Subject: New All-Time 6x6 streak record
Date: Mon Jul 3 13:25:41 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:Date: Sat Jun 24 00:20:56 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
"Not to jinx it, but I'm hopeful that I can keep the 5x7 and/or the 6x6 going until #1...heck I'd love to keep my 8x3 and 7x4 going until #1 as well...but I don't want to get too greedy hoping for all 4...I'll be lucky to get 1 of them. Now that reaching a new high for this competition is out, maybe I'll play more to advance those streaks and try and get to #1 than just playing them enough to keep them active for the competition."
-----------
This ^^^ was a week ago in the "12 sum streak rankings" thread. I feared this may get lost in that thread, so wanted to give it it's due recognition. Yet one more .bow to the Sprockmeister.
Now an amazing 172 (and counting).
Date: Mon Jul 3 13:37:26 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:Thanks TN. It was a fun record to chase down. I actually encountered 3 games in my last 40 or so that took in excess of 10 minutes each...so 6x6 definitely has it's share of tricky games. It also has it's share of impossible but fortunately for me the dealer gave me a chance :-)
Date: Fri Jul 7 14:06:14 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:As if that wasn't impressive enough.......he has also knocked off the previous 5x6 record, and raised it to 20.
And just for good measure, is now in second all-time in 8x3 with 200, trying to chase down Bozeman, who took that record from him earlier (who's sitting at 237, but with a suspiciously long 8+ minutes per game). Just sayin'.
Date: Sat Jul 8 19:07:44 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:Looks like the wolper nick is still active in 6x6. Let's see how high we can go before someone crashes :-)
Date: Thu Jul 13 14:19:05 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:wolper has had an active game in 6x6 for 3 days now...could this be the end of the streak? If it is, I've still got to win 6 in a row to reclaim the top spot.
Date: Mon Aug 21 16:51:13 2017
User: ix
Message:flobbadob has surged to the new all time 6x6 at 194, Cubic is alive at 186
Date: Tue Aug 22 00:26:22 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:One has to look at that 194 with at least *some* suspicion. Over 8 minutes per game, but much more eyebrow-raising is the absurdly high winning percentage.
Not accusing - but it's a bit hard to imagine, no?
Date: Sun Sep 10 12:48:50 2017
User: ix
Message:an amazing new all time high of 200 has now been flobbed.
Date: Sun Mar 11 20:22:33 2018
User: Ellie2
Message:WOW, I'm impressed! 50 more than CS is PDG, imo!!
I'm languishing WAY behind, on just 48!
Date: Sun Mar 11 20:26:15 2018
User: Ellie2
Message:Oops, sorry, I'm only on 23.
Date: Sun Apr 22 17:43:06 2018
User: ix
Message:last time i posted i neglected to mention the tally was at 240. it is now at 262, the flobwatch continues.
Date: Mon Aug 27 20:46:36 2018
User: ix
Message:now at 286, second all time is CS at 193. amazing.
Date: Mon Aug 27 23:11:15 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:Should also note Hop is at 146 have NEVER LOST ONE!
James
Date: Mon Aug 27 23:18:33 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Indeed - amazing. But color me even more suspicious. Would *love* to be wrong.
Date: Mon Aug 27 23:52:28 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:Of which one? All of them? Kertmeyenkele also has never lost one...he/she stopped at 74, I believe when he/she lost a different streak. Hasn't been heard from since.
I certainly can't complain about average time. Mine is over 9 minutes. I find all of the flavors with few columns take forever. My time on 5x7 is over fifteen minutes! My strategy is to get a free column in my mind before making a move. But with that many free cells and such enormous columns, there are just too many possibilities. I FAR prefer 12x0 where the thing is either easily solved or I can prove to myself it is unwinnable since there are so few possibilities. This paragraph isn't all that relevant but I've noticed how my average time increase from 12x0 to 11x1 to 10x2 to...etc....5x7 to 4x8. Organic.
And we know from previous threads that Hop's "average time" is totally meaningless.
James
Date: Tue Aug 28 09:14:45 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:I was only referring to flobbadob's 286, with a 99.32% success rate, at 8:17 a game. I *fully* realize my suspicions could be unfounded, but I just can't help but be skeptical. We know it happens. We know several here have admitted it - including some very good players. Remember when everyone thought PudongPete/QingpuKid/RollingThunder was such an amazing player, until he admitted he sometimes used cards? I don't want to keep naming names, but many here have admitted such. And I am NOT saying flobbadob does; just saying it's suspicious. And I can sometimes take 15-20 minutes on a game, too, so I know some games take longer; certainly 6x6s take longer than say, a 12x0 or 8x4, on average just by the set-up. Just sayin'. It really ruined a lot of my enjoyment of this site when it became clear that cheating (that's simply what it is) was taking place. Some admit to it; some don't. Truly, truly, truly - hope I'm wrong this time. Hope it *never* happens again. Etc.
Date: Tue Aug 28 09:53:29 2018
User: Turpin827
Message:I don't understand how Hop has all these remarkable streaks with no losses. It just doesn't make sense to me. I'm a good player but I lose games all the time for any number of reasons.
Heh heh I remember one time years ago when in one breathtaking feat of clumsiness I hit the "give up" button and the "confirm" button accidentally (on my IPad) with one hand slip. Lost about a 300-400 game 10X2 streak that time.
Date: Tue Aug 28 10:19:06 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:Turpin,
One day I will lose those streaks anyway. It's just a matter of time. What remarkable streaks? I have 850 for 9x3 and 10x2. And you have achieved much more than 850.
And yes I also lost for any number of reasons. Similar to what you did I just gave up my 120+ 11x1 streak in a stupid way.
Date: Tue Aug 28 11:20:03 2018
User: Turpin827
Message:Hop your 6X6 streak is pretty amazing with no losses - puts you #4 on the all-time list.
I have gotten past 850 several times in 10X2 but I usually lose well before then- average streak is about 263 which is quite good. But I've lost hundreds and played a bazillion games in my 15 years on this site. (First joined in '03)
Anyway congrats on some great streaks. My post was just an observation that in my years I don't remember seeing anything like your number of long streaks with no losses.
Date: Tue Aug 28 12:41:17 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:Yes but I am very careful with that 6x6 streak. I played about 10 games year to date. Probably it's more than 1 month since I last played it.
Date: Fri Nov 9 16:23:37 2018
User: ix
Message:with a game in play since Oct 27 i'm guessing the streak has come to an end. i'm also guessing that 293 is going to stand for a long time, a remarkable achievement, especially when you consider its exactly 100 more than second place, and that second place belongs to CS. congrats flobbadob!
Link: http://freecell.net/f/c/personal.html?uname=flobbadob
Date: Fri Nov 9 17:15:29 2018
User: Punster
Message:Looking at the All Time list, flobbadob just hasn't played in 21 days =>
Rank Name Current Best Today Played Won Avg. Idle
1. flobbadob 293 293 0 446 99.33% 8:16 21d
2. CubicSprock 193 193 0 1014 94.58% 2:09 179d
3. wolper 0 182 0 705 98.72% 6:12 488d
4. HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom 147 147 0 147 100.00% 3:36 1d
Date: Sat Nov 10 08:05:09 2018
User: TitanicTony
Message:Wow, 293 -- what a fantastic 6x6 streak (my best is only 48)! Congratulations flobbadob!!
I wonder if he will come back and try for 300?
This could be one of those streaks that never gets beaten by anybody else.
And, I am quite happy to assume that he has used cards/notes/aids!
Either that, or he is brilliant, or incredibly lucky, or both.
Just being dealt 293 consecutive winnable 6x6 games seems rather unlikely, but I can't know the odds since more than 2/3 of the 6x6 level 10 games have never been played.
My enjoyment of this site has soared since I started using cards/notes; I highly recommend it!
And, while it may be 'cheating' by TN's definition, it is definitely not cheating by my definition.
Horray PudongPete/QingpuKid/RollingThunder!! You will always be better than me!
Date: Sat Nov 10 08:21:35 2018
User: The_Interpreter
Message:The WIN button would solve all that "cheating" nonsense.
Date: Sat Nov 10 08:46:46 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:TT,
The average streak length is 223.0 for 6x6 assuming you can win every winnable game.
That said, for example the average for 12x0 is only 14.6 and the best streak is 66.
Now, if his ends because of an unwinnable game or because of a human error?
Date: Sat Nov 10 09:14:24 2018
User: TitanicTony
Message:HopDiri,
You currently have the best 6x6 average streak length (147.0), and flobbadob is 2nd (110.5).
Rank,.... Name,............................. Current,.... Hours,.... Moves,.... Cards,.... Avg Streak
1. HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,.... 147,........ 8.84,...... 54.08,..... 155.8,..... 147.0
2. flobbadob,........................................ 293,..... 61.55,...... 66.07,..... 180.9,..... 110.5
..........
35. TitanicTony ................................... 42,........ 9.33,...... 51.65,..... 146.9,....... 19.0
My 6x6 average streak length is just 19.0, lol, but my 'moves' are fewer than yours.
Date: Sat Nov 10 09:48:05 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:Actually what I meant with "average streak length" is one plays (builds streaks) and loses and in the long run it approximates to that value (of course assuming one can win every winnable game).
So flobbadob has performed above average with that streak.
Your 'moves' is lower than mine probably because you play easier games than me on average.
Date: Sat Nov 10 13:33:41 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Punster, it's quite possible...…...or shall we say probable...………...that flobbadob is "stuck" in an unwinnable position, and/or is using external aids to try and extricate himself from such - since he's been 'in' a game for those 21 days.
Date: Sat Nov 10 15:34:50 2018
User: gumbybros
Message:TN mountainman... I don't understand why you think it's suspicious when someone has a high average game time. I'm probably one of the slowest players out there, and it's not because I'm cheating. I'm not in a hurry and I'll stare at the game quite awhile without making a move. Winning trumps speed. Plus, I'll get up to do things for a minute or two without logging out. If I'm going to figure a solution with cards, I'm certainly not going to stay logged in to a game. You make me feel like people are looking at my game times and thinking "oh, he's cheating". Not true!
Date: Sat Nov 10 16:00:29 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Hey - I play slow, too. But, as many have noticed, some players clearly pause games, then do whatever they do, and then 'regurgitate' that solution back to the web site. Several have clearly stated they do that. It was very obvious during the WWCs, and maybe a bit less so for the SSCs. And I'm certainly not the only one making note of it. It was already a topic back when I first came to this site.
Whenever I state my suspucions, I almost always include the caveat, "Would love [or "hope"] to be wrong.". *Certainly* many, or likely even most players who take longer times for games do not cheat - or if they do so, it's not cheating to them because they're only playing against themselves - such as just studying mechanics, strategy, or whatever.
My 'suspicious'-type comments are intended only for the uber-competitive players here who play to see themselves at or near the tops of lists. Because they are competitive, they take this as a competitive endeavor. Duh. Some of them choose to indulge in what I've called "the black arts" to achieve those types of goals. Hopefully most don't. Because if people are engaging in a competition, it's only "fair" if everyone's playing by the same rules.
To be clear, I'm not suspicious *only* because someone has a large average game time. It's when you see a 99+% winning percentage for a less-than-easy variant *with* a long average game time that the mind naturally wonders how that was done. AND.......as I keep saying, it's only a suspicion, not an accusation.
Date: Sat Nov 10 16:17:19 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:Gumbybros,
Yes I've said the same to TN. At this point, I'm suspicious of the average times when they are small. An undeniably great player, Hop..., takes screenshots of his game if they are taking too long. So his times are unreliably small. Now that's not a type of "cheating" that matters. But I wonder how common it is. Actually, since there really isn't much point to it, I still suspect it is uncommon.
I take my time and stare at boards too. And if they are really getting me and i stare so long that the server times out, my time is underreported because I likely look longer than the 15 minutes it takes to time out.
And, to reference a point TN made above, when I do find a solution, I usually solve it in a few minutes. That is, I've been staring but when I finally find a way, it doesn't take long. Unless i get stuck again. That happens too.
As far as I know TitanicTiny and PudongPete are the only ones who admit to using cards ( Goosey gave up the practice when they realized it was considered "cheating" by the boss). Surely there are many more who don't even know that it is verboten. And some who do know.
Finally, I should note that TN has mentioned WWC (which, I gather, was the main force in his unfortunate decision to not play much anymore) and SSC and how that's where the cheating was clear. And I have zero idea what he is talking about. I'm guessing they were tournaments.
James
Date: Sat Nov 10 16:28:01 2018
User: Punster
Message:WWC - stood for Winnable Wednesday Challenge & SSC - was Standard Saturday Challenge or something like that. It was a competition to see who could get the longest win streak for an entire day of competition for one particular variant each week.
Date: Sat Nov 10 16:42:16 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:So it was what we see in Scores under Weekly? That's the person with the largest daily streak over the last week. Same thing?
James
Date: Sat Nov 10 16:56:41 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Right. In the winnable challenge, where everyone knew every game was winnable, it sure appeared that, depending on the variant, some players (in addition to Tony) took things offline to solve. I don't remember if anyone else admitted to that practice or not; seems like maybe 1 or 2 others did, too, but can't remember for sure. I thought you had been here long enough, james, to have been here at that time.
As I've mentioned before, the cheating in general, coupled with some life exigencies, are why I quit playing (much). And I had been looking forward to playing some tournaments whenever I got a modern machine. The one I had until about 4-5 years ago was 13 years old when finally retired and so tournaments were impossible for me. But coincidentally, the ratings went away at almost the same time, messing up that plan. (Not that I would have ranked respectably.) So it was really sort of a triple whammy of circumstances. But I do still piddle around some, on occasion.
There are several others who have admitted using cards, and/or white boards, notes, whatever. One of these days I may drag one of those old threads back up. I believe I can think of a couple of names off the top of my headbone, but I'll defer until I can check.
To be sure, idealism has its costs. But for me, the benefits outweigh those. At least that's the way I see things, and I don't believe I'd want to change.
Date: Sat Nov 10 17:02:02 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:My "Right" above was in reply to Punster's comment. So no, it was not at all the same as "Weekly" under scores.
Do a search for "WWC" and separately, for "SSC". Hopefully Denny's rudimentary search function will work with those acronyms. Lots to absorb.
It was a pretty fun thing, but the "clickfests" of the easy variants could soak up a good chunk of a day, if one wanted to pursue it.
Date: Sat Nov 10 18:00:59 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:I have been around forever! But until the last few years, I only played 8x4's and paid no attention to the other stuff available here. I vaguely remember there was a thing about rankings for tournament players but, again, paid scant attention.
James
Date: Sun Nov 11 01:37:55 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:TN: "And I had been looking forward to playing some tournaments whenever I got a modern machine. The one I had until about 4-5 years ago was 13 years old when finally retired and so tournaments were impossible for me."
My current machine (8 years old netbook with 1GB RAM and atom processor) is probably not as fast as your 13 year old machine and still I'm doing fine with tourneys. That shouldn't be an excuse.
Date: Mon Nov 12 12:53:53 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:I *tried*. I did attempt a *very* few tournaments back in that time frame; I actually won one (a "quickie"), in maybe 3-4(??) attempts. When I say I don't play tournaments, it's with that extremely minimal exclusion, which isn't really worth mentioning other than to show that I tried. You may or may not have been "around" here then, but not on the discussion board. And I can't quote chapter and verse on the details of the limitations at that time, but they were prohibitive. So let's go back in time ~5 years. At that time my machine was 13 years old - running Windows 98 maybe(?). I actually think it may have been XP, or whatever came after that. My mouse was ancient, and balky. The memory I had was WAY less than 1 GB. It may have been as low as 100 MB, I don't remember. I can ASSURE you that your (now) 8-yr. old netbook is FAR superior to what I was using 5 years ago.
I don't know how hard it would be (VERY, I suspect) for someone to go back and find those discussions at that time. For quite a while, there were considerable discussions concerning hardware, software, mice, connection speeds (another issue for me until recently) etc., etc. Most of those were more than 5 years ago, however. But players were upping the ante all the time in terms of those advantages - trying to squeeze quicker performance from their systems. You'll have to trust me on that, or someone else can verify that from their memory. There was no way I could have even come close to playing on a level field. In fact, I remember that's how I characterized it more than once back then.
All that said...………..tournaments are all about speed - or most of them are. I'm more of a deliberate player, and once upon a time was considered a "solver". Tournaments would have been (and still would be) something outside my comfort zone. But once I realized the cheating going on for just pure solving, then tournaments became something which I perceived to be outside the capability of cheating (at least in the way Tony and others employ it), and thus an option I would like to have explored.
But I don't think I need to justify my comments. No offense to you, but why are you so concerned with whether I did or didn't try to play tournaments back when the ratings were extant?
Date: Tue Nov 13 05:41:48 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:TN:"but why are you so concerned with whether I did or didn't try to play tournaments back when the ratings were extant?"
Actually I am not concerned. I only thought you didn't play it because you didn't have a fast machine. I also missed the bit that you had 13 year old machine five years ago (not today).
Not all tournaments are about speed. For some of them (freakout, narrow straights, deadly ones etc.) you don't need to be a superfast player. Sometimes you can win them even if you play slowly (Many times I have won that way).
And I wasn't around when the ratings were extant. So I have no idea of it.
Date: Tue Nov 13 11:50:25 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Hop, see the below exchange from 2010. This comes from the very same thread in which Pudong Pete/QingpuKid/RollingThunder admitted (revealed) that he sometimes used cards. Around that same time frame, as the positions were solidifying or polarizing around using external aids as being cheating, or not, several other players revealed that they also use, or have used such aids. I found a few references/admissions, and thought about re-posting those names here, but realized that it would be an incomplete list, and thus maybe somewhat pejorative. But you can be assured that there were quite a few who copped to the practice. I'm sure that "admission list" wasn't complete, either. I post this both to confirm my limitations and computer situation back in that time frame; and to further illustrate (sparing us again the details) that more than a tiny number here delve into the black arts. I can link this 2010 thread again if you desire. I think I've done so in the past once or twice already.
In a separate post, I will link to just a random page about the WWC or SSC, so that you can see how it worked.....
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri May 28 01:49:53 2010
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:
Well,its HUGE until I get there. Home come you dont play tourneys?...……
---------------------------------
Date: Fri May 28 03:00:37 2010
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, mostly three reasons........
1. I don't like to be tied down to committing to playing a certain amount of time - and certainly not a large block of time. When I'm on the computer, I'm almost always multitasking big time. But I did play a couple or so quickies maybe a couple-3 years ago....
2. Probably more importantly, I have a very ancient and crappy computer system. You may have noticed me comment that it takes from 5 to 10 seconds for a game to load. I would be at such a distinct disadvantage that it wouldn't be a fair contest.
3. Temperamentally, I've never been one to be in a hurry about these kinds of puzzles and things. As a scientist, I'd MUCH rather solve something correctly the first time, than solve it more quickly in three tries, for example. Truly, I don't see the rush. So I play mostly to achieve high winning percentages, not streaks, and certainly not speed.
However..........."all that being said".....I did originate the "Dr.TNmountainman" nick to *possibly* play tournaments, just for a fun change of pace, but don't think I've ever tried one. I am more interested now that there are the "deadly" (that's what they're called, right?) flavors, and have contemplated trying one or two of those. But again, being not totally immune to competitional influences, I hate to try something with such a big disadvantage (my system).
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Tue Nov 13 12:52:55 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:Sorry, Hop, it was james who didn't know what the SSC and WWC were. Here a link just one thread that shows results week-by-week, just for his edification. Sorry you missed out on them, james, they were kinda fun if they weren't clickfests or ones that were *too* hard, like the 10x0, for example. After considerable discussion, a weighted, rotating format was created, with the more popular and 'accessible' variants occurring more often. I think they should probably return at some point, but maybe not just yet.
Link: (sample) SSC contest from 2016
Date: Wed Nov 14 02:01:28 2018
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:TN: "As a scientist, I'd MUCH rather solve something correctly the first time, than solve it more quickly in three tries, for example. Truly, I don't see the rush."
TN: "I am more interested now that there are the "deadly" (that's what they're called, right?) flavors, and have contemplated trying one or two of those. But again, being not totally immune to competitional influences, I hate to try something with such a big disadvantage (my system). "
OK, I see your point. Deadly ones are more interesting for you. But you still have a slow machine? Why not get a fast one?
Date: Wed Nov 14 12:42:15 2018
User: TNmountainman
Message:No, you're not reading carefully. *Until ~5 years ago* I had a VERY slow machine. Now I have one which is at least adequate, but it's hard drive crashed several months ago, and I've been using a borrowed one since then. It's sort of a scaled-down corporate one, but it's fast enough, I would guess.
Reasons #1 and #3 above still apply - AND the ratings went away. Which is not to say I *won't* delve into tournaments - just that it isn't as attractive as it once was.
Date: Sun Nov 18 09:41:04 2018
User: JackK2018
Message:Yikes, First time I read this thread. (I don't read too many but was in the mood (bored)). I didn't realize people"cheated". I guess it seems odd. But I did wonder how such long streaks could occur. Also I am glad to see that I am not the only one to have blown streaks stupidly, although sometimes mine comes from switching games and forgetting which game I am in.
Date: Sun Nov 18 10:46:35 2018
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:JackK2018,
While cheating does happen, it's still legitimate to be impressed by long streaks. Rgk, for example, doesn't "cheat" by our definition. Those streaks are undeniable. Personally, as a streaker, I'm not at all surprised by the long streaks. It's how fast some people play (calicokid, e.g.) that amazes me.
And I know what you mean about switching games. These days I play 9x3's and switch to 10x2's regularly. And 10x2's are much more dangerous. I have to tell myself to slow down and not move without having a plan but often I've already made a few careless moves before I remember.
James
Date: Sun Nov 18 22:48:26 2018
User: JackK2018
Message:James, if someone cheats, then their streak is irrelevant. I am glad that Rgk doesn't. I first read about him on the free cell website. They had a picture of him fishing.
Post follow-up