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 19 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262)
Jun 13th 2006 at 11:36:38 AM
Name:  

Christoph

Best expert:  

249

Best intermediate:  

72

Best beginner:  

8

Comments:  

Well, my first lefthanded scores.
My right hand is injured and it might take quite a while till I'll be able to sweep righthanded again. Fortuneately I ready have good scores for AR but, I'm afraid I'll drop down to last place next period

   
Jun 13th 2006 at 06:22:30 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

@Levente: As far as I know, only Dan and Roman have broken into the 40s NF. Elmar did so with his Elmar 'trick' but that doesn't really count so I think his best is 50 NF, unless of course he's improved that recently.

Verification code: NNFX... Talking about NF... So many people are racing right past me time wise but I'm still #1 when it comes to NF 3bv/s total. ...Better enjoy it while it lasts. ;o)

   
Jun 13th 2006 at 03:01:31 AM
Name:  

Nikolaj

Best intermediate:  

3.30=>3.39=>3.65

Comments:  

Sorry for spamming, but I have to say I´m going to stop sweeping today Today I began with 3.30 3BV/s on int, now I have 3.65

Email Email    
Jun 13th 2006 at 02:37:30 AM
Name:  

Nikolaj

Best intermediate:  

19x4=>19x5=>18

Comments:  

Hehe I told you my hangover sweeping is recordbreaking . I improved 19.68@36 flagging to 19.40@47 NF (NF 21=>19)and few games after this 18.96@34 happened

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 13th 2006 at 01:25:20 AM
Name:  

Levente

Best expert:  

46.49 :P

Best intermediate:  

11.43 :P

Best beginner:  

0.59 :P

Comments:  

LCed a 49.98 NF today. :-/ (3bv=141, obv=153) Would've been nice to be the 4th ever (Rogen, Dan, Elmar? correct me if I'm wrong!) to sub50 NF. Best NF result today was 59.06; but I also broke my 3bv/s record handily with a 2.71.

regarding the "1 vs 0" debate... what is a counterexample to the idea that subtracting 1 from all extant records is valid? I would be happy with the world records being 9/37... as for beginner times of "0.00" - seems to me like an accurate descriptor of what happens in one of those 3bv=1 games - time between first click and last is precisely 0.00. It's sort of an academic issue in any case: 3bv=1 boards are not accepted for anything but the novelty value!

Damien has already figured out a lot of the intricacies of penalties on winmine times for various versions (.50 and .99 and whatnot); I say we go with those, subtract 1 second across the board, and be done with it. We'd all adjust in about one week at most, and a clone06v3 and arbiter046 would be quite quick to follow, I'm sure.

   
Jun 12th 2006 at 11:09:19 PM
Name:  

Nikolaj

Comments:  

Yahoo CZE:USA 3:0, terrible hangover is the only logical result of the great night . Hangover=my recordbreaking shape

   
Jun 12th 2006 at 01:14:02 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Best expert:  

NF 76

Comments:  

Missed an est73 140/146 NF last night...
still not anywhere near Badgers and DB
@Badgers, DB, Niko, Rilian, Manu, etc,

   
Jun 12th 2006 at 08:44:09 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

Follow the website link for the page for BAT and OBV/s records. I just beat my intermediate one, and consequently, AR: 59-16.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 12th 2006 at 08:22:12 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

Whooo, 3:1 Australia vs Japan! First game we've ever won in the world cup! Cahill is a god!

on another note, I got my second sub-60 today, but at under 3 clicks per second. Weird.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 12th 2006 at 05:47:42 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

Holy cow, Niko, i was so happy i tied your 1-19-73... grr!

zomfg, verification code is JEW... erm, it is JEVV but anyway.. LMAO

    Website Website    
Jun 12th 2006 at 02:14:59 AM
Name:  

Nikolaj

Best expert:  

73=>73x2=>72

Best intermediate:  

19x4 (27.3.2006)

Comments:  

After I improved my 73,56 to 73,39 (on 174 - my RQP record ), it was obvious I´m going to break my time record. The next game was 72,97 on 135 . Hopefully it will be great day even after CZE-USA match

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 10:14:18 PM
Name:  

Levente

Best expert:  

NF 56

Best intermediate:  

NF 15

Best beginner:  

NF 1

Comments:  

video for my 56 attached. Only I, the Badgers to end all Badgers, could make NF look as impossibly frantic.

Also, a beginner hyperblast from earlier today: 3/4, clock on 1.36 when I misclicked a few pixels away from the last bv. Would've been sup10 3bv/s (and ignited a nice debate over what the minimum 3bv should be!)

    Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 08:49:33 PM
Name:  

Levente

Best expert:  

NF: 72 -> 56.36

Comments:  

I made at least 3 unforced guesses in the game; that strategy explains why it took me 45 minutes to win one. Note the terrible Badger-esque IOE

* Badgers last exp game --> Est Time=56,36 3BV=132 / 132 @ 2,38 RQP=23,64 c/s=3,86 IOE=0,61

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 07:51:41 PM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Best expert:  

75NF --> 60NF

Comments:  

On a 135! That came from nowhere. Also my second best time.

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 05:10:35 PM
Name:  

Levente

Best expert:  

3bv/s: 3.59

Best intermediate:  

3bv/s: 4.58

Best beginner:  

3bv/s: 6.19->6.61!!!

Comments:  

**** it, Manu, way to break Damien's record about an hour before I tie it. 3bv=8 (!) board. sup9 c/s, heh.

the link is to the planet-minesweeper forum that has both my int and beg 3bv/s record vids from today.

    Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 04:39:00 PM
Name:  

damamamamamain moooooooore

Best expert:  

wee

Best intermediate:  

wee

Best beginner:  

wee

Comments:  

yo yo yo whts up i is damamamamaian moore.

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 03:53:40 PM
Name:  

manuel heider

Comments:  

vid below...
mfg

    Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 03:29:44 PM
Name:  

mauel heider

Best beginner:  

3bv/s : 6,54 -> 6.806

Comments:  

i got a new world record ;-)
yeeeeehaaaaa
mfg

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 01:01:46 PM
Name:  

Levente

Best intermediate:  

3bv/s: 4.31->4.58

Comments:  

Badgers **** YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* Badgers last int game --> Est Time=23,22 3BV=102 / 102 @ 4,58 RQP=5,06 c/s=6,79 IOE=0,67 :|

I still want a sub15 this AR so I can quit playing int :P

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 05:35:12 AM
Name:  

Christoph

Comments:  

Oh wow, how much can one say about that topic???
I will not joining spamming the GB with my thoughts on it (at least not now).
I came here out of more important reasons (I think):
concerning 2006 vienna TOURNEY:
actually a lot of people told me they want to come, but allmost everyone said something like: "I will show up but I'll send confrimation in a month"
(that's the reason why on my site only 2 players are listed as registered). So I'd ask everyone who's gonna come to send me confirmation. Seeing some interesting names on the list may motivate some more to join! (But if only the ones will come who told me they want to, it'll be ready faszinating - i.e. we're awaiting an unknown albanian player who's scores would qualify for bestever)
I'm covered with work for uni right now, wo I'll update my site only on thursday noon, I hope to have some really interesting news by then.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 03:20:09 AM
Name:  

Levente

Comments:  

erm who the **** was that?

oh and we, like every other timed competition in the history of the world, should start from 0.000. Who cares what is "a 16" or "a 15"... you completed the board in 15.58 seconds, from the time you first received information to the time you made the last successful click. If you think that should be a "15", a "16", a "17", a "9", whatever, that's really your bag on a stick... I'm gonna call it a 15.58 and be happy.

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 01:50:50 AM
Name:  

Curtis

Comments:  

A few points for Rodrigo:

-You seem very sure that the original creators intended to use time+1, but it is still possible that they meant "maximum possible" time. (Heh, maybe they're switching it in Vista because so many people took it the wrong way and saw it as adding 1.) And once again, even if they wanted +1, why would they have wanted +1.000?

-I'm not sure if rounding down is the "regular" way. I normally round up when the decimal part is >= 0.5 and round down otherwise.

-Rounding up is no more complicated than adding 1 and truncating.

-I honestly think newcomers will be more be more confused with a timer starting from 1.000 than from 0.000, since basically ALL other accurate timing starts from 0. IMO the main problem with this change is the confusion it will create for the regulars (for a week or so until they get used to it). So, I think it should be done as soon as possible to get it over with.

-This debate isn't only because Vista is about to be released. I've been saying this since the Clone came out.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 11th 2006 at 01:45:01 AM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

@Levente:

Uh, WTF

   
Jun 11th 2006 at 12:52:01 AM
Name:  

Lestorey de Boulongne

Comments:  

@Michael: update your version to the last...

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 10:50:26 PM
Name:  

Michael

Comments:  

GRrrrrrrrrrr I'm so mad i just did a 24x30 board with 219 mines and after I finished the game it said run time error 6 overflow grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr and it shut down **** I wanna kill someone..

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 09:32:35 PM
Name:  

Levente

Comments:  

3bv=99?

POSSIBLE FOR EXPERT????????????
Ask the proof!!!!!!
check out the website for proof.

    Website Website    
Jun 10th 2006 at 08:21:59 PM
Name:  

Dane

Best intermediate:  

22.054 ---> 21.726

Comments:  

on a 49
also RQP 9.545 ---> 9.190
Sum 101 -> 100! One more second...

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 07:03:34 PM
Name:  

Robert Pone

Best expert:  

236

Best intermediate:  

97

Best beginner:  

13

Comments:  

If you want to know how I do the game minesweeper so fast, then email me at
robertpone@verizon.net.

I will tell you how to beat 100 in intermediate! And get in the 200s in expert. And get 15 or below in beginner! I am the master of minesweeper I am one of the best in the world. My records top anyone elses!

236 in expert
97 in intermediate
13 in beginner

There's no way you can be better.

EMAIL ME FOR MINESWEEPER TIPS TODAY!

Email Email    
Jun 10th 2006 at 12:27:31 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Quoting Schu: "So as far as I can see, the remaining advantages and disadvantages lie only in aesthetics."

Agreed.

Quoting Schu again: "In this area, rounding down wins, because a 15.xxx shouldn't be a 16."

If you want to put it that way, I could say that rounding up wins 'cos a 15.xxx shouldn't be a 15.

At any rate there's no right or wrong solution, I just prefer not to change my integer scores.

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 12:19:18 PM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Best intermediate:  

20 >>> OMG WTF?

Comments:  

(22:10) * Rilian|away watched last int game --> Time=OMG RILLY,65 Est Time=OMG RILLY,65 3BV=31 (31) 3BV/s=1,66 Ranks=1 / 6803 of 7889 / 56,88% CL/S=3,21 Op=6 op_done=6 IOE=0,80 truput=0,64 badg/s=0,37 path=141,56 omg Rilian pwnz!!!!!!! muahaha @_@

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 10th 2006 at 11:19:48 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

That's just silly, I'd say "WHOOOOOOOOO I got a 15!", none of this "time elapsed" stuff. And everyone would know what I meant be a 15, once they got used to the change (maybe a week?)

Email Email    
Jun 10th 2006 at 10:57:30 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Is it easier to say "I won game in 16 seconds" or "15 seconds elapsed till I won game"?!

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 10:03:09 AM
Name:  

Andrew McCauley

Comments:  

Well both viewpoints will always have a reply, and both are valid in a way (though I think rounding down is more valid). For example, I'd relpy that it's more important how many seconds have elapsed, not whether you're in your xth second.

So as far as I can see, the remaining advantages and disadvantages lie only in aesthetics. In this area, rounding down wins, because a 15.xxx shouldn't be a 16.

That's about what my argument boils down to.

Email Email    
Jun 10th 2006 at 09:49:41 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

It will display 20.000, meaning you started 20000th millisecond, but not 20001st. the same way you started 20th second but not 21st.

   
Jun 10th 2006 at 08:56:44 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

AreOut said:

"Because lets say you solved 2 3bv board in 0.52x seconds. If you count 0.52 3bv/s will be 3.84... and guess what?! If you finished it in exactly 0.529 (which is entirely possible with timer stop at 0.52) its actually 3.78... so we should stick to 0.53 and so we can be SURE we had >3.77 3bv/s."

Well, to take the flip side, let's say you get a 3.666 rounded down, therefore 3.667 > x >= 3.666. Now let's say it was on a 22 3BV board. If we round time up, this won't be a sup-6 3BV/s, and if we round time down it will be a sup-6. either way, we can't be sure whether it is or isn't a sup-6. But if we're worried about milestones like that, there are two points I would make:

1- Which ever way numbers are rounded, we can do the analysis and work out whether the game was a guaranteed sup-6 or just a potential sup-6.

2) How about for 19.999xxxx? We can be sure that is a sup-20, but if we round time up, that will not display as a time less than 20. I want my sub-20 to display as a real sub-20, not 20.000

Email Email    
Jun 10th 2006 at 01:19:38 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

Google minesweeper. hmmmm.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 10th 2006 at 12:58:51 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

I completely agree (once again).
@Damien, when do you want to update my 19?

Email Email    
Jun 9th 2006 at 08:55:01 PM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

@ Rodrigo:

You hit the nail on the head I think. Even if it took a long post!

Email Email    
Jun 9th 2006 at 06:27:30 PM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Comments:  

Just to explain my point of view with even more detais:

I'm absolutely not opposed to starting the timer at 1. To tell the truth, currently, considering that Winmine starts the timer at 1, and considering the confusion that could be created for newbies, I prefer to have the timer really starting at 1, even knowing it is not correct.

However, we just have to think that having zero as a time is not wrong, too. On the other hand, it is CORRECT. A 1 3BV board is finished in an interval of time with size zero. Sounds really strange, and, as Damien said, it is an amusing paradox, but it is correct. If we start to accept the 0 time as a normal thing (and it is), we won't need to find different interpretations to "overcome" this "problem".

And also, I insist, there is no need to think about winmine timer as being rounded down. The sentence "minesweeper timing system is the normal timing system plus one second" does not need an extra "rounded down" at the end, because the normal timing system itself is the responsible for keeping the timer still until a full second is elapsed before increasing it. If the real time of a game is 3.45 seconds, the timer (if measured with precision of 1 second, like on Winmine) will be showing 3, and will be waiting for the remaining 0.55 second to pass, before changing to 4. This is the normal way of measuring time, which I explained on the previous post. And it does not include rounding down.

Viewing from a programmer's point of view, Winmine is simply using 1+int(time) on the red timer, while the correct would be to use int(time) only. Ok, some may say that the function int() can be interpreted as "rounding down", I agree. But this is actually a truncation. And moreover, int() is being used simply to make the red timer measure time in the normal way of measuring time.

We can not forget that the main thing here is to decide about which of the two timing systems we should use:

- the normal timing system, or
- the normal timing system plus 1.

And we can not forget also that this decision is required only because Vista minesweeper is about to be released, and because it seems to use the first option, while previous versions of Winmine used the second one.

I'll take the opportunity to give my opinion: I can imagine that, some years later in the future, there will be a lot of people wanting to join the community showing their scores achieved with Vista minesweeper. So, in the future, we will NEED to change to the first option. Not necessarily now. I would say more: not even right immediately after Windows Vista is released. After that, we should take some time to see how Vista minesweeper will influence the newcomers to the community. And, when the right moment comes, we make the change. In my opinion, the main problem with this change is the confusion this can create for newcomers. After being in the community for years, all of us are aware of how the scoring works, but the newcomers are not.

Changing to the first option will be a good thing, because once it is done, times from Vista minesweeper and clones will be both compatible AND correct. However, I think it must be done gradually. And sorry for the long post

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 06:19:24 PM
Name:  

Michael

Best expert:  

56.34, 106 3bv

Best intermediate:  

25.67, 29 3bv

Best beginner:  

2.98, 3 3bv

Comments:  

just broke the minute barrier in expert... can't believe it 106 3bv board!

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 04:11:19 PM
Name:  

Curtis

Comments:  

Well, I agree with Rodrigo that "We should simply stick to the normal way of measuring time." Which is, of course, to start from 0.

Also, how is "minesweeper timing system is the normal timing system plus one second rounded down" more complicated than "minesweeper timing system is the normal timing system rounded up"?

Like Schu said, the creators may have intended it to mean "maximum possible" time. Or they may have intended it to mean integer time+1. However, even if they did mean +1, it's unlikely that they would do +1 with tenths.

As for integer time, I support rounding up, but I don't care that much, especially if Vista really does round down.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 9th 2006 at 03:23:49 PM
Name:  

Dane

Comments:  

I've been having this strange problem (mouse malfunction??) when I play. My cursor will involuntarily jerk to somewhere on the screen. It's very strange. Does this happen to anyone else?

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 01:33:48 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

AreOut said: "Hmm when it finishes at 0.129xxx seconds its not finished IN 0.129 but IN 0.13."

I totally agree with that, but the way you explained why it's important isn't exactly why I think it's important :-P (I don't really care that much about the 3bv/s), so here's my version:

I think the original Minesweeper turned to 1 immediately after starting just because they didn't want to have 0 as a score. Since starting at 1 is simply WRONG, (I guess everyone agrees on that one, the only reason we do that is to follow the original anyway) for some time now I've been thinking that the logic behind it is that it would show the number of seconds needed to finish a game. For example, if you take 3.45 seconds to finish a game (real time, which means the current Clone would show 4.45), the score would be 4 because if we gave you only 3 seconds, you wouldn't have finished it! And that is why I support rounding up.

Rodrigo, I agree that the normal way of measuring time is a good one, but the problem is that there would be 0 as a score, and I just don't like that. Sorry.

(I know I said some of this before, just wanted to put down a global point of view)
PS: (and hope that some people might see it my way )

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 11:00:26 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Hahaha thats the nice way of solving problem

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 10:39:02 AM
Name:  

damien

Comments:  

my last point is supposed to be funny!

[if you finish exactly when you start, there is no time: events require time, so there was no event (game!)]

this is an amusing paradox (the game can not exist logically, but you just played it)

it could also be a funny/serious reason to exclude 1 click games, instead of just not liking them.

btw...i saw an interesting minesweeper game online...it starts the timer when a new game is chosen. this eliminates many problems...

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 10:21:18 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

Rod, way to repeat the same what i say but involve 10 times more words.

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 10:05:37 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

I absolutely agree with Rodrigo.

Email Email    
Jun 9th 2006 at 09:55:05 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Hmm when it finishes at 0.129xxx seconds its not finished IN 0.129 but IN 0.13.

And why is that important?!
Because lets say you solved 2 3bv board in 0.52x seconds. If you count 0.52 3bv/s will be 3.84... and guess what?! If you finished it in exactly 0.529 (which is entirely possible with timer stop at 0.52) its actually 3.78... so we should stick to 0.53 and so we can be SURE we had >3.77 3bv/s.

I guess this is the point noone can argue about. And I am really sure minesweeper programmers did their job well setting timer at 1, not even knowing what 3bv/s is/will be

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 09:23:31 AM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Comments:  

Let me just be super-clear explaining my point of view:

Of course that if someone interprets minesweeper time as an attempt to express the "maximum possible value", then the timer must start directly at 0.1 if it's measured up to tenths, 0.01 it's measured up to hundredths, and so on.

What I am saying is that we should not try to imagine too much complicated interpretations. If we do it, we can be creative enough to build interpretations that fits almost everything. We should simply stick to the normal way of measuring time. And that is:

- If we are measuring time with precision of 1 second, then the timer will start at 0, and will stay showing 0 during one full second before changing to 1. Then it will stay showing 1 during another one full second before changing to 2. And so on.
- If we are measuring time with precision of 0.01 second, then the timer will start at 0.00, and will stay showing 0.00 during one full hundredth of second before changing to 0.01. Then it will stay showing 0.01 during another one full hundredth of second before changing to 0.02. And so on.

By "start the timer at 1", I meant to say that the initial value of the timer IS 1. So, on the two above examples, everything would work equal, except by the sequence of time, that would be 1-2-3 and 1.00-1.01-1.02, respectively.

Which is the same of simply adding 1 to the timer. And this is the most simple interpretation possible: "minesweeper timing system is the normal timing system plus one second". Just that.

I just hope that when Damien said "timer must start at their smallest increment", he meant to say that timer must increase by their smallest increment *after staying still during an interval of time equal to this smallest increment*.

And the reason for starting at 1 is ONLY to make the time compatible with Winmine. Only for that. Starting the time at 1 is of course wrong; it's obviously illogical; the correct is to start at 0, always.

Finally, about 1 3BV boards: they exist. If you solve that 3BV with one click, you solved the board with one click. The same click that started the game also finished it. The game started AND finshed in the same moment. If timer started at 13:18:30.129, it also finished at 13:18:30.129. Everything ok for me.

However, 1 3BV boards are not allowed anymore, so, if someone sees a problem there, this problem is solved. Indirectly solved, but solved.

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 09:06:15 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Comments:  

I agree to forget about this 1-second adding and use real time values.

as for starting from 0 or from 0.00001, i prefer 0. Because, thinking about one click game: you do click and game ends. and timer does not even start. so, there is not 0.01 nor 0.00001

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 9th 2006 at 08:06:47 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

@Damien: Amen!

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 06:09:22 AM
Name:  

damien

Comments:  

1. The smallest Winmine increment is an integer.
2. The Winmine timer does not start until the first click is released.
3. The Winmine timer is accurate after the first click ends (to at least two decimals).
4. On a one click board, the game ends exactly when it starts. No time elapses.
5. On a one click board, the Winmine timer displays 1.
6. If no time elapses, nothing happens.


So, the Winmine timer adds 1 (and does not round).

So, all timers must start at their smallest increment.

So, one click games do not exist.



Just some thoughts.

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 05:35:04 AM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

Schu, by "official" list, I actually meant detrusor's site.

   
Jun 9th 2006 at 02:50:33 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

/me exp game --> Time: 69,51 «» Est Time: 69,51 «» 3BV: 142 / 142 «» 3BV/s: 2,07 «» Rank Time: 3 «» Rank 3bv/s: 82 «» RPI: 81,79 «» IOS: 1,17 «» RQP: 33,53 «» Games: 228 «» PathPx: 0 «» PathSq: 0 @_-

Finally a fourth sub70!
the first time I sub70ed after the 60

IMO the "timer exactly at a whole second" thing illustrates why adding one (and it is adding one, otherwise a clean 14 would stay that way.) doesnt make sense.
why make an exact 14 a 15?

Yeah, I agree that we're getting a bit overexcited, IMO it still makes sense discussing this in case (and I would say that it's probable) the Vista timer really starts at zero.

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 11:12:58 PM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

WP:What's interesting can also be the number of seconds needed to finish the game, therefore, an integer, and therefore, rounding up

Bingo

Totally agree with Curtis and dont have a clue about what Schu is complicating.

Btw Rod you added 3rd decimal maybe too early, although that was MY idea

(AreOut:what do you think about 3rd decimal?!
Detrusor:madness
Rogen:Formula1 )


   
Jun 8th 2006 at 10:52:52 PM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

@ Curtis:
"The important thing here is WHY the original winmine starts at 1. We may never know for sure, but I always thought this was to prevent the timer from ever reading 000 in a game."

I contend that it really doesn't start at 1, it starts at 0. Before you click in winmine, it starts at 0, and as soon as you click it goes to 1. I'd call that evidence that the timer rounds up to smallest higher integer value for time. This would tend to support AreOuts idea.

But yes, you are right, they are essentially the same except for x.000, where addin one and rounding down makes x+1 and rounding up makes x. This is most noticable before you start a game, 0.000=1 on clones but 0 in winmine. Clone clearly adds one and rounds down, and I think winmine clearly rounds up without adding anything.

Also, I think integer time does matter, because people want to yell out "Whooo, I got a 14!!!!", not "whooo I got 14.234". There needs to be a concise version of our scores. Also, If someone asks what my scores are, I say 2-15-58, I remember the decimals but they are too cumbersome to type like that.

I understand what you mean about clicks now, I agree too, those are bugs of winmine, not features. I think we both agree that "rilian clicks" of any of the three forms there are, are not such an extreme case, and should be made to be like winmine though.

@ furious:

http://www.metanoodle.com/minesweeper/worldrankingsframe.html

We do use decimals actually! While we all use clones, other people will play winmine, and when they get good enough to get ranked, we want to supply them with a program that isn't too foreign to what they are used to.

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 09:26:55 PM
Name:  

James C

Comments:  

I think that the easiest and most obvious solution is being ignored. That is to stop using the decimals at all, especially if you think the clones should remain true to winmine. The "official" ranking site doesn't use decimals anyway. And who cares what the vista version does... it's not like any of you even play on anything but the clone anyway.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 09:20:27 PM
Name:  

Curtis

Comments:  

Rodrigo: you say that the original winmine doesn't round up; it adds one and then rounds down. But these are really THE SAME. (The only potential difference is when the original's internal timer is on an exact second, which as far as I know is currently impossible to tell.)

The important thing here is WHY the original winmine starts at 1. We may never know for sure, but I always thought this was to prevent the timer from ever reading 000 in a game. When I brought this up on rilian.net, Schu said he thought it was to show the "maximum possible value" of your time. Perhaps it's some of both. By this reasoning, if the original showed tenths, then the timer would have started at 0.1, NOT 1.0.

So, there's reasoning why the original starts at 1 (because of lack of precision, not just adding 1 for fun), but if it was ever upgraded to display thousandths, is there any reasoning why it should start at 1.000? To me, starting from 1.000 is quite illogical.

Schu: Really, the integer time displayed doesn't matter; it's only personal preference. Also, I wasn't referring to the Clone's click "stick" problem (although I agree that it seems fixed now). I was talking about weird click behaviour in the original version. In these extreme cases, the clones shouldn't follow the original.

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 8th 2006 at 08:54:43 PM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

Can someone check the emulation? Sure the timer starts at zero, but it does in every other winmine too. What is important is to check whether it stays on 0 after the first click.

And yes, as Arjadre said, we shouldn't get carried away about a hacked emulation... maybe someone can try a beta version of windows vista and that might be a slightly better guide.

I think I prefer rounding down, to make y.xxx to be a y and not a y+1, for aesthetics more than anything else.

Regardless, I think timer should start at zero (if only to be in line with winmine), and rankings and counters should use real time if we're using decimals. Whether we round up or down is a different matter.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 08:07:27 PM
Name:  

hah

Best expert:  

ahahaha

Best intermediate:  

hahahah

Best beginner:  

hahah

Comments:  

SOME PEOPLE WILL GET TEXT MESSAGES JUST CAUSE OF THIS MESSAGE LOL HAHAHAHA

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 01:00:14 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Thomas said: "Basically, what is Minesweeper? A game where you try to complete someting in as little time as possible. What is therefore interesting? The exact time taken for a game."

What's interesting can also be the number of seconds needed to finish the game, therefore, an integer, and therefore, rounding up (okay, I know I'm a pain)

Schu said: " I think we're forgetting something here that's important though, which is probably why Stevan is so adamant about his point. In all the winmine versions I've seen, the timer starts at 0 and goes to 1 as soon as you release your click on it. This seems to support the idea that time isn't meant to start at 1, [...]
1 3BV games finishing at 1 and not at 0 is because the program needs a split second to realise the board is complete, not because the timer adds an arbitrary 1 second."

I agree with that.

(darn, it's hard to quote here :-P)

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 12:45:32 PM
Name:  

Arjádre

Best expert:  

AR 71

Best intermediate:  

AR 16

Comments:  

Awesome night of sweeping last night...
games include:
17 on a 44 NF
lc 17 on a 42 NF
18 on a 41 NF
22 on a 62 and 67 both NF I think

My totals are kinda interesting:

int:

16x5
17x6
18x14
19x14
20x36
21x53
22x83
23x81

general trends:

16=17 (until last night)
18=19
20=sub20
22=23=21+sub20

exp:

70x8
71x8

73x12
74x12

76x21
77x21

@Thomas: yeah, it would I have 5 'real' sub70s and 8 70s

@All: let's not get carried away... It could very well be that whoever made the vistamine simulation made a mistake and that the timer starts at one like it has in the past. I don't really trust the simulation because there are errors with the skin as well as the overall gameplay. I agree with Thomas that the community should remain as newbie-friendly as possible and that if we decide to make a change, that change should not take effect until vista is actually released.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 11:17:30 AM
Name:  

Robert Benditz

Comments:  

Name:


Daniel Brim

Comments:


As long as we're reforming things, I would say ditch beginner, get rid of 1s from everybody, and change to decimal totals.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 10:01:41 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

Well, I admit that I'd hate to have finished expert in less than 100 seconds and still have my integer score having 3 figures

Scientifically, I like the idea of rounding up to whatever interval, but since we record time so precisely, this isn't much of an issue really either way.

Having the integer part of a number be your integer score does make more aesthetic sense, and brings it in line with vistamine.

I think we're forgetting something here that's important though, which is probably why Stevan is so adamant about his point. In all the winmine versions I've seen, the timer starts at 0 and goes to 1 as soon as you release your click on it. This seems to support the idea that time isn't meant to start at 1, and is meant to be rounded up. I guess vista said to round down though....

Either way, if we want to imitate any minesweeper versions from microsoft, we really have to start the timer at 0, not 1.

1 3BV games finishing at 1 and not at 0 is because the program needs a split second to realise the board is complete, not because the timer adds an arbitrary 1 second.

I'll have to have a think before I decide about my vote...

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 10:00:02 AM
Name:  

Daniel Brim

Comments:  

As long as we're reforming things, I would say ditch beginner, get rid of 1s from everybody, and change to decimal totals.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 09:25:04 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Im gonna put up some website about this, I cant repeat myself so many times

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 09:13:14 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

@ Thomas: I have no problem with, say, claiming 0.583 sec as a beginner high score, but if we're working with integers, 0 sounds siilly given that we've ruled 3BV=0 out.

Yeah, but I guess that if someone played what now is a one on Vista and the timer really starts at 0, I guess you would have 0 secs highscores there. If we convert to realtime, I'd say that we do it properly. (And a 1 as a record when the real time played was less seems just as silly to me.) I agree with rod on the rounding up thing, of course that is a possible interpretation, and of course it boils down to the same thing, but as it does, why do we use rounding up if theres a simpler way to express the same thing? I think that a zero beg. record only looks funny to most of us because we aren't used to it.

Or let me try to approach the problem from a totally basic point of view, not taking into account what timing used to be like as if we are going to convert we might as well try to make the new system as simple as possible.

Basically, what is Minesweeper? A game where you try to complete someting in as little time as possible. What is therefore interesting? The exact time taken for a game.

And dont think like an expert minesweeper player. Think like the newbies that visit two highscore sites. On one site times are shown to hundredths (or thousandths or whatever) and on the other only integers are shown that are larger than the records on the other site.

Rounding up is too confusing, and even if a 0 second record may look funny: Doesnt a 38 done in 37 seconds look funny? If you watch a competition in any kind of sport (where time is relevant) and dont remember someones hundredths , do you seriously round the result up?

Also, I wouldn't want a realtime 99,21 record listed as an integer 100 if it actually is a sub100. Just taking the whole seconds wont make the difference between subX and supX, but rounding up would...

Or is anyone here afraid that I'd have had a 59 after 2 sub70es? Not true... Remember, I had a 69+1 before...

Lol, afterthought: realtime would totally change Arjs number of sub70s... Not that that is a bad thing!

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 08:42:58 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Winmine might not be rounding up the times, but if you wanted to round up, you could also choose to add one second to the time and take the integer part. That boils down to almost the same thing. (since there is no exact X seconds anyway)

Just food for thought...since I kinda like the rounding up concept :-P (it makes more sense than adding 1 to the time)

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 07:51:23 AM
Name:  

Rodrigo

Comments:  

I'd like to give my opinion about 2 issues of this current topic:

1- Concerning the "round up/down" thing: it seems people are understanding that the reason for the timer to start at 1 on minesweeper is because it is actually being rounded UP. Like for example, 0.1 second after the first click, the game is rounding 0.1 "up", and displaying it as a 1. Then, after 1.1 second of game, winmine won't display 1.1 on the red timer, so it rounds "up" to 2 and displays a 2. In my opinion, this is NOT what winmine does. Winmine seems to simply ADD 1 to the timer, and then truncates it. It's not a matter of rounding anything, it's just ADDING 1 second to the time, and ignoring decimals, picking only the integer part. Trying to understand the number displayed on the red timer as a rounded up value, or a value that indicates the number of "started" seconds, or other more weird understandings, only makes things difficult. The time displayed in the red timer is simply the real time PLUS 1, just that.

2- Concerning timer starting at 1/0.1/0.01/0: Definitely, timer starting at 0.1 or 0.01, or whatever indicates the smallest precision used, makes no sense. The really definitely correct thing would be to start at 0. The second most logical option is to start the timer at 1, and only specifically because winmine always adds 1 second to the timer. Starting the timer at any value other than 0 or 1 is completely illogical. Now, a separated thing is decide wether we should imitate Vista winmine (because it will kind of be a standard minesweeper in the future, since it comes with Windows) and start the timer at zero, or not.

Just to summarize my thoughts:
- forget about "rounding up", "started seconds", etc. Winmine starts at 1 because it deliberately ADDS 1 second to the time.
- forget about starting at 0.1, or 0.01, or any other value different from 0 or 1. It's illogical.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 05:59:29 AM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

Correction: middle click for chording requires no setup for most mice, which simply use the scroll wheel to do middle click chording. However, logitech mice do actually need to be set up to use middle-click, though I think it's not an "illegal" setup, becasue it's done only to emulate a normal mouse.

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 05:38:20 AM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

@ Elmar: Elmar technique, if that is what you mean, at least requires to be set up to work for both winmine and clones. Middle click requres no setting up. If you have a middle mouse button or a scroll wheel that can be depressed, you can chord with it without doing anything to set it up, in winmine and clones.

@ Thomas: I have no problem with, say, claiming 0.583 sec as a beginner high score, but if we're working with integers, 0 sounds siilly given that we've ruled 3BV=0 out.

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 04:34:30 AM
Name:  

Elmar

Comments:  

schu wrote:

"@ Elmar: You're missing the point. Middle mouse button is fine, it's in winmine etc. so it's legitimate, whether any of us likes it or not. My problem is in my original post: arbiter behaves in a way that winmine doesn't."

It's just as much in winmine as my doubleclick. And no, I didnt miss you point, I'm just saying this isnt even worth discussing, because following the doubleclick logic, middle buttons shouldnt be allowed either.

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 02:12:46 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

Quote: unless of course we don't accept 1 3bv boards in which case it doesn't really matter and everyone would be happy...

And as they are illegal, I guess there really is no problem...

Anyway, I dont understand why integer 0 sec highscores should be impossible. Where's the problem in just converting from realtime +1 to realtime? OK, highscore values would change, but who cares if you need a total below real 97 secs and +1time 100 secs? I dont see a problem in making bestever/top100 100/103 times as hard to reach...

Email Email    
Jun 8th 2006 at 02:08:09 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Well, when you say the timer starts at 1, to me that is the same thing as it jumping to 1 immediately at the start (which also means rounding up immediately at a time of 0.0000000001s :-P) But in the way you put it, what do you say about starting at 0, rounding up, and not accepting 3bv=1 boards?

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 01:45:24 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

@WP: No, the timer doesn't jump to 1, it starts there... Not like the old Winmine where the timer would actually quite often JUMP to 2. ;o) I know it takes time to release the click but that's certainly not why the timer starts at 1. If you press down the mouse button and wait 10 seconds until you release it, it doesn't mean that the timer starts at 10 or something, right? Well, that's because the timer doens't start until the click has already been fully released and if we were to start the timer at 0 we'd have to accept 0-sec scores too, unless of course we don't accept 1 3bv boards in which case it doesn't really matter and everyone would be happy...

   
Jun 8th 2006 at 01:29:36 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

Well, as 1 3bv boards are illegal anyway, I dont see why that matters.

Email Email    
Jun 7th 2006 at 11:49:23 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Dennis: Sorry, I don't agree with you either :-P To me you'd still need time to release the click, that's why the timer jumps to 1 immediately.

But then, disagreements are common, huh?

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 09:15:04 PM
Name:  

Stephen Arnason

Best expert:  

54

Best intermediate:  

13

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

Holy cow! Congrats, Dion... I was checkin out the Wiki for Minesweeper and noticed what i thought was a mistake - 38 seconds for the new record! That's awesome.

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 09:03:07 PM
Name:  

q

Best expert:  

199

Best intermediate:  

59

Best beginner:  

5

Comments:  

what a nice website

:kswany ookie:

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 03:42:50 PM
Name:  

J-A-Y

Best expert:  

73

Best intermediate:  

25

Best beginner:  

4

Comments:  

i'm close!

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 7th 2006 at 03:08:18 PM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Well, Dennis, thats why 1 3bv boards should be excluded anyway.

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 11:40:21 AM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Comments:  

@WP: Sorry... Don't agree. The timer doesn't start until the first click is released and if that happens to be the right place on a 1 3bv board then it DID take 0 seconds to complete the board in 'Minesweeper time'. Otherwise, the timer should start once we press down the mouse button and not when we release it... and well, that's just never been the case with any of the Minesweeper games, as far as I know, and I don't think a lot of people would want this kind of change.

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 04:39:32 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Comments:  

****

/me blasted exp game --> Est Time: 60,35 «» 3BV: 108 / 139 «» 3BV/s: 2,3 :S

Email Email    
Jun 7th 2006 at 03:08:16 AM
Name:  

minesweeper

Best expert:  

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Best intermediate:  

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Best beginner:  

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

Comments:  

.....!(^o^)!.....

Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 7th 2006 at 02:29:58 AM
Name:  

coffee

Comments:  

china tour
china-business-travel
valve
butterfly-valve
valve manufacturer
flow control valve
valve supplier

   
Jun 7th 2006 at 12:15:29 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Schu: Yep, we pretty much agree on everything now; I just changed my vote

Dennis: I think the logic behind rounding up is that we won't have 0 as a score. (No one can finish a board in 0 seconds!)

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 08:50:17 PM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

@ WP: I think when doing rankings, whether it's an integer or a decimal, we need to round up to the next significant figure. That means all integer scores will remain the same. I personally don't mind seeing decimal places.

That is what I mean with counters, round up always, whatever the interval.

My stand on the timer is basically the same as yours, after the first click timer should go straight to 1. I think it should actually start at 0 though.

So basically, as far as I can see, we agree pretty much on everything now WP

@ Dennis: I still think we should round up whatever the increment, but I agree with the rest of what you say.

What I like is that a 15 would remain a 15, but it would be 14.xxx instead of 15.xxx

Email Email    
Jun 6th 2006 at 07:16:07 PM
Name:  

Dennis Lütken

Best expert:  

51

Best intermediate:  

12

Best beginner:  

1

Comments:  

The way I see it, the MS version only 'rounds up' because the timer starts at 1 and not at 0. (So that if you get a 20 on int, you will know for sure that it took you less than 20 seconds). However, if we were to start the timer at 0 instead, then I don't see any reason to round up at all quite frankly. Even if a game is 19.999999999... then it shouldn't be rounded up to 20 but just be treated as a 19.99/19.999 (depending on the clone version) since it is still LESS than 20!

I never really liked the idea of starting the timer at 0 before but I'm starting to warm up to the idea since it does make more sense now that we have all those decimals included. Oh and by the way, I would love for the decimals to be included in the rankings as well.

Email Email    
Jun 6th 2006 at 01:29:52 PM
Name:  

Christoph

Comments:  

thx Thomas for the introduction
It was a great monday yesterday. First of all I'd like to say that Thomas really improved. I was astonished how close he came on beginner and intermediate. Especially his 5:2 lead in the int leg made me think and only switching back to my old mouse and fireing in three low 20 in a row saved me the leg. And when he later on started to win one beginner leg after the other I started to fear for my N°1 rank in Austria.
But as fortune comes and goes as it likes it brought me a board of terrifying ease. I just couldn't help playing a new record on it, a 56.
So I'm again 2 secs closer and slowly the sub50 seems not unreachable far away.

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 01:03:39 PM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

When you say "use real time for rankings", do you mean with all the decimals? I don't really like decimals in rankings, I find it a bit messy. (and if we add more and more precision, it'd be worse)

As for real time on counters, if you mean it to be rounded up to the smallest increment, I'd agree.

I don't exactly get what you mean by 0.000 for the start being rounded up to 0, but I think that once you start a game, you take a click and the timer starts running, so even if it were at 0.00000000001 (okay, I'm exaggerating) it should still be rounded up to 1 (and rounded up to 0.001 in the counters if that's the smallest increment)

So in the end my stand is: the original rounded up, so let's round up

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 09:43:23 AM
Name:  

Schu (Andrew McCauley)

Comments:  

@ AreOut: yeah, good point I guess. So IMO our LED timer should round up with whatever increment we choose (and if that is and increment of 1, then the faux LED timer is basically the same as it ever was). It should still start on 0 though, not 0.01.

Our counters and websites should also round up, but with smaller increments (.01 or .001) and should start at 0, and we round that up to be our integer time. So a 15.xxx is a 16 in integer time.

So I guess I've basically switched to Curtis' idea. The LED timer should basically stay the same, rounding up to the next highest integer). The only difference I think should exist is that 0.000 for the start should round to 0 not 1.

So when people disagree with my idea about the timer, do they support the idea for high scores lists and counters etc.?

I just changed the timer poll to cater for this. Sorry to those who have already voted.




Email Email     Website Website    
Jun 6th 2006 at 07:52:54 AM
Name:  

Dmitriy

Best intermediate:  

20x14 -> 20x15 or smth

Comments:  

last int game --> Time=20,70 Est Time=20,70 3BV=40 (40) 3BV/s=2,02 Ranks=8 / 4240 of 7852 / 72,96% CL/S=3,39 Op=5 op_done=5 IOE=0,73 truput=0,81 badg/s=0,50 path=152,81

ben van calster relaxes

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 03:47:48 AM
Name:  

WP

Comments:  

Agree with AreOut. Don't change the timing system!

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 03:33:18 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

Nah idea of started seconds by Robert Donner is quite good. However when you get down to hundredths you measure started hundredths. Because if you start at 0.00 if you finish game in 15.367 seconds timer will stop at 15.36 and its wrong as you needed 15.37 seconds or 15.4 or 16 or 20 or 100 etc.

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 01:57:40 AM
Name:  

Thomas

Best expert:  

BK 78

Comments:  

I met up with christoph again yesterday! We had a problem at first, my laptops battery is close to dead and runs for about 20 mins unplugged, so we had to look for somewhere where I could plug in my laptop. We eventually found a mcDonalds on Mariahilferstraße. It was bliss to play int again after playing only beginner since wednesday... It looks like it helped though, I got a couple of good games. We played a first to six int leg pretty much straight away, christoph did a mouse change in the middle of the leg... I was in the lead by 5-2 or 5-3 but then christoph won 6-5 ... I screwed up a game that could have been an 18 or at least a 19 at one point, but didnt sub20, my best score was 21 as far as I can remember. Later we played expert, we both lowered our BK records, me to 78 secs and he by quite a bit, I'll leave it to him to tell you by how much exactly. After a while we started playing int again for a while, then we played first to ten beginner legs. I managed to win the first two, but then christoph warmed up, stopped being unlucky and I got nervous, christoph won one, I won another one, and then christoph won a series of games. I think it was 5-3 in legs for christoph when we decided to extend the whole think into a first to ten legs thing, which christoph won 10-5. We rounded off the meeting by playing a couple of int games, but then christophs battery was empty, so we went home.

I hope I didnt leave out anything important, Ill leave it to christoph to round the whole thing up

OK, @Topic:
IMO 0,01 doesnt make sense, it should be 1 or 0. 0,00 scores on 1 3bv scores could be treated like 0,01 scores maybe, but setting the timer start from realtime+1 to realtime+0,01 makes the whole thing more complicated IMO. also, shouldnt it be possible to make clones handle 0,00 highscores?
python:
if time==0:
__3bvs/s=infinite
__(other counters are defined)
elif:
__normal procedure
_=space, I couldnt indent it.
shouldnt be that hard... So I'm for changing to realtime.
I think that the first click opening thing really changes the game, so IMO if Vista games should ever be accepted they should be heavily penalised. I dont know how one would control whether or not anyone UPKed a record though... So I'm for not accepting Vistamine at all.
I wonder how many people will come here claiming their UPK records... And I wonder if MS minesweeper will change even more over the years.

Scary thought:
Maybe in a couple of years, MS minesweeper will have changed completely, I wonder where we will get new players from... I dont know what we could do to prevent the community from dying out, but I think that it is likely to happen in a few years and I think we should try to prevent this from happening if there is a possible way to do so. Maybe include a vistamine ranking? or wait for the next version and then make a highscore list? Or, @Damien, might it be possible somehow to contact robert donner again?

Email Email    
Jun 6th 2006 at 01:01:33 AM
Name:  

AreOut

Comments:  

@Schu: because you can start one second and one hundredth of second if you are to be precise.

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 12:06:56 AM
Name:  

tillberg

Comments:  

@ danmien: I see that, but what are they supposed to measure? Man, I feel like a born again noob!

   
Jun 6th 2006 at 12:05:46 AM
Name:  

tillberg

Comments:  

@ danmien: I see that, but what are they supposed to measure? Man, I feel like a born again noob!

   
Jun 5th 2006 at 10:30:44 PM
Name:  

Andrew McCauley

Comments:  

@ Damien: forgot to say, at least about beginner, I have a good example for the person that gave you that e-mail.

Try doing a 20x20 board with 40 mines for example. I did and I found 3 things:
1) solving is much easier
2) average 3BV is lower
3) average 3BV/s is actually higher

so an XP 2 3BV may not be much easier than a clone 2 3BV, but a 4,5 or 6 3BV probably will be easier on XP, and I've had my records on 4 and 5 3BV boards. And these boards will come around much more often.

About vistamine: I don't think the free opening is a really big issue, but the replaying boards certainly is. However, in many records, it takes a few clicks before we get an opening, which is clicks we don't have to do in vista.

Email Email    
Jun 5th 2006 at 07:07:56 PM
Name:  

Schu

Comments:  

@ Damien: I can't get any minesweeper game from tht link

@ AreOut: 1 maybe, but why .01? When I was talking about logic, I meant it was logical that the webmasters were undecided etc.

@ Dmitriy: Yeah the sponsored links sort of threw me off for some reason, it looked like an error page giving my some possible links.

Try to tone down the insults and keep to fact BTW. Keep it civil.

@ Tam: Gratz!

   


  First Page
  Prev Page
  Post
  Home
Next Page  
Last Page  
Viewing Page 19 of 53 (Total Entries: 5262)


powered by Powered by Bravenet bravenet.com