Subject: Unwinnable 12X0 ??

Date: Sat Jun 29 21:36:59 2013
User: Punster
Message:
I couldn't figured out how to even start this game and I think it's "unwinnable". I put it out on the pictures page & included the link below. If anyone knows if this is winnable, let me know. Thanks. Here's the stats on it => Game #: 13641 Game stats: 5/0/0.00% Difficulty: 6 Elapsed: 2:35 Streak was: 12

Link: Unwinnable 12X0 ??

Date: Sun Jun 30 00:23:54 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I hate to apply the word "impossible" to games like this, but I think it is. Just out of curiosity, what made you go to the trouble of posting here and taking a screenshot of it? Does something in the game somehow make you think it's possible?

Date: Sun Jun 30 09:17:48 2013
User: Punster
Message:
No, but rather than someone trying to play the game, I thought I would show a picture of it, in case someone just wanted to take a look at it. It doesn't look like there's a Winnable 12X0 option, like there is for some of the other games, like winnable 13X0.

Date: Sun Jun 30 18:04:05 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
It looks like there are 1999 un-won level 5 12x0s (if I'm looking at the stats correctly). That means about every one out of 16 level 5s have not been won, and I'd say most of those are not going to be. (I suspect there are many exceptions, however.) Over 3000 level 6s have not been won, but that has moderately little meaning, as there are still some that haven't even been played once. But if one played perfectly, one's average streak should therefore be in the neighborhood of 16, for a winning percentage of ~ 94%. If one looks at the all-time winning percentage leaders, only one nick ("peterpan12") has a winning percentage over 95%, with over 100 games played (And he only played 107 with that nick.) Only "tiorapatea" has a winning percentage over 92% (93.26) with a minimum of 1000 games played, and he/she has a very long time/game. No, there's not a winnable flavor of 12x0. Since I'm not a fan of winnables, that's fine by me, although back at the time when winnables were being winnowed out (winnowed in?), I thought 12x0 (and/or 11x0) would have been good candidates for that, but I think free@last and Denny made some good choices for the winnables they settled on. Punster, it looks like you've just started playing the 12x0 variant. Welcome. It's one of my favorites, I guess, although I don't play it as much as I used to. I think 12x0 and 11x0 (not to mention 10x0) will help your skill in other variants. Good luck.

Date: Sun Jun 30 22:57:56 2013
User: Punster
Message:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I prefer to play the "winnable" version. It doesn't make any sense to me, to play a game that might be unwinnable ?? I took a chance on the 12X0 and tried playing some, but with the possibility of an unwinnable coming up, I won't be playing the 12X0. That is, unless a winnable version gets created (not likely). Denny got more important things to attend to. Note: I did play a couple more, just so I wouldn't finish on a losing streak. :-)

Date: Mon Jul 1 02:47:55 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Doesn't disappoint me at all. Different strokes, and all that. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind, but the "sense" of it is to play against one's own percentage of wins, or the historical values of others (like in sports), or do the same with streak length. I.e., the "sense" of it isn't in one game, but the body of work, compared to one's previous effort(s), or to those of the historical freecell universe. (Which to re-make a point I made back when the winnables were being created ---> all winnables streaks and percentages must be asterisked, compared to the standard version. Thus, I could (and did) make the argument that there is less "sense" in playing the winnable flavors, as there can never be full historical context of any records in those versions. But I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer; I'm glad that the new subset of games found favor and is a workable option for those that prefer it.) .pokes ix in ribs

Date: Mon Jul 1 10:02:50 2013
User: Punster
Message:
I just think that the old records (not winnable version) had to have a "luck" factor in there to have a long streak, because if they had run into an unwinnable game, the streak would have ended. As opposed to the "winnable version is based on pure ability. You right...different strokes, etc.

Date: Mon Jul 1 13:17:43 2013
User: ix
Message:
its strange, tn seems perfectly normal and fairly intelligent in so many ways...

Date: Mon Jul 1 14:33:11 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well....I'm glad I finally put *that* scurrilous rumor out to pasture... And Punster, for streaks, you are correct in one sense, of course. But still, any streak records within the winnable framework are *always* going to be suspect (asterisked) in one important way. To demonstrate, let's look at an example of streaks in 'regular' 13x0, vs. 'winnable' 13x0. "tiorapatea" has the record in regular 13x0 with 197. "Lawrence55Dee" holds the record for winnable 13x0 with 1694. But, in my mind, a key question needs to be, "what would tiorapatea's number have been had he/she been playing the winnable flavor". No one knows, nor will ever know. It might have gone to 10,000, or more. Thus, Lawrence55Dee's streak, and all others, actually, are somewhat "tainted", comparatively speaking, because they were achieved within a "performance-enhancing" era. There might well have been, and in fact, probably were, streaks without benefit of the winnable format, that would have exceeded 1694 had the unwinnables been excluded. It's all well and good to have that new data, but one should (imo) be cognizant of that limitation. The winning percentages, however, (of the 'regular' flavors) are under no such cloud, given a reasonable number of plays. Thus, I argue again, winning percentages, at the margin, are a pretty good indication of skill level. It might be a little more esoteric to compare, say, 97% to 97.5% to 98% winning percentages within the regular 13x0 variant standings (vs. comparing a streak of 197 vs. 160 or so, where indeed luck likely intruded), but it's certainly informative, and over the long haul, gives a good indication of solving skill. The "luck factor" averages out and becomes a non-factor. Thus, if one looks at it like that, then the odd unwinnable game is merely part *of* the game, if you see my point. Now, if one is just playing to win games, and enjoy that, then of course I see the object of playing (and enjoying) the winnable versions....

Date: Mon Jul 1 16:31:59 2013
User: Punster
Message:
I like win streaks, but that's not why I play. I like the challenge of winning a game without the concern of "wasting" my time trying to win a game that's not "winnable". That's all I'm basically trying to say. Note: I'm still amazed at Pudong Pete's streak in regular 8X4.

Date: Mon Jul 1 22:39:43 2013
User: ix
Message:
as i've said before, every streak consists of winnable games, and only winnable games. why someone would enjoy sprinkling in games that can serve no other purpose than to end a streak is beyond me. but its fun to try to figure out what happened to tn in the past that has made him what he is. perhaps nothing more than riding in the car and bumping his head when he was little.

Date: Tue Jul 2 01:29:32 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Probably something more traumatic than that. I revealed once how it came to be that I had red hair, so, based on that incident, it's probably a much darker story.... "...my father used to explain my locks by saying I fell in a bucket of paint when a toddler."

Link: early trauma

Date: Fri Jul 5 12:10:31 2013
User: Punster
Message:
I never did get the question answered, is 12X0 game 13641-6 winnable ? Is there someone who can find out ?

Date: Fri Jul 5 12:21:50 2013
User: TNmountainman
Message:
free@last could possibly tell us. It might be in his database, although since 12x0 wasn't chosen to be included in the winnables universe, I don't think he analyzed those. I'm 99.9% sure it's not winnable, based on what I saw earlier. There are others on this board, methinks, who've at least toyed with solvers (I haven't), so somebody could run it if they wanted to. Also, as I recall, the number of possible moves was few, so it might be fairly easy to construct a 'proof' that it's not winnable.

Date: Fri Jul 5 14:51:57 2013
User: d164280
Message:
You have 4 moves, the 3 5's and the black 8, as Porky Pig would say, "That's All Folks"! Concerning winnable vs. regular, I ohoh , ran out of time, will comment later.

Date: Fri Jul 5 17:31:43 2013
User: free@last
Message:
No solver needed. Unwinnable. See d164280 post above.

Date: Fri Jul 5 22:45:55 2013
User: Punster
Message:
Okay, thanks guys. It didn't look winnable to me, but sometimes another pair of eyes (or two) can see something else.

Date: Mon Oct 8 12:50:11 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Don't want to muddy up the "Tough 11x0's" thread, so thought I'd append this here. It's a riff on my predictions (so far 2/2) on many-plays-but-unwon games that I thought would be winnable. Turpin827 finally took down the last 11x0 I had put in that thread. So anyway...……...12x0-5 #21340. Now 0/47. But I am *not* predicting it to be winnable - only that it may well be. Lots of room for play, but tough going. I'd give it maybe 20-30% or so chance of being winnable. Free@last may weigh in from his data should he so desire.

Date: Mon Oct 8 21:27:47 2018
User: Turpin827
Message:
I don't think that one is winnable- tried it a bunch of times. Too many "doubles" (like both black queens on top of each other). Can open up a column but can't capitalize on it

Date: Mon Oct 8 21:48:15 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
I think this is the one TN is talking about: Congratulations! You Win Game #: 12x0 21340 Game stats: 62/1/1.61% Difficulty: 5 Elapsed: 3:27 Streak: n/a Today: n/a But I don't think it's the one Turpin was. The black queens were not double. James

Date: Mon Oct 8 23:04:35 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Awesome. Not sure what made me think it could go. I guess just experience? Anyway, yes, that's it, according to my playing history. But according to Turpin827's history, he also was attacking it. I only tried it once. For some reason, I don't much want to do Sisyphus imitations anymore. I had initially written "50%", but then backed that down before posting. Nice work, james.

Date: Tue Oct 9 09:37:08 2018
User: Turpin827
Message:
Good going James! That was the game - guess I meant black jacks rather than queens. Was there some key move that made it doable?

Date: Tue Oct 9 09:50:04 2018
User: free@last
Message:
I don't have data in front of me but I'd say it's winnable. ;-)

Date: Tue Oct 9 09:57:50 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
There's a red six at the far right. We need it to put a black five on, but then we need to reveal the other red six which is under a couple of cards. That when we can get the black five off of the red six and thereby move it onto a black seven. This reveals two of the aces. My guess is that it was very tempting to put the black five and a red four on that red six thereby making it unmovable. But I don't know if my solution is the only one. And I had to replay it to remember what I did. James

Date: Tue Oct 9 15:04:05 2018
User: Turpin827
Message:
Yes, that did it - thanks! Got it. Tricky little bastard