far as thrashing this out, then think about a few more things. Now let me first state that I am NOT pointing fingers or accusing any of the clone designers of any ill-doings. They are obviously better with programming and computers than I am, so props to them. BUT... How could I even practice any board without a clone? I could watch a video, I guess, but it's not the same thing. Also, since someone had to have access to original programming to make the clone, then that is admission that it can be hacked at least in some form or fasion. I have no doubt that the clone is more secure than the original, but it still can be done. Or, what if someone sells a hack to the clone. It could be someone who made it. You can buy Everquest weapons and Fake Money (for poker sites) on the internet. Why not [virtually] undetectable Minesweeper cheats? As for randomness, the clone isn't much better. I played it in cheat mode with restricted max 3bv and got the exact same board at least three times in one night. Not just one of them either, there were several repeats....in EXPERT no less!!! It is very very slim that someone would be able to take advantage of this, but it still could happen. So, I am going to stand on this statement. Banning all play on the original MS version is ridiculous. The clone isn't going to stop people from cheating. It's just going to open more what if situations.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 08:41:58 PM
Name:  

Daniel

Comments:  

Thanks for elucidating, James. It's now a lot clearer where we disagree. It seems that (as I said previously) it falls under the personal idea of what you deem as fair sweeping.

You think that learning a board on the chance that it will appear is fair, I don't. No big deal, I'm sure lots of people fall into both camps.

I still disagree with pattern recognition and board memorization but I think this comes from our above disagreement. I'd like to explain that more fully but at 0440, my mind isn't up to it!

Anyway, do keep posting, we need the issues thrashed out before any proper decisions can be made.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 08:32:03 PM
Name:  

Dave Matson (again)

Comments:  

@ James:

I don't think anyone wants you to leave the forum!!! These are the kinds of discussions that make life interesting!

   
May 22nd 2004 at 08:29:54 PM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Comments:  

@ James C:

Hey James, don't worry! We're still civil! Just stating my opinion, that's all. Sorry if I came off as rude!

   
May 22nd 2004 at 08:28:40 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

Ran out of room. As far as the race theory, then maybe that's why there is a timer. I think people would still play a game to see who could do the same thing faster and faster. Maybe they would call it a mile run or a relay race. Or maybe they would call it a word guess or something. You guys think of your own example of something very simple that people do against a clock. I bet you could find a whole herd of them. Instead of bashing me for the nit-pickety things I have said, then try to realize what I am trying to say. You see one guy post that he got an 11 on the dream board, then 20 people want to ban all play on the MS version. Yeah, you know what word I am thiking of now. Come on, let's get the truth out...who wants me to leave this forum? Any takers?

   
May 22nd 2004 at 08:22:44 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

I am almost sorry to see you involved in this Dave, because we have been civil in the past, so know that it is not just at you. Yes, it does seem that I am the only one, but that doesn't mean it's true. I will agree that if you know for a FACT what the next board is, and you have time to crack your knuckles before it happens, then it is cheating. Playing any board consecutively in cheat mode, even by repeating the last is cheating. Claiming such a time as legitimate is blatantly cheating and is pretty lame. If you (Lance) are referring to the guy last week that got the 'miracle 7' with an expert time of 99, then yes, he probably cheated as did the clown with all three times of O. But thanks for putting me in that class, really. So, if all this is cheating, then what isn't cheating? Getting the dreamboard at random during live play is not cheating just because it's familiar. It's part of the game. You guys are jumping to conclusions everytime you hear the term dreamboard without knowing all the facts. Calling someone a cheater is a pretty serious accusation. And for those of you who think my arguments lack structure, then maybe, just maybe it's because I am arguing with 5 guys at once. I say what I am thinking at the time. The argument about pre-knowledge of patterns is not completely untrue. It's not the same as knowing the whole board BEFORE the first click, but it is similar to knowing the whole board AFTER the first click. When you deduce something logically, you follow a train of thought. If this one was a mine, then that one could be also, but not this one. Get it? If you see 1-2-1 and your brain tells your hand to mark-open-mark and you do it all in less than 1 second including reaction time and then you do it again 4 more times on the same board it is not a deduction. It is pattern recognition. It may have started as a deduction, but it is such a common practice that it is no longer such. Think about it seriously this time.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 07:55:23 PM
Name:  

Daniel

Comments:  

"I exaggerate some of the things I say. The reason is to make you think!"

Stating something completely untrue (note: not equivalent to exaggeration) that learning board patterns is the same as learning a board does not make me think. Using appallingly illogical and unequivalent analogies about poker doesn't either.

Perhaps you could place some structure (logic is too big an ask) on your arguements. Like, whether you think that preknowledge of a board is a natural part of the minesweeper game, and working from there.

The number of places climbed due to board memorization is immaterial. The issue should be discussed on its merits.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 07:51:01 PM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Comments:  

@ James C:

James, it would seen that so far, you ARE the only person who feels this way. How could knowing the location of the mines BEFORE the game even begins NOT be cheating. Isn't the purpose this games to find the mines??? If you already know the location of the mines, it's not much of a game, is it?

   
May 22nd 2004 at 07:35:49 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

After all this and last time, too, can I seriously be the only one that feels this way?

   
May 22nd 2004 at 07:33:29 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

I will agree that hitting F2 14000 times or whatever it takes would be wrong. I have a hard time believing that anyone would do that anyway. I would consider that cheating, but it would be pretty easy to figure it out if anyone did that. Not to mention the fact that anyone who would do that boarders on lunacy and is probably not going to take the game serious anyway. You also have to look at some of the other things I have said. Getting a sub-10 second time by playing the board 6, 7, or 20 times in a row on the clone is not the same as getting the same time in live play. You have to figure fo reaction times and nerves. I bet "Elmar" or anyone else couldn't make a 5 on it if it popped up unexpectedly tomorrow after sitting down and playing for literally about 15 seconds. Also, anyone that is that fast is probably a fairly good player to begin with. You are only talking about a handful of players that would be genuinely affected by this concept. I could get Dreamboard every day for a week and I still wouldn't be able to come out in the rankings ahead of anyone who could get a sub-70 in expert. The expert time just weighs in as too heavy a factor for one intermediate time to change that much. Look at the guy who started this. His best times were 61 and 15. He dropped 4 seconds. How many people is he really going to pass in the rankings? Two, maybe three? For what, like two weeks? Okay, so I am too lazy to look it up, but you get what I mean. It's not like he is taking Lasse's spot. If he is really not as good as the people that he "cheated", it would show over time anyway. So like I said, a lot of people are crying over nothing. Banning all times from the original MS version because of one board is RIDICULOUS!

Oh yeah, and the pre-knowledge of patterns argument seems to have been taken too literally. I exaggerate some of the things I say. The reason is to make you think!!!!

   
May 22nd 2004 at 07:24:38 PM
Name:  

Lance

Comments:  

Round 2 -
When a poker player gets a royal flush, it's because he's played thousands and thousands of different hands of poker. Once it's dealt to him, he knows he has won the game. This is different than minesweeper, because the poker player did not know it was coming and it was completely random in the playing of the hand. He probably even made wagers without having all of the cards. Nobody would hesitate to call a poker player who gets a royal flush almost whenever they want/need it a cheater. On the same note, it takes very little skill to get a sub-12 on the dreamboard when you have practiced it many times, as several players have done (5,7,8,9,10,11 have all been claimed as dreamboard times - get real! If Elmar really did get the 5, I respect him for not claiming it as legit - that's exactly what I'm talking about )

Yes, it's true that there is no easy fix to this, but I think a little bit of common sense and respect for the game and this community would go a long way to solving this problem, not that I expect that the people who claim bull**** times will change based on our shot-to-hell honor code. Seriously - how hard is it to say that if you had any knowledge of where the mines were going to be at on a particular board before the numbers are revealed, that this is considered cheating?!?! Sheesh

Anyway, now that I've wasted my time arguing the obvious, maybe I'll go put the AR list together. I hope I have time tonight before I have to crash

Happy sweeping,

Lance

Email Email    
May 22nd 2004 at 07:07:07 PM
Name:  

Lance

Comments:  

Ok, I'm just wondering how anyone can see it as a huge leap that preknoweldge of a board is considered cheating? You don't even have to know that the board comes next, because cycling is really a minor problem (at least right now), but the side effect - repetitive playing of a single board, practicing the board until it's no longer a game but a race - is the part that really sucks. The argument was made last time that you might not care that none of us accepts the time because all you are going to do is brag about it to your offline friends who will be impressed. Well then, **** it! Just keep your cheating record to yourself and don't claim it as real, because you won't see it on the bestever lists here anyway. Or, even better, just use one of the many cheating programs and finish a game. Or, since we apparently don't see the lines between obvious cheating and reality, just use regedit and make up your own **** times and tell people they're real and you got them honestly. It's the same thing.

And as for the "argument" that memorizing patterns is the same thing as memorizing the board, just on small scale - wrong! I like the dart board example, being a dart player myself. But you can look at it this way - in a perfect world, a board is made up of random assortments of patterns, and so the experience of playing the game changes each time. Memorizing an entire board guarantees that the experience will be almost identical each time you see that board. If you lose, who cares? You'll play it again and probably do better next time. No fun in that. Your argument is basically the same as saying that a box of Legos must end up as the same exact castle every time you build with it. Why can't it be a dinosaur or a sailboat or an airplane or a sphinx or something else? Same idea with minesweeper - the experience is supposed to be different each time.

Email Email    
May 22nd 2004 at 06:46:01 PM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez (Detrusor)

Comments:  

"ElmaR", and not "elmat"

   
May 22nd 2004 at 06:45:01 PM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez (Detrusor)

Comments:  

??? Are you crazy, James ??

I'll answer in a short post : Elmat made a 5 sec on the dreamboard, with building it on the clone. Is it enough to prove you it's completely ridiculous to accept records made on the dreamboard ?
You said : "The idea of not allowing scores from the original Minesweeper is ridiculous. Getting lucky is part of the game, period. Everyone has the same chance to get the Dreamboard as anyone else." It is not true : if you know the cycle, and hit F2 14000 times to get the DB, you DON'T have the same chance than the guy who don't know the cycles stuff. Same thing for the other very-easy-already-known boards.

    Website Website    
May 22nd 2004 at 06:17:16 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

This is going pretty good. I expected to be flamed a little more for some of my comments. I would like to re-state something I said in a post on this topic a few weeks back. I think getting a good board is part of the game. I don't have any idea how often the DB comes up. Nor have I heard of anyone who does know. Even when it does show, you still have to have some skill to go sub-12, sub-11, or whatever. Maybe we should all just accept that as part of the game. It's like that with everything of this nature. The guy that holds the world record for solving Rubik's Cube didn't do it on the first try. It is a very complicated puzzle, and the guy that solved it first must have been some kind of mad genius. However, I know for a fact that there are combinations of moves that anyone can memorize. I can solve it myself in under a minute. Are people trying to improve on that? The idea of not allowing scores from the original Minesweeper is ridiculous. Getting lucky is part of the game, period. Everyone has the same chance to get the Dreamboard as anyone else. When the best poker player in the world gets a Royal Flush dealt pat, they don't make him give the money back. And yes, I think that memorizing patterns is the same as memorizing a whole board, it's just a much smaller scale. You still know where the mines are by the numbers, not by deduction. If one person is better at memorizing board cycles than another, that's life. Or can we just ban all the people that have better motor skills and hand/eye coordination? Oh, and while we are at it, let's find a way to re-invent post-it notes, because, let's face it...the **** things are just too easy.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 06:16:37 PM
Name:  

malte

Best beginner:  

3

Comments:  

Can someone explain what a DreamBoard is? And what does "149-3bv" mean? I am not very familiar with some of these terms...
Thanks!
malte

   
May 22nd 2004 at 05:24:30 PM
Name:  

Daniel Lynch

Comments:  

(2nd of 2 posts)

So presuming that you agree with my idea of fair sweeping (which obviously you don't have to), it seems that the DB issue is only the tip of a more substantial iceberg. Banning DB times does not stop people from learning off other great boards. It's from my previously stated position that I make the following judgements.

MS Minesweeper (for intermediate at least) is tainted. It always has been.

The only way to eradicate this tainting (at this very moment) is to use a clone. Now comes another issue. Since MS is tainted, how can we accept times on it? And if we start discounting MS times, then what about the history archive, where practically all times have been achieved with the MS version? Also, what about those who don’t have, or like, the clone?

Well, here I don’t have a solution. In fact, there is none- we can only attempt a compromise.

I only put forward my thoughts as an example; I don’t expect anyone to agree with them.

My system would be very simple- only accept times with the clone. There really is no getting around the problem of the best ever archive and those without access to the clone. The only thing I can come up with is a separate list of times achieved with the clone and times achieved with MS. However, two separate lists seem rather untidy.

However, if we do nothing, then the game will continue to be tainted and the problem will only get worse. I would ask that the community draw up a clear charter of what falls into “fair sweeping”. We’ll be able to work from there.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 05:22:43 PM
Name:  

Daniel Lynch

Comments:  

I don't think I've ever posted on a topic such as this, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cent.

Firstly I think that issues of MS vs Clone and the acceptance of DBs are personal matters. Specifically, I think different people have different ideas of what constitutes "fair sweeping". Some think that it's unfair to have knowledge of the next board. Others think that it's unfair to have knowledge of the possibility of the next board. Hence, some think it's unfair to know that the DB is the next board, and others think it's unfair to be prepared for the DB, even without knowledge of when it will come up.

For me, fair sweeping entails no knowledge of the next board and no knowledge of the possibility of the next board. Purely personal though these feelings are, I imagine this is what the game was originally intended to be like.

It seems clear that our problem with the cycles is not limited to just the DB. Players have knowledge of other boards, besides the DB, and can use their experience to lower their times, purely on the basis of having played a particular board previously. This, for me (though clearly not for others), is not what minesweeper is about.

This learning may even occur subconsciously and is the reason I now only play with Rodrigo's clone. I'd like to take this moment to disagree with an earlier comment- learning minesweeper patterns (eg 121) is completely different to learning minesweeper boards and their cycles. Patterns are an inherent part of the game minesweeper that arises naturally. Pre-learning the numbers required to check out on a dartboard from a certain number is not considered cheating. Standing a foot from the board, placing in the darts is.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 03:47:24 PM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best intermediate:  

23

Comments:  

I'd just like to point out that there are some sweepers out here who only have access to college computers and so CAN'T download the clone at all. Also, if it is decided not to allow scores from the original version for the best ever rankings, that is clearly unfair to those who are on the rankings already. As you can see from my score, I'm not going to be sub-15ing any time soon, but on the other hand I do have a chance of making a sub-100 total, and I'm not happy that it's being suggested that I would be unable to qualify for the best ever rankings for reasons that are nothing to do with me or my times.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 02:45:02 PM
Name:  

Jon S

Comments:  

I just wanted to tell you all that I have put up a section containing different minesweeper patterns on my home site. It contains those good, old 1-2-1 and 1-2-2-1 patterns, but you might find something you haven't seen before there, too. I decided to illustrate the patterns by showing a Camtasia video of how it can be solved. Please check it out and tell what you think. If you have suggestions about improvements or comments, feel free to give me feedback. I know that it can be hard enough to explain Minesweeper patterns to another Norwegian, so there might be big room for improvement.

As for the discussion about the Dreamboard and different versions of Minesweeper, I've been thinking about that issue before. It's a fact that scores on the clone can not be compared (fairly) with scores from the original. I would consider to propose that the 2005 active ranking should not allow scores from the original MS Minesweeper, only from the clone(s). I imagine that someone makes a site where people can send in videos from the clone, so that everybody can watch them. Based on the videos, people could make lists of world records, national records, make weekly or monthly rankings and such things. That would surely be amazing. If anyone wants to do such a job is more doubtfully.

BTW: I think I'm going to take a course in programming next semester. I'm going to learn some C. I have programmed a little in Java before. I hope I can make some fancy Minesweeper applications soon

    Website Website    
May 22nd 2004 at 02:39:35 PM
Name:  

Stephan Bechtel

Comments:  

Deleting all MS version int records is bull****. I have three 12s none of which was on a board I've seen before. Why shouldn't these count? This argument should be valid for every fast time of Dan, for example, I guess.
I'm the first one to accept that my 11 (on DB) is deleted from best ever list if the same is done for other DB records (9s etc...). You can't solve the discussion of this topic finally. If we agree with dropping DB scores, what about those DB records that were done long before the cycle phenomenon was widely known (such as Gernot's 12, I think)? And what about Dennis' 11, which wasn't done on the DB, but by using prior knowledge? It's an endless discussion. The int record list is polluted since some guys stepped away of the honourable path of playing boards at random by taking advantage of the cycle problem.

Stephen, nonetheless I'd like to see your 11 video.

Email Email    
May 22nd 2004 at 01:31:17 PM
Name:  

Stephen

Comments:  

I can definitely see the logic behind not accepting it, but if it is that way then MS version should not be accepted period, as many of the record boards, if not DB, are are at least recognized boards. If i beat a board and get less than 18 seconds on it, I will remember that board, and most likely I will be able to get less the next time. I have gotten 17 on the DB before, and i have missed 14's 13's and 12's on it, but now i have the 11, and this is no different than players like Matt McGinley who said he watched videos of his dreamboard records. It just doesn't make sense to accept those scores at all if they can be boards that are recognized. it seems to me that the only way to make it fair, is to toss all MS version records, and start over with clone records. otherwise the advantage, 'spoiling' (which, by the way is obviously already in bestever) of the records is for those players who achieved decent scores before May of 2004. This seems ludicrous.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 12:51:02 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Just how often does this discussion come up? I was already involved in one DB discussion, and I had decided not to get involved in the last two, but here it goes again. I don't see what the big deal is. He got lucky [by getting the dreamboard] so what? It's not really much different than making 6 or 7 50/50 guesses in a row to get your best time on an expert game. I once read a guy's profile where he claimed to be able to recognize every 20th board or so. Now, maybe he is exaggerating, but we all know that there are people out there like that. Should they not be allowed to post at all? For that matter, any pattern that you recognize is pre-knowledge on some scale. If you are good enough to recognize a board and play it properly, then I don't think anyone should have the right to cry about it. Heck, I read some archived posts from a few years back where some of the top guys were looking for the board to get a good week in the AR, so what gives now? It still takes some skill to do it. I got the dreamboard for the first time and set my best score (21) on it. I had no knowledge of it beforehand. All I knew was that when I finished it was the same board that Matt had set the world record on. I finally got the board again three nights ago.... Guess what? I messed up and hit a mine!!! It's not like the dreamboard is an automatic score...you still have to be able to play. If you don't like it, then play the MS version yourself, or don't cry about it. Even if these guys get it and drop 3 or 4 seconds for the week, who cares? The guys with the best expert scores over time have the best rankings anyway. Think about every time you ever missed a record on the last square of an easy board and wished that you had one more chance. I bet nearly everyone has wished that at least once. So don't be a big baby about it when someone gets that chance, just because it isn't you.

   
May 22nd 2004 at 11:26:39 AM
Name:  

Jess

Comments:  


Email Email    
May 22nd 2004 at 11:24:22 AM
Name:  

Stephen

Comments:  

does that mean you're also not accepting dreamboards from other people as well? (ie people who have achieved records on the dreamboard in the past) how many people have their record times on the dreamboard? are you going to change their intermediate records to whatever it was before they got a record on a recognized board? it doesn't seem to make much sense, nor be fair. Will it at least be accepted for AR?

   
May 22nd 2004 at 10:46:36 AM
Name:  

Georgi

Comments:  

Stephen,
Nice score!
I'm sorry to say that, but I won't accept it for the bestever - No more D-boards - that just polutes the ranking. I thought we all agreed to play Intermediate on Rodrigo clone. I personally play intermediate exclusively (for the AR result only, not chasing new record) with the clone.
Cycle advantage leads to board pre-knowledge and that spoils the ranking. Dennis'11 was the last one to compromise.
We may continue to accept Intermediate scores on MS version, unless they are sub-15sec
Other opinions ?

Email Email     Website Website    
May 22nd 2004 at 06:57:00 AM
Name:  

Marko

Comments:  

I thought it was ok for active ranking but not accepted for the best ever list. Anyways, congrats!

Email Email    
May 22nd 2004 at 03:16:39 AM
Name:  

Dion

Comments:  

Woah, congratulations Stephen! I'm just curious, is the dreamboard still considered to be acceptable for the best ever list?

   
May 21st 2004 at 07:24:04 PM
Name:  

Stephen Arnason

Best expert:  

61

Best intermediate:  

15--11!!

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

WEll now i just got 11 seconds on intermediate, on the dreamboarD!! the recorder screwed up but lucklily i was using camtasia (it said the 3bv was 13 - and also it didn't record the actual game properly when i played it back using Sorin's player) but I have the camtasia video of 11.53 seconds!!! 1, 11, 61 are my records now. All I have to do is to get a good expert record for the next AR Period. Oh my freaking word!

   
May 21st 2004 at 11:31:01 AM
Name:  

lukasz malinowski

Comments:  

congrats to gergely, rodrigo, gregoire, hopsing and stephen . btw, my times for this period are 16 and 46.
@malte:yes, it is. i have second time in the world, but my nf record is 75. so it's better keep playing both styles and working on efficiency.
@rodrigo: have you thought about adding some mouse statistic to clone? it would be nice, for example, to know how many mouse clicks are made per month .

Email Email    
May 21st 2004 at 10:55:46 AM
Name:  

Gergely

Best expert:  

64 -> 61

Best intermediate:  

21 -> 18

Comments:  

Whoa! What a day it's been today! Just 40 minutes to the deadline and I broke my expert record by three seconds. But before it, I broke the intermediate with also 3 seconds! My first sub-20! Finally! A nice 43-3bv-board. And the expert one was 149-3bv wtih no guesses. I had the clone videos - of course - in case anyone is interested. Seriously Happy I am with jumping in the first 100 on the best ever list
Keep on spinning!

Email Email    
May 21st 2004 at 01:57:13 AM
Name:  

Trent Davis

Best expert:  

97

Best intermediate:  

29

Best beginner:  

4

Comments:  

Minesweeper is so addictive!

Email Email    
May 20th 2004 at 11:03:50 PM
Name:  

Daniele

Best expert:  

65

Best intermediate:  

16

Best beginner:  

2

Comments:  

I made a nice 67 for this AR period...

    Website Website    
May 20th 2004 at 10:31:02 PM
Name:  

malte kuhlmann

Best expert:  

96

Best intermediate:  

25

Best beginner:  

3

Comments:  

Is it always so difficult to switch from flagging to nonflagging? I want to improve my expert time. I just keep the mines in my head...
I will get to 2, 15, 60! I promise!
malte

Email Email    
May 20th 2004 at 10:05:55 PM
Name:  

James C.

Comments:  

Uh...that's quite an accomplishment?

   
May 20th 2004 at 03:16:41 AM
Name:  

Minesweeper

Best expert:  

O

Best intermediate:  

O

Best beginner:  

O

Comments:  

i got for all difficulties ==> " 0 seconds " using regedit.exe

    Website Website    
May 20th 2004 at 01:57:48 AM
Name:  

Elmar

Comments:  

Me too, but it was more like 21 on expert.

   
May 19th 2004 at 06:06:06 PM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Comments:  

@ Michael:

I've seriously had dreams about Minesweeper too! I once dreamed that I got a 19.36. I don't know why I had such an exact dream, but whatever!

   
May 19th 2004 at 03:45:32 PM
Name:  

Michael S. Repton

Best intermediate:  

23

Comments:  

I got TWELVE seconds on Intermediate last night... I was so excited...

...and then I woke up.

   
May 19th 2004 at 08:20:16 AM
Name:  

Active Ranking

Comments:  

**** Deadline Friday @ 20:00 GMT/ 4pm EDT ****

Email Email     Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 10:10:18 PM
Name:  

Lance

Comments:  

congrats to all recent record breakers!! Happy sweeping!!

Lance

Email Email    
May 18th 2004 at 05:29:45 PM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Best intermediate:  

21.93 ===> 21.75

Comments:  

Yay!!! just 0.18 second faster, but also very nice!!! I remember to be struggling to get a sub-30 some months ago, and recently I got my 100th!! I always remember the three advices that Dan gave me one day: 1- keep playing, 2- keep playing, 3- keep playing. It really works!!!

My sub-30s are:
2 * 21
1 * 22
4 * 23
4 * 24
15 * 25
17 * 26
17 * 27
24 * 28
29 * 29

11 sub-25s, 113 sub-30s!! Nice!

   
May 18th 2004 at 04:32:21 PM
Name:  

Roli

Comments:  

New 3BV/s record: 3.21 with 73 secs on a 234 3BV board!

   
May 18th 2004 at 03:53:02 PM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez (Detrusor)

Best intermediate:  

18.68 > 17.56 !

Comments:  

hehe, on a nice 49 3BV board, i made this nice NF 17.56 sec... i'm celebrating too this record ! i think this will prevent me from jumping after #100 in the bestever ranking , for the next period... You can see the vid on this page : http://www.planete-demineur.com/french/sweepers.php?mode=viewprofile&id=1

    Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 03:52:28 PM
Name:  

Grégoire Duffez (Detrusor)

Best intermediate:  

18.68 > 17.56 !

Comments:  

hehe, on a nice 49 3BV board, i made this nice 17.56 sec... i'm celebrating too this record ! i think this will prevent me from jumping after #100 in the bestever ranking , for the next period...

    Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 02:59:20 PM
Name:  

Robert Benditz aka Hopsing

Best expert:  

93 ===>>> 83

Best intermediate:  

26

Best beginner:  

3sec x 5

Comments:  

I can't believe it, what a jump, and what a tremendous board!! I was as slow as always but nevertheless broke my record by 10 sec.
Huhuhuuuu, I am celebrating right now ...
Sub100 I am coming, check my page to watch the vid
Happy sweeping all

Email Email     Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 01:18:43 PM
Name:  

Daniele

Best expert:  

65

Best intermediate:  

16

Best beginner:  

2

Comments:  

I'm using Rodrigo's clone at the moment....Because i have some problems in recording videos with the original version

    Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 11:38:30 AM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Best expert:  

51

Best intermediate:  

13

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

@James C: That's a lot of questions. I hardly ever play with flags, but when I do I think my times are about 90-95 sec. When I started playing I didn't know about the double-clicking technique, but I did actually flag to keep track of the mines. One of my friend says that if I were really hardcore I would just keep track of the mines in my head. I rejected his idea and said that it would be too difficult to handle. Then I discovered this page and saw the two techniques: flagging with double-clicking and nonflagging. I saw Stephan Bechtel's 66 and saw that it actually WAS possible to play wihtout marking any mines. I tried both and decided to go with NF, since I couldn't really get used to double-click, and I was sure that I could beat Stephan's 66, since I didn't think it looked too fast (I was at 81 at that time (with flags but without double-clicking)). A little later I discovered that Stephan's record was not 66 but 55, but I thought that at some point he had made that 66 as his record, so if I could beat that, I could also beat 55. A little later I discovered that the NF world record was 50, and that's pretty much what I'm aiming to beat at the moment

About my technique: I'm not sure, but I think I find the mines first and then I find out where the open spaces are...

PS. If I ever have to do an AR profile, I think pretty much of this is going to be in it

Email Email     Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 08:14:19 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

@Martin: Unbelievable. Wow. That make three videos of yours I have seen...51, 55, and now this one. Still amazing even at 15 seconds slower than the first I saw. Do you ever flag? If so, what are the scores like? If not, why not? Did you just learn to play NF and never bothered to change? Also, I was wondering about your technique a bit. Some of it is obvious, but some is not. Do you "see" the mines or the spaces when you play?

   
May 18th 2004 at 06:32:20 AM
Name:  

Stephen Arnasn

Best expert:  

61

Best intermediate:  

15

Best beginner:  

2--1!!

Comments:  

Well finallly got that elusive one second, on a 3 3bv board, 1.93, 3.20 3bv/s (almost a 2 but i got it)... the stupid thing was that I hardly ever record beginner and I was using counter only, so I don't have a video. I have a screenshot with the counter in it... grr from now on I am recording beginner, I want a video of a 1 second game.

   
May 18th 2004 at 05:12:51 AM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Best intermediate:  

2.59 3BV/s ==> 2.62 3BV/s

Comments:  

Yay!! Nice one! 101 3BV on 39.50 seconds!!

   
May 18th 2004 at 04:42:56 AM
Name:  

Abkar Kalantarians

Best expert:  

73

Comments:  

My best expert time is 73(Currently on my PC's minesweeper 'best times' display). How can I get listed for the world records?

Email Email    
May 18th 2004 at 03:29:47 AM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Comments:  

@jung won Park:

Hum... As your best expert is 99, I suppose that your skills are similar to mine, because my best expert is 96. Well, I should say that all my efforts could lead me to getting only a 21 on intermediate. But a 7??? I played the dreamboard several times and the best I could achieve was an 8. If you got a 7 without any board or cycling knowledge, it should have been an ULTRA-easy board! Please, e-mail me a screenshot of your game or the video, if you got it. I would like to check it out.

Email Email    
May 18th 2004 at 01:59:10 AM
Name:  

Claire S.

Comments:  

I got the results by editing -> using regedit.exe

    Website Website    
May 18th 2004 at 01:20:35 AM
Name:  

jung won Park

Best expert:  

99

Best intermediate:  

7

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

I got 7for intermediate.. it's a miracle.. how could upload in here? Today is mybestday in ever ... xp version..
I really want prove it .. got for 7sec..

Email Email    
May 17th 2004 at 07:13:03 PM
Name:  

Marko

Best expert:  

94

Best intermediate:  

24 --> 22

Best beginner:  

3

Comments:  

Here's the story: I haven't played for 6 weeks, then I started again yesterday. Took me a while to go sub-30 again, I finished the day with a 26, and today I got a 22,22 on a 34 3BV board. It's my 75th sub-30, but only my 2nd sub-25. I expect to be stuck on this for quite a while now. It was with Rodrigo's clone btw.
Congrats to all record breakers!

Email Email    
May 17th 2004 at 12:59:29 PM
Name:  

Martin Toft Madsen

Comments:  

New best 3BV/sec ratio: 66,30 sec - 202 3BV - 3.09 3BV/sec

www.gymks.dk/lort/MTM-Exp-66,30-3BV202-2004may17-21.33.mvf

First finished game for about a week, because I'm also taking exams atm

Email Email     Website Website    
May 17th 2004 at 12:28:53 PM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Comments:  

@ James C.

No offense taken. I'll enjoy more people in the AR that are in my ball-park. I like the friendly competition. By the way, it sounds like Hopsing will be good competition too!

Good luck!

   
May 17th 2004 at 11:17:26 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Cool, I am getting some good responses. The thing about the 7, even though it's true what I said, is more for humor. Ironically I finish almost every Intermediate game with a 7. The reality is that I don't finish a lot of expert games whether there is a 7 on the board or not, but I think Dennis knows what I am getting at. I panic when I see it, but I know there is no real reason for it.

@Steven (and Dennis) Good point about mouse path. What about an expert sized custom game with 80 mines and a 3bv of 100? Also, I see what Dennis means about them being better than him, if he is basing it on the circumstances of his 61 and their multiple games at 61 or better, however, I don't know all the facts. His 11 is no joke though, so maybe he's being hard on himself. I am in a similar situation. I took some advice from Dennis (I am almost positive it was him) and I submitted some times to the AR. It is motivating me a lot. As luck would have it, I shattered my expert time the very next day, so I am making a big time jump next week. All in all, I still don't think I am better than, say, Dave Matson. My best times are better, but I bet he beats me in the AR for the rest of the year. I am going to struggle to keep up even after I pass some people this period.

Seriously, I need to figure out how to beat the expert game.

@Dave: Sorry to drop your name there, guy. I saw a post of Rodrigo's about you and him competing in the AR and it is going to be you two that I am trying to beat. Nothing personal.

   
May 17th 2004 at 10:20:30 AM
Name:  

Stevan

Comments:  

How you can tell they are much better when they are just second or two faster?!? Thats nothing.

About 3bv on int and exp : 3bv as 3bv isnt the best for measuring easy or hard boards, "shortest mouse path" is though. And shortest mouse path is much shorter on int 100 3bv than exp 100 3bv. All in all I think 3bv is solid as shortest mouse path is hard for the best programmers to implement in counting, but maybe not for Rodrigo he is better than the best

Email Email    
May 17th 2004 at 10:02:24 AM
Name:  

Dennis L

Best expert:  

61

Best intermediate:  

11

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

James C: about the 7-problem! I've finished several games with a 7 and that doesn't really bother me as much as getting an 8. I remember a game where I just happened to click a 7 as the last square... if you're lucky that'll happen to you too!

I've finished two games with an 8 in them and one of them was a 75 or something so that's quite nice. Actually, I think that one is on Rodrigo's site if you want to have a look at it! There's also a funny 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 sequence... although I didn't finish that game!

Katy: Your scores at the moment are very intimidating!!! First you get 61, then 59, then 60, then another 59! As I said, you are just WAY better than me! I would love to see that second 59 of yours! I hope I'll be able to get one like that too someday but I'm not playing at the moment because of exams!

Stephen: You're also much better than me it seems! Congrats! I'd also like to see your 61, please! Good luck going sub-60. It's great to have you back!

Happy sweeping everyone!

Email Email    
May 17th 2004 at 12:00:35 AM
Name:  

Dave Morgan

Comments:  

James - from the point of view of the rules, you aren't finding mines, the fact that you don't have to flag them means that in theory you don't need to know where the mines are, just where they aren't (though in practise if you know where there are no mines you start knowing where they are)

If you are playing using flags then finding where the mines are is part of your thinking, but also there are some situations where you don't know exactly where the mines are, but clicking where you know there aren't mines helps

People generally play slower (in terms of both 3bv/s and clicks/s) on low 3bv boards, that's just the way it is (probably because there are lots of low numbers, and because you can clear a lot of 3bv without moving your mouse very far)

As for winning games - well for me it depends, I can play expert for an hour without winning, and then win 3 out of 4 games. It seems from what people have said here that no-one wins that often on expert (especially NFers)

Can't say I've noticed not being able to win on boards with a 7, it's really not that important (took me a few goes to win on a board with an 8, but the times on the 3 or 4 of those that I've finished were crap anyway)

Email Email    
May 16th 2004 at 08:05:08 PM
Name:  

Stephen

Comments:  

@Roli: What are your other intermediate records? What I mean is what is your record for non-dreamboard, or boards that you have never seen before? Just curious, as 9 is an unbelievably incredible time.

Email Email    
May 16th 2004 at 06:57:13 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Okay, here's #3, and if the other two didn't frustrate you, this one might. It's pretty silly, but it's been on my mind for a while. Why can't I finish a game with a ****ed 7 in it? Is it just me, or does the sight of that black 7 popping out just bother the heck out of everyone? I swear it's cursed. In my memory I have never finished any expert game with a 7 on the board. (To tell the truth, I haven't finished one with an 8 either, but I have only seen one.) Either way I just know I am doomed to failure the moment I see it. I still try, but to no avail. I always end up seeing it taunt me out of the corner of my eye, and then I make the inevitable mistake. And let's not even talk about the few times that I have caught a 7 before an opening. Sheeesh. Lucky 7...my aunt fanny!!!!

   
May 16th 2004 at 06:49:43 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Okay, here goes post #2. I could be seeking advice on this one, so if I didn't already bore you with the first post, feel free to give it. It occured to me recently that I play slow because I have I stop to think and waste a lot of time. The best boards for me are the ones that flow really well, but not necessarily the easiest boards in terms of 3bv. My 78 occurred on such a board. I never had to pause for anything. So, lately I have been trying to play faster and when I get stuck I just go to another section for a bit. Makes sense to me, and I have seen videos where others do the same. I have busted out on some really fast paced games too. Here's the problem; I am still not finishing many games. I zip back and forth so much that I miss something, or else I get stuck down to the best probable guess. My two solutions to this so far have been to look around and waste time, or to guess really fast, even if it's not a high percentage play. I don't think either of these are helping my times, by the way. So what do I do? Accept it and only finish one really good game every other month, or do I slow down and accept more average games?

   
May 16th 2004 at 06:38:54 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Okay, I am in the mood to make a couple of posts. This is the first of three, and it is something I think about while I play a multitude of different combinations of custom games in a desperate attempt to improve my expert game. My best two expert games are 92 and 78. I think both of them represent my potential best at the time and they both came in the midst of a long session after a week without serious play. Everything just flowed together...well, you all know how it goes. Now remember, I haven't been here too long, and I am too lazy to read the years of posts before I started, but here goes... am I trying to find mines or spaces? I have always believed and played with the presumption that the object is to find the mines, but does that mean I am right? After all, I can't even consistently break 100, so what do I know? If I am supposed to find the mines, then why can't I find them faster on a low 3bv board when they are easier to find. I think this is the biggest problem I have in expert. The low value boards just don't come that often, and I am not good enough at them to take advantage when I do get one. The fact that a lot of people [seem to] set records on low value boards must indicate that the object is to find the mines. But... what if it's the other way around? Is it because the spaces are easier to find on a low value board? One site I read claims that the object is actually to find the spaces. This makes sense, and the good videos I have seen seem to indicate as much. Then, why aren't the records set on high value boards where the spaces are easier to find? So, do I have this all backwards, or what? The fact of the matter is I can play a 100 3bv intermediate game much faster that a 100 3bv expert game, so it must be the mines right? Or is it because there are still less spaces to find on the intermediate board? Arrrghhh. I just want to clear the boards faster!!!

   
May 16th 2004 at 04:17:46 PM
Name:  

Roli

Comments:  

Two more 59's and two 58's (one of them 57.06) since yesterday. Never stop playing after you got a record, it really pushes your speed up!

   
May 16th 2004 at 01:17:36 PM
Name:  

James C

Best expert:  

78

Best intermediate:  

21

Comments:  

I know I have mentioned that I don't like the clone before, but since it came up, I will elaborate. I love the stats and the easy video option. I play a lot of custom games too, so the counter is a very good feature for that, but...
I still play more than 50% on regular Minsweeper. I usually play both at the same time with a ratio of 3 to 2. Maybe some might think it's the wrong reason, but I just can't put up as good a times on the clone. The average times between the two are close, but the fast times are heavily in favor of the standard version.

BTW, I will now be known as James C. I think there have been 3 different Jameses (?) post this week on this page alone.

   
May 16th 2004 at 10:55:37 AM
Name:  

Katy LaVallee

Best expert:  

59x2

Best intermediate:  

14

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

i got another 59 last night... NF, too. but the 3bv was only 134, so it's not as special as my first 59.

Email Email    
May 16th 2004 at 10:30:44 AM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Best expert:  

83 x 2

Best intermediate:  

25 x 2 --> 25 x 3

Best beginner:  

3

Comments:  

Yaaaaay......but arghhhh.

Email Email    
May 16th 2004 at 10:04:40 AM
Name:  

Dave Matson

Comments:  

@ everyone:

Well, the J.K. Rowling fan's story checks out. Apparently she enjoys playing minesweeper, and her best expert is down to 101. Most of us can say that we're better sweepers than her, but she can say she is a much better writer than any of us! Looks like she chose the correct path, there's no money in sweeping!

   
May 16th 2004 at 09:23:25 AM
Name:  

A J.K.Rowling fan

Comments:  

On J.K.Rowling's new site www.jkrowling.com she mentions that she loves Minesweeper; I just thought you'd all like to know that.

   


  First Page
  Prev Page
  Post
  Home
Next Page  
Last Page  
Viewing Page 13 of 23 (Total Entries: 2239)


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com