Feel free to chat, make suggestions, or tell your scores!
You can also chat with us on mIRC - server irc.newnet.net, port 6667, channel #minesweeper
Viewing Page 9 of 27 (Total Entries: 2685) |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 12:37:19 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Damien: are u still sure that Stevan's 41 on 166 isnt a cheat? his 41 on winmine is for sure (sup7 left cl/s for 80% game), and that 41 on 166 is also too obviously ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 10:33:14 AM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
@kamil: on older versions of arbiter it was possible to play boads with edited mines but instead of regarding them as upk boards arbiter saved them to the history just as if they were normal boards. it's all written in joni's arbiter article... |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 09:34:41 AM |
|
Name: |
daniel |
Comments: |
sry it was on a 5*5 board and it was pure luck ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 09:11:44 AM |
|
Name: |
daniel |
Comments: |
made 22 on easy and 1:09 on evil ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 09:10:18 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@joni: is it possible to edit mines on Arbiter version what on Jake made 9 and both 10s? these games doesnt look upked, but the boards are crazily easy ( I believe that i would get 9 on each of them) - they have 2 common things: a lot of single 3bv next to each other, and a lot of mines in groups next to the edges ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 08:51:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Mark |
Comments: |
OK, tnx=) |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 07:32:38 AM |
|
Name: |
Bertie |
Comments: |
As I suspected, someone has already started bragging about their best times. That is just so typically minesweeper! Can't we for once not be competive at something!? ![]() Besides, my time is better. 21s on 7*7 easy, and I have 46s on 7*7 hard. I'm obviously better! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 06:47:17 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Marl: registering doesnt work for more than 2 years on p-m, a its not updating for more than a year and it wont be ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 06:22:32 AM |
|
Name: |
Mark |
Comments: |
Hello! I have one question for Damien. My scores are 2-23-76 and I hope it will be under 100 sonn so that I'm abÄ?e to enter the best ever list on the planet minesweeper site. But there's one problem, I can't register there ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 04:39:24 AM |
|
Name: |
manuel h |
Comments: |
@ kamil i jumped form 15 to 11 ;-) ... @ bertie: nice game, my highscore for 7*7 easy is 25s .... ;-) |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 03:17:20 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Damien: 13->10 is a big jump (also on 26 3bv) ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 03:14:15 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Bertie: nice game ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Sep 1st 2008 at 03:11:47 AM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
@bertie: i deleted some news about kamil, because i made a mistake. @kamil: guang made 10.63 on intermediate...but the news didn't upload correctly (i will fix it next week). it is supposed to say "Shao Guang (China) makes 10.63s on Intermediate, but 3bv=26 so score is not official". i don't think 5000 sub5 is big news... i stopped counting beginner games (except 1s) many years ago. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 01:57:14 PM |
|
Name: |
Bertie |
Comments: |
Hey guys. I just stumbled upon this little beauty of a game called squarO (linked). I started playing and haven't stopped for 4 hours! It's not MS, but it is fun. Oh, I forgot to mention my latest record. I got 3.45(7) 3bv/s on exp, previous best was 3.42. Just to show that I'm still improving ![]() Also, @Damien: Is it just me or did some of the news disappear at your last update? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 01:39:37 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Damien: News: "Shao Guang (China) makes 10.63s on Intermediate" ? in the world ranking, Shao Guang has 1-13-47 ![]() btw, can u write in news about my 5000 sub5? ![]() in last 4 days I made 11x5 and a 10 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 12:45:28 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Website Updated....I was on holiday last week, sorry for the wait! Stephen Feehan joined the ranking...link is to his videos. He flags everything - but he plays NF, hehe The top 3 nf players in China on expert are Wang Xi (girl) 50.89, Zhang SJ 20.98 and Zhang Hong with 51.09 - some good competition soon for Roman and Kamil ![]() Anthony Grazian started a minesweeper group ( 800 members) on facebook if you guys want to join. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 11:41:54 AM |
|
Name: |
Eric Taquet |
Best expert: |
88,60 |
Best intermediate: |
21,96 |
Best beginner: |
2,43 |
Comments: |
Thanks ! |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 09:20:06 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@ROnny: Dion has 11 on 56 if I remember correctly ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 31st 2008 at 05:51:35 AM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Kamil: 11s on 53 3BV ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 30th 2008 at 10:08:06 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Clone: 11,729 on 53 @ 4,94, new RQP (2,374) and IOS (1,67315) records. linked. after 7 hours playing on Int ,50% of my clicks couldnt hit a square where I wanted, so blasted 30/35 est 9 with easy ending and before I played int, I blasted 108/119 est 41NF. Im made of shi.t. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 30th 2008 at 09:25:04 AM |
|
Name: |
hexx |
Comments: |
Speaking of Time measuement, Some nonosweepers have been facing an annoying issue related with Time. The lastest Nono version displays time in 1/100s, but some how it is impossible to achive some hundreths. If I remember correctly , the forbidden hundreths are: 02, 05, 08, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 38, 41, 44, 47, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 66, 69, 72, 74, 77, 80, 83, 88, 91, 94, 97, 99. Does anyone here know what is the cause of this problem? Is it possible to fix it? |
![]() |
|
Aug 30th 2008 at 12:37:31 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
this guestook doesnt show " " ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 30th 2008 at 12:36:43 AM |
|
Name: |
. |
Comments: |
-0,03s |
![]() |
|
Aug 30th 2008 at 12:35:25 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Ronny: 20s/30 minutes isnt the same as 2s/41s ![]() @joni: u r rigth, i didnt know about Lasse's 2nd 41 and couldnt check the exact time ![]() @Damien: u should link it as Lasse's real record in world ranking ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 05:03:48 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Joni: Wow! That sure are a lot of words to say 'Kamil, you're wrong'. ![]() @Kamil: You're wrong. The length of a captured video is no reliable indication of the length of a game. I've recorded vids of up to 30minutes in other games and differences the actual time and the length of the video could be up to 20 seconds. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 02:45:42 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
i guess i'm forced to take this argument all the way... the question is not if you have a tool that can measure the time that precisely... the question is who is using this tool and how. In KAmil's case he has a program that is very good but he has failed to notice that the video he is viewing is made at 10 frames per second... that means a snapshot is taken every 0.1 seconds... (according to what the video program thinks are 0.1 seconds, which in this case doesn't corresponds to what the winmine timer thinks are 0.1 seconds, which means that at least one of them is wrong... but that's another story) So unless you KAmil can look in a crystal sphere and tell what is the mouse actually doing between two snapshots you have no means of resolving anything less than 0.1 seconds of time in that case. FULL STOP! [Which one of the timers is wrong? i can't speculate on that... i can say that even if it was the minesweeper timer the one that is wrong in this case it has to be noted that this was at a time when the only way to get proof for a game you had to have camtasia running while playing. And that meant overheads at slow computers and if you would gain something on the timer you would lose it in mouse response (that also is a quote from something Damien has written somewhere in this site)] If you would watch the other 41 i linked, inside your nice program... you would see that this time the two timers do agree with each-other (this is now 2005... faster computers!) and that the games starts after the first frame, but before the second (that means between 0.1s and 0.2s) and it ends after the 409th frame but before the 410th. That means that the duration of the game according to the video is somewhere between 40.7 and 40.9 seconds, which on a minesweeper timer means the 41st second. Just for the record http://www.planet-minesweeper.com/expert.php?id=21&level=2 shows Lasse's history of playing on the Clone between February to November 2004. It has ~300 sub-50s in ~3200 games with 42x2 as best. Hope that makes you sleep better at night... In the second case (@Rodrigo)... you have a clock in the computer that runs at over the GHz. That means that you can measure times on the order of the nanosecond. The problem is who is in charge of everything going on in your computer... it is Windows XP or 2000 or Vista or equivalent. These operating systems are NOT real-time operating systems. They are designed with the intention to make your system work well enough most of the time, but they give no guarantees as to exactly at what point in time something will be scheduled to be executed... so you never know if it the system will go to check where the mouse is at the right nanosecond... or if it will decide instead that it can wait a while because the DRM check thread is more important. To wrap up... the day you will run your Clone on a real-time platform (i think i've heard there's some Windows that already is one... not sure about the name, something with Embedded in it I guess) thnn you can add as many significant digits as you deem appropriate and you can boast you have measured the REAL TIME it took for a sweeper to finish that game. Don't get me wrong, i think Windows as it is does it's job reliably enough for an application like minesweeper... but nonetheless it can not guarantee you that the time it measures is the correct one in all cases... It means that you have to make clear to KAmil & co that "the absolutely accurate" times down to the thousand of a second the Clone produces are to be always taken with a pinch of salt. over! sorry! long as hell... no smiley. can't be fun. P.S. I'm still curious to know how do you manage to measure the tenths of a pixel in the path counter ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 12:30:53 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
47,345* |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 12:30:11 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
New Exp (NF) IOE record: Clone: 0,873 on 158 in 37,345 @joni: I use Vegas Pro 8.0 ![]() ![]() btw, Im now not surprised that Lasse has 1500 sub50 - if every his 50 or 51 and maybe 52 was sub50 ![]() I dont say to remove Lasse from the rankng - just write in top of the ranking: "Note: winmine vids show better score than it should be" Then write him real score (but his 41 still can be linked) ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 11:37:49 AM |
|
Name: |
Rodrigo |
Comments: |
Timing is an insteresting subject. Particularly concerning minesweeper! So I come to an old point, and I think I never commented on it: I don't remember very well, but I'm almost sure some people said in the past that measuring minesweeper time up to thousandths of a second was meaningless, because of tolerances, uncertainty, approximations, + - this, + - that, etc. Well, a computer can measure time with much higher precision than only thousadths of a second. It is able to measure much less than 0.00001 second, for example. The problem is with your mouse, and that's why: When I was working on Clone 2006, I made a test: While moving the mouse pointer on the screen, I tried to acquire its X-Y coordinates once every 0.001 second (or less, I don't remember well). After a few seconds, I got thousands of sequential measurements. I studied the positions carefully and noticed the coordinates were refreshed in regular intervals of more or less 0.008 second. All the measurements made during the first 0.008 second were equal. Then the next one changed, but remained unchanged until time reached 0.016 second, and so on. I quickly noticed the mouse buttons' states (pressed/unpressed) were also being refreshed in the same interval of time. So, if you finish a game in 15.534 seconds, this is the time registered by the computer, not exactly the time when your finger last physically clicked your mouse. Your finger may have physically released the button somewhere between 15.526 and 15.534 seconds (0.008 second interval), but your mouse "told" your computer about this only later at 15.534 seconds. So blame your mouse, not your computer internal timer. Does this mean that measuring up to thousadths is meaningless? Definitely no. At that time, I imagined that, in the future, there could be mice able to refresh their states in a period less than 0.008 second. I couldn't find one at that time, but earlier today I searched and found at least two. The first one is Microsoft SideWinder X5. Take a look at http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/gaming/ProductDetails.as px?pid=101&active_tab=systemRequirements . Look down, it's there: "USB REPORTING: Full-speed, 500 Hz", which means 0.002 second period. The other is Logitech G9 Laser. Check out its user manual at http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/logitech_e n_amr.cfg/php/enduser/fattach_get.php?p_sid=zBDx Zxcj&p_li=&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_tbl=9& p_id=6972&p_created=1184694002&p_olh=0 . Look at page 7: "most conventional mice only report 125 reports/second. With Full-Speed USB, the G9 reports up to 1000 reports/second", which means 0.001 second period. In the future, when gaming mice reach a report speed of, let's say, 5000 Hz, there will be absolutely no doubts that a measured time of 15.534 second was really 15.534, because the uncertainty given by the mouse will be less than 0.001 second. So hey, there's nothing wrong with measuring time in thousahdths of second. The problem is with your mouse. ![]() P.S.: I broke the lines of the URLs in order not to screw up the GB. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 09:34:42 AM |
|
Name: |
missed the link |
Comments: |
... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 09:30:38 AM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
you're not measuring the realtime of lasse's game! you're measuring the duration of a video which one video software has encoded and another video software is rendering... how do you get that clocked at hundredths of a seconds is beyond my understanding ![]() btw who said Lasse has just one 41?... Linked is one from 2005 instead of the one from 2002... maybe his video encoder lagged a bit less on a presumably better computer... what does your stopwatch make of this one? or are you going to argue that you can't physically place 80 flags with 2 misflags and still finish in 41 this time ![]() The problem gergely mentions is actually the opposite, playing on windows 98 is a disadvantage as you would lose half a second on average just at the start of the game and in extreme cases the timer would jump directly from 0 to 2... i think damien has it covered somewhere in the site under the name "timer jump"... or maybe it has dissappeared during one of the updates. mirupafshim joni P.S. I think I've grown tired of this... i let minesweeper go months ago... i guess it's about time... ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 08:04:20 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@fritz: my scores are ok, ut Lasse's arent |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 07:42:10 AM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
@kamil: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() leave the old scores as they are! who knows, maybe in 10 or 15 years the new top20 sweepers in that time will moan about some of your games! |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 06:30:00 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@damien: I cant agree with that Lasse with 1-12-43 real scores is higher than me in ranking because of bad win98's timer ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 04:29:53 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
@Kamil: This problem you found is not new; maybe it hasn't come up since you joined the community. I don't know much about this but as far as I remember, win98 had this glitch with the timer. The time shown was less than the real time. I had difficulties reaching the 64 I entered this community with (and which was achieved on win98) later on the clone. But back then it was the consensus to leave all these past records alone. If anyone knows more about this, please correct me ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 02:41:13 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@damien: the exact time of Dan Cerveny's 44 is 44,28 ![]() his vid shows correct time, so Lasse Nyholm's timer was slowed down (the real time 42,xx is 43 score, not 41 ![]() ![]() btw, ive checked Lanyje's 42s vid - its 43,35s real time => his timer is always -2s his 43s vid is 43,96 real time ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 01:33:17 AM |
|
Name: |
Rogen |
Comments: |
Sounds great Gergely ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 29th 2008 at 12:24:40 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Hello Everyone, I was at the Hungarian HP Pavilion notebook launch party yesterday evening where I was INVITED to by Microsoft Hungary. It was a party with some hungarian celebrities and was hosted by a well-known showman. I appeared as minesweeper player and after some Q&A with the host on the stage I performed some sweeping as well ![]() ![]() So anyone who thinks minesweeper is not marketable is just plain wrong... ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 10:48:31 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
666 (seconds)... oops I mean 999 the number of the smiley... lukasz you're a legend ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 08:43:01 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
Oh yeah, and congrats to Lukasz! ^_^ I was too fixated on understanding the rules... |
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 08:40:26 PM |
|
Name: |
WP |
Comments: |
Whoa... *head spins* That's one "interesting" point system. Let me see whether I've got how it works. So we start each session with a trial of 10 beg, 6 int and 2 exp games. The "completion" ranking is the number of games completed (maximum 18), and if there's a tie, it depends on the time needed to complete the 18 beg int exp games. After we finish our 18 games we are free to play whatever we want until the end of the session, and all the games played will contribute to the beg, int and exp rankings. And after each session, we'll have a look at whether anyone has exceeded the CPL in points. (and if so, some people drop out before the next session) Assuming that I've got that right, I have a question: how long is a session? (maybe I missed it somewhere?) |
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 12:48:47 PM |
|
Name: |
lukasz malinowski |
Best intermediate: |
14 -> 13,958 |
Comments: |
hi guys. haven't posted here for long time. just wanted you to know i improved my poor int score to 13s ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 11:53:05 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best intermediate: |
10x12 -> x13 |
Comments: |
Clone: 10,478 on 34 |
![]() |
|
Aug 28th 2008 at 05:04:54 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Ive just checked Lasse Nyholm's exact time of his 41s vid: from the 1st opened opening to pop-up window, its 42,56s real time = score should e 43. wtf? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 27th 2008 at 12:34:13 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Christoph: I cant agree with 3 things for point system: 1: Time Trial = luck only ( today i solved 15 beg + 6 int under 300s, but when blasted 152/163 on a 50-50 I turned it off) ====> RV MUST be =1 2: Who told that Beg or Int are worse, uglier, less skills or something like that? I cant agree with that Exp winner gets 50% more points than Int winner ![]() 3: time trial should be with no Exp: for example 20 beg, 10 Int - it also will show the Completion, but 50-50s wont be so bad ![]() btw, I made nice NF 3BV/s scores today: Exp: 3,661 (212) and 3,668 (19 ![]() Int: 4,876 (72) and 4,976 (72) ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 27th 2008 at 08:42:47 AM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
well, seeing that Christoph is determined to go all the way with this "very easy to follow" format there is nothing left but to congratulate him for finishing on the podium and cheer the future world champion: Maliniak! The way i see it your only challenge is to find the money to get to Vienna and you should be taking a well deserved win for the days gone by ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 27th 2008 at 03:49:18 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Ive just read the point system: @Christoph: Beginner, RV: 1 Intermediate, RV: 2 Expert, RV: 3 Completion, RV: 4 if Completion = TIme Trial, then RV must be 1 ![]() "For the Beg, Int and Exp ranking the best 5 scores from the so far played sessions count " -> it wont e fait if somebody gets 2 3bv for beg. it should be 15 best for eg (or 5 3bv min. 3bv) ![]() "Each session starts with a Trial: First you have to finish 10 beg games, then 6 int games, then 2 exp" -> if only last time trial count, then there is no point to play it before evey session ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 26th 2008 at 12:00:50 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
And next wasted 5 hours on Int ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 24th 2008 at 02:03:57 PM |
|
Name: |
tK |
Comments: |
Bertie wrote: Faster players by virtue of being fast face more boards in a given time period, meaning that their distribution is inflated. Basically a fast player has the stats a slower player would have in twice the time. Precisely. That is why it is not irrelevant at all how fast you are with a time trial. Speed gives you an advantage even within the time trial. And points are also awarded directly for speed - you get points for your running best int/exp/beg games. As far as I can remember, the ratio timetrial:exp:int:beg is 4:3:2:1. I am not absolutely sure exactly how the system works anymore, it is a bit complicated, could you explain it completely on the GB christoph? I am sure I'll remember if you do so, so I can answer questions regarding it. Also, who says that tournaments have to value the same skills as the world ranking? It is normal for tournaments to be more demanding of a player's ability to cope with a certain situation/act under stress than the corresponding world ranking. Minesweeper being a single player game and people therefore having basically unlimited time (at least compared to tournaments), this is natural. I can tell you that I wasn't exactly thrilled about the format when I heard how it worked. I liked it a lot better after I tried it. And KAmil, after seing your pwnage video where you blast half a million int games on by far not only forced guesses, I would like to see a five minute video where you play perfectly with respect to consistency before I believe you when you say that you don't make mistakes, at least on a pattern solving level. (OK, so actually all I will ever believe is that you are close to perfection because nothing and nobody is perfect anyway, but that is beside the point ![]() whatever, @IMC, I think I can see the problem now. We have discussed most important topics. Problem is, we still have alternative viewpoints and can't write down another statute draft because we would have to decide what alternatives to include. So it would be great to hear what people think of the alternatives. I'm not asking for long posts - just "I agree with XYZ" or "I think that ASDF makes more sense". Optionally with reason, but it would be great to hear what people agree with. And if people disagree upon a topic, we can open a poll. |
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 24th 2008 at 10:53:58 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best intermediate: |
10x11 -> x12 |
Comments: |
Clone: 10,722 on 36 @Manu: nice ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 23rd 2008 at 05:28:21 PM |
|
Name: |
manuel |
Comments: |
grml... again... Last game: 20.971sec - 3BV=109 - 3BV/s=5.458 - level=int *flagging* - Ranks: 13723/2 - IOE=0.973 - RQP=3.842 ;-) mfg |
![]() |
|
Aug 23rd 2008 at 04:55:38 PM |
|
Name: |
manuel h |
Comments: |
i did my 2nd best ever 3bv/s on int: Last game: 18.489sec - 3BV=95 - 3BV/s=5.432 - level=int *flagging* - Ranks: 7483/2 - IOE=1.056 - RQP=3.404 mfg.... |
![]() |
|
Aug 23rd 2008 at 04:22:12 PM |
|
Name: |
Jon S |
Comments: |
I just tried the time trial on Viennasweeper. just under 800 seconds on the first try. Played badly on beginner and intermediate. I tried to play safely on expert, and finished two of the first four boards where I got a good start. What are the four skills people will get points for at the WCH? |
![]() |
|
Aug 23rd 2008 at 08:15:14 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
today I played int for 5,5 hours, but of course didnt get a 9 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 21st 2008 at 12:00:24 PM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
xp solitaire standard draw1: 58 ======> 34!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![]() this single game makes me jump ~400 places in the ranking |
![]() |
|
Aug 21st 2008 at 08:55:21 AM |
|
Name: |
Der1k |
Best expert: |
68 |
Best intermediate: |
16 |
Best beginner: |
2 |
Comments: |
Just my input on the tournament.. I was just thinking that if there are 10-15 (or more) players to begin with that you can do the original 5+5 and the top 8 are then seeded by their times and you do an 8 player tournament with the time trial head to head. That way people can have the satisfaction of winning (or doing well) in the 5+5 and also you can have the 'best' 8 sweepers playing for the 'championship'. |
![]() |
|
Aug 21st 2008 at 05:52:14 AM |
|
Name: |
Ryo Nishihara (Leo) |
Best expert: |
55 |
Best intermediate: |
11 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
At last a decent game with a new mouse,and on vienna sweeper. 59 on 184 -> 3BVs 3.16 Of course,congratulations to all record breakers ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 20th 2008 at 02:15:36 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
![]() ![]() ![]() Austria just played a great match against the world champion Italy and scored 4 goals! ... unfortunately the final score was 2:2 ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 20th 2008 at 12:27:37 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Best beginner: |
5000 sub5 |
Comments: |
4999 Clone + 1s from arbiter ![]() 1x24 (av. 3bv: 4) 2x557 (av. 3bv: 7) 3x2214 (av. 3bv: 10) 4x2206 (av. 3bv: 14) ![]() also made my 2nd best NF 3BV/s: 18 in 3,669 @ 6,744 ( clone record) @Damien: is it enough to write in news or do I need 10000? ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 20th 2008 at 04:20:45 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Joni, you're right and I'm not saying time trial is perfect. But more spectacular for everyone. And yes, creating boards with no 50-50 should be a huge improvement for time trial. And again: another format is head-to-head with the same boards, given with the same openings to begin with. And while we are here, there's another split possible: flagging / non-flagging style A! la wrestling greco-roman / freestyle ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 20th 2008 at 02:19:31 AM |
|
Name: |
Gregoire Duffez |
Best expert: |
47 |
Best intermediate: |
11 |
Best beginner: |
1 |
Comments: |
Hello there! It's been a while! I'm glad to see that Minesweeper's life goes on, and rankings still live... Just wanted to drop a message to tell that I'm not dead, I still play from time to time (pretty rare though)... can't get decent times, but doesn't matter ;-) The hosting of my site will last 'til may 2009, after that I guess I'll give everything to Damien so that he might be using anything he finds useful. I have one year before I become a doctor, after 9 years... as a general practitioner ; don't have much time to play! Anyway, warm hello to old folks of the good old times, and cheers to all the new ones ![]() Bye Gregoire |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 20th 2008 at 02:08:10 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Michael: people dont say that the new system is bad, but that the time trial )especially on exp) would be based on luck ( especially 50-50 on the last cilck on exp). Minesweeperlive generates only boards with no 50-50, time trial would be good also with no 50-50 ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 08:40:40 PM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
@Christoph - the reason most people didn't say anything until now is because until now they had no idea what system was going to be used. People can't comment on something unknown. It seems like you created a new system that's vastly different from the traditional tourny format, and then are surprised when people lack the clairvoyancy required to predict it. Also I think people in general are more likely to comment if they have something negative to say, so perhaps people saw nothing wrong with the other format. @Gergely - that's a good point about marketability. A 3hr session will get no spectators. But are we really at the point where we have any spectators? I suppose we should plan for the future. I think your idea of having both a regular 3hr session plus a time trial is the way to go. By the way, I broke my minesweeper hiatus to try out the time trial format. I managed to complete one game in 600 seconds. It was within the first 300 seconds as well. I'm a bit rusty at the moment, but I think that actually helps my completion rate. |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 01:17:06 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@joni: vids broke down, can u repair plaese? ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 12:42:20 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Best expert: |
i f.u.c.k.ing hate this guestbook |
Best intermediate: |
one dares not hit backspace |
Comments: |
@Gergely: I'm afraid this year's tourney is not that simple... quote "We'll play a point system with points for four different skills (details to come) and a 5int+5exp sideevent." I don't know what Christoph went on to decide in the end, but judging from the format he discussed with me a few months ago it didn't sound that easy to follow... or very fair... Maybe a minesweeperlive-like tourney is closer to what you're looking for. It sure is viewer-friendly and exciting while being much fairer since both competitors play the exact same board that needs no guesses to be solved. It does still strongly favor the flaggers, and the boards tend to be somewhat peculiar, so there's room for improvement, but it's definitely a good place to start from (and I say that knowing all to well that I'd never stand any chances in such a tourney) |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 12:11:33 PM |
|
Name: |
Arsen |
Comments: |
I totally agree with Kamil on 5+5 and time trial for fun ) |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 10:33:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Gergely |
Comments: |
Hello! Seems like there's a quite heated debate about the tourny system. Here are my thoughts as I have experience about both: 1. I played both system (i.e the 5+5 and the time trial and I think they are not comparable just like hammer throw is not comparable with decathlon, for example. They require different skills and therefore produce very different results (where in the hell could I have been able to finish second in a 5+5 format in Vienna last year? ![]() 2. One could argue that as the community values speed with the current world ranking system (as no matter how much attempts and time one given record takes, its still a record) the 5+5-style tournament is better suited for the needs of the sweepers. The probolem is that if YOU want to make minesweeper known around the world (maybe as a cybersport) then you should have spectators. And 3 hours of continuous clicking is veeeeery-very boring for outsiders. Have you shown your skills to a friend, to any other people? How many of your clicking did he/she endure before leaving? Now think about 10 minutes (that's how long a time trial takes after only a little practice) when you are forced to solve every single board if possible: both the fellow sweepers and the outsiders are able to enjoy it without losing their interest. Especially if it is played head-to-head when there's a very good opportunity to compare the sweepers. To simply put it, time trial is more marketable, period. So what if we play both system and have two winners? ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 03:17:14 AM |
|
Name: |
GergA? |
Best expert: |
2,320 -> 2,417 |
Comments: |
3BV/s record! 2,417 on a 251 board in 104,848. It was the highest 3BV board I have ever solve... Yesterday I did a 74, which was my 4. best on exp. Of course, both of them are NF. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 01:33:26 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
in my opinion we should play 3 hours 5+5 and Time Trial after end, just for fun ![]() @Kat: u also can check Vienna sweeper |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 01:10:31 AM |
|
Name: |
kat |
Comments: |
scratch that it's fine when i open msx too... just not after i switch back from another level |
![]() |
|
Aug 19th 2008 at 01:06:18 AM |
|
Name: |
Kat |
Comments: |
Thankyou KAmil, i forgot about MSX! It works on this notebook except for the bottom of beg being cut off. Seems to be fine when i change resolution BUT as soon as i go to int or exp then change back it is cut off again. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 11:15:34 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
i have, of course, made my opinion clear long ago... the most puzzling thing for me was the fact that while the IMC seems to have decided to throw beginner out of the rankings, you suddenly introduce this system which requires people to play ~100 beg games at what one calls IMC WCh... based on that feedback you thought about lowering the number of beginner games from 16 to 10 at the time trial... i don't know what your final decision was. A question about the "side event". Will this be played simultaneously with the TimeTrials, or is it just me missunderstanding your words? |
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 06:48:19 AM |
|
Name: |
GergA? |
Best expert: |
ALERT! |
Best intermediate: |
Long post |
Best beginner: |
is coming!!! |
Comments: |
Cristoph wrote: August 9th 2008 01:26:57 PM "However, I got a lot of input on the system. Some did heavily disagree with the system from the austiran championships (but only players who never tried it) and some told me, they really want me to keep up and improve that system. As it's impossible to make everybody happy with the type of the tournament, we'll go for having two discipines: - the mainevent with the point-dropout-system and - the sideevent with a 5+5 sum the point system is pretty easy, but pretty difficoult to explain in detail, so just the basic idea: there will be a series of 999sec sessions, after each the players get points for 4 different skills, when the leader reaches a certain amount of points the bottom some players drop out - that goes on until only one player is left. for the 5+5 all the games from the 999sec sessions count (the droped out players can stil play in that sessions for the 5+5, but no longer for the points - if they prefer they can watch some games of the top players stil in the compatition live)." Then everything is clear. Two events will be organised, a time trial, and 5+5. I know that some of you wants to win the competition. As you are much better players than me, it is a real goal for you. My aims are only to feel myself well, and have a good result relative to my usual results. If I am the last in the tournament, I will never mind if I do a sub 80 and/or sub 20 and finish the proper number of games. To feel myself well I need not only good results but a meeting with some people of the community, which helped me a lot to get world ranked and gave a friendly atmosphere through the guestbook. I am sure, that I will be much better in the side event, but I try to develop in consistency, as well. @Christoph: I checked the link you gave, but I think we should have the accomodation at the same building in order to be together the longest. I think, a kind of voting should be necessary to decide, where to sleep. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 04:30:29 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
play on MSX ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 03:04:33 AM |
|
Name: |
kat |
Comments: |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 02:01:00 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Damien ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() and Gregoire Duffez still has Gabriel de Tarragon's vid linked as his int record in world ranking, and its not possible to download Lukasz's 44 vid ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 18th 2008 at 01:40:16 AM |
|
Name: |
manuel |
Comments: |
"System: The system of the tournament is not yet fixed. (The upcoming Austrian winter and spring-championships will be used to test possible systems.) " please update the tourny information. in my post i only repeated what i already said before... mfg |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 11:52:23 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
@Gergö: last years hints page might help http://www.dotti.at/ms/index.php?data=55&men2=1&men3=5&style=1 I would recommend the porzellaneum since it's pretty close, Roman stayed there last year, I guess he could tell how he liked it. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 11:42:44 PM |
|
Name: |
Christoph |
Comments: |
Ok, lets put it that way: When I tried to organize a tournamet in vienna a year before the first budapest tourny and had the idea of making just a sum over some games (5+5 and 3+6 were discussed back then) I got WAY more and worse complaints (I actually received hate emails of several pages how I could think of such stupid tournaments). Today the situation is very different. We're now talking about a tournament format that was already tested. It proved to work well, it proved to not be a question of luck and it proved that it is mainly about good scores and less about completion. Moreover, everybody who played this format liked it although most of them were speed players rather than completion players. But what I really don't understand: I kept asking and asking and asking for input on the tournament format since last summer, but found it very difficoult to even get 10 oppinions. Then biased on what I heard I made up a system, tested it found it good and now told the community that we will play like that. And that results in everybody (who didn't gave a d*mn telling me what they think before) throws around comments how bad the system is. Honestly, if you want to have a say then bring your ideas in when the system is planed - there's no use in being silent all the time one could speak and shout loud against the desicion later. The world championship is stil a month away. You know the system of play now - you can practice for it! That's the same for everybody (but me because I'm busy with preparing the event). Sorry if you don't like it, but do you really think a month before the event is the right time to tell me that? |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 11:31:59 PM |
|
Name: |
GergA? |
Comments: |
Maybe the best solution is according to my opinion to organise both tournament formats. The comparison of the original 5+5 with the time trial will be an interesting experience. I suppose, there will be quite different rankings and results. But I think the organisers should give the chance to the less consistent players, as well. And Fritz is right. We can do nothing about forced guesses in the end of an exp game. Btw, what is your opinion about an NF side event (not suggestion, only want to know your opinions)? I know, this tournament is not about only Minesweeper, but about common programs, too, however, I support that both formats should be present in Vienna. And another question, as we have only a month until the competition: where will we sleep? Does anybody know a cheap accomodation? It would be the best, that everybody sleeps at the same place, just to be together, as we meet each other so rare. Maybe, Christoph, you can suggest something, as you know the city. Solving this situation is quite urgent, as (I think) many of us need to reserve tickets for plane or train or bus, and (at least) for me everything depends on the price of the accomodation. If it is reative cheap, I can arrive at thursday noon and stay until sunday noon. Sorry for the long post... |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 03:32:26 PM |
|
Name: |
fritz |
Comments: |
tho i won't participate in vienna i'd like to comment on time trial too: what i like about time trial is that it requires to play at a high speed without a break for a rather long time. this makes it a bit different from the playing style through "normal" 5+5 where you can make a little break whenever you need it. i don't mind that long times but for other sweepers this might be very hard. also the mixture of the levels is basically a good thing. but i find that luck play a too big role in the way time trial stands now. during the 15 begs one can't loose much time, noone should lose more than 50 sec to the best on it, also on int one can't lose much time when blasting a game or two due to forced guesses, let's say another 50 secon int. on exp there are many more forced guesses and if eg someone gets a 50/50 close to the end and blasts for them it is like they have to finish 3 exp games in the same time. i think time trial won't be fair with forced guesses. it is intended to show who is fast and makes least mistakes but for me a blast on a forced guess can't be the sweeper's mistake. also i don't really like that one can't chose the order in which one wants to play the 23 boards. another suggestion i have would be to keep time trial not as a one on one but in a way like the 5+5. sth like you have 10 attempts for time trial and the best one counts. just some thoughts..... good luck everyone and happy sweeping |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 03:19:52 PM |
|
Name: |
damien |
Comments: |
Website Updated. Congrats to Rodrigo! I have no time records for 3 years either..... Kamil, I do not understand how a human can get 10s so easily! I like the work Christoph has put into his time trial idea, and his new points system makes it more fair than it used to be. In my opinion the time trial is a very exciting side event (even though I would lose1) I prefer every contest to have a main 5+5 event so we can compare champions and results. But, I am not the organiser! I hope more of us can go, I am still trying to arrange it. Would be fun to meet you guys again. |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 03:04:04 PM |
|
Name: |
joni |
Comments: |
Grats Rodrigo ![]() ![]() @ tourney format: i can't but agree with Gergö and the others. People seem to forget 5+5 does already take into account both fast times and consistency (for example Christoph and me had been as close as it could get in the rankings for months before Budapest, yet he beat me by 20+seconds despite him having hurt his hand before the tourney...deservedly so, because Christoph is a more consistent player). Trying to bias things even more towards consistent players doesn't make sense to me at all. Dennis Lütken did something exceptional at Budapest. He finished 8 (by what i remember, or maybe 6 as it shows on minesweeper.cc) NF games during those 2.5 hours, the top-5 of which were 59,60,61,62,65. I take my hat off and say that in my opinion that ranks up there slightly behind Manu's 5 sub-50s. In time trial mode such incredible performance would be worth almost nothing... since one has to finish at least 2 exp games in less than 15 minutes... I can understand 5+5 is not the most exiting/viewer friendly competition there is... but is it really neccessary to make things so biased just to add uncertainety/exitement? |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 11:53:33 AM |
|
Name: |
daniel |
Comments: |
hi guys, im also back ![]() after finishing a home wrok about winckelmanns "thoughts about the imitation of the anceint greeks' works in painting and scuplture" i had my first real minesweepersession for about a month. i only finished two expert games, which leads me to the opinion that a time trial would be quite hard for evereyone except the really good players. but on int, first i blasted a 45 bord at 14,96 lc in an area around a six, would have been a nice score ![]() ![]() just another suggestion fpr the tournament. i dont know if there will be some minesweeper noobs, but wouldnt it be nice to have some work for them too? eg a compeiotion like most finished int games in an hour? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 11:45:21 AM |
|
Name: |
Rogen |
Comments: |
I won't participate in World Championship this year, but I'm definetely for 5+5 system. Btw, 2nd russian minesweeper championship will be organized approximately in the middle of November, I invite foreigners to Moscow as "special star guests" ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 10:07:57 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Manu: I cant agree with the games solved and blasted counter - Im not going to start a new history file ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 17th 2008 at 06:51:53 AM |
|
Name: |
manuel h |
Comments: |
f.u.c.k the gb ![]() ![]() ![]() now in short: i finished my first time trial on viennasweeper in 527,5s ( finished the first two exp boards i opened ...) the community does not care about the completionrate, so why the world championship should be based mainly on the ability to finish boards ? ( if time trials are used) i asked over two years ago ( when i started to use clone) why it doesnt count blasted boards and noone cared, and still noone cares today... i demand all accepted clones to count the completion rate if this system should be used in vienna. i suggest a point system that evaluates int and exp sessions. like points are given for time, 3bv/s, ioe & rqp, deviation ( diff. between avrg of all games and best game), completionrate ( mabye nr of finished games) ............ u can make an one on one tournament as a side event to get extrapoints.... just some thoughts... mfg manu |
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 04:38:35 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@Rodrigo: I've also had the strong believe that MS on XP produced more easier board than Clone (I've played intermediate on Clone about 99 time more than on MSX, still my best intermediate record is on MSX). Could the difference in difficulty be the following: On MSX, if your first click is on top of a mine it replaced it to the top left corner (=making the board slightly easier), while Clone creates completely new random boards till the first click isn't a mine (=no advantage when 1st click is on mine)? |
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 04:26:52 PM |
|
Name: |
Ronny |
Comments: |
@All: Hey all......haven't posted in a while, cause I was on a short cycling trip (and still retired from minesweeper). About the suggested tournament style, I must admit that the time format of even 999s is only a possible format for a very select group of people in the world. If I would have participated I wouldn't even have bothered trying, because of my low success rate (even without unforced guessing, I've never even solved >5 exp. boards in 1 day!). With some training and slowing down my game play, I might be able to do solve 3-5 expert boards and 5 intermediate boards in 3 hours, but solving a single exp. board in 999s (or even 600s) would be completely down to luck for players like me. Even if I would solve a board in that time, my time would be down to luck as well, since I only solved 1, so no way to calculate an average time. I feel the system should be possible for (almost) all world ranked players on not just the elite. @Rodrigo: congrats that's very well deserved. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 02:41:54 PM |
|
Name: |
grzegorz |
Comments: |
I am watching olympics and i'm wondering: 1. How fast man can swim? How is this possible to beat world record by 2 seconds? Oh no, this is nothing. How is it possible to do this 5 times in one week, in 3 diferent competitions 2. How fast man can run? 20 years ago Ben Johnson was disqualified, and he's score was 9.69. Somebody told then, that this is impossible to run so fast without drugs. Hhhhmmmm, what should i think about today Bolt's show? :) i am now waiting for 200m sprint, because 12 years ago I told, that nobody will run faster than Michael Johnson. 3. Finally, it was nearly impossible to get 10s on int just 5 years ago, but now Kamil doing it month by month. He was 3 clicks away to beat, not 10s barrier but 9s barrier, too. It was impossible to solve exp under 41s too. Now it is 37, but let's take a look in the future, i bet it would be 33-34s in 5 years for sure. Sorry for this preety long SPAM Happy sweeping ![]() econ9 |
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 01:04:08 PM |
|
Name: |
Rodrigo |
Comments: |
Crap, the link is in the URL below. ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 01:02:08 PM |
|
Name: |
Rodrigo |
Best expert: |
66 x 5+ =====> 64 !!!! |
Comments: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Oh my God!! Finally broke my record!! I got 64 seconds!! My previous record was 66, which I got 3.5 years ago, on Jan 05, 2005. This new record is 64.177, on a 138 3BV board, at 2.1884 3BV/s. If you watch the video, you'll se it was a fairly regular game, the estimated time was almost stable between 60 and 70! Also, I didn't do a single guess! And more, it was NF!! I wasn't playing NF, but then I got that first big opening. During the game, I noticed I was going strong, then I decided to keep NF to get a lower probability of making mistakes. And finished it! Nice, now I have 1-15-64. I know 64 is not that much for most of you, but hey, it's a 3.5-years-record. And I didn't stop playing during that time! The video is in my folder. The link is http://www.minesweeper.info/videoindex.php?dir=RodrigoCamargo/&file=rodrigo64.mvf Good luck everyone!! |
![]() |
|
Aug 16th 2008 at 12:51:28 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
5th sup7 on Beg: 27 in 4,854 @ 7,006 - sucky played, I could easily get sup8 ![]() Its my 1st sup7 with no pop-up window ![]() linked |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 15th 2008 at 11:51:06 AM |
|
Name: |
Arsen |
Comments: |
Sorry for being short guys, but I prefer the good old system with 5 best int and 5 best exp in 3 hours and is definitely for it. |
![]() |
|
Aug 15th 2008 at 09:02:35 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
Ive just made th 1st in world 46NF: Clone, 46,619 on 156 @ 3,42 ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 15th 2008 at 06:19:14 AM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
@Gergo: u aren rigth, misclicks happen the same many times in flagging and the same in NF ![]() btw, I didnt say that time limit for "time trial" 999s is worse for NFggers than for flaggers, I wanted to say that its not fair if somebody blast on a 50-50 on the last click, especially on exp, because 999s is so much time to do 50-50 blasts. ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 14th 2008 at 11:37:29 PM |
|
Name: |
Gergõ |
Comments: |
Let's say the board distribution in this ten minutes equal. Then only the styles, speeds and consistency differ. Being an NF-er, I usually blast my games due to misclicks and not board difficulty (maybe due to guesses). The danger of these in flagging are much lower (I played Fl quite a long time until the beginning of this year). I think, we can agree. Flaggers usually finish more boards in a given time, and the shorter the time is, the larger is the difference. Without flags the misclicks are much more dangerous (you can not click on a square defended by flags), and you do not have double clicks, which reveal the right squares. Furthermore, the point of WR is the time, and not consistency. Many players play with high risk, a lot of unforced guesses in order to be faster. They might have even better times than consistent players, but finish a single expert game quite rare. These are two different tactics, and neither of them is better or worse. The goal is the same, the method of reaching it is different. Of course, between these frames, everyting can occur, and the mixture ratios of these two styles (consistency vs. time) are endless. I think, we should not punish players with a tournament format, which is altered a lot towards consistency. For players, who focus at only the time, even that 180 minute can be little to finish five expert games. Do not forget, that in most of the tournaments there were penalties due to the non-finished expert games. I suggest, that there should be two competitions with the two different systems with the same importancy. Neither of them should be the main tournament system. What are your opinions? |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Aug 14th 2008 at 01:04:52 PM |
|
Name: |
KAmil |
Comments: |
just made 11,75 on clone ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 14th 2008 at 12:38:27 PM |
|
Name: |
Bertie |
Comments: |
Micheal raises an interesting point. Granted that every player statistically has the same board difficulty distribution over a long enough time period. Still, we have a problem. Faster players by virtue of being fast face more boards in a given time period, meaning that their distribution is inflated. Basically a fast player has the stats a slower player would have in twice the time. I think we could bring into the discussion perhaps a type of handicap whereby we give slower players an adjusted time period i.e. a sub50 player plays for 600s where a sub70 player plays for 800s. The detail would be messy though, but it could bring some spice to the tourney. I learned something interesting about the human brain today. We only become consciously aware of a stimulus half a second after the brain activity it produces, starts. The brain activity involved in making a choice also starts quite a bit before we actually make the choice. I wonder whether a sweepers brain would produce some interresting insights into the workings of the human brain? Anyone know a neuroscientist? ![]() |
![]() |
|
Aug 14th 2008 at 11:14:25 AM |
|
Name: |
Michael |
Comments: |
I'm not sure I fully understand the tourny format that's being discussed, but to be honest any session that's measured in seconds is, for any player like me, totally useless. The chances of me completing even one expert game in 300/600 seconds is unlikely. Even 999 seconds is far too small. Granted, I'm almost certainly not going to Vienna this year, but there are loads of players like me who don't finish many games per session. A lot of people will feel they might as well not bother. @Tommy - I noticed the IMC forum was back online, but I've given my opinion on most of the topics. Last time I checked, nobody had really responded. If people want a debate I'll join in, but I'm not going to talk to myself. |
![]() |
Viewing Page 9 of 27 (Total Entries: 2685) |