Subject: Fastest streakers
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Based on daily play logs (of last 18 months), I have generated some results. Those who win consecutive games all under 60 seconds, 100 seconds or 150 seconds are assumed to have achieved a "fast streak". Also listed are the streaks achived at level 10 or above under 60, 100 or 150 seconds. So a "fast streak" ends either when you lose a game or fail to win it under the time limit. Check it out. You may see your name somewhere in there.
Link: Fastest streakers
User: Uberman
Message:
Very cool Hop, I like it! Just curious, though - I'm assuming the results include tournament and Hot Streak play? For example, I see you have a 6 streak in 6x5s (Level 10+), but presumably you wouldn't have done this in Streak play(?), so it was probably during a tournament that you got this? There's no problem with this, just trying to clarify. Unless of course you deliberately played some Level 10s to try and bump up your ELO after a rare loss(?)
User: Uberman
Message:
Also not a surprise to see kozman34 right up there in the 8x4s. A 139 streak of games under 150s is hugely impressive.
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
"For example, I see you have a 6 streak in 6x5s (Level 10+), but presumably you wouldn't have done this in Streak play(?), so it was probably during a tournament that you got this? There's no problem with this, just trying to clarify. " No they are streak plays. I only take the streaks (Mode 0 or 4) into account. Hot Streak and Tournaments are excluded. "Unless of course you deliberately played some Level 10s to try and bump up your ELO after a rare loss" No I have never done that. I play level 11 in 7x5 or 10x2 just because I have better chances to be dealt a winnable game. Level 10+ are listed separately because in most of the variants I am already at level 10 and I can't be compared to those who start from level 5. Edit: As for that 6 streak. They may be easy deals. In case you may want to check 'em out, I have found those 6 games in the file: 1634097842,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,7510,W,4,125 // starts 1634100388,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,13705,W,4,127 1634120717,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,4328,W,4,150 1634127580,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,25940,W,4,106 1634130818,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,16927,W,4,95 1634135284,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,26995,W,4,132 1634143042,HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom,6,5,10,3537,W,4,179 // ends gp > 125+127+150+106+95+132 %301 = 735
User: Uberman
Message:
Ah, sorry, for some reason I assumed that you were talking about non-Winnable variants - my bad. Of course, Level 10s feature far more in Winnables.
User: jimmyp
Message:
Well, I lost 15 ELO points yesterday trying to get to the top of some of the easy leaderboards. Started panicking 30 seconds in and ,ace desperation moves that didn't work out. Also got to the top of a few though
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
You don't need to hurry up. just let it take longer. At the following game, it starts to count starting from zero again. Chances are your higher limit streak(s) may still be counting. By the way, I am planning to update the results on a monthly basis after I have the data for all days of the past month.
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
The standings have been updated with April 2023 data. Also changed the code to display the last month entries in bold. You may need to click releoad while holding down the shift key (or pres shift and F5 keys at the same time).
Link: Fastest streakers
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Updated.
Link: Fastest streakers
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Some notable updates:
7x5 (Up-to 100s) - Congrats kozman34
7x5 (Up-to 150s L10+) - Congrats kozman34
9x3 (Up-to 150s) - Congrats kozman34
The whole table: here
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Updated.
Link: Fastest streakers
User: outskirts
Message:
A song for Hop
https://youtu.be/bxUfg3uCBbg?si=w6T7wXA2ch_lmoux
Sorry, your heading made me think of this song written to commemorate the 1970s fad of streaking. Omg it's really very funny!!!
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Updated.
Link: Fastest streakers
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Select a 12-sum variant
| 8-sum | 9-sum | 10-sum | 11-sum | 12-sum | 13-sum | 14-sum | 15-sum |
| 4x8 | 5x7 | 6x6 | 7x5 | 8x4 | 9x3 | 10x2 | 11x1 | 11w1 | 12x0 |
FYI - this is all I can see. All the column headings are "dead". Don't worry about it, tho. I have no interest in this stat. Edit -- apparently those headings are *not* dead after all, even tho I'm pretty sure they were at first. |
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
Tn, I thought so too at first, but when I clicked on the numbers underneath they came up.
Are you sure they’re not working?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Ahhhh............interesting. Yes, they do work like that. I thought I tried that and it failed. Thanks! I don't understand his labeling, as usual, but that's just me, I think. Or to be more precise.........there's not enough information there to tell what he's notating with those lists.
Will go back and edit my previous post.
Edit: After going back and editing my previous post after re-reading it...........I still think those links were originally "dead". Otherwise I would not have said that they were. Obviously can't prove that....
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
"there's not enough information"
In your screen shot, it reads "Select a 12-sum variant". And you have not selected anything yet. You could at least try clicking one of them. Why stop there without clicking and come here for complaining?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
To say it again, it was just an "fyi"; not a complaint. And what screen shot are you referring to? I didn't make one.
The "not enough information" is a separate issue. For example............under "12-sum", then "9x3"...........you have a list headed by jimmyp. The left-most of those says "Up-to 60s". But I have no clue how that list is determined. There are different times, different days, etc. Is that fastest *average* time within some competition? Is it from the compendium of hot streaks? And even this is not a complaint - as usual I'm just trying to demonstrate that to some of us, your wonderful work isn't explanatory enough. At least that's the way I see it.
P.S. - that was just a cut-and-paste; not a screen shot.
User: Uberman
Message:
It's nothing to do with Hot Streak , TN. It's just a list of players that have attained the highest streaks at any given time during streak play within the parameters eg. if a player had won consecutive games in 28 secs and 27 secs in a certain variant, then under the '60sec' heading they would be shown as having a streak of 2.
I find these lists to be quite 'entertaining', if that's the right word (it probably isn't).
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
"To say it again, it was just an "fyi"; not a complaint."
OK. I was in hurry to enter a tournament and I didn't carefully type what was in my mind.
There are some info at the beginning of this thread. I was lazy and didn't put some info in that screen.
User: sebcbien2
Message:
" if a player had won consecutive games in 28 secs and 27 secs in a certain variant, then under the '60sec' heading they would be shown as having a streak of 2."
To clarify a little bit the example given by Uberman, let me rephrase it differently (having 28+27 < 60 may led to confusion):
if a player had won consecutive games in 58 secs and 53 secs in a certain variant, then under the '60sec' heading they would be shown as having a streak of 2 with a "total seconds" of 111.
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
In any event, the effort is appreciated.
I’m an example of someone who doesn’t win many tourneys, and I can streak some variants high but for some reason w freecell, my hand wants only to go fast and is too impatient to always set aside time for a good solve on many variants which call for it, which means I lose plenty as well.
But those times I’m having a good little while of play, sometimes I can solve some variants pretty fast. So I’m sure others like me appreciate seeing their names. Thanks for doing it, Hop.
User: Uberman
Message:
Yes, sorry Seb, your examples are less ambiguous - thanks for clarifying.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Thank you, Uberman and sebcbien2 for those tidbits. They both help some.
So..........to help me further...............This comes from the *entire* database of all the games ever played here?? (Except that it's only in the last 18 months, as per Hop's definition at the beginning of this thread?) So...........these 'streaks' are being recorded continuously - with no beginning or ending point? So that the "Up-to 60s" is for ANY 60-second interval, continuously being 'monitored'? So sebcbien2's streak of 2 on that list, in 93 seconds, could have happened at ANY point in time? (And yes, the 28/27 <60 is slightly confusing. It could just as easily be 44 and 38, right?)
And it's NOT average time, but winning every game in under those time limits, consecutively, right?
But WHY? I'll never understand the quest for speed in this game - except in tournaments, of course. But that's just me - whose professional life has largely been dependent on accuracy instead of speed, I guess.
[disclaimer - This thread is totally non-interesting to me, but I delved into it as an "intellectual exercise" to help me better understand Hop's thinking on all this stuff.]
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
I feel like replying to TN's last message above.
"with no beginning or ending point?" - I defined above how a "fast streak" ends. So where one ends, another starts. Not much different from ordinary streaks. We all streak here, right? One ends when we lose a game and if we continue to play, another one starts.
"But WHY? I'll never understand the quest for speed in this game - except in tournaments, of course."
Some people, me included, both can play fast and build long streaks. I thought they would find this interesting. OK you made it clear, it is not for you. That's fine.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
What I meant by ""with no beginning or ending point?" was that this is ongoing, always? Which is apparently the case. It's being recorded automatically somehow/somewhere. Nobody has to 'pay attention' to see it transpire. Which seems unlike most of the other competitions.
And one more thing............personally, what I do I don't call "streaking" - altho it apparently fits that definition for what others do. Back when Denny allowed the display of playing by winning percentage, that's what I went for. Since that is no longer easily accessible, and nobody else seems to try and find it, I just like to play a variety of games - trying to win, obviously - but not really trying for any streak length per se.
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
TN, imo the ability to think/ react quickly helps in real world situations. (Srry if I harp on it but that’s a big reason I like it.) It helps with thinking under pressure. I do appreciate a good solve tho, I love puzzles and they’re good for mind even sans speed. Imo the reason this game is so cool is it allows for both. You can take your time to work out a tough solve or you can try to go fast. Diff areas of brain get activated.
You know how when you first started driving you had to think about it, abt turns you’d make, signaling, yielding, etc? But with practice it became normal and soon you were driving without thinking abt it, activating automatic processing part of mind. Often when I play and am in a flow, AP kicks in.
Like learning an instrument. What happens is you’re making these small little tunnels in your brain, and the more practice, the deeper and more defined they get until you don’t think about it, you just play.
Not all variants allow for speed but anytime I can rework my brain like that I try to. Auto process has some downsides depending on the task, but when turned towards problem solving it’s gen a good thing bc working out new variables keeps brains from getting rigid. More plasticity = less likelihood of cognitive troubles down the road, from my understanding. That’s why doctors advise puzzles and such after certain age to keep for brain health.
Ps-I agree speed isn’t necessary for it to have impact, but for the AP part it does help I think. Oft I’ll play fast and idk what move I made or why but it works, which means neurons firing faster.
pss- wasn’t aiming this at you, your prob knew all that already. Just mention bc it fascinates me.
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
"I just like to play a variety of games - trying to win, obviously - but not really trying for any streak length per se."
So how did that 12x0 streak of 66 come out?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Go -- Don't disagree with all that. I guess the speed/accuracy dichotomy varies from person to person. I was trained early by math contests in which incorrect guesses were penalized, and that became deeply ingrained in me. And then science only strengthened that bent. I don't discount (at all) the fun of tournaments (and I still toy with the idea of jumping into them some day), but when one is just 'tooling along'.........I don't see the attraction. I can get almost all of your shorthand, but "AP" I'm missing. Usually in the U.S., "AP" means "advanced placement", but that doesn't seem to fit here. "Automatic" something??
Hop -- all that was well-documented at the time, *in* real time, as I think you know. That was a different world (for me), and I was a (relative) novice. But even then, I was more 'noticing' it ("the streak"), until I got near "the end". Even then, *in general*, I was playing more for winning %, as my conversations with EZ-Ed back up. And in retrospect............I find it truly amazing how that could happen at all. The fact that james and I used the same "method" I still find quite intriguing.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Yeah, it's usually *your* acronyms that we have the most trouble with. (Just sayin', not complainin'.) "Auto process" is a phrase I didn't know was a commonly used "thing".
But thanks for the decipher(-ment).
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
Tn, yeah, skirts is right. Srry, I’d spelled out “automatic processing” but shortened to AP after 1st instance so I wouldn’t ramble quite as long as I gen tend to (sigh- I know it’s annoying. If it helps clarify, I used to be very quiet for a pretty long time. And now I can’t shut up.)
Thats rlly cool re: math contests. Numbers were never my forte. Think I managed As in math til like 3rd grade and by 6th I was doing well to scrape up a C. Later, my HS teachers surely pitied me to let me pass, and can’t even remember the Univ. pre req course, prob blocked it out from trauma, lol.
Have been more interested in it past years tho, things like geometry creep up a lot in art and suddenly I find things like golden ratio rlly cool. (I’m sure you think so as well, as a science buff, and also based on some of your posts.) Once I’m interested in a thing I learn it better, so maybe I’ve still got a shot. But I’m a bit jealous of those who got v proficient in it early on. I mentioned AP w this game, but that’s also a good example. I bet a lot of that comes to you naturally now. Yet I still use my fingers to count most sums, lol.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Go -- gee, actually my bad on the "AP". I *twice*, too quickly apparently, scanned the post looking for the initial use of a phrase that could be abbreviated "AP" - but I missed it. Yet it's there; so.........my bad on that. Sorry.
Yeah, for whatever reason, my math interest came *very* early. Even in elementary school, the books I would check out were mostly math books (with a few biographies and historical things). I literally can remember sitting in our school library poring over a large math book, with lots of colorful pics and diagrams, of the golden ratio, Pascal's triangle, prime numbers, etc. Just seemed fascinating to me. Eventually started college as a math major, but eventually switched after deciding it was too "dry" in and of itself. (But of course science is all (or almost all) based on math.)
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Although I understand "automatic processing" in thinking stuff, I'm most familiar with that concept in sports - in which it's usually called "muscle memory". They're obviously not *exactly* the same thing, but I think quite analogous.
User: outskirts
Message:
Tn: All I did was read it and get it. The first time. Don't be mad at me because you didn't get it. Lol. I could say something snarky to return your snark but I'm not an ah like that.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I ain't mad at you. How in the world did you get the idea I was?!? 🤷 I even thanked you. And what snark? Me thinkest thou's imagination runneth wild.
User: differentDay
Message:
Go - are you familiar with studies relating to divided attention? Some correlation between fluid & crystallised intelligence in the context of dual-task processing? Fascinating stuff...
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
Tn- no worries, only clarified bc I saw how it’d be confusing. How you were w math is how I was w stories. When a kid has a passion early, it’s good sign they’ll keep it. Often needs a spark tho. Like I had *no* idea—until I was an adult, abt mathematical patterns found in nature or that composers work them into music, its role in art, in the universe itself, or that you can use numbers in any way other than counting things. I like to think if I had, I’d have paid more attention, but it’s cool how some grasp that early on.
Not to generalize but many I know who are gifted w math seem to be male.. I wonder why? As a kid, and later, the way a few guy friends romanticized numbers was akin to how I was w reading & writing. Odder, I know other female writers but majority of writer friends are male too.
That’s prob just how it seems tho. My great aunt was a writer and used initials on a book so as to not drive away readers for topic appealing to mostly male audience (WWII). Recently looked it up and most reviews refer to author as “this guy” (like to think she tricked ‘em a bit, ha) ..So prob for both camps there are plenty more females than I realize.
User: GoAdoptADog!
Message:
DDay—Psyche was one of my minors in undergrad but have bad habit of focusing only on things interesting to me so at the time I took more behavioral & developmental courses bc I always found things like social dynamics, mob mentality, tyrannical attitudes and such to be rlly interesting, as well as individual growth like ego, self awareness and motivation, etc.
I took only few cognitive courses required and some of it made me sleepy, but some I found extremely cool, (wish I’d gone more to sensory &perception class for instance, bc wow- a lot of that is v neat). The parts I gen liked were those involved w learning processes like you mention.
Can’t say I’m v familiar w it tho, just general idea on broad points of some concepts. I’ll look it up tho!
Ps-Idk if this is similar but a while back I googled “negative effects of multitasking” as I’d planned to lecture a fam member who stays on their phone and keeps doing things like, idk, forgetting they’re walking a dog or tripping over a rock, etc, (entirely hypocritical of me as I often multitask, lol) and remember something akin to “new research shows multitasking not as beneficial as once thought.” Didn’t check study tho and idk how it’d relate to general intelligence. Anything specific I should check out? (Maybe you can help me lecture another fam member, ha!)
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Go - there has been a fair amount of research on the male/female differences re: math and stuff. I don't remember the details now, but *IF* I remember correctly, they actually found some minor brain structure differences - even going back to uterine development(??). More striking (again, as I recall) was the difference in how men and women 'see' the world, in terms of directions, 3-D space, etc. That research was pretty strong *as I recall* (sorry to keep repeating that part, but I don't feel like looking it up at the moment). Women, *in general* find places whilst driving, etc., by landmarks and rote memory, whereas men are much more capable of visualizing things as from above - a heightened 3-dimensional awareness. Certainly I've noticed this in real life. Not *exactly* math, but definitely related. But........I had an old gf who was exceptional at both those things, ended up a geography major in undergrad, then got her Ph.D. in a health-science field and became a professor in said field. But a true exception to the 'rule'. I think it's a fascinating topic. On the IQ tests in which one has to rotate objects in one's mind to get a new orientation, etc., again men *tend* to do better than women.
Who knows if all that goes back to hunter-gatherer skills over millennia? Altho we now know that some ancient peoples had many women hunters, too. [And don't get me wrong............women have other strong talents that seem to give them advantages in other areas - so it somehow balances out - as it should be, right? :) ]
User: HopDiriDiriDattiriDittiriDom
Message:
Updated. I see names likes Julian, vishna, ElGuapo, xyzabc being added in various places in February. Even myself take over one of the first spots.
Link: Fastest streakers