Calcudoku puzzle forum
http://www.calcudoku.org/forum/

2.596
http://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/