Subject: fc-solve summary data

Date: Mon Oct 26 13:01:00 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
For heaven's sake, TN. Innocent people might be tempted to play more 4x4-10 games thinking there are more to be solved? I don't see that happening. And for the most part, we're just finishing the work on a small set of solvable yet unsolved games in more reasonable variants, such as the 9x3-10 (done) and 7x4-5 (not yet) above. If anything, cellmate's data does the exact opposite - removes a false impression of unsolvability for some games.

Date: Mon Oct 26 13:19:54 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I would agree that any "harm" in this case is extremely minimal. But where does one draw the line on this slippery slope? As I said, I wasn't trying to make a federal case out of it, but it really is a lot like Pandora's box has now been opened. No telling where this will lead. Doesn't this look bizarre? Imagine this scaled up (or up and up): 4x4-5 0 0 0.00% 201331 470 0.23% 4x4-12 0 0 0.00% 140 0 0.00% 4x4-11 0 0 0.00% 10 0 0.00% 4x4-10 0 0 0.00% 132 3 2.27% 4x4-9 0 0 0.00% 14 0 0.00% 4x4-8 0 0 0.00% 21 0 0.00% 4x4-7 0 0 0.00% 20 0 0.00% 4x4-6 0 0 0.00% 58 0 0.00% Next thing you know, SirPape is gonna get riled up. ( <---- And that's meant to be funny.) And won't calculations/observations of the efficacy of Denny's algorithm now need to be thrown out the window? Just trying to play the role of ethicist here - before things get too far down the road - altho it already may be too late for that.

Date: Mon Oct 26 14:05:22 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
Observing the algorithm over a sample of this size? I had similar argument with free a while back, who intended using some 2/17 stats to order difficulty of variants for choosing Hot Streak hard ones. Anything under 10K plays is negligible. I really don't see any harm here, putting aside that there's not even something new in essence, as free's solver results have been here for years, including people trying to solve what's left to be solved across multiple variants. This is just an update / upgrade.

Date: Mon Oct 26 15:42:37 2020
User: redberet
Message:
7x4-5 22537 shows promise, I can get an open column and three freecells, but that's as far as I've got. Can't seem to get to those black deuces.

Date: Tue Oct 27 02:36:41 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
@ Oded - seems to be 132 is a 'decent' sample size. So............to (sort of) quote andaronjim..............looks like climate 10 is only 1/10th as hard as climate 5. What's up with that? I don't think anything under 10K plays is negligible, especially when good players are taking cracks at things. I mean, sure, it'd be good if that were 10 or 100 times more, but it's not negligible (to observe such an extreme effect). I'll not do the math, but it's a fair number (like, A LOT) of standard deviations away from climate 5 - in the easier direction instead of in the harder direction. If the difference was something like, oh, just easier, or maybe 1/2 as hard, then yeah, we'd want a bigger sample size. But a factor of ten easier throws off the stats. Clearly. (As it stands for the moment.) Any reasonable person just happening upon this site right now, and seeing that could/would conclude "Gee, the algorithm for 4x4 must not work so well." So (in my mind), the question becomes, so what? What's the harm? I guess if we no longer consider "the stats" as holy and some sort of guiding light................then the 'damage' is (to some extent) mitigated. Or at least some of the horses are already out of the barn. I guess it's just (yet again) my idealism standing up and saying, "wait just a minute here..........". But not to mention....................now the chance of someone plugging away and becoming the first to (rawly) solve a 4x4-10 is gone. Kaput. Yet another example of there being a slippery slope here. As I'm sure you know, there are a large number of the harder variants in which there have been zero solved. Do we want to make such a quest impossible? I would vote strongly "no". I see your point about how free@last's solver results have been here for a while, and that's a valid point. But those are only for the known winnable variants only, right? (And I was never feeling good about throwing those out there just to be knocked off, either, but clearly most others didn't mind.) Spud just solved a winnable 9x3-10 game to make it 1/206. Who all would have kept trying that if it was not known to be winnable? Very, very few. So..............I can see the 'fun' that that quest generated. And I can even see it in solving a "winnable" 4x4-10 (altho at least one of them appeared to be a trivial solution). So I guess it's a trade-off: giving up the mystery, etc. of not knowing if any particular game is capable of being won, vs. trying to crack such hard games. To me, it seems a lot like these "canned" hunts, where hunters are charged big bucks to "hunt" animals that are in a fenced-in area, albeit maybe a large-ish one. You know you're likely gonna be successful; you just don't know how long it will take. [disclaimer: I am not a hunter, but am aware of that practice and think it's rather distasteful.] I was peripherally aware of your discussion with free@last about variant choices, but don't know the meaning of "2/17". (Unless you just mean 2/17 wins for a particular game?)

Date: Tue Oct 27 07:59:03 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
I strongly disagree with you regarding sample size. When there are 32768 games at each level, and 132 can be one player having 80% of these (and even on a single game), anyone who draws such conclusions knows about statistics as much as the (in)famous andaronjim, and that's not a compliment. If your argument is quoting him, it says something about the validity of the argument. I meant "2/17" exactly the same way - as a cumulative stat for a certain level (in this case, 6x2-6), being higher than, say, 500/10000. 4x8-8 is 4/96 (4.17%). 4x8-9 is 3/10 (30%). 5x5-5 is ~32K/214K (15%). 5x5-7 is 1/1 (100%). 5x7-6 is ~13.6K/32K (42.63%). 5x7-7 is 308/408 (75.5%, surely thanks to the efforts of Hop and co.). 9x1-6 is ~15K/61K (24.8%). 9x1-7 is 95/174 (54.6%). There are more of these, of course. Anyone who draws conclusions from the second number of these pairs regarding the algorithm doesn't know what they're talking about. And I have deliberately didn't compare any level 5 to level 6 stats, which on first site show something on a decent sample size. Hopefully everyone but that Jim guy knows that's because of the difference of skill between an average level 5 player (= entry level) and an average level 6 player. Not really the issue here, but the "actual stats capture" I've made last year indicates that one of those 4x4-10s has been solved by that time (#4544 which is 1/9). https://www.freecell.net/f/c/disctopic.html?code=11141 (near the bottom of page 1) There are enough things that are yet to be cracked here, that one can be the first to do. It's not like we're gonna ask the winnable game numbers for every level of each variant. We're just toying with the margins (and a game level that has been played about 100 times in 20 years is as marginal as it gets). Free's results included basically the whole set just like cellmate's (save a small number of variants which he didn't check, namely 5x3 to 5x7 and 8x0). Had nothing to do with winnables.

Date: Tue Oct 27 11:20:35 2020
User: jamesblackburn-lynch
Message:
Oded, As an outsider who only vaguely looks at a lot of these discussions, I have to comment on your rhetoric. You make solid points and then ruin them with personal attacks. I’ve seen you attack Hop, free, and now TN. You are weakening your arguments. I suggest letting your logic speak for itself without accusing anyone of incompetence or ignorance. James

Date: Tue Oct 27 12:45:46 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Thank you, james, but I've got a pretty thick skin. That said, I've also noticed Oded's occasional abrasiveness previously. Not a good look - but I'm personally above that (I hope!). But now, my response............. I thought it would have been pretty obvious that my comments referencing andaronjim's, uh, failings, was a parody - as such comments by me have been many times over the years since he made his multiple big splashes about the (obvious) greater difficulty of climate 5 vs. climate 6. Most here know I've railed on him repeatedly, and will continue to do so, as the degree of his denseness deserves that. It's one of those gifts that keeps on giving - at least imo. Am I a pot calling the kettle black? No; there are certain posters who have appeared here from time to time who have proudly earned that level of distinction. No need to name anymore, but I think we know 2-3 of them well. I actually thought you had been here long enough to recognize that. That you've somehow missed my intent totally there surprises me. But whatever............ Now to the statistics. I admit my statistics chops aren't what they used to be. They're rusty and I've recently had no personal need to freshen them up. But I've dealt with them most of my adult life, if not on a regular, deep level. So I think I've got a moderately intuitive grasp of comparison of data sets. *That* said...................we all know that such confidence (pun intended) can be misplaced and wrong. I don't have time to research how to calculate the difference right now, but james (or yourself) could probably do it in short minutes. But to make clear what I was comparing, here it is: 3/132 (2.27%) vs. 470/201,331 (0.23%) While certainly the first population is way small to discern a whole lot about it, the second one is clearly not. And it's not often - at least in science, because one hopes to design experiments where one isn't faced with such dilemmas - where one has to compare such divergent sample sizes. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but can someone "do the math" on this for me/us?

Date: Tue Oct 27 17:51:34 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
JBL, point taken, but to my defense, it's part of living in a certain culture. And believe me I'm very moderate compared to what you hear and read on debates around here where I live, mass media included. When I see something that's clearly wrong imo, I can get upset. But I'm saying why I think it's wrong. I never called or even implied any of the good men listed above is incompetent in what he does (and you left out Joey regarding repeating variants on SSC; he seemed to get mad at me for a short while but later came up with a solution that I think is great for everyone). Same for Denny on the HS replay thing and the way that decision was made in the first place. TN - I know you're making fun out of that guy, but your "3/132" argument was serious. And for me it wasn't that much better than his arguments. And that's the thing - you can't compare them. It's just like comparing average income, life span or whatever between New York and a 1000 people town. The numbers of the latter are meaningless compared to the former.

Date: Sat Oct 31 01:58:11 2020
User: Oded789
Message:
Hop, "unsolveds" and "solveds" aren't English and hurt my eyes. Also, and this is coming out of respect for cellmate's work, the "solved/unsolved" terms are misleading. Many "solved" games haven't been solved at all by users. And the "unsolved", with very high probability, will never be solved. I really think for the purpose of this page that "winnable" and "unwinnable" are much more appropriate.

Link: Hop's unwinnables table

Date: Sat Oct 31 02:05:03 2020
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Well, Oded I guess you are not a native english speaker and I would to hear native speakers' opinions on this one because I myself don't see anything wrong with it.

Date: Sat Oct 31 04:31:11 2020
User: redberet
Message:
While it doesn't really hurt my eyes, you do need to drop the s. Bad grammar, you can't pluralize a past tense verb. Solve/Unsolved is more appropriate than Winnable/Unwinnable because there is always that chance some egghead will come along.

Date: Sat Oct 31 04:44:28 2020
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
I use "solved" and "unsolved" as adjectives here (like solved games or unsolved games where they are adjectives right?). So when I can use plural suffix on "winnable" and "unwinnable" (like winnable game, unwinnable game) adjectives, why can't I use it for "unsolved" and "unsolved" when they function as adjectives?

Date: Sat Oct 31 08:42:46 2020
User: free@last
Message:
Unsolveds is short for 'unsolved games'. If you use a word long enough, it becomes a word irregardless of whether it started that way or not. 🤪

Date: Sat Oct 31 09:25:21 2020
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Thanks free, that's close to my theory. Anyway I have changed "solveds" to "solved" and "unsolveds" to "unsolved" to make it less distracting for some eyes. The bold header above makes it clear what is meant anyway.

Date: Sat Oct 31 11:23:09 2020
User: Kumquat-of-Conciliation
Message:
Sounds to me, free@last, like you'rejustmakingstuffup. Is that "long enough"?

Date: Sat Oct 31 11:29:28 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
Right off the top of my head, there are words that do add an s to a -ed but I can't think of one at the moment. I'll report back when I do.

Date: Sat Oct 31 11:35:40 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
By "words" I mean real, actual, bonafide words. I am not going to oogle. It will pop into my head while I'm out and about.

Date: Sat Oct 31 12:00:50 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
Thought of one - worsteds - more later

Date: Sat Oct 31 12:04:15 2020
User: TNmountainman
Message:
reds. Reds.

Date: Sat Oct 31 12:09:13 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
Please, no stupid arguments

Date: Sat Oct 31 12:13:22 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
The way I wrote it *denotes* that it is a suffix.

Date: Sat Oct 31 12:20:42 2020
User: free@last
Message:
lol TN

Date: Sat Oct 31 14:22:30 2020
User: redberet
Message:
Need. Needs. You can make it needed but not neededs. Like I neededs to let this go.

Date: Sat Oct 31 15:27:39 2020
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Can "needed ones" be shortened as "neededs"? I don't see a "grammatically incorrect"ness in that but it's not used at all in the language. How 'bout "knowns" or "unknowns"? They are similarly past participle of the verb "know" for example but they are adjectives when used with plural sufixes.

Date: Sat Oct 31 16:32:43 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
Malteds is another one.

Date: Sat Oct 31 16:34:55 2020
User: outskirts
Message:
The verb becomes a noun

Date: Sat Oct 31 17:10:09 2020
User: free@last
Message:
Malteds, short for malted milkshakes! Add that to the list of solveds!

Date: Tue Aug 31 00:14:46 2021
User: cellmate
Message:
some updates to the results these are a merge of the dfs,patsolve,a-star,random-dfs results Game layout by Level (dfs+patsolve+a-star+random-dfs) - Solved deals layout,cols,cells,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 4x3,4,3,4831,1180,426,135,46,18,4,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 4x4,4,4,9129,5014,2442,1106,483,216,76,24,8,3,0,0,1,0 4x5,4,5,18624,12723,8092,4825,2773,1489,750,380,166,81,34,22,15,10 4x6,4,6,26899,22198,17230,12504,8779,5894,3682,2347,1414,799,445,284,209,155 4x7,4,7,31199,29090,26016,22172,18294,14696,11124,8429,6069,4228,2997,2131,1617,1174 4x8,4,8,32499,31967,30888,29149,26926,24349,21388,18486,15524,12819,10334,8607,7044,5938 4x9,4,9,32747,32687,32487,32076,31351,30298,29094,27625,25612,23564,21241,19337,17440,16010 4x10,4,10,32768,32762,32745,32690,32580,32386,32124,31730,31028,30248,29252,28203,27196,26224 4x11,4,11,32768,32768,32766,32767,32758,32742,32700,32643,32530,32383,32136,31894,31619,31269 4x12,4,12,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32766,32760,32747,32740,32702,32675,32636,32762 5x2,5,2,4709,2268,985,418,138,58,17,14,1,0,0,0,0,0 5x3,5,3,15888,10417,6395,3820,2051,1064,582,313,169,79,59,24,19,10 5x4,5,4,27007,22619,17793,13629,9873,6834,4764,3273,2150,1387,937,642,531,371 5x5,5,5,31844,30320,28214,25340,22175,19082,15813,13007,10506,8337,6581,5463,4790,4111 5x6,5,6,32701,32546,32136,31343,30310,29027,27519,25726,23540,21498,19415,18078,17052,15980 5x7,5,7,32764,32761,32729,32651,32552,32335,32102,31645,31103,30458,29606,29000,28583,28124 5x8,5,8,32768,32768,32767,32764,32763,32744,32735,32697,32646,32566,32469,32346,32276,32248 5x9,5,9,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32764,32761,32760,32752,32740,32733 5x10,5,10,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32768,32768,32768,32767,32767 5x11,5,11,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 6x1,6,1,7542,2159,920,413,141,77,22,8,5,2,0,0,0,0 6x2,6,2,18982,13654,9058,6035,3750,2247,1429,809,490,328,210,137,100,92 6x3,6,3,30178,27507,24263,20446,17268,13962,11048,8784,6881,5263,4328,3612,3307,2939 6x4,6,4,32597,32315,31686,30668,29422,27884,26016,24226,22357,20083,18600,17671,17068,16451 6x5,6,5,32763,32752,32725,32655,32560,32353,32146,31840,31384,30941,30346,30087,29948,29662 6x6,6,6,32768,32768,32768,32767,32764,32760,32758,32744,32717,32702,32658,32647,32648,32595 6x7,6,7,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32767,32763,32766,32767 6x8,6,8,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 6x9,6,9,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 6x10,6,10,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 7x0,7,0,1307,542,206,84,33,11,4,3,0,1,0,1,0,0 7x1,7,1,16709,11645,7731,5026,3228,2038,1256,833,528,317,246,181,154,149 7x2,7,2,30682,28475,25811,22607,19468,16694,13940,11780,9770,8245,6950,6279,6103,5986 7x3,7,3,32693,32583,32297,31861,31227,30363,29546,28340,27179,25970,24861,24376,23970,24189 7x4,7,4,32768,32768,32762,32750,32742,32715,32664,32587,32534,32408,32283,32228,32207,32195 7x5,7,5,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32766,32765,32766,32758,32764,32764 7x6,7,6,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 7x7,7,7,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 7x8,7,8,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 7x9,7,9,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 8x0,8,0,7350,4298,2431,1309,765,444,271,179,116,79,41,40,40,37 8x1,8,1,28793,25741,22515,19142,16072,13282,10955,9153,7650,6337,5600,5186,5131,5205 8x2,8,2,32680,32520,32207,31752,31044,30293,29338,28360,27249,26249,25345,25002,24937,25088 8x3,8,3,32768,32767,32767,32758,32751,32729,32714,32645,32623,32569,32488,32473,32473,32491 8x4,8,4,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32767,32767,32767 8x5,8,5,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 8x6,8,6,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 8x7,8,7,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 8x8,8,8,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 9x0,9,0,18963,14628,11219,8338,6368,4708,3685,2961,2346,2033,1618,1537,1587,1714 9x1,9,1,32269,31769,30892,29729,28531,27120,25778,24410,22863,21545,20741,20351,20494,20800 9x2,9,2,32767,32762,32755,32732,32704,32665,32612,32549,32441,32318,32275,32231,32194,32235 9x3,9,3,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32765,32766,32768,32767 9x4,9,4,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 9x5,9,5,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 9x6,9,6,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 9x7,9,7,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 10x0,10,0,27930,25371,22736,20141,17731,15696,13794,12433,11146,10110,9343,9386,9442,9807 10x1,10,1,32741,32681,32621,32481,32212,31992,31687,31420,30959,30553,30312,30276,30254,30408 10x2,10,2,32768,32768,32767,32768,32768,32766,32765,32766,32762,32758,32763,32760,32759,32758 10x3,10,3,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 10x4,10,4,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 10x5,10,5,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 10x6,10,6,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 11x0,11,0,31411,30593,29403,28217,26854,25563,24133,23133,21797,20868,20384,20134,20346,20932 11x1,11,1,32768,32763,32756,32746,32737,32699,32678,32632,32589,32573,32508,32484,32513,32534 11x2,11,2,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32768 11x3,11,3,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 11x4,11,4,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 11x5,11,5,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 12x0,12,0,32482,32215,31907,31420,30928,30384,29798,29300,28570,28003,27593,27632,27684,28006 12x1,12,1,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32765,32765,32760,32759,32752,32746,32752,32756,32753 12x2,12,2,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 12x3,12,3,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 12x4,12,4,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 13x0,13,0,32733,32648,32562,32442,32247,32078,31880,31631,31360,31114,30980,30923,30974,31085 13x1,13,1,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32767,32768,32768 13x2,13,2,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 13x3,13,3,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768,32768 also available ow at my neocities website

Link: cellmate's website

Date: Tue Aug 31 06:25:43 2021
User: TitanicTony
Message:
THANKS, cellmate! That's VERY interesting!!

Date: Wed Sep 8 00:20:24 2021
User: ix
Message:
cell, the "Some relevant message threads" is a nice touch, looking forward to more.

Date: Wed Sep 8 02:26:52 2021
User: cellmate
Message:
Thanks ix! i've added a couple more links. i'm still looking for the message that says 'Winnable Variants' now available

Date: Wed Sep 8 04:03:02 2021
User: TNmountainman
Message:
My memory on that is VERY vague............but I kinda don't think there was one.