Subject: Use of Cards

Date: Tue Nov 7 14:20:54 2017
User: grga
Message:
I have a simple question. What it means to use cards? xD

Date: Wed Nov 8 00:42:54 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
It means the frowned-upon-by-almost-all practice of using a real, physical deck of cards to first 'solve' the game, then just entering that "data" into the online game *as if* you were really playing it. Myself, and most others, consider that not really winning the game on first try, as it has the effect of allowing an unlimited number of do-overs, until one finds the solution. Hope that makes sense.

Date: Wed Nov 8 03:40:19 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Wow. Some folks think they know what all the other folks are thinking! How presumptuous! Myself, I would guess that most folks don't care!

Date: Wed Nov 8 04:27:54 2017
User: TNmountainmanMUDstains
Message:
The preponderance of evidence (and I know that you wouldn't fully know that as you so often claim you don't read posts) is that most players disagree with that practice. Certainly there is a LARGE population of players who've not weighed in on that at all - but neither have they weighed in on *anything*, even back when politics and religion were allowed. But let me re-phrase that slightly: Of those MANY who've expressed an opinion, only a VERY few seem to think it's ok. And although we can't know for sure, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that to the full population of players - OR........(and this is important)............they aren't serious players and it doesn't matter because they're not gonna disrupt the database that much anyway. In fact, the evidence (the database itself) shows that there are likely *very few* "offenders" who have skewed the statistics in this manner. So, you are right that I don't know what "all" of the other folks are thinking, but I think my statement was a very reasonable representation of the evidence as we know it. You, of course, are free to disagree and offer some sort of other interpretation. But I would definitely say that for those who "don't care", they're mostly a non-factor. If they really *did* care, they'd either a) express such; or b) show themselves in the stats. And note that I waited quite a long time to respond to the question at all, as no one else seemed to want to do so. And....when I did respond, I *tried* to do it in a non-pejorative and realistic manner. I wasn't at all eager to respond, but somebody needed to.

Date: Wed Nov 8 04:57:10 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
It's not the Olympics. It's a card game you play BY YOURSELF. And it is not realistic to speak for others. That is projecting your own thoughts onto others.

Date: Wed Nov 8 05:09:50 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Yes, one is *playing* by oneself, but since records are being kept, comparisons ARE being made. And hypothetically, those comparisons may last for decades, or even lifetimes. (And believe me, I know.......that's why "hypothetically".) If one chooses not to care about that, and not even look, then fine. But the whole point of *having* that record is for comparisons, rankings, and mathematical curiosities. If one wants that added value, it's there. And make no mistake, it IS added value. That's a huge part of what makes this site superior to others that would try to imitate it. Further, in tournaments, one is competing against others, in real time. So, in one sense "by yourself", but in another, no. And I'm not "speaking for" others. Nor "projecting thoughts. I'm merely drawing conclusions, or attempting to, from the data and evidence we have. No, it's not a perfect conclusion, but reasonable and I think I've tried to present it in the most accurate manner possible. And jamesblackburn-lynch agreed, as per his comments earlier. I believe in other discussions other players have also expressed that agreement. Clearly, in this thread, "public opinion" is clearly against the practice.

Date: Wed Nov 8 05:31:06 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
You can say it 1000 times, won't make it so. And I resent the judging of others' moral and ethical standards also. That can only be labeled as self-righteous and sanctimonious.

Date: Wed Nov 8 06:59:14 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
As a non-sequitur, I offer the following: "As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from fission and 328 Mt from fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt." The most recent nuclear test (fussion) was earlier this year by North Korea. Wow, talk about "competitive". Oops, maybe this is "political"??

Date: Wed Nov 8 07:26:43 2017
User: BuzzClik
Message:
I would respond, but one of the participants on this board would merely point out that I have a series of nicks I use in posting here -- which, no matter how many times it is said, is both unintentionally ironic and hypocritical. Some things are entirely too predictable. Fortunately, I have the self-discipline to not respond. ;)

Date: Wed Nov 8 08:00:59 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
TN, I disagree with your extrapolation, saying that because only a few players express acceptance of using cards while many express it as cheating, therefore the vast majority of players think it is cheating. That is very bad science unless you are using a random selection of players and you are not. It is likely that those saying it is cheating do so and feel a moral superiority while those using cards do not say anything for fear of being labelled cheaters. I am NOT saying here whether it is right or wrong, I am just saying that the extrapolation is very questionable. I, in fact, suspect that a lot more of the players that are near the top of the streak rankings use cards or some other aid, far more than we know for sure.

Date: Wed Nov 8 08:21:00 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Hi G_G_G. I agree with you. Except for a few exceptions (like CS, TN, wasjun and some others), I also suspect that a lot of the players that are near the top of the streak rankings have used cards and/or notes. Not all high percentage win rates in difficult variants are suspect, imo, but a lot are. Btw, the streak rankings measure 'what' was achieved, not 'how', imo! They are what they are, and they are *very* good, imo! I would really hate for PudongPete's magnificent achievement to be declared "null and void"!

Date: Wed Nov 8 10:25:45 2017
User: BuzzClik
Message:
This is hardly a new debate; dating back to the ancient versions of this board, I would say this topic has been heated (and reheated) at least a dozen times. A consistent aspect of the debate is that there are hardliners who take the "no cards" approach and those who rationalize the use of cards. As far as TN's "scientific" analysis: it's not an extrapolation for him to state that his statistical sampling demonstrates that most players are opposed to using cards to complete a difficult deal. It's statistics in it's most classic sense: Sample the population, and make an inference. We all understand the limitations of statistics, and I believe TN included all the proper caveats in his discussion. One thing that absolutely does draw a consensus is this: the use of cards to complete a difficult game can never be banned because such a ban is entirely unenforceable. Therefore, no streaks will ever be declared "null and void" because of the use of cards. (If PudongPete used/uses cards ... geez. How disappointing.) If you replicate a freecell game using physical cards (i.e., offline) and lose that game by either retracing a move or restarting entirely, then you there is no question that would constitute a loss when played at this website. It's a workaround that violates the spirit of the game and, in the mind of some (including me) is cheating. Your streak goes on if you eventually find a solution, but pfffft. We can (and will) start another thread on this issue, and it will follow the same line of discussion.

Date: Wed Nov 8 10:33:22 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
Unlike my friend, Buzz, I am not disciplined enough to not respond. For me, as an avid tournament player and not a streak-builder, I don't care how anyone here chooses to play. I *understand* the use of aides to solve a game. The older I get the more I understand. I would bet that the avid streak-builders are the ones who would care. Several years ago this place was a booming site for tournament players due to the recording of "rankings". Those rankings are not kept any longer so I play only as me against me. It's similar for keeping track of stats and lists of those who strive to build their streaks in their variant of choice except it's you against the other streakers. So, personally, I don't consider the use of aides as "cheating" nor against any set rules but maybe, if one cares about seeing their name on top of the lists. It might be unethical...for them... but not for those who use aides. In other words...to each their own, imo. Since this is not reality here I, personally, think that there are more important things to stew about. We are *all* beating a dead horse here. This subject is similar to the thread about the "difficulty level". It's like the infinity symbol... TN, maybe we need to just take a straw-poll to see who cares??? I respect very much your opinion and those of others, but I am not presumptuous enough to say that most care like you do. I am speaking only for myself.

Date: Wed Nov 8 10:41:57 2017
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
I think that people don't thoroughly understand the benefits derived from beating a dead horse. Granted, such actions provide little motivation for the horse, but it can be great therapy for the person continuing the beating.

Date: Wed Nov 8 10:43:38 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
.bow Very well said, Kathy, imo!

Date: Wed Nov 8 12:35:31 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
G_G_G, as Buzz said, I think I included the requisite caveats. I was trying to be careful in doing so. One of the major ones your response didn't recognize was the one about 'thinking' (admittedly dangerous practice) that non-commenters were (largely) statistically irrelevant. And yes, I completely realize that's not a certainty - at all. See again following "(and this is important)": "And although we can't know for sure, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that to the full population of players - OR........(and this is important)............they aren't serious players and it doesn't matter because they're not gonna disrupt the database that much anyway. .....So, you are right that I don't know what "all" of the other folks are thinking.......... But I would definitely say that for those who "don't care", they're mostly a non-factor. If they really *did* care, they'd either a) express such; or b) show themselves in the stats. " ----------------------------------- Yes, statistics can be wrong, or more properly, can give wrong conclusions. But many of us have been here enough years, and this topic has been discussed enough times going WAY back, that a consensus has long existed of what I averred, largely because we've known about this practice for so long, and have observed how many of the records were set. Is it possible that some other unknown top players have cheated in this manner? Yes. But I still maintain that most of the high scores have been done by players who were known to be excellent players because of tournament successes, and adjudged to be fully capable of such feats. All that said.........ok, enough. I give up on debating this further - at least for now, or unless someone has a very specific point or question. While unlike Filthy's possible suspected motivation, this is NOT therapeutic for me. Quite the contrary. I realize I'm just an idealist, and also realize that for reasons I don't fully grasp, not everyone is. (Sadly, in my view, but clearly that's just the way it is - and has been oh, at least since Cain and Abel (and I'm not interjecting religion - just using a metaphor). Yet again, I truly don't want to impinge on anyone enjoying this site. But I do think "the game" is worthy of being "respected"; that just seems such a reasonable thing to ask. All *that* said, I now turn it back over to "grga" who posed this "simple question", and who also has won 31 tournaments - likely not using cards, as he/she is a very fast player.

Date: Wed Nov 8 12:42:39 2017
User: grga
Message:
Ok, thanks. I'm on this site cca 7 years, and I didn't use so far any kind of "cheat". I've played 7x4 4 years and got up to 32 streak (1000h of playing). Then I moved to Tournaments which I find much better and interesting. For me it's not the same when you use cards, because of what lot of people so far have said, you can do "undo" 1000times and still be in the game. It's just not interesting. It is better to calculate in your head 10 moves in front. But, if somenone whants to use it, go for it. P.S. Is there somewhere live tournament in Freecell? That would be fun :D

Date: Wed Nov 8 13:19:55 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
When folks get together to play cards, it's usually poker. Where do you live, grga? Me - Florida - on the outskirts of a tiny town on the outskirts of a University town.

Date: Wed Nov 8 14:50:46 2017
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
grga -- Don't play poker with outskirts. She doesn't play for chips, and she'll take the shirt off your back. *wink wink nudge nudge* A live freecell tournament would be miserable with a deck of cards. Canasta, bridge, cribbage are awesome when played live. Mother Firenze and I have passed the time playing strip versions of all these games (except freecell). After awhile, the cards get in the way, and we simply cut to the chase (which raises objections to other players at the coffee house).

Date: Wed Nov 8 16:34:37 2017
User: grga
Message:
I didn't meant with actual cards. I thought with PC-s. I'm currently in Germany, but I'm born in BiH (google it) B|

Date: Wed Nov 8 23:27:00 2017
User: sprucegoose
Message:
TN said: "In fact, the evidence (the database itself) shows that there are likely *very few* "offenders" who have skewed the statistics in this manner." spruce asks: really? You can determine this from the database of games played? One non-time-on-the-clock behavior I perform maybe once or twice a year is to take a screenshot of a difficult game and shut the timer off and just try to solve it from the screenshot. This seems like it fits with the criteria of being unfair and similar to using a deck of cards. Personally I think they're ought to be a time limit on the game or you lose it anyway. Like 5 minutes. Because I don't really understand how the middle variants (12-sum) take more than 1 to 3 minutes anyway. I'm always surprised when I look at leaderboards and sort by time for game, that there are many players working *an average* of 3 or more minutes. I guess streaks are king for them.

Date: Thu Nov 9 00:12:43 2017
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
spricegoose, The screenshot technique certainly makes the "average time" stat dubious for you, but I don't think it's equivalent to using cards. If you are staring at the screen to come up with a plan, and then going to the actual game and trying out that strategy, it's not like you are getting infinite redos. It doesn't seem different, in practical terms to someone staring at a game for fifteen minutes, which is when Freecell.net cuts off the time. You are actually logged out at that point but can continue working on your plan without it costing you time on the clock. And you are wondering how people can average more than 3 minutes in 8x4 (among others)? I wonder how anyone can average less than 3. I mean without losing games quickly and trying again. If you are trying to not lose, there are a lot of 8x4's that take a long time to figure out what you want to do without risking a loss. On the All Time 8x4 there are no subthree averages until csi at 37. But yes, safe to say, "streaking is king" for us. James

Date: Thu Nov 9 05:13:39 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Germany, BiH, cool~

Date: Thu Nov 9 05:38:45 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
Just a couple of catch up comments: No, Buzzclick, TN's extrapolation does NOT pass scientific muster (I am a retired physicist). To extrapolate you must take a random sample and this is NOT random, it only contains folks who have commented here. As I said, those who do not use cards or some aid are far more likely to comment than those who do. Re average time of play, of course if you are a streaker like me, you sometimes take far far longer then the 1 or 2 minutes sprucegoose talks about depending on the difficulty of the game. I can often take less than 1 minute to finish an easy 8x4, but will also quite often hit the 15 minute shut down for a difficult 6x6 or 5x7 or even an easier variant if I have a long streak I don't want to lose. And I'm not talking about using cards. A 6x6 took me 21 minutes yesterday. (Why more than 15? Make some moves, then stop to think and time keeps running up. )

Date: Thu Nov 9 06:46:22 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Buzz/Filthy said one word that made sense: unenforceable

Date: Thu Nov 9 07:37:23 2017
User: BuzzClik
Message:
Pay more attention to your phrasing, GGG. --I never said it was a scientific analysis, nor did TN. (I put "scientific" in quotes to challenge your notion). --No one suggested it was a truly random sampling. TN emphasized that it was just the opposite. It is, however, a sampling.* --The problem is you suggesting that TN's willingness to use a small sampling to make an inference about the whole is "bad science." The statistics are weak, as we all seem to agree. But, the use of statistics to make "extrapolations" from a small sampling is a part of every scientific discipline (including physics) as well as a lot of non-scientific studies. *If any discipline on the planet would appreciate the difficulty (impossibility?) of obtaining a truly random sampling of an entire "population" it should be physicists. Have the last word on this. ============== I asked a friend, who I know is willing to take any extreme in any situation to gain an advantage, what he would do in this case (i.e., using cards to complete an online game of freecell). He told me, "You've known me for decades, and you know the answer: I'd use the cards. Would it be cheating? Sure. Who cares? There will be no consequences. The only objective is to win. If you can cheat to win and be assured of not getting caught, then cheat: use the cards!"

Date: Thu Nov 9 08:26:42 2017
User: BuzzClik
Message:
TN -- One thing I have noticed over the years as this topic surfaces again and again is that more and more people who respond have taken the side of ambivalence or rationalization for the use of cards. The first time this was discussed in which I was involved, the reaction opposed to the use of cards was overwhelming and emphatic. These days, we're lucky to get someone to admit that the use of cards might -- just might! -- be in opposition to the spirit of the game. >>> hotnurse: "Since this is not reality here I, personally, think that there are more important things to stew about." When you consider the amount of time spent playing this game, the thousands of hours spent tweaking its various aspects, and the countless threads dedicated to keeping track of the daily/career achievements here, I'd say that this place is a slice of reality for a lot of people.

Date: Thu Nov 9 10:45:16 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
If we can agree that using the percentage of posts here against use of cards and extrapolating that to the whole population is totally unscientific and means little, I agree. Unfortunately some readers take an extrapolation and assume it is for real. You say "the use of statistics to make "extrapolations" from a small sampling is a part of every scientific discipline (including physics) as well as a lot of non-scientific studies." I agree, but in the realm of true science every effort will be made to make the sample truly random. If not, it is not science.

Date: Thu Nov 9 10:54:11 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
Darn, I lost my first place and streak of 52 in 7x4 this morning. Looked like a very difficult game, maybe impossible, although the winnable percentage at level 10 is 99.25%. Two red sevens at the bottom of columns but both black eights behind two kings. In my past life I would have pulled out cards, but I didn't. I couldn't find any initial sequence that didn't lose 2 free cells, a recipe for losing the game. I spent 43 minutes on it and lost. It's 0/1. 7x4 level 10, game 31895. Maybe I'll try it with cards now I have zero streak. I asked Denny to put it in your in your queue TT (haha).

Date: Thu Nov 9 10:56:15 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Just some brief responses, since I've been mentioned..... @jamesblackburn-lynch - I agree with you concerning sprucegoose's "technique": If you're using a screenshot only to stare at the game, and not using it to somehow set up cards, or whatever, then that's not cheating at all; it's the equivalent, as you say, to just letting the game time out and then keep thinking. (*Unless* you're in some sort of competition in which time/game is a factor.) And I further agree about the game time in general. I've never understood some players' obsessions with average time. I'm more of a deliberate player, *being a scientist myself*, and am more interested in accuracy than time. Many a time in the past I've suggested that winning percentage is a better measure of 'skill' than streak length, and even at one point suggested that Denny make that the default rank listing criterion (not expecting that to gain favor). But since I'm not a tournament player, I've never *tried* to play fast. Since I became aware that some on this site "cheat", I had plans to try out tournaments, as a hopefully/supposedly "cleaner" competition, but the rankings for that went away before I had a chance to dip my toes in. So I'm supposing sprucegoose must be a tournament player (without looking) to even think like that. Which is fine, since the way he explained it seems perfectly fair to me. @sprucegoose - as james already replied, time/game is of little consequence to me - but unlike most here who call themselves "streakers", I don't even go for that. I've always gone for winning percentage (but which by extension would hopefully involve longer streaks). But not to some extreme. I have no interest in taking 30 minutes to play a game, but it's not, in the past, been rare for me to take 15-20 minutes on tough games. But that has not been my 'normal'. I likely average 3-4 minutes, but that obviously will vary some by variant. I just play "at my own speed", without rushing, but also without some fear I'll lose if I plunge into some 8x2 without studying it enough. To try so hard to win *every* game one plays somewhat mitigates the purpose. And as I note above, I'm also a real, certified scientist, and I think my extensive caveats covered and acknowledged the shortcomings in my speculations. I wasn't claiming a rigorous statistical analysis ("scientific muster") - and thought I made that clear. @Buzz - I hope your observation is statistically false (big LOL), but I fear you may be right. [On the other hand, several of the very 'admissions' that we "have on file" came from those earlier discussions, where some/several players innocently divulged that practice without, or with little, compunction.] As an idealist, I just can't comprehend those who 'take advantage' of others, or of situations that lead to their self-aggrandizement in any form, at the expense of others (which would include actions such as polluting, for example) - yet clearly the world is replete with such actors. I'm just a big fan of "truth and justice", even when it doesn't affect me one whit. And I concur with your comments to hotnurse - the mere fact that the voluminous statistics herein exist at all, that we've spent billions of bytes of cyberspace discussing same, and that we can disagree about their meaning, value, etc., *gives* them at least some semblance of credibility, whatever that might mean in this context. Yes, it's true there "are more important things to stew about", but as Buzz states, the amount of time we've invested here should not be "lost" by the actions of those abusing the system. IMO. Just speaking personally, I feel a great amount of my time has been "wasted" because I for a long time was playing under the apparently false belief that all other players viewed the game the same way I did. Which in hindsight was a mistake on my part - but how could I have known that? I don't know Buzz's friend (lol). I guess I'm just too trusting, and truly am shocked, over and over again, when that trust gets violated. Oh well.................

Date: Thu Nov 9 11:27:13 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
TN, I agree with all you say except as you know I'm somewhat on the fence about using cards. I would encourage you to take the same view of playing that I do now I don't use cards - I want to do as well as I can, get to first in as many streaks as I can, without using cards just to show that it can be done, and to best my previous records. Maybe I will get to first in a couple of winnable variants, right now I'm 3rd in 4 and fourth in 3. When I ran marathons I didn't expect to win, when I ride bike races against guys 20 years younger I just want to hang on. Heck, there's a lot of variants that you don't need cards to figure out and I don't think I ever used them - 10x1, 11x1, 12x1, 12x0, 13x0, 6x8, any variants that is sum 13 or higher that I don't play. using cards is just laziness in many variants, it isn't hard to figure out the first moves to get an extra freecell if that's what is needed.

Date: Thu Nov 9 12:06:56 2017
User: d164280
Message:
In golf there is a handicap system where golfers are on there honor to record every score to obtain there true handicap. You can cheat by recording scores higher than what you actually shot, called sandbagging, thus giving you a higher handicap, which gives you an unfair advantage in a tournament. Everyone knows who the baggers are, they're shamed , usually to no avail. The percentage of baggers is around 10%, thus 90% are honest. My "guess" is that would apply here, with 90% playing without aids. Don't freak out on me now, just a guess with no science behind it, just observation over time.

Date: Thu Nov 9 12:13:09 2017
User: The_Interpreter
Message:
Everybody cheats. Remember that one time, when you were sure nobody was looking, that you did not pick up your dog's poop?

Date: Thu Nov 9 12:18:13 2017
User: grga
Message:
G_G_G I agree with you on "laziness".

Date: Thu Nov 9 13:03:58 2017
User: d164280
Message:
I don't have a dog, but I have a yard. Most people around here pickup after there dog. Now and then, though, someone leaves me something I don't want!

Date: Thu Nov 9 13:48:30 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
d164280 That "gift" is probably from some poor ol blind pupster who doesn't know where he is. ggg (who stated "in some variants") and grga, I don't necessarily agree with the laziness part. Imo it's more like needing a cane or hearing aide to function at one's best at a certain point in life. Maybe an asterisk next to one's streak if they admit that they use cards, whiteboard or whatever to solve a game? It's only a game.

Date: Thu Nov 9 14:00:56 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
What about performance enhancing drugs?

Date: Thu Nov 9 15:36:48 2017
User: d164280
Message:
hotnurse I've witnessed said deposit and it seems both dog and walker have good eyesight. You say it's only a game, but the site is considered competitive freecell, and I'm very competitive, putting me, I would think, in the minority on this site. Like TN I would like it to be 100% what we believe to be fair, no aids. I finished one game ahead of you in last Sunday,s Masters. What if I said I was feeling slow so I "did some meth" to "speed up a little"? Wouldn't that bother you just a little eddy bitty tinsy winsy little bit?

Date: Thu Nov 9 16:35:32 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
d164280, not really because I, personally, have more to be concerned about in my life. I see things from a bit of a different perspective than most, having worked in the medical field my entire almost 40 yr career and seven aging siblings and an "illish" hubby. So I am not one to care that much about the small stuff. BUT...I do care about integrity. Here is a quote taken from the Home page of this site, "Finally you can take your addiction with you and play either privately or in the usual competitive mode with the entire globe. " Plus other descriptions of this site on the home page. Since there are no more "rankings" in tournaments, I play against myself. If I were a streaker, which I have several times stated that it might make a difference to me, I might care...like many of you who are streakers and *do* care. So, again, to each their own. I understand your points and I respect each of them. I have met several of the players here throughout the years and they have *all* been nothing but fantastic people...all of us different, all of us with our own drama/issues/problems, and all respectful of each other. I hope I live long enough to meet many more, you included. But, please, no meth for me. ;)

Date: Thu Nov 9 16:40:59 2017
User: d164280
Message:
Good answer hotnurse, and no meth for me either, at my age it might be the last thing I do! lol

Date: Thu Nov 9 19:11:34 2017
User: FilthyMcNasty
Message:
outskirts said, "What about performance enhancing drugs?" You mean like Sildenafil? Tadalafil? Vardenafil? You never complained before.

Date: Fri Nov 10 06:06:20 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
So sorry for you Go join Harvey, Kevin and Donald.

Date: Fri Nov 10 07:51:30 2017
User: T1-T3
Message:
I don't know if I have ever commented here before now, but reading some of these comments, I have to agree with hotnurse. I don't use cards but it doesn't bother me if anyone else does. I hate losing, especially if I have a good streak going, but I come to play for the relaxation I get from playing. At my age what someone else does, doesn't bother me anymore. The day will come (hopefully not for a long time) when Denny will sell Freecell or delete it, so whether I have won a million games will be just a moot point at that time. Enjoy the game (best game I have ever played, Thank you Denny).

Date: Fri Nov 10 10:14:47 2017
User: The_Interpreter
Message:
There will come a time when the Earth will disappear and human history will be rendered meaningless. Shattered it is that never was Shattered it is that never will be Shattered, void, lost, and gone

Date: Fri Nov 10 10:28:21 2017
User: The_Revelator
Message:
But know this, that in the last days critical times will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride But, we'll always have freecell

Date: Fri Nov 10 11:50:42 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
T1-T3, I make it that so far you have played 139,890 games, and won 139,014, for a win % of 99.37% -- Bravo!

Date: Fri Nov 10 14:39:02 2017
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
T1-T3, Glad to see you here! I have always wondered about your name. Is it a topological reference? (If that question doesn't make sense the answer is clearly "no.") James

Date: Fri Nov 10 15:31:46 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
James, I would bet it is an anatomical reference.

Date: Fri Nov 10 16:55:38 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
I've always figured it to be a bandwidth/communication reference.

Date: Fri Nov 10 20:02:28 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
T1-T3 are the cervical vertebrae which are pretty important, imo, to playing this game?Maybe?