.net
All site revenue goes to charity

Subject: 13-Sum Streak Ranking?

Date: Thu Jul 11 08:00:13 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Why not?

4x9, 5x8, 13x0 are interesting variants. At least they would be more fun to play compared to 4x8, 5x7 and 12x0.

Date: Thu Jul 11 09:07:40 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
I have been thinking about an amalgam 11-thru-13 set: replacing the two on each end of 12 due to too hard, and two in the middle due to too easy. That lineup would be, then:

4x9, 5x7, 6x6, 7x5, 8x3, 9x2, 10x2, 11x1, 13x0.

Or replace 4 in the middle, putting in the 7x4 and 10x1 also, for a tougher set

Or instead plug in 5x8 and 11x2 for an easier set.

Thoughts?

Date: Thu Jul 11 09:23:43 2019
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
Instead of or in addition to?

James,

Date: Thu Jul 11 09:36:11 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
I'm thinking, there will be 10 variants, one for each columns 4-13. It remains to select the freecells for each of the 10, such that the total is between 11 and 13, and the difficulties are roughly comparable. So:

4x9
5x7 or 5x8
6x6
7x4 or 7x5
8x3
9x2
10x1 or 10x2
11x1 or 11x2
12x1
13x0

I might also like it if there were three of each 11,12, or 13 sum, one of them would have the extra one.

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:03:04 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
Given Hop's desire to NOT have 5x7 included, I'm leaning toward this, the 4 13's lineup.

4x9
5x8
6x6
7x4
8x3
9x2
10x2
11x1
12x1
13x0

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:06:16 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
I like the amalgam idea. Your suggestion is fine:
4x9, 5x7, 6x6, 7x5, 8x3, 9x2, 10x2, 11x1, 13x0. Maybe 5x8 instead of 5x7.

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:12:03 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
Or this one. Call it J2, and the one above J1.

4x9
5x8
6x6
7x5
8x3
9x2
10x1
11x1
12x1
13x0

They are about the same. It comes down to whether you think 10x1s are tougher than 7x4s, and once you decide that, whether you want the tougher one or the easier one.

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:13:12 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Ah I missed your last post.
Is 12x1 necessary when there is 11x1?

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:15:18 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
To Hop's intermediate post: yes, if we stick with 9 variants then we can have three of each. We would just eliminate the 12x1, which is probably the easiest of the 10. Either of my J's, without the 12x1, would do.

Date: Thu Jul 11 10:22:17 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
J1 or J2 without 12x1, they both look good to me.

Date: Thu Jul 11 14:33:36 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Actually, including 4x10 may be better and on par with 13x0.

Average streak lengths for 4x9 and 4x10 based on unwoncnt.txt:
? streaklen([1494,2574,3816,5354,7473,9562])
%4 = 14.79326915008521023714138123
? streaklen([229,485,813,1178,1961,2773])
%5 = 37.03064189411331537994611706

14.8 is close to that of 12x0 and 37.0 to that of 13x0:
? streaklen([1841,2387,2973,3470,4201,4769])
%6 = 14.58014937978973116349390333
? streaklen([521,690,888,1137,1408,1654])
%7 = 35.39305858931120775814001857

Date: Thu Jul 11 18:14:21 2019
User: TitanicTony
Message:
J1: 4x9,.... 5x8,.. 6x6,.. 7x4,.. 8x3,.. 9x2,.. 10x2,.. 11x1,.. 12x1,.. 13x0.
...... 13,....... 13,.... 12,.... 11,.... 11,.... 11,...... 12,....... 12,....... 13,....... 13,... (4 x 13-sum, 3 x 12-sum, 3 x 11-sum games).

J2: 4x9,.... 5x8,.. 6x6,.. 7x5,.. 8x3,.. 9x2,.. 10x1,.. 11x1,.. 12x1,.. 13x0.
...... 13,....... 13,.... 12,.... 12,.... 11,.... 11,...... 12,....... 12,....... 13,....... 13,... (4 x 13-sum, 4 x 12-sum, 2 x 11-sum games).


J3: 4x10,.. 5x8,.. 6x6,.. 7x5,.. 8x3,.. 9x2,.. 10x2,.. 11x1,.. 12x1,.. 13x0.
...... 14,....... 13,.... 12,.... 12,.... 11,.... 11,...... 12,....... 12,....... 13,....... 13,... (1x 14 sum, 3x 13-sum, 4x 12-sum, 2x 11-sum games).

I vote for "J3", the easiest of the above set of games!

Or, set "J4", the even easier set (with no 11 sum games):
J4: 4x10,.. 5x8,.. 6x6,.. 7x5,.. 8x4,.. 9x3,.. 10x2,.. 11x1,.. 12x1,.. 13x0.
...... 14,....... 13,.... 12,.... 12,.... 12,.... 12,...... 12,....... 12,....... 13,....... 13,... (1x 14 sum, 3x 13-sum, 6x 12-sum, 0x 11-sum games).

For comparison, the set of "winnable" variants is:

J4: 4x10,.. 5x8,.. 6x5,.. 7x4,.. 8x3,.. 9x2,.. 10x1,.. 11x1,.. 12x1,.. 13x0.
...... 14,....... 13,.... 11,.... 11,.... 11,.... 11,...... 11,....... 12,....... 13,....... 13,... (1x 14 sum, 3x 13-sum, 1x 12-sum, 5x 11-sum games).

The difference is, 1) the "winnable" variants include 5 11-sum games, and 2) they are ALL winnable.

Date: Thu Jul 11 21:22:24 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
For starters, I'm going with the J2 minus 12x1. This meets the following goals:

1) Starts with the 12-sum, the easier of the existing ones I do.
2) Has the symmetry 3 of each difficulty level I was considering.
3) Smooths out the difficulty span by
a) getting rid of the hardest 12s
b) not introducing any of the toughest 11s
c) not introducing any of the easiest 13s.

I see your point, Hop, about 4x9 STILL being somewhat of an outlier... for now I prefer not to introduce any 14 sums. :}

Tony:

Right now my code doesn't work on winnable variants. I don't suppose that would be terribly hard to fix, but I confess to a lack of motivation to do that since I don't play winnables myself. I also am not much motivated to consider easier and easier sets because I like the challenge of hard ones.

Anyway, it (111213amalg) is good to go and will run tonight. As always, I'll have to paste the results into a new thread since there's no code for creating one from the cron job.

How does everyone feel about retiring the other two? I'll keep running them for now but eventually we might think they are superfluous.

Date: Thu Jul 11 21:26:26 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
Now I must rush off and play a coupla 13x0s. Haven't dones those for a while!

Date: Fri Jul 12 01:42:46 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
11-Sum is not so popular. I believe it can be stopped now. Let's see how popular the new competition gets. I expect it to be more popular than 12-Sum.

Now the next question is "should we stop 12-Sum as well?". I'd like to hear what others (and especially James) would say about it. It's fine with me if you stop.

Date: Fri Jul 12 02:20:22 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No, no, no - don't stop the old ones. Even tho I'm not participating at the moment, I plan to get back in at some point. The 12-sum already takes up too much time, imo, and this new contest will just amplify that. There are at least 3 there where it will take over 100 just to be competitive, and another, the 12x1.............who knows? Either several hundred or several thousand? We're talking *many hundreds* of hours just to get in the game. But I guess there are some here who can do that.

All this of course is just my personal opinion, and MUCH thanks to joey for putting in the time and effort to launch this and keep it up. But the 12-sum already is just daunting time-wise. The 11-sum may not be poplar because it's harder (I'm imagining/duh). To me, this new amalgam just seems much like an *even* easier version of the 12-sum. Even tho 3 of these will also count in 11-sum, they won't have much weight, unless some weighting factor were figured in like in the WWC and SSC. (And otherwise, won't the 12x1 just swamp everything else in this new batch?) IF one were going to drop either of the old ones, it seems as tho the 12-sum would be the closest to this new one (and thus more droppable). It ALL hinges on joey's willingness to crunch numbers, of course. I sure would like the opportunity to play the old ones when I get time again, but it's just all joey's call.

If you're gonna compare them, it would seem reasonable to wait several months, when the newness dies down for this new one, to see how it would retain play vs. the originals. Again........all just imo, of course.

Date: Fri Jul 12 03:44:07 2019
User: TitanicTony
Message:
I don't see where it takes "hundreds of hours"! You only have to play each game once every 2 weeks to keep your streaks current; that shouldn't be too difficult! That's just 10 games every 2 weeks for the new 11-12-13-sum Rankings!

Date: Fri Jul 12 04:15:01 2019
User: TNmountainman
Message:
If one *already* has streaks, yes. But not many have streaks in 4x9 or 5x8. And true enough, those aren't the ones that would take vast amounts of hours (I guess, but don't really know). And I also see, in a later post, that joey decided not to include the 12x1, so that makes it far less onerous. But also more like the 12-sum contest, it would seem. So it looks like the real time sinks would be the 7x5 and 11x1, as well as the 13x0, if you're lucky.

So you missed my point, at least partially. If one is a newcomer, it would still take beaucoups hours, but not "many" hundreds, to get a decent run. Or........similarly, if one lost a huge streak, it would take a huge investment of time to get back into contention. Which is like the 12-sum is now. Anyway, now seeing that the 12x1 isn't included makes it a more palatable situation. And removing the 9x3 and 8x4 also makes sense. But I certainly disagree with Hop that 13x0 is more fun than 12x0. And I certainly wouldn't want to lose the 11-sum (or the 12-sum for that matter), but joey is the boss.

Date: Fri Jul 12 09:13:08 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Here are the average streak lengths calculated:

4x9: 13.8
5x8: 90.8
6x6: 222.0
7x5: 1133.9
8x3: 149.5
9x2: 91.2
10x1: 30.1
11x1: 186.0
13x0: 34.4

Date: Fri Jul 12 09:45:18 2019
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
My thought? Sad. Like I’ve said before, 4x8 is the most interesting of the games. When I first played them I thought...no way...these are impossible...I just tried to win one...once I won two in a row and thought I was super lucky. But then I started to see it and now consider hitting an unwinnable (a little) unlucky. I never would’ve found that if it weren’t for the 12-sum.

Also 12x0 and 4x8 are the only ones Hop loses. Gonna be a bit boring as that HWM just gets larger every time.

James

Date: Fri Jul 12 11:24:33 2019
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
James,

I don't think we can see such big HWM's as in 12-Sum now that 8x4, 9x3 and 10x2 are taken out.

Date: Fri Jul 12 11:39:49 2019
User: redberet
Message:
I think you're leaning in the wrong direction though, it should be harder not easier. I'm not sure about the purpose of this list, is it to highlight ones accomplishment or encourage a competition? Because a competition usually involves movement. I remember watching Michelangelo or HeddaLettuce build their scores and thinking boy their minds are wired way different than mine. I thought then I could never reach that level and that mantra holds true today. I agree with JB-L, would you rather do prototype or production, chess or checkers. Well whatever way it goes, as my Pappy used to tell me, looking at the menu doesn't mean you have to order.

All the way!

Date: Fri Jul 12 15:30:53 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
The proof is in the interest. Easily a better challenge in every respect is the 11-sum to the 12-sum. But there's very little interest in the 11-sum.

Having said that, I would say that the 11-12-13 is a bit harder , so it would be in the right direction as far as you are concerned redberet. It's a goal of the new set to make both ends be easier in the sense of having a lot less unwinnables, yes, but these are still kinda hard - ergo, interesting - variants. But I will continue for the present to run all 4 sets. It's no hardship to run any number of sets once I set them up.

Date: Fri Jul 12 16:36:29 2019
User: joeygray
Message:
The 4th is the set of winnables. I don't know if it's of interest or not.

Post follow-up
Username: New user? Create a free account here
Password: Note: username and password are case-sensitive
Message:
Editor by summernote.org
Email notification:

All content copyright ©2024 Freecell.net
By using our games you consent to our minimal use of cookies to maintain basic state.
Maintained by Dennis Cronin