Thread: "Reorganizing the various halls of fame?"

I'm suggesting we organize each puzzle's records by categories of earliest =
solves and shortest moves, but not for the single highest achiever, but as =
a descending list. This will also help build a better competition for indiv=
iduals wanting to rank higher in the shortest moves bracket.

I'd love some input on this idea.

In principle it sounds fine to me though there are a couple of
consequences. Right now only the records for shortest involve a single
solution that everyone can examine to detect cheating, etc. Your way
requires that all log files need to be published and more importantly,
it requires more work from all solvers who are beaten to assure it was
done legitimately. If nobody objects, then this is fine with me. I just
don't want to maintain the list for the cube.

Maybe the entire official HOF should also be moved to the wiki? That
would certainly be the easiest for me! :-) If we do that, I will still
volunteer to police the cube solutions for cheating, just not for any
shortest records other than new solvers or for shortest records other
than the top for each size. Opinions anyone?

-Melinda

On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
> I'm suggesting we organize each puzzle's records by categories of earliest solves and shortest moves, but not for the single highest achiever, but as a descending list. This will also help build a better competition for individuals wanting to rank higher in the shortest moves bracket.
>
> I'd love some input on this idea.

No, I'm pretty sure that the group doesn't have any cheaters but it only
takes one to spoil things. I've caught one or two cheaters submitting
solutions to cube puzzles, so it's not any sort of big threat but the
amount of work put in by all legitimate solvers deserves some vigilance.

-Melinda

On 3/22/2011 11:22 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
> Hmmm... I hadn't considered cheating, that really does pose an interesting threat to such a competitive feature. However, this doesn't seem to be the group that is full of cheaters.
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
>> In principle it sounds fine to me though there are a couple of
>> consequences. Right now only the records for shortest involve a single
>> solution that everyone can examine to detect cheating, etc. Your way
>> requires that all log files need to be published and more importantly,
>> it requires more work from all solvers who are beaten to assure it was
>> done legitimately. If nobody objects, then this is fine with me. I just
>> don't want to maintain the list for the cube.
>>
>> Maybe the entire official HOF should also be moved to the wiki? That
>> would certainly be the easiest for me! :-) If we do that, I will still
>> volunteer to police the cube solutions for cheating, just not for any
>> shortest records other than new solvers or for shortest records other
>> than the top for each size. Opinions anyone?
>>
>> -Melinda
>>
>> On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
>>> I'm suggesting we organize each puzzle's records by categories of earliest solves and shortest moves, but not for the single highest achiever, but as a descending list. This will also help build a better competition for individuals wanting to rank higher in the shortest moves bracket.
>>>
>>> I'd love some input on this idea.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--00032555b67e56c077049f17b0b0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Melinda, checking only the shortest/first solutions for cheating sounds goo=
d
to me, and as spelwerdzrite (funny name btw) pointed out, I don't think
cheating should be too much of a concern for this group beyond the standard
hypercube puzzle

Speaking of uploading solves though, I have started working on a few of
these smaller 4D puzzles after suffering through the wrath of the 120Cell
and have a few solves to submit, but I'm not entirely sure how to go about
doing that. Do I need to make a wikipedia username?

There's no rush, as none of my solves are on new puzzles, but one is a
record shortest by just over half the current shortest ({5}x{4} Pentagonal
Duoprism, Size 3 in 489 moves). As a side note, I still believe a
theoretically more accurate way to count moves is to only count rotations o=
f
unique cells (so clicking the same cell twice/three times in a row only
counts as 1 move), but I can live with the current counting scheme so again
no rush.

Seeing as a majority of my solves are not new records, I of course obviousl=
y
approve of these descending lists. It can also show who else is even workin=
g
on these things that just haven't made the 1st or shortest solution cut.
Gelatinbrain keeps only the first 50 in each of his record categories:
http://users.skynet.be/gelatinbrain/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/ranking.htm s=
o
I think a smaller cap of perhaps 10 or 15 would be appropriate for this
group, if we even get there! :)

-Matt Galla
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:22 PM, spelwerdzrite wro=
te:

>
>
> Hmmm... I hadn't considered cheating, that really does pose an interestin=
g
> threat to such a competitive feature. However, this doesn't seem to be th=
e
> group that is full of cheaters.
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green wrote:
> >
> > In principle it sounds fine to me though there are a couple of
> > consequences. Right now only the records for shortest involve a single
> > solution that everyone can examine to detect cheating, etc. Your way
> > requires that all log files need to be published and more importantly,
> > it requires more work from all solvers who are beaten to assure it was
> > done legitimately. If nobody objects, then this is fine with me. I just
> > don't want to maintain the list for the cube.
> >
> > Maybe the entire official HOF should also be moved to the wiki? That
> > would certainly be the easiest for me! :-) If we do that, I will still
> > volunteer to police the cube solutions for cheating, just not for any
> > shortest records other than new solvers or for shortest records other
> > than the top for each size. Opinions anyone?
> >
> > -Melinda
> >
> > On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
> > > I'm suggesting we organize each puzzle's records by categories of
> earliest solves and shortest moves, but not for the single highest achiev=
er,
> but as a descending list. This will also help build a better competition =
for
> individuals wanting to rank higher in the shortest moves bracket.
> > >
> > > I'd love some input on this idea.
> >
>
>=20=20
>

--00032555b67e56c077049f17b0b0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

--------------010106000904070501000302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Matthew,

I'm still astounded that more than one person has solved the full 120
cell. Being first might have been enough motivation for me in the past,
but after that is really hard for me to understand. I'm glad that you
are working on other puzzles and looking for shortest solutions. The
pentagonal duoprism is sort of like the cube's pretty little sister. It
seems like the natural first puzzle to try after solving the cube. It
was Don's default puzzle in his first prototype, and it is easy to see why.

Regarding your new log files, I think you can currently edit the wiki
without an account but you will want to create an account here

and log in so that your name will be linked with your edits.

Regarding compression of some consecutive twists on a single face, I
agree that they should count as a single twist. We've discussed this a
fair bit in the past and it turns out to be a feature that has a
surprising number of complexities. Issue 28
talks to this
a bit but there should probably be one created specifically on this
point. It would be great if you would read that discussion
in the
message archive and synthesize its conclusions into a new enhancement
request.

Regarding sorted lists of shortest solves, I don't see any reason not to
include all solutions. It's just more work to maintain and police them
that I do not want to do, but really, whatever you guys want to do is
fine with me. That's sort of what wiki's are all about. It's better to
have to ask forgiveness than permission.

-Melinda

On 3/22/2011 12:59 PM, Galla, Matthew wrote:
>
>
> Melinda, checking only the shortest/first solutions for cheating
> sounds good to me, and as spelwerdzrite (funny name btw) pointed out,
> I don't think cheating should be too much of a concern for this group
> beyond the standard hypercube puzzle
> Speaking of uploading solves though, I have started working on a few
> of these smaller 4D puzzles after suffering through the wrath of the
> 120Cell and have a few solves to submit, but I'm not entirely sure how
> to go about doing that. Do I need to make a wikipedia username?
> There's no rush, as none of my solves are on new puzzles, but one is a
> record shortest by just over half the current shortest ({5}x{4}
> Pentagonal Duoprism, Size 3 in 489 moves). As a side note, I still
> believe a theoretically more accurate way to count moves is to only
> count rotations of unique cells (so clicking the same cell twice/three
> times in a row only counts as 1 move), but I can live with the current
> counting scheme so again no rush.
> Seeing as a majority of my solves are not new records, I of course
> obviously approve of these descending lists. It can also show who else
> is even working on these things that just haven't made the 1st or
> shortest solution cut. Gelatinbrain keeps only the first 50 in each of
> his record categories:
> http://users.skynet.be/gelatinbrain/Applets/Magic%20Polyhedra/ranking.htm so
> I think a smaller cap of perhaps 10 or 15 would be appropriate for
> this group, if we even get there! :)
> -Matt Galla
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:22 PM, spelwerdzrite
> > wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I hadn't considered cheating, that really does pose an
> interesting threat to such a competitive feature. However, this
> doesn't seem to be the group that is full of cheaters.
>
>
>
> --- In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com
> , Melinda Green
> wrote:
> >
> > In principle it sounds fine to me though there are a couple of
> > consequences. Right now only the records for shortest involve a
> single
> > solution that everyone can examine to detect cheating, etc. Your
> way
> > requires that all log files need to be published and more
> importantly,
> > it requires more work from all solvers who are beaten to assure
> it was
> > done legitimately. If nobody objects, then this is fine with me.
> I just
> > don't want to maintain the list for the cube.
> >
> > Maybe the entire official HOF should also be moved to the wiki?
> That
> > would certainly be the easiest for me! :-) If we do that, I will
> still
> > volunteer to police the cube solutions for cheating, just not
> for any
> > shortest records other than new solvers or for shortest records
> other
> > than the top for each size. Opinions anyone?
> >
> > -Melinda
> >
> > On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
> > > I'm suggesting we organize each puzzle's records by categories
> of earliest solves and shortest moves, but not for the single
> highest achiever, but as a descending list. This will also help
> build a better competition for individuals wanting to rank higher
> in the shortest moves bracket.
> > >
> > > I'd love some input on this idea.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--------------010106000904070501000302
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




http-equiv=3D"Content-Type">


Hello Matthew,



I'm still astounded that more than one person has solved the full
120 cell. Being first might have been enough motivation for me in
the past, but after that is really hard for me to understand. I'm
glad that you are working on other puzzles and looking for shortest
solutions. The pentagonal duoprism is sort of like the cube's pretty
little sister. It seems like the natural first puzzle to try after
solving the cube. It was Don's default puzzle in his first
prototype, and it is easy to see why.



Regarding your new log files, I think you can currently edit the
wiki without an account but you will want to create an account href=3D"http://wiki.superliminal.com/index.php?title=3DSpecial:UserLogin&am=
p;type=3Dsignup">here
and log in so that your name will be linked with your edits.



Regarding compression of some consecutive twists on a single face, I
agree that they should count as a single twist. We've discussed this
a fair bit in the past and it turns out to be a feature that has a
surprising number of complexities. Issue href=3D"http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/detail?id=3D28">2=
8
talks to this a bit but there should probably be one created
specifically on this point. It would be great if you would read href=3D"http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/1016">t=
hat
discussion in the message archive=A0 and synthesize its
conclusions into a new enhancement request.



Regarding sorted lists of shortest solves, I don't see any reason
not to include all solutions. It's just more work to maintain and
police them that I do not want to do, but really, whatever you guys
want to do is fine with me. That's sort of what wiki's are all
about. It's better to have to ask forgiveness than permission.



-Melinda



On 3/22/2011 12:59 PM, Galla, Matthew wrote:
cite=3D"mid:AANLkTincy-xZCwAJ+6oj7jikEYDZ4BExbrxEh3EW8uuO@mail.gmail.=
com"
type=3D"cite">