Calcudoku puzzle forum https://www.calcudoku.org/forum/ |
|
2.596 https://www.calcudoku.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=378 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | starling [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:54 am ] |
Post subject: | 2.596 |
I have the strangest feeling that there's something amiss about that time. That's a keystroke every .07211 seconds, or 832 APM, which is higher than July's world record... |
Author: | bram [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
It took a short while for me to realise that the time of 2.596 seconds you were referring to was someone's time solving not a 4x4 but a 6x6! That is of course impossible. (The same puzzler solved another 6x6 in 40.280 seconds, which is a much more realistic time.) |
Author: | pnm [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
starling wrote: I have the strangest feeling that there's something amiss about that time. That's a keystroke every .07211 seconds, or 832 APM, which is higher than July's world record... quite... both his times (the other was 40.28) were done using a solver in fact. for the first he typed in the solution himself (row by row), for the 2nd it was a program. Patrick |
Author: | pnm [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
A bit annoying, I sent him a note asking not to use a solver anymore, and to maybe write about it in the "describe your solver" thread, and all he does is submit another crazy time :-( |
Author: | frederick [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
pnm wrote: starling wrote: I have the strangest feeling that there's something amiss about that time. That's a keystroke every .07211 seconds, or 832 APM, which is higher than July's world record... quite... both his times (the other was 40.28) were done using a solver in fact. for the first he typed in the solution himself (row by row), for the 2nd it was a program. Patrick I agree, very annoying, now i will certainly never be number 1 on the 6x6 timed (i know - what a wit eh) Still, somehow, one feels solvers are in use by more than one denizen of this club. Luckily I still get a thrill when after much browbeating I see one of the hard puzzles light up green:) |
Author: | pnm [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
opacitaviola wrote: Still, somehow, one feels solvers are in use by more than one denizen of this club. There's quite a bit of software I wrote that's trying to make it hard/impossible for people using solvers. So I'm pretty confident that the people at the top are legit. Also, by doing the timed puzzles myself I get a good sense of what is possible (and my best times are pretty decent ) Of course, when someone uses a solver to solve the regular puzzles (& Killer Sudokus) there's not much I can do about that (i.e. it is possible to collect lots of points without ever knowing how to solve the puzzles, but where's the fun in that). Patrick |
Author: | frederick [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
pnm wrote: Of course, when someone uses a solver to solve the regular puzzles (& Killer Sudokus) there's not much I can do about that (i.e. it is possible to collect lots of points without ever knowing how to solve the puzzles, but where's the fun in that). Patrick I agree wholeheartedly - about the fun part. |
Author: | Piotr [ Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
'sup? pnm wrote: both his times (the other was 40.28) were done using a solver in fact. for the first he typed in the solution himself (row by row), for the 2nd it was a program. i don't remember getting 40s at all, but if i did, it most probably wasn't by solver, because it would took me longer to type that puzzle, and the solution in. on the other hand i suck at doing them fast, so... umm... dunno. pnm wrote: A bit annoying, I sent him a note asking not to use a solver anymore, whoops, didn't see. i don't use that email. opacitaviola wrote: I agree, very annoying, now i will certainly never be number 1 on the 6x6 timed (i know - what a wit eh) if they didn't remove my result you'd just need to write more automatic solver ;P opacitaviola wrote: Still, somehow, one feels solvers are in use by more than one denizen of this club. nooooo waaaaay. i'm absolutely sure i'm the only one lazy/hard working enough to do that. pnm wrote: There's quite a bit of software I wrote that's trying to make it hard/impossible for people using solvers. oh, i wonder, how would it be possible... pnm wrote: Also, by doing the timed puzzles myself I get a good sense of what is possible doing 4x4 in 3.9s, 5x5 in 9.7s, and 6x6 in 16.6s seems possible? srsly? pnm wrote: (i.e. it is possible to collect lots of points without ever knowing how to solve the puzzles, but where's the fun in that) agreed. |
Author: | pnm [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
fb_12411 wrote: i'm afraid i have no idea where did it go, and where i can read it. To the e-mail address associated with your facebook account. fb_12411 wrote: nooooo waaaaay. i'm absolutely sure i'm the only one lazy/hard working enough to do that. Quite a few people have written solvers (just check the solvers thread)(and there are more) fb_12411 wrote: doing 4x4 in 3.9s, 5x5 in 9.7s, and 6x6 in 16.6s seems possible? srsly? Yes, as I wrote, I'm pretty confident those are valid times. Anyway, feel free to describe your solver.. |
Author: | Piotr [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 2.596 |
pnm wrote: To the e-mail address associated with your facebook account. yeah, sorry, i forgot my fb account is connected to my old email which i don't use, and i've found your email just before you wrote that post ;) pnm wrote: Quite a few people have written solvers (just check the solvers thread)(and there are more) oh please, fix your irony detector :D pnm wrote: Yes, as I wrote, I'm pretty confident those are valid times. that 4x4 would require typing properly 4 fields/sec, which is pretty unbelievable, unless it looked like your avatar... |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |