Subject: "Winnable Challenge" thread revived?

Date: Tue Mar 29 14:57:11 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Since I was part of the group that caused the original intent of ix's "Winnable Challenge" thread to veer off, I thought I'd resurrect this with a clean slate. I've been trying this out a bit, but free@last's 'system' doesn't seem to capture recent joinees. Is it possible that it only checks for updates from the original list? Point being, if'n I understand the concept correctly, then I should be well over 7,000, but I don't seem to be listed at all. No big deal, as I likely won't keep this up, but just in case......

Date: Tue Mar 29 15:12:10 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
VERY good idea, TN!! According to my calculations, my current "Winnable Challenge" score is: 118310.2. I too am not in free@last's previous scores table (Sun Mar 20 09:20:17 2016). I am waiting for him to post an update!

Date: Tue Mar 29 15:19:50 2016
User: free@last
Message:
TL;DR version: I think it should be working now. Long version: so few people were playing that I only sorted 50 rows of players. Now there are about 60 unique names so people who had names that are alphabetically late were cut off. Like you, TitanicTony and wasjun to name a few.

Date: Tue Mar 29 16:04:41 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Hmmmm.......25 in a row in 4x10 and 5x8 Tony? Oh wait - let me guess! LOL.

Date: Thu Apr 7 11:41:26 2016
User: ElGuapo
Message:
So, veering back again ... I'm liking reexploring the winnables, but this contest still feels too fluid and never produces an actual winner. Free@last's spreadsheet is awesome! (linked below) but to be a contest there needs to be an endpoint. Any thoughts on a weekly point in time that should be considered the finish line? Maybe end of day on "winnable Wednesday"? That way you could factor in time when deciding whether it's worth the risk of crashing a streak to try to improve a score and move up the list. And by the way no one responded to my case for including all the winnables in a contest of winnables. In short, the argument was first that the "winnable challenge" name implies ALL winnables, not someone's favorite subset. Second that the missing variants aren't going to overwhelm the scoring as much as one might guess since we're using the square root and improving one's lowest score has much greater impact than running off a bunch of 12×1s. And finally that I believe the scores obtained in 11×1, 12×1, and 13×0 are not meaningless and it's no easier to outplay Darkosi in these variants than any other.

Link: Master of Winnables spreadsheet

Date: Thu Apr 7 14:08:44 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
ElGuapo, Thanks for linking Free's spreadsheet! It is, indeed, very nice! 1) I like the idea of including all 10 winnable variants; in one table, it would be easy to have two totals columns (one for all 10, and another for the most difficult 7 -- trying to make everybody happy). 2) I like the idea of posting the scores "as of the end of play" on Wednesdays (or as soon thereafter as possible). I wouldn't want to do it every week myself, since I have to gather the data "manually", but I could maybe do it once a month??? I was hoping that free@last would continue to periodically post his results! Maybe the link to his spreadsheet is good enough!!?

Date: Thu Apr 7 14:13:07 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I thought I had responded to it by arguing against including all, because (as I think free@last(?) stated) the easier ones aren't a "challenge". The 3 easiest ones would suck up long hours. So I go with the argument that having "challenge" in the title implies a challenge, more so than "ALL". But on this train of thought, I have considered putting forth the idea of yet another winnables challenge, in which all participants would pledge to not use any external aids, and keeping the same variants. IMO, the current standings have (or as of this instant, "had") been showing the effect of such added help. But I'm not available to do the scorekeeping, nor trained in setting it up like free@last did this one. And I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here, just thinking if we've got a group of people who are interested in doing this, it should be on equal footing. All that said, I'm not opposed to an "ending"/winner scenario. Although I'm not a serious winnables player, this has been a bit of fun - altho I haven't really tried very hard to maximize score.

Date: Thu Apr 7 17:42:32 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
I disagree! The 3 easiest winnable variants (13x0, 12x1 and 11x1) certainly ARE a challenge -- just a different sort of challenge (they might take more time -- I have spent less than 100 hours each playing the 7 hardest winnable variants, whereas I have spent 712.8 hours playing w13x0)!! So, I claim that it is "easier" (takes less time) to get a good result in the 7 hardest winnable variants than in the 3 easiest winnable variants! ANYWAY, both ways can be done, imo!

Date: Thu Apr 7 17:58:20 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
IMO, "time investment" is *not* the same as "challenging". In fact, in free cell it's closer to the opposite. I would observe that your having spent over 700 hours playing just W13x0 makes my point. And I truly just don't see how anyone can term 12x1 "challenging". Challenging to stay awake, maybe.

Date: Thu Apr 7 18:44:27 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
In w12x1, I have lost 54 games, whereas in 11x2, I have played more games and only lost 20! I guess that just means, to you, that 11x2 is also "not challenging"!! Maybe my problem with w12x1 is that I fail to "stay awake"!?? Btw, there are 14 variants in which I have not lost a single game (all played more than 1000 times each), so, my losing 54 games in w12x1 is *terrible*!

Date: Thu Apr 7 19:14:53 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Correct. I have not played one single game of 12x1 or 11x2, at least as this, my main nick - and to my knowledge in no other, either. I just looked at the stats for 11x2, and virtually every player in the top 100 has over a 99% winning percentage. Same thing in 12x1. How is that challenging? So you've lost 54 games in 12x1; you still have a 99.46% winning percentage. (In W12x1 it's 99.51%.) That's "challenging"? We must certainly have extremely different definitions of that word.

Date: Thu Apr 7 19:39:08 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Yep, for me the "challenge" is to never lose, and I still have 14 variants with zero losses!!

Date: Thu Apr 7 20:41:53 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:
I only have one loss.

Date: Thu Apr 7 21:14:59 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I have 0 losses.

Date: Thu Apr 7 22:13:37 2016
User: fcPete
Message:
Hey, TN, I know you like sports analogies --- do you think gymnastics is challenging? Yet the scores at a meet are always in the 195-196 range, plus fractions -- a tiny percentage difference. Granted, the scoring is subjective, not an accumulation of binary outcomes, but it illustrates a difference between scoring scales and difficulty. Background here is that you got my attention with "I don't see how anyone can term 12x1 'challenging' ". I happen to find it plenty challenging, myself, but I freely admit not being as free cell savvy as you guys. I'm the one who started the thread last winter, "How do you guys play so fast?" I finally decided that I just don't play fast, so I'm going to go for accuracy. Thus for me, streaks and decimal points matter. Clearly, my average time does not! So I'm very happy to have made it to #4 on the Current list, to have gotten ahead of some weasel with a lot of political names, and to be #70 on the All Time list. Oh, and get this -- my winning percent at 12x1 is better than CubicSprock !!! Sure, it's only 0.2, but being better than CS at ANYTHING freeCell is a pretty fun feather in my cap. And isn't that what it's really all about? These are games, after all, and it's fun that there are so many ways to find something here that's challenging enough to satisfy, without being frustrating. Speed on, friend. Different strokes.

Date: Fri Apr 8 02:24:10 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, you bring up a lot of issues....... I'll try to take a stab at at least a couple of them. 1. I used to watch some gymnastics, and a fair amount of skating, but the obvious corruption, on top of the subjectivity finally turned me away. That said, I do think fractions of scores can show a difference - a "separation", as it were. And that's the term I've used here for years to try and point out how winnables were not needed. Although I argued against them, I know several/many people like them, and so I'm glad they have found purchase and have their niche. Before the winnables idea was a done deal, I argued that the difference between 98.3%, say, and 98.8%, say, was real, in variant X, with enough plays. *At the margin*, such things are an indicator of ordinality, meaning the player with the 98.8% winning percentage is a better player than the one with a 98.3% winning percentage, *all other things being equal* (which we know is a significant burden of proof). I also argued that winning percentage is a better metric of ordinality than streak length, to no avail. You don't see sports standings based on how many games in a row a team has won; it's based on winning percentage. And yes, freecell isn't identical to a sport, but it certainly has many similarities. More similarities than not, if one is trying to play it competitively. So the point is I agree with your first premise there - as I think I understand it. 2. I'm certainly not a fast player, either - or at least I've never tried to be. I'm far more interested in accuracy than speed. I suspect that's my scientific training deep in my DNA that's responsible for that. Thus, if I ever do dip my toe into tournaments, the deadly ones seem the most attractive to me because there is a penalty for being wrong. I quite frankly don't get the point of seeing how fast one can win a game. *That* said, it's also probably not wrong to posit, all other things being equal (with the same above caveat in place), that *if* speed was the only thing being measured, and *if*, say, both of two solvers attempting to solve the same set of games agreed to compete on that scale, then better intellect should show separation fairly quickly. Thus, the value of the tournaments. 3a. As to 12x1 specifically......I think that indeed we just define "challenging" differently. I'd much rather try to win 10 games in a row in a variant where maybe 75% of the games are normally won, than 500 in a variant where 99.8% of the games are normally won. That's just a personality difference, I guess. It's clear that TitanicTony hates to lose more than about anything on earth, and structures his playing (and his ideas for competitions) to highlight his 'style' of playing. In one sense that's admirable, but as I've repeatedly said, it puts those who choose to compete strictly on brainpower at a disadvantage - and that's sad for the value of the extremely weighty statistics embedded in this site. Most of the value of those weighty statistics has been compromised. But I digress..... 3b. Perhaps most here are familiar with mega-stud hurdler Edwin Moses. He won over 100 consecutive 400m hurdles races - nearly 10 years going undefeated - almost always against others who were among the top in the world. To say that any one race, when you've won so many in a row is a "challenge" seems to be stretching it a bit, but I suspect, if a reporter were to ask him before race #83, or #93, of that streak, he'd certainly say that he felt the pressure to keep that streak alive. So I can see "challenging" applying there. To me 12x1 is different (although admittedly never having played even one) in that you don't have world-class competitors trying to beat you every game. Before winnables were "invented", weren't there only a mere handful of unwinnable 12x1 games? And without looking it up, I suspect there were probably less than 1 in 1000 with a winning percentage less than oh, 10%. (And I'm talking climate 10 games, in which the survival-of-the-fittest culling has already taken place. And in case one doesn't get that point, the winning percentage of climate 10 12x1s is far greater than for climate 5 12x1s.) To concretely say it, very rarely is a 12x1 going to put up a "challenge" to an even moderately good player. So, in the way I've always used that word, no, 12x1s are not challenging. One could say that it's "challenging" to try and get a streak of 500, or 760 such as you have, or 1000, or whatever, but that's different (to me, at least). [And by the way, when/if you hit one of those few unwinnables of the normal flavor that you're playing, you might possibly shed a tear or two. That prospect (and reality) is, as I recall, what really was the impetus to get winnables "invented".] 4. As I've also said multiple times before, this site is obviously many things to many people, and it's good that different folks can get enjoyment out of it in various ways - and again I give credit for that to Denny's genius. However, my feelings along those lines do *not* extend to using external aids, for not only the aforementioned reasons, but because Denny himself has said it's against the spirit of the game, and his purposeful exclusion of an "undo" button to me shouts that out pretty loud. But other than that, I celebrate the joy of others who play for different metrics, or have different goals, or who just play to pass the time away. So on that basis, who am I to complain about someone getting enjoyment out of playing 12x1s? And if most players want "ALL" of the winnable variants included in free@last's computations, then that's the way it should be, I guess. (But I would have no interest in it.) Although pointing out that since free@last set it up, he can "define" it however he chooses, and as Tony has pointed out numerous times, anybody else can start whatever competition they want at any time. So.....congratulations on your success, and may you continue to have it.

Date: Fri Apr 8 02:53:03 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Hi fcPete! I mostly agree with TN -- congratulations on doing so well, and having fun doing it! I wonder why you play regular 12x1, instead of W12x1? Btw, TN is wrong that I "hate to lose more than about anything on earth"! There are LOTS of things I "hate" (I prefer "dislike") more than losing!! I will just quickly mention four: 1) smoking, 2) drinking to excess, 3) bad driving and 4) people who do not clean up after their dogs!

Date: Fri Apr 8 04:20:52 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
User: TitanicTony Message: "Hi fcPete! I mostly agree with TN..." ----------------- Are you ok, Tony? Got a fever? LOL...

Date: Fri Apr 8 05:28:59 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
For the record: I have not used cards or anything except what little is left of my brain since I crashed my winnables streaks on 3/17. I have found it very satisfying to gradually build up some clean streaks and I recommend it to anyone else who pulls out a deck of cards or any other means of testing the result of alternate starting moves. I really hate 6x5 though.

Date: Fri Apr 8 08:05:12 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
To G_G_G, I continue to claim that using cards is advantageous to my health (both physical and mental)! Looking at cards is less eye strain than the computer screen, and moving the cards (and writing down the moves) is better exercise than clicking the mouse! Usually by the time I have the cards laid out, I also have the solution worked out! Moving the cards (and writing down the moves) avoids about 99% of my stupid mistakes (like leaving out a critical move), and thereby reduces my mental anguish (and self recrimination) enormously! Finally, I enjoy using cards -- they slow me down, and give me more time to relish what I am doing!

Date: Fri Apr 8 08:37:40 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
TT, I did the same thing with difficult variants like 6x5 and some not so difficult variants if there was no obvious start or two equally good ways to start, but now I get great satisfaction in winning without using cards. I think my ability to see far ahead or to eliminate all ways to start except one have improved considerably in the few weeks I have played this way.

Date: Fri Apr 8 09:17:56 2016
User: free@last
Message:
Anyone can easily post updates from the spreadsheet. At the bottom of the spreadsheet page click the "CutPaste" tab. Highlight the entire page (by clicking the box left of column A and above row 1) the press Ctrl-C (or use the Menu "Edit->Copy"). Come back to this site and click in the Message box like you would to reply and press Ctrl-V. Anyone posting here should be able to do that.

As for expanding the game types, if you don't have the skills or the ambition to learn them or do things your own way yourself, then you are stuck with whatever others do. Your only choice is whether to participate or not.

	10x1	9x2	8x3	7x4	6x5	5x8	4x10	Total	Tot %	Player
1	4.8	7.1	9.3	6.6	4.5	5.4	5.0	248,322.7	100	TitanicTony
2	7.9	6.1	8.1	3.6	6.2	4.7	5.4	218,525.3	88.001	wasjun
3	4.0	5.3	6.3	4.6	3.9	4.4	3.5	35,875.0	14.447	ElGuapo
4	5.2	5.4	5.7	4.6	3.7	3.7	2.8	29,168.9	11.746	TNmountainman
5	4.5	5.7	6.2	1.4	4.7	4.0	3.2	13,287.7	5.351	Darkosi
6	4.0	4.1	3.6	4.6	3.5	5.1	2.2	10,762.9	4.334	free@last
7	4.8	3.7	3.7	3.0	2.0	5.2	3.0	6,279.8	2.529	Goosey_Goosey_Gander
8	3.5	2.8	2.2	1.7	1.7	3.5	1.0	227.7	0.092	rws33315
9	1.0	3.6	3.5	1.7	2.6	3.6	1.0	206.4	0.083	HillaryISIS
10	1.0	1.0	2.6	3.6	3.5	1.0	2.0	66.1	0.027	Hillary=HateSpeech
11	2.2	2.4	1.0	1.0	2.0	2.2	2.0	49.0	0.020	Lindyhopper_Agame
12	3.3	3.3	2.4	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	26.9	0.011	pretense
13	2.4	6.2	1.0	1.0	1.4	1.0	1.0	21.6	0.009	JackK2016
14	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.6	5.5	1.0	14.5	0.006	T1-T3
15	2.4	2.4	1.7	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	10.4	0.004	daz
16	2.2	1.0	2.2	1.0	1.0	1.0	2.0	10.0	0.004	Dokmokm
17	1.0	1.0	8.9	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	8.9	0.004	RobertR
18	1.0	6.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	6.0	0.002	gilbertgame27171
19	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	5.3	1.0	5.3	0.002	Punster
20	1.0	5.2	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	5.2	0.002	munchmunch
21	1.0	1.4	3.6	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	5.1	0.002	Raz
22	1.0	1.0	1.0	4.5	1.0	1.0	1.0	4.5	0.002	Serphina
23	1.0	1.0	4.2	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	4.2	0.002	FlatlineD
24	1.4	1.7	1.7	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	4.2	0.002	WRAC
25	1.0	1.0	1.0	3.7	1.0	1.0	1.0	3.7	0.002	kipf

Date: Fri Apr 8 12:24:24 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Thanks, free@last! I am very happy with what you are doing!!! Eventually, I plan to post the results for all 10 winnable variants (my current 10-variant score is 50,158,721).

Date: Fri Apr 8 12:43:33 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:
doesn't the fact that all the games are winnable and you use a deck of cards for unlimited undos make that figure meaningless? all it really means is that you are good at copying your crib notes accurately.

Date: Fri Apr 8 13:22:42 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Meaningless???? Possibly to you! To me it MEANS that I am already more than halfway to 100 million! And it also MEANS that I am happy :)! Are you happy???

Date: Fri Apr 8 19:30:18 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:
topic change?? uh, ok, yes, you see my smile, don't you? it's just that I thought statisticians swore an oath on a copy of "Experimental Designs" by Gertrude Mary Cox and William Cochran to provide MEANingful conclusions to their statistical arrays.

Date: Sat Apr 9 06:03:34 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
myXXXXXnick, I used cards (don't any more) and it is still possible to lose a winnable game. It's a lot of work to set up cards so it's possible to look at a game, see what looks like some good moves but then, oops, critical card is buried. Not winnable any more. I have even picked up and moved the wrong card by mistake with a simple series of only 3 or 4 moves in the head, moved the wrong card when both say, black 10's were exposed. I don't think anyone would pull out the cards for every game, only when there is no obvious start. But I agree with you. Using cards, if not cheating, is contrary to the spirit of the game and I think TT should do what I did - crash all his winnable streaks and stop using cards. Same for anyone else. I am getting great satisfaction winning games that have a very low win percentage using only my head. w5x8, game #15718, was 1/5, now 2/6. w7x4, game #608 was 2/10 now 3/11 and even w6x5 (I hate 6x5) #14492 was 1/6 now 2/7 and w6x5 # 24499 was 1/12 now 2/13.

Date: Sat Apr 9 06:21:11 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
WOW, Goosey! Congratulations on some very good wins! As I have mentioned before, I have NEVER lost a game on purpose, and I will not be starting now!! Also, as I consider using cards healthier than not using cards, I will not be giving up cards until/unless I give up the playing the variants where they are (for me) so necessary! And, yes, I have also lost a number of games using cards!! I am pretty sure that you (without cards) are a much better player than me!!

Date: Sat Apr 9 07:13:04 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
In the few weeks not using cards I have really learned to see the overall lay of the cards better, see where there are problems like both black 2's or 3's buried, or two like cards that will be needed. I look to see where the aces are, how easy to get at them, which columns are not important because they hold no low cards. I look for a high card that is not blocking low cards to build up on. All before moving anything unless there are "free" moves. I like winnables because I know there is a solution somehow. I like playing regular 13x0 but I hate when I get a streak of 40 or 50 and then get an impossible deal and go back to zero. I think I am a better player now. Not quick or as good as many other players. I have tried playing tournaments and got my ass whipped. But thanks.

Date: Sat Apr 9 10:16:59 2016
User: free@last
Message:
After setting up the spreadsheet I decided on a personal goal of 100,000 which equates to approx. a streak of 25 in each variant. I never use cards or anything else. I personally have a program that can tell me the deal # based on inputting only a few cards. I could use it, open another browser and Anonymously play that game until I figure it out and just before it auto-finished I could use Undo and write down in reverse everything I need to play it in the original window. You can type any game into the online solver and it will show you a solution. In the first case I might it down wrong. In the second, Denny's auto-move algorithm might not match with the solver instructions. If you think that these are different than using cards I suggest you look up "cognitive dissonance". Whether you use cards or even a solver is your business. If it makes you happy, go ahead. But do not pretend to measure your streaks with the others who do not use these aids; with others who do not measure theirs with yours. You are playing tee-ball while they are playing baseball. The fact that you have not struck out in 100 games is meaningful only to others playing tee-ball. The people that are upset with those using aids are upset because they believe the stats on this site are for baseball players. They are wrong. There is no way to limit the stats in that way. The stats represent every person whether they use aids or not; whether they are even a person or not. In closing, to those that use aids, please ignore my name in the stats. You aren't playing my game. To those not using aids, ignore the stats of those that have said they use aids, or ignore everyone that hasn't disavowed their use.

Date: Sat Apr 9 11:23:20 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
I am really playing against myself - against my past best current and alltime streaks, and I encourage others who have disavowed cards or other aids to do the same. I play all 10 winnable variants and 22 others chosen on the basis of not needing a ridiculously long streak to be meaningful and with at least a 70% win rate for me. I track all statistics in a rather complex Excel spreadsheet, including data on games won that had less than a 30% win rate before I won it. My streaks in winnables are now clean but I admit that some of my other streaks may have been achieved using cards, that's a statistic I don't keep, but they will surely go away in time because I don't use cards now.

Date: Sat Apr 9 12:36:25 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
No, they won't "go away" -- they may eventually get passed (not rank so high), but they won't go away! Your 123 in w8x3 will probably remain in 1st place for quite awhile, imo!

Date: Sat Apr 9 13:42:01 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
The alltime won't go away, but the current streaks will end when I lose a game which I inevitably will sooner or later.

Date: Sat Apr 9 13:49:57 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
Many many many curses Denny. I show a current streak of 148 in 8x3 in my spreadsheet and that I last played it on April 2nd, not the 13 that is official. I know what happened - I lost an 8x3W and played it a few times - I probably looked at my standings and it jumped to 8x3 regular. Denny - please fix that jumping problem. Yes, my current streak in 8x3 is gone and I may have used cards to get there so justice is served. See TT That's justice.

Date: Sat Apr 9 13:53:21 2016
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
NO NO NO. It's still there, sorry Denny. I was looking at the wrong one. haven't even had a glass of wine yet.

Date: Sat Apr 9 18:29:05 2016
User: fcPete
Message:
Hey, Gang! Haven't checked Discussion for a few days, and gratifying to see I furthered some good chatting. Even got Tony to "mostly agree" with TN on something. omg! Speaking to a few points from my part of the thread: 1) Tony, I started with regular 12x1 because it had more people involved and with an all-time best streak of 3900, I figured there couldn't be too many unwinnables. Alas, I hit my first one after 630 games. argh. But two good things came of that. First, it was gratifying to learn it was unwinnable after I decided I could definitely not win it. And two, it led to a discussion in which TN showed us how to determine the number of unwinnables in the regular variations. Turns out to be 16 in the 12x1s, so I'd expect to be able to get a 2000 win streak, "all things being equal." Not sure what I'll do when I hit the next land mine -- possibly just switch to the winnable variant. 2) TN - yup, personality difference, I guess, as I do enjoy being able to win most of the time. There are some 12x1s that are easy enough for me to knock off in 2 minutes, but not so many that I get bored. And there are enough that I find challenging that 12x1 seems to be the sweet spot for my free cell time at this point. 3) Cards. I don't use 'em myself, but I don't mind Tony and others using them. I can see why some would be concerned about the mixing of the methods, but so far I'm not too wrapped up in the competitive side of the games. A little wrapped up, mind you, in creating my streak and getting ahead of some people on the list, but I also feel sorry for those whom I see coming up the list with some real good days, only to disappear. I will confess to writing down my mental image of a game if I'm playing late at night and cannot finish it. The next morning I looked at the image, re-created in my mind the steps to get there (steps were not written down), and finished the game in my head. That's only been once or twice when my brain was too foggy to commit to the position before hitting Save. Since all the work was mental, and there are ordinary things I don't remember from one day to the next, I'm comfortable with doing it occasionally.

Date: Sat Apr 9 19:25:57 2016
User: MikeC
Message:
To fcPete...I liked 12x1 a lot for a while , but those land mines killed it for me after I hit the second one . I felt the #1 spot was attainable for a while .

Date: Sat Apr 9 19:31:35 2016
User: hotnurse
Message:
Here's a point about those who use cards; it only matters, here, for those who streak...obviously...tournaments go too quickly to set up the cards. So, I can see where for those dedicated streakers it would be a sore point. In principle I see it as a dark-grey area. Not quite "cheating", like using auto-solvers, but not hard-core ethical. So my worry is that *if* this gets too contentious the big kahuna might pull the plug. Yikes! Since the ratings have been gone for tournaments I can say that I have had more *fun* playing. I think I play better and I don't give a rats when I lose an easy tournament...like I did before. Most of the years I have played against myself anyway, so I can't get mad at me for very long. ;) And, I don't *personally* hold it against those who choose to use aides, a.k.a.cards. Live and let live.

Date: Sat Apr 9 20:30:39 2016
User: CubicSprock
Message:
Got my 1st ever repeat game! 4/9 8:28 pm 9x2 15187-5 Winnable 0:31 Won 4/9 8:27 pm 9x2 15187-5 Winnable 0:36 Won Saw the game and thought maybe had done replay. But nope...streak length tells me that wasn't the case!

Date: Sat Apr 9 21:52:21 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:
Ms hotnurse, people need to think about what happens to this site if the big kahuna gets his plug pulled. . . . . . . . . . . . god forgive, of course.

Date: Sat Apr 9 21:54:49 2016
User: myXXXXXnick
Message:
I meant god forbid. . . . . i'm sure god will forgive him. the kahuna has put up with enough here to piss off a saint.

Date: Sun Apr 10 10:07:56 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Here is a "winnable challenge" table for all 10 winnable variants. One reason for including the other 3 (easiest) winnable variants is that they are more popular! The lines in my table are the actual current streak (this changes all the time). Th next-to-last line is the number of times that variant was NOT played. The last line is the number of current players for that variant (= the number of lines of data I had to copy, total = 335).

Congraulations to wasjun who is way, WAY out in front!

Ra-											Product	No.	Divi-
nks	4x10	5x8	6x5	7x4	8x3	9x2	10x1	11x1	12x1	13x0	SQRT+1	> 0	sion		Players:
==	====	====	====	====	====	====	====	====	====	====	=========	===	===	=	================
1	29	22	37	12	64	36	62	244	1425	286	2275619194	10	1		wasjun
2	24	28	19	42	86	49	22	6	120	111	76926769	10	1		TitanicTony
3	10	12	4	13	13	18	22	103	1098	387	52113849	10	1		Goosey_Goosey_Gander
4	13	18	17	20	39	27	15	12	186	122	23211369	10	1		ElGuapo
5	2	16	9	10	42	37	19	33	442	42	10896776	10	1		Darkosi
1	12	21	5	15	25	21	25	0	0	13	75608	8	2		CubicSprock
2	0	11	2	2	4	7	11	18	44	25	33947	9	2		rws33315
3	0	29	6	0	0	0	0	25	320	461	28456	5	2		T1-T3
4	9	25	11	20	12	16	15	0	0	0	15221	7	2		free@last
5	0	27	0	0	0	0	0	60	958	100	12862	4	2		Punster
6	0	0	0	0	5	20	20	30	20	44	8804	6	2		pretense
7	3	4	3	0	0	5	4	6	76	56	8587	8	2		Lindyhopper_Agame
8	7	14	13	21	33	28	0	0	0	0	6037	6	2		TNmountainman
9	0	0	0	0	2	5	5	30	40	15	1482	6	2		daz
10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4068	372	1232	2	2		Gulbis
	6	3	4	6	4	3	4	4	3	2					Times variant not played.
	14	15	17	20	21	23	19	28	58	120					# of current players.

Date: Sat Apr 23 20:53:46 2016
User: CubicSprock
Message:
made my goal of 100k. I'm happy with that :-)

Date: Sat Apr 23 20:55:39 2016
User: TNmountainman
Message:
So you're gonna admit defeat to a lil' 'ol deck of cards (or two)? Kidding aside - that's pretty great!

Date: Sun Apr 24 10:21:02 2016
User: Punster
Message:
Hey Tony, I was looking at my personal stats on these variants and didn't see that many with zeroes for current values. Most of them I don't play except for the WWC, so they don't change that often. Unless I'm looking in the wrong places.

Date: Sun Apr 24 10:41:12 2016
User: CubicSprock
Message:
Punster, it is based on current streaks, so you need to have played in the last 14 days for each variant.

Date: Fri Apr 29 16:28:04 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Here, once again, is the link to free@last's spreadsheet for the 7 most difficult winnable variants (w10x1 ... w4x10). wasjun, currently 2nd, is catching up fast!!

Link: Master of Winnables Spreadsheet

Date: Sat Apr 30 12:53:18 2016
User: Dokmokm
Message:
Thank you for this, it adds another level of interest. I know it's posted somewhere, but how exactly do you figure out the scores?

Date: Sun May 1 07:06:25 2016
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Easy (sort of), it is the product of the square root of the "current streak +1" ("current" = improved during the last 2 weeks) for the 7 most difficult ("challenging") of the winnable variants (w10x1 ... w4x10). Clear???

Date: Mon May 2 13:22:31 2016
User: Dokmokm
Message:
Yes, thank you