.net
All site revenue goes to charity

Subject: BRAGGING ! ! !


Date: Sun Nov 5 12:09:07 2017
User: d164280
Message:
I'm going to use a solver to best each of tt's streaks. I do it because it is what I enjoy, and also it is healthier! If it upsets you, then that is your problem. You can always play the tournaments.

Date: Sun Nov 5 12:36:54 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
You are good enough to do it without a solver, imo! It would just take you a lot longer -- I have 71 streaks. I sure hope that you are not going to enter the deals manually!!! Good luck...

Date: Sun Nov 5 12:43:53 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
I think that my average rank is 78.9 -- when you finish, I guess it will drop to 79.9 (bucket of tears)...

Date: Sun Nov 5 13:14:23 2017
User: d164280
Message:
Only the streaks where you are first.

Date: Sun Nov 5 13:43:14 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
I wonder, will you be beating me by 1 game, or 2, or 10, or 100? I have already been pushed out of 1st place in 11x3 by tshirt578: 1. ... tshirt578 ........ 12335 ... 12335 ... 0 ... 12335 ... 100.00% ... 1:37 ... 1d 2. ... TitanicTony ... 10100 ... 10100 ... 0 ... 10100 ... 100.00% ... 2:11 ... 1896d

Date: Sun Nov 5 14:44:22 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Btw, will you also be beating PudongPete in 8x4, or is this "personal"?

Date: Sun Nov 5 16:11:10 2017
User: d164280
Message:
I will go after all the known deckers first, then the rest of the variants so my nick will be #1, proving I'm the greatest player ever! All those old values like honesty, integrity, fair play , ethical standards in place for so long no longer apply. Now it's only about winning at any cost, righteousness be damned, believe me, trust me, and I will never apologize, because I'm always right!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Sun Nov 5 16:21:01 2017
User: The_Inquisitor
Message:
I thought you were in Japan?

Date: Sun Nov 5 17:19:40 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Yeah, me too! Now I'm very confused. Where is The_Revelator?

Date: Sun Nov 5 18:48:06 2017
User: Punster
Message:
I thought that TT only used cards, not a solver ?????

Date: Sun Nov 5 18:51:07 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Cards are merely an analog version of a solver.

Date: Sun Nov 5 19:54:14 2017
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
I think a solver is clearly worse than cards. At least with cards, you still have to figure it out. Yes, you have infinite redos but it won't solve itself. TT, as mentioned this topic has come up repeatedly. I say you are in the vast minority in your opinion of whether using cards is cheating because I have seem many people disagree with you, a few people like GGG change their minds because of the conversation, but don't recall anyone agreeing with you. Now, obviously not everyone posts and even of those who do, many have not weighed in. And maybe someone has agreed and I just didn't see that one. It has come up often. But, probabilistically, it seems you are in the minority. Your points about it being easier on the eyes and such are not relevant to the question of whether it is cheating or not. TN, true, I have paid no attention to the Winnable Challenges. I don't know what happened with them other than what I read in the thread you pointed to. For whatever reason I just have zero interest in the winnable flavors. James

Date: Sun Nov 5 22:00:00 2017
User: d164280
Message:
WOW! That was tongue-in-cheek folks. TT mentioned that it would be a threat if someone used a solver, meaning, to me, he probably thinks that is cheating. So I thought it might give him a different perspective on the issue if someone was cheating to best his score. Unfortunately , I failed miserably! He says there's no written rule saying you can't deck. True, but there also is no written rule that says if you over 75 and becoming feeble minded that you can "level the playing field" by decking because it's more fun and healthier! We have come up with numerous analogies to illustrate the point to no avail. I'm afraid we're beating a dead horse here. TN put it as matter of fact, Joe Friday just the facts ma'am, when he said streaking is solving the game first try, period, end of story! By the way, I have seen irrefutable evidence that some use solvers. crepuscule was coming up on me in11x1 winnable at one point before I reached 1000, so I kept a close eye on there progress for over 400 games. The pattern was very consistent, 8 to 12 mins. on easy games I would solve in 2 to 3mins., and 7 to 8 mins. on all the tough ones that would take me 10 to 30mins to solve. When they finally passed me I was just going to quit playing, you can't beat a machine. But it really pissed me off, I just couldn't let it go, so the next day I called them out for cheating. I guess they saw it, decided to show me they didn't need a solver, played 3 very easy games, losing the third, end of streak! Honesty, integrity, fair play in all competitions, that's how I was taught so many years ago.

Date: Mon Nov 6 04:39:28 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Wow, 1st place in w11x1, on 1855, and counting! Congratulations!! I'm in 28th place on 160. Re. "do-overs" (replays). Yours are purely mental. Mine are also mental, but cards (and notes) help me keep track of the 30+ intermediate moves. And,... I know that TN also disagrees with taking notes (even without cards). If PudongPete, and many others over the years, can use cards, then so can I. If you want to call us all "cheaters", well, that's your dictionary, not mine. Probably most card users are never noticed: if using cards improves your rank from 125 to 95, nobody will notice. Probably the vast majority of players don't care. "Purely mental" requires skill (and intelligence). "Taking notes" requires patience (just as much a virtue as "honesty, integrity and fair play"). Btw, I think part of my "problem" with you guys has been my honesty. And finally, I applaud G_G_G for "still" using cards occasionally, and I hope he will continue to do so!! If more players would use cards, there would be somewhat fewer unwon winnable games, and a lot fewer unplayed games at levels 6-10 in some variants. I wonder if I have won more previously un-played games than anybody else this year?

Date: Mon Nov 6 05:46:05 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
BORING ! ! ! This is the internet, not real life.

Date: Mon Nov 6 23:06:35 2017
User: d164280
Message:
Boring, who the hell asked you. You haven't been part of this discussion. This is the internet and no one is forcing you to read this, so if you find it boring, DON'T READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Tony you have been honest and I thank and commend you for that.

Date: Tue Nov 7 02:37:18 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Touchy! I am entitled to publish my opinion here same as everybody. And I certainly did not read all of it, for fear of being bored to death!

Date: Tue Nov 7 02:58:28 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Clearly Tony looks at this only in terms of his "ranking". Tony, let me appeal to the "bigger picture". It matters not if someone's "rank" moved from 125 to 95. That is transient and virtually certain to be fleeting. Of much greater importance is the historical record. Long before you came along, although mostly absent now, there were detailed discussions about what percentage of this or that variant were, in the mathematical limit sense, winnable. As a statistician, you should appreciate that. I.E......"what is the limiting winning percentage of 7x3?" (Or "what is the limiting streak length of 7x3? (which could theoretically be calculated from the first question.)) Now we know you tend to play only winnables, except in this 12-sum contest, so I'm purposely choosing an example that's not in your repertoire, just for an example. All that is now out the window, or largely on it's way out. The historical 'integrity' of the statistics of millions of games is tainted, and of greatly diminished value. Because 99% (or so?) of the games that have been played on this site have been done so "fairly", there *used to be* great value because one could contextualize oneself based on what others have done over the years. So you feel no guilt in tearing that down? Is it really a correct moral choice to negatively impact literally thousands of others, so that you (and maybe a handful of others) can have your 'freedom'? And although my question(s) may seem so, I'm trying not to "judge" you personally, because as I've stated several times before, I suspect you're a fine person overall. I truly(!) want to understand this from your point of view. We know your point of view in terms of the playing aspect - eyesight, brain strain, etc. I'm now more interested in how you see the problem as I've presented it from this angle. Thanks.

Date: Tue Nov 7 03:18:29 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
Tony you have no obligation to answer to anyone for how you play the game. TN is a personal friend of mine so I can say he's BORING without fear of silly retribution.

Date: Tue Nov 7 05:09:26 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Thank you outskirts! Bow. But, I don't mind. Yep, it is definitely a shame that every time I move up a notch, hundreds of players move down a notch. I used to care about rankings -- when I first joined the site, I chose to play 12x2, because I thought I could get to 1st place, and I did. That was before they had the winnable variants, and before I got to be "so old". I played for 471+ hours and got to 13,000! [wasjun is currently on 8135, and playing 27 seconds faster than me -- go wasjun!] [At some point, TN wanted to know why I wanted to play a "click fest" -- he didn't call it that back then.] More recently, I have spent 1213+ hours playing w13x0 and have only gotten to 499 (rank 63rd)! Now I don't care so much about rankings anymore! I'm no longer here for the "challenge", but for the fun, and the brain exercise!! A few players will just have to say to themselves, "I'm can't beat a player like TT (or PP) in this variant." Others, like CS, will have no problem beating me, anytime they chose. I suspect (fear?) that in another year, or maybe 2 (even with cards), I won't be very good anymore. But I plan to keep on playing anyway (for the fun, and the brain exercise)! And, it doesn't bother me that probably, eventually, all of my streaks will be beaten (possibly by another player using cards). And, it doesn't bother me that I will never be in the Freecell Hall Of Fame. As stated above, my average rank (in 71 variants) is about 78.9, so hundreds of players ARE already beating me, every day! It must really bother you, that I not only use cards, but encourage others to also use cards! As I said above, "If more players would use cards, there would be somewhat fewer unwon winnable games, and a lot fewer unplayed games at levels 6-10 in some variants." Btw, "Cards are merely an analog version of a solver" is bs, imo. Maybe that is how you meant it. Btw2, I enjoy playing freecell MUCH more than discussing it! Btw3, I guess there is about zero chance that this will go un-answered, but one can always hope.

Date: Tue Nov 7 05:32:51 2017
User: outskirts
Message:
High 5 TT

Date: Tue Nov 7 09:39:22 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
Since I appear to be the only player to have used cards quite regularly and then to have sworn off them (but relapsed occasionally) let me explain my logic in using them/not using them. When I used them I justified it by saying that 1) it is still possible to look at a game and if it looks like there are a few obvious moves and it is going to be easy, go ahead and make them. But you can still lose a game that way, unless you make a decision to use cards on every game right away, but what a bore and a time waster that would be! No fun at all. 2) It is still possible to lose an easy game by making a stupid mistake or simply picking up the wrong card, 3) Most important in the logic, even with cards you have to decide to use them quickly, sometimes even before making a single move that can blow it, and you still have to find a solution. Not very often, but I have played games and been unable to find a solution at all after a couple of days of playing with the cards, given up and then found that someone better than me obviously had found a solution, but the streak is gone at that point. Use of a solver is different because it takes away that need to find a solution. 4) If you're trying to best everyone in streaks and you know your competition is using cards, why handicap yourself? A corollary is in cycling, (a sport in which I have raced). There was a time when a high percentage of professionals like Lance Armstrong were using EPO and probably other drugs. It was impossible to be competitive without them, and such is the case in Freecell I fear. Taking drugs doesn't mean you will win every bike race and using cards doesn't mean you will win every Freecell game, only a higher percentage. So why did I quit using cards? I never took drugs for bike racing, but it can be a rough, win any way you can sport and I wasn't always very sporting. I can think of a couple of cases like that, for which I am not proud (but I did win races clean, too). Then we sat down for a family card game one evening and someone said how competitive I am, how I want to win every way I can and it struck a chord. I said, am I really? I don't like that. So I got a sense of personal satisfaction in crashing all my streaks one day and starting off clean. That was about March 2016. What do I think now? It's all a matter of degree isn't it? Frankly, I can't see anything wrong in making a few notes on paper at one extreme, (though I don't) and I see using a solver definitely as cheating at the other extreme. Using cards I see in the middle. If the rules said solve a game any way you can, use cards if you want to, I think that would be fine. If the rules said: no paper, no cards, just stare at the screen until you solve it in your head, that's fine too. I think that's the way it is supposed to be, but it's unenforceable isn't it. So now I don't expect to pass TT or other card users in the rankings, variants like 6x5 are too hard, you have to plan more moves ahead than my brain can handle, I just play against my past records. I keep track in excel and just try to enjoy the game. That's what we should all do, just enjoy the game. If I can lead a few streaks without using cards (it will never be 6x5) that's great. I will keep playing the "middling" game variants, those that require thinking but don't have a ridiculously low winnable percent.

Date: Tue Nov 7 12:56:31 2017
User: FlyingApple
Message:
TT stated: As I said above, "If more players would use cards, there would be somewhat fewer unwon winnable games, and a lot fewer unplayed games at levels 6-10 in some variants." The same could be accomplished by hitting replay for however many times it takes to figure it out.

Date: Tue Nov 7 13:02:08 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Tony, you didn't even *begin* to address the question I posed. But I guess that sort of speaks volume in and of itself. And yes, when I wrote: "Cards are merely an analog version of a solver", I was making a hyperbolic point. Yes, using a solver is 'worse', but it's also EXACTLY THE SAME - it's using an external aid. Cheating is cheating. Just like pregnant is pregnant. Taking 1 mg of EPO is as bad as taking 10 mg EPO. Situational ethics is a very, very slippery slope. G_G_G's "admission" that "...and I wasn't always very sporting" I think is also revelatory. There must be something very, very deep in humans that leads to wanting to "win at all costs". Thinking deeper about that.......one could make the argument that it's all evolutionary biology's fault. Which although sounds reasonable........doesn't allow for the existence of those here (or in other sports, business, relationships, etc., who *don't* cheat, even at the expense of self-aggrandizement, financial benefit, or other self-serving forms of measure). It's really not my place to judge others. It's really not, and I fully recognize that. But I think judging an *activity* is right and proper. Denny has done this his very own bad self. The whole point of the statistics of this site, and the compilation of records, both codified by Denny and codified only by our various members "doing it on their own", is to give some measure of competence. It shouldn't be a life-determining situation, of course. But what's the point if it's not fair to all those who participate in that particular (significant) aspect of this site? What has been measured if competitors are laboring under different strictures? I personally think it's a matter of respect. Both respect for one's other competitors, and for the game itself. And for the 5th or 10th time, if one is NOT playing for competitive reasons, then why not just play anonymously? But if there *is* a competitive 'point' to it, for any player, then respect the game, and respect others, and their time.

Date: Wed Nov 8 04:26:26 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
TN, I thought that I answered your Q when I said: "Yep, it is definitely a shame that every time I move up a notch, hundreds of players move down a notch." Which is, of course, stupid! Every time I move up a notch, only one player moves down a notch. Btw, I believe it was you who pointed out that the historical data base was "tainted" (years before I arrived on the seen). If you, and "most" others, want to handicap yourselves by "never taking notes", that is fine by me! You can all be really proud of your superior mental ability. You use mental replays. You think about a possible solution, and when you realize that it doesn't work, you think again! Someone wrote that it took them 2 weeks of on-and-off-thinking to win just 1 game (I would never do that)! Some games (like w4x10) have thousands of possible opening sequences, and even I am not patient enough to try them all! Maybe I should retire from these difficult variants, and just play the (way more fun) easy ones!?

Date: Wed Nov 8 04:44:15 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No, Tony, you missed my point (I think). I was pointing out that it's NOT important who moves up or down notches I was wanting you to respond to the moral question: "Tony, let me appeal to the "bigger picture". It matters not if someone's "rank" moved from 125 to 95. That is transient and virtually certain to be fleeting. Of much greater importance is the historical record..... All that is now out the window, or largely on it's way out. The historical 'integrity' of the statistics of millions of games is tainted, and of greatly diminished value. Because 99% (or so?) of the games that have been played on this site have been done so "fairly", there *used to be* great value because one could contextualize oneself based on what others have done over the years. So you feel no guilt in tearing that down? Is it really a correct moral choice to negatively impact literally thousands of others, so that you (and maybe a handful of others) can have your 'freedom'?...... I'm now more interested in how you see the problem as I've presented it from this angle. Thanks." --------------------------------------------------- So yes, the statistics were in the purest sense already tainted because we knew of earlier incursions by what were then called "bots", for lack of better understanding, I think. But we were of the common knowledge (I believe) that that had ceased, and it was at least semi-known what was tainted, and it was to a quite limited extent. And since winnables hadn't yet been "invented", then that yet-to-exist database was pure and unadulterated, even tho it was yet to be 'born', oxymoronic as that may sound. (And yet it is a valid statement.) Further, the mere creation of the winnables universe perversely(?) self-warped that nascent database via reasoning I've expounded on multiple times in the past. But that's a side issue and tangential to this discussion. ------------------------------------------------------ And while I'm here again, let me put this part of my above post to you again: "I personally think it's a matter of respect. Both respect for one's other competitors, and for the game itself. And for the 5th or 10th time, if one is NOT playing for competitive reasons, then why not just play anonymously? But if there *is* a competitive 'point' to it, for any player, then respect the game, and respect others, and their time."

Date: Wed Nov 8 04:59:07 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
And the whole point (as most of us see it), is indeed to see how 'good' we can be at doing "mental replays". How much can we "keep track of" in our noggins? The sorting out of those mental replays is what makes the games a challenge. Most of us (as I understand it), choose to see how good we are at this mental replaying. How far can we take it in a game? Someone hereon claimed what seemed to me to be numbers of moves well past what I'm capable of. If I remember correctly(??), someone threw out the figure of 40(?) moves. (It may have been anywhere between 30 and 50.) If one is using paper, or cards, or a solver, or a Ouija board, or tea leaves, it's an additional aid that those who are using only their noggins don't have access to (or more properly, *choose* not to have access to). A player may be "achieving" persistence by doing that, and yes (excepting the solver), there is still work and effort involved, but it's just not measuring the same thing. And to pretend it is, is, well............to quote joeygray again: "What a Streak Win is Not: Anything that convinces Denny's record-keeping apparatus that you did solve the game on the first try when you did not."

Date: Wed Nov 8 08:08:01 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
This morning I had a very tough 6x6, level 7 number 20208. I looked at it and thought, no way it is winnable. There was a time when I would have pulled out the cards right away. 6x6 is one of those variants that it is very hard to achieve the supposed winnable % of 99.65 (at level 10). I didn't. I accepted the challenge, started the only way it looked like a solution might be possible and I won it. Now 1/3. It took me 21 minutes and I feel very good about it TT.

Date: Wed Nov 8 08:26:58 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Congratulations!!! It could have gone in the "Never Won Winnables" thread. I admit, I would have used cards, and probably spent over an hour on it (lol?). Using cards, we are fairly equal, imo. Without cards, I think that you are way ahead of me!

Date: Wed Nov 8 08:39:46 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
We won't know unless you try! Smile

Date: Wed Nov 8 10:36:08 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
GGG, funny thing about those 6x6's. During tournaments especially, that is a very tricky variant. You would think that the 12 sum would be simple, but for me at least, it's not. If you want to streak in that variant it's wise to think hard, first. My experience at least.

Date: Wed Nov 8 12:02:17 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Congrats, G_G_G! However, it could not have gone into the "Never Won Winnables" thread (legitimately, as it if really mattered) because it was not a known winnable. 6x6s don't even have a winnable flavor, as you (and Tony) know.

Date: Fri Nov 10 07:09:11 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
It was TT that suggested it could have gone into the "Never Won Winnables", but no matter. Yes, hotnurse, it is a difficult variant, easy to get tripped up, especially because you think it should be easy with 6 freecells. My best ever is only 59 and that was when I was using cards. My notes say (does this data come from free@last?) that it is 99.65% winnable at level 10 so it is worth the effort to try to solve the hard ones, not give up thinking it is unwinnable. I'm currently at 32 with no cards but only in 7th place. I try to do a couple a day to catch up but tell myself before starting: allow time, concentrate, don't go below 4 freecells. I like the variant because it is challenging but winnable. I don't like 6x5 even though that should be 98.33% winnable at level 10 (but I have never got close to that).

Date: Fri Nov 10 07:30:43 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Hey Goosey, I don't know where you are getting your percentages? >370 6x6 games have never been won, out of 8319 games played. Certainly they are difficult! The "Cumulative Game Stats" say: 6x6-10 ... 4 ... 3 ... 75.00% ... 182234 ... 69660 ... 38.23%!! Maybe free@last has used his solver to determine tha actual winnable rate, but 99.65% would surprise me! But I guess maybe it is possible?? With so few games played, and the ones that are played are played so few times, it is impossible for me to judge. Only a solver could get the true winnable rate (and I think only free@last knows how to do that).

Date: Fri Nov 10 15:34:54 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
Yah, I thought that 99.65% win rate was a bit high considering how many time I have lost quickly and replayed quickly those pesky 6x6's in tournaments. I do the "play-fast-lost-fast" method that messes us the stats, but oh well...it's only a game.

Date: Fri Nov 10 17:14:27 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
I don't have time right now but sometime in the past I downloaded percent winnables that someone had determined. I was trying to develop a formula for percent winnables by row/column. I did not succeed by the way. I'll look up my source. It's in a different spreadsheet.

Date: Sat Nov 11 09:07:40 2017
User: Goosey_Goosey_Gander
Message:
Yep, I checked my source, downloaded from ??? a couple of years ago. Free@last?? 6x6 level 10 if you can get there, 99.47% winnable (not 99.65%), but only 37.81% actually won at that time. It's one of those variants that using cards helps a lot. I don't have data for winnable percents at lower levels but it must be greater than the above.

Date: Sat Nov 11 10:49:05 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
flobbadob right now is at 99.17% on 363 games played. HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom is at 100% on 115 games played. MtTam stopped, over 12 years ago, after losing one to end at 110/111. Lindyhopper_Agame is currently at 100%, but with only 43 games played.

Date: Sat Nov 11 11:04:58 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
Maybe, too, the % is so high is because there aren't that many who play that variant (duh). Also maybe only those who are aware of this the tricky aspects play with caution. Curious TN...do the 6x6's played in tournaments factor in to the stats?

Date: Sat Nov 11 11:24:47 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That I do not know. At first, hottie, I didn't get your point about "aren't that many who play that variant". (As in "why should that matter?") But I think you meant that the ones who play 6x6 tend to be, likely, better players than the ones who play 8x4, for example. I think it's more like the 7x3, which apparently has a *much* higher winnable percentage than anyone would guess. I think there's just enough playability to anything with 6 freecells, that almost all should be able to be conquered. But that brings up the interesting point that 6x6s are *nearly* as winnable as the 100% winnable 8x4s. As I recall, shortly after I first found this site, someone posed this very question (what's your favorite?) to Denny, and he responded that he thought 6x6 was a very nice/fun variant. His response may have been in a MOTF, or just in regular discussion board format, I don't remember. (And I'm also paraphrasing his response.) That said......even at 99.47%, that's still 1 game out of about every 201 or so that's not winnable - which is enough to scare away those who hate losing after building a long streak - which is exactly what drove Denny and free@last to 'build' the winnable flavor because of the not-quite-as-bad situation in 12x1.

Date: Sat Nov 11 11:38:19 2017
User: hotnurse
Message:
TN, that's what I meant. I'm not the best with wording.

Date: Sat Nov 11 11:43:10 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I *do* remember noticing that plays of 6x6 jumped big-time for a while after that.

Date: Mon Dec 18 15:50:27 2017
User: TitanicTony
Message:
Back in 2008 (Thu Dec 4 17:39:34 2008), I wrote in this thread: ....... ....... Next year I plan to try to get my 8x4 streak into the top 1000. ....... Well, nearly 9 years later, I have finally made it (a couple of months ago): Current rank, 746, on a current streak of 340. 746. TitanicTony,... 340,... 340,... 1,... 4196,... 98.43%,... 4:27,... 0:37.

Date: Sat Feb 16 18:45:56 2019
User: Kaos
Message:
I was a bit surprised to see the stats on this game after getting it first try: Game #: 6x4 18665 Game stats: 86/2/2.33% Difficulty: 5 Elapsed: 2:46 Streak: 2 Today: 2

Date: Fri Jan 31 15:44:36 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I actually really do hate to brag, but................. Although there were definitely some hard ones in there, mostly lucky just to get that selection of winnable ones. Recent History of Play Date Time Game Mode Elapsed Won/Lost 1/31 3:28 pm 8x1 11366-5 Streak 3:49 Won 1/31 3:24 pm 8x1 458-5 Streak 1:26 Lost 1/31 3:19 pm 9x0 17381-5 Streak 3:59 Won 1/31 3:15 pm 9x0 23510-5 Streak 0:29 Lost 1/31 3:03 pm 11x0 25657-6 Streak 3:48 Won 1/31 2:59 pm 11x0 25832-5 Streak 2:26 Won 1/31 2:56 pm 11x0 794-5 Streak 2:05 Won 1/31 2:42 pm 11x0 9089-5 Streak 22:03 Won 1/31 2:20 pm 11x0 24404-5 Streak 1:55 Won 1/31 2:14 pm 11x0 11659-5 Streak 5:16 Won 1/31 2:08 pm 11x0 15061-5 Streak 10:13 Won 1/31 1:47 pm 11x0 14738-5 Streak 3:12 Won 1/31 1:42 pm 11x0 13650-5 Streak 5:08 Won 1/31 1:34 pm 11x0 1320-5 Streak 1:12 Won 1/31 1:33 pm 11x0 4811-5 Streak 1:20 Won 1/31 1:32 pm 11x0 27237-5 Streak 1:45 Lost 1/31 1:08 pm 10x0 27124-5 Streak 3:34 Won 1/31 1:03 pm 10x0 61-5 Streak 3:12 Won 1/31 12:18 am 7x2 9055-5 Streak 7:44 Won 1/31 12:10 am 7x2 22238-5 Streak 4:25 Won

Date: Tue Feb 18 13:58:55 2020
User: Kaos
Message:
In the recent AIO tournament, I won this deal first-time: 2/18 1:39 pm 5x9 5259-9 Tournament 1:44 Won And saw the stats were then 49-3. Now, if only Denny put more games like this into tournaments...

Date: Sat Feb 22 23:02:54 2020
User: evangeline
Message:
I don't think you hate bragging at all. Typically, we don't do things we hate unless we must. BUT I do think bragging is in order here. Congratulations!

Date: Tue May 5 02:22:09 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I just won my first 7x1. So I guess it's also technically a "Never Won Winnable". Game #: 7x1 8761 Game stats: 1/1/100.00% Difficulty: 5 Elapsed: 2:28 Curiously.............on my stats page, it shows: current streak: 0 best streak: 0 plays: 12 wins: 0 win percent: 0.00% Not sure what's up with that.

Date: Tue May 5 04:54:59 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
You have to mark the "count for streak" box there for it to count, and IIRC that's needed over and over again before each game. Made the same mistake a few months ago when I won a 8x0.

Date: Tue May 5 11:53:43 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Hmmm....... I see. I had remembered it that if one chose "random" that it implicitly meant that you wanted it to count for your streak. Has that changed at some point in time? I almost never use "Custom", so I guess I didn't notice. My memory was that if you selected a specific game, it would not count for streak (as it should be), but *not* selecting a game # meant it would count. Anybody know if that changed at some point?


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

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