All site revenue goes to charity
Subject: Unwinnable games
Date: Fri Mar 18 07:38:11 2011
User: kangaroo
Message:
Part of the fun of this site is being the first to solve a game in one of the harder variants which hasn't been won before (eg 10x0, 10x1). I believe 10x0 is unique amongst the variants because about 50% of the games are winnable. Don't stuff it up by setting a solver loose on these. You want to create a new version? Go get another set of 32000 games.
User: kangaroo
Message:
Part of the fun of this site is being the first to solve a game in one of the harder variants which hasn't been won before (eg 10x0, 10x1). I believe 10x0 is unique amongst the variants because about 50% of the games are winnable. Don't stuff it up by setting a solver loose on these. You want to create a new version? Go get another set of 32000 games.
Date: Fri Mar 18 09:47:22 2011
User: firenze
Message:
roo makes a good point. It is fun to be the first to solve a game. Is there a way the solver's win doesn't count is the stats?
User: firenze
Message:
roo makes a good point. It is fun to be the first to solve a game. Is there a way the solver's win doesn't count is the stats?
Date: Fri Mar 18 10:58:09 2011
User: ix
Message:
i thought the whole point of denny releasing the code for the game deal was so that a solver could use it to associate game numbers with being winnable or not, i don't think the solver is "going thru" the games.
User: ix
Message:
i thought the whole point of denny releasing the code for the game deal was so that a solver could use it to associate game numbers with being winnable or not, i don't think the solver is "going thru" the games.
Date: Fri Mar 18 11:27:41 2011
User: free@last
Message:
The solver is not running games on the site. I don't even want to think about how to do _that_.
User: free@last
Message:
The solver is not running games on the site. I don't even want to think about how to do _that_.
Date: Fri Mar 18 12:50:54 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No, but roo's point (I think) is that the fun of winning a previously unwon game would be decreased. If a 10x0 game (for example) was 0/28, and your play changed that to 1/29, that's a nice feather in the hat. If everyone knew it was solvable, then that tiny thrill would be diminished. Make sense? (And I hope I didn't mistake your intent, roo.)
User: TNmountainman
Message:
No, but roo's point (I think) is that the fun of winning a previously unwon game would be decreased. If a 10x0 game (for example) was 0/28, and your play changed that to 1/29, that's a nice feather in the hat. If everyone knew it was solvable, then that tiny thrill would be diminished. Make sense? (And I hope I didn't mistake your intent, roo.)
Date: Fri Mar 18 13:23:37 2011
User: Denny
Message:
I like the idea of an entirely new set of deals. free@last, we could simply change the constant in the LCG from 69069 to 134775813. Thoughts? I'm expecting the Scores pages for the winnable variety to be lightly populated. Not sure if I should make it a Premium-only feature or not as this light population problem will only be exacerbated by the relatively limited number of Premium sign-ups. Thoughts?
User: Denny
Message:
I like the idea of an entirely new set of deals. free@last, we could simply change the constant in the LCG from 69069 to 134775813. Thoughts? I'm expecting the Scores pages for the winnable variety to be lightly populated. Not sure if I should make it a Premium-only feature or not as this light population problem will only be exacerbated by the relatively limited number of Premium sign-ups. Thoughts?
Date: Fri Mar 18 13:56:47 2011
User: firenze
Message:
This is a wild guess, but I am thinking that your Premium members are not the ones complaining about the unwinnables. I have nothing to base that statement on. Nothing.
User: firenze
Message:
This is a wild guess, but I am thinking that your Premium members are not the ones complaining about the unwinnables. I have nothing to base that statement on. Nothing.
Date: Fri Mar 18 14:34:05 2011
User: free@last
Message:
I'm not sure I'm with you. I don't think the list of unwinnables will be published. Games currently un-won will not be marked in any way as won (unless I manually bring up the game and play it, which I won't). I'd like to re-iterate the idea I put forth in the other thread. Nothing changes except after you play a game, if you lose and that game is in the database of unwinnables then a new streak would be created in addition to your regular one. This would be your "winnable-only" streak. Your regular streak would still end. For some variants (like 8x4) there wouldn't be a separate "winnable-only" streak because they are all winnable. (And if you solve something that is listed as unwinnable then remove it from the database.) Is the problem the streaks (this solves that) or is the problem that people don't even want to play unwinnables?
User: free@last
Message:
I'm not sure I'm with you. I don't think the list of unwinnables will be published. Games currently un-won will not be marked in any way as won (unless I manually bring up the game and play it, which I won't). I'd like to re-iterate the idea I put forth in the other thread. Nothing changes except after you play a game, if you lose and that game is in the database of unwinnables then a new streak would be created in addition to your regular one. This would be your "winnable-only" streak. Your regular streak would still end. For some variants (like 8x4) there wouldn't be a separate "winnable-only" streak because they are all winnable. (And if you solve something that is listed as unwinnable then remove it from the database.) Is the problem the streaks (this solves that) or is the problem that people don't even want to play unwinnables?
Date: Fri Mar 18 15:04:25 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That idea of a "winnable-only" streak omits the heretofore played streaks that *would have been* continued as "winnable-only". Maybe that's a minor detail, but it would be historically inaccurate, if you see my point.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
That idea of a "winnable-only" streak omits the heretofore played streaks that *would have been* continued as "winnable-only". Maybe that's a minor detail, but it would be historically inaccurate, if you see my point.
Date: Fri Mar 18 15:32:48 2011
User: kangaroo
Message:
You got my intent correct TN. Thanks to you and fire for backing me up. In streaking, unwinnable (in the context being used here) is not necessarily "can't be won". I don't like the idea of a streak continuing simply because the game lost hasn't *yet* been won. Of course in many variants including 13x0 it's obvious there is no solution. I raised this idea several years ago. Back then I suggested that a second set of streaking stats be kept of games played from a pool of *proven* winnable deals. This pool would vary from small for 4x4s (a couple of hundred deals at a guess) to large (approx 30000 at a guess) for 13x0 level 10s. I don't see much point doing this execise for variants known to have no unwinnables (8x4 and most 13+ sums except for the narrows). I appreciate all your work on this free@last, whoever you are.
User: kangaroo
Message:
You got my intent correct TN. Thanks to you and fire for backing me up. In streaking, unwinnable (in the context being used here) is not necessarily "can't be won". I don't like the idea of a streak continuing simply because the game lost hasn't *yet* been won. Of course in many variants including 13x0 it's obvious there is no solution. I raised this idea several years ago. Back then I suggested that a second set of streaking stats be kept of games played from a pool of *proven* winnable deals. This pool would vary from small for 4x4s (a couple of hundred deals at a guess) to large (approx 30000 at a guess) for 13x0 level 10s. I don't see much point doing this execise for variants known to have no unwinnables (8x4 and most 13+ sums except for the narrows). I appreciate all your work on this free@last, whoever you are.
Date: Fri Mar 18 15:37:56 2011
User: free@last
Message:
There is no way to include previously ended streaks in any format unless Denny has records of every game ever played...and someone (else) volunteers to incorporate them.
User: free@last
Message:
There is no way to include previously ended streaks in any format unless Denny has records of every game ever played...and someone (else) volunteers to incorporate them.
Date: Fri Mar 18 16:06:45 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I understand that; was just making that point. Those sort of niggling little details always bother me. If someone runs up a streak of 500 (ha-ha) 10x0s in the "winnable-only" category, there would be no way to know that someone playing in 2002 didn't run up an unknown streak of 600 for example. There would always be those tiny asterisks beside those new lists - presumed if not overt. And yes, I know that in the grand scheme of things, it is a minor point to probably most; further, to those who most vociferously complain to get the unwinnables removed, even less important.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
I understand that; was just making that point. Those sort of niggling little details always bother me. If someone runs up a streak of 500 (ha-ha) 10x0s in the "winnable-only" category, there would be no way to know that someone playing in 2002 didn't run up an unknown streak of 600 for example. There would always be those tiny asterisks beside those new lists - presumed if not overt. And yes, I know that in the grand scheme of things, it is a minor point to probably most; further, to those who most vociferously complain to get the unwinnables removed, even less important.
Date: Fri Mar 18 16:20:38 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Let me say, also, that personally I'm not abjectly opposed to this idea; I'm more pointing out that it seemingly dilutes the enjoyment of the games as they are. I also realize that there is a considerable skill difference in the top players and the more casual players. What I don't fully understand is why those who so much want the unwinnables removed don't just play variants that are all winnable. After all, there are so many variants, it's way more than Howard Johnson's 58 flavors. I'm not fond of losing a good streak in 13x0, either, but I know ahead of time it's going to happen due to a deal beyond my control. As I've pointed out in other threads on this topic in the past, it's relatively boring (to me)playing games that have a very high (>98-99%) win rate. It takes too long to get anywhere. So I don't play those as much. 10x0, or 11x0 give a lot of the same fun factor, but are much harder, and thus much more a test of solving skill. Conversely, there are those who love to run up streaks of tens of thousands. But those are in variants with 100% win rates. My roundabout point being, I think, that I'm not understanding why those who want unwinnables removed from 13x0, for example, don't just play 13x1 (with the apparent exception of 1 of those being unwinnable?)?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Let me say, also, that personally I'm not abjectly opposed to this idea; I'm more pointing out that it seemingly dilutes the enjoyment of the games as they are. I also realize that there is a considerable skill difference in the top players and the more casual players. What I don't fully understand is why those who so much want the unwinnables removed don't just play variants that are all winnable. After all, there are so many variants, it's way more than Howard Johnson's 58 flavors. I'm not fond of losing a good streak in 13x0, either, but I know ahead of time it's going to happen due to a deal beyond my control. As I've pointed out in other threads on this topic in the past, it's relatively boring (to me)playing games that have a very high (>98-99%) win rate. It takes too long to get anywhere. So I don't play those as much. 10x0, or 11x0 give a lot of the same fun factor, but are much harder, and thus much more a test of solving skill. Conversely, there are those who love to run up streaks of tens of thousands. But those are in variants with 100% win rates. My roundabout point being, I think, that I'm not understanding why those who want unwinnables removed from 13x0, for example, don't just play 13x1 (with the apparent exception of 1 of those being unwinnable?)?
Date: Fri Mar 18 16:22:19 2011
User: roo
Message:
In any "new" 10x0 a streak of 50 would be ha-ha TN. Some of those winnables are killers.
User: roo
Message:
In any "new" 10x0 a streak of 50 would be ha-ha TN. Some of those winnables are killers.
Date: Fri Mar 18 17:25:24 2011
User: tinysauto
Message:
I understand Roo, but the problem I have is that I love the 13X0. I just had a streak of 70 and up pops an all black front row. Dag you Denny..........
User: tinysauto
Message:
I understand Roo, but the problem I have is that I love the 13X0. I just had a streak of 70 and up pops an all black front row. Dag you Denny..........
Date: Fri Mar 18 17:29:29 2011
User: free@last
Message:
For me, I like to play tough winnable games. I don't particularly enjoy the easy ones. I don't enjoy the unwinnable ones. When I'm not streaking, I will often pick a game type, sort it by win percentage and, play those with the lowest win % > 0. But this doesn't "count" for anything. What variant has lots of tough games but no unwinnables? Certainly not 8x4.
User: free@last
Message:
For me, I like to play tough winnable games. I don't particularly enjoy the easy ones. I don't enjoy the unwinnable ones. When I'm not streaking, I will often pick a game type, sort it by win percentage and, play those with the lowest win % > 0. But this doesn't "count" for anything. What variant has lots of tough games but no unwinnables? Certainly not 8x4.
Date: Fri Mar 18 17:36:44 2011
User: free@last
Message:
FYI, I'll likely be out-of-touch this weekend so if you ask me a question and I don't respond, don't take it personally.
User: free@last
Message:
FYI, I'll likely be out-of-touch this weekend so if you ask me a question and I don't respond, don't take it personally.
Date: Fri Mar 18 22:23:56 2011
User: Denny
Message:
Yup, even if we make 'em winnable, some will still be super hard. Maybe we should just do winnable 13x0. That seems to be the one folks are most frustrated with wrt to the occasional unwinnable.
User: Denny
Message:
Yup, even if we make 'em winnable, some will still be super hard. Maybe we should just do winnable 13x0. That seems to be the one folks are most frustrated with wrt to the occasional unwinnable.
Date: Fri Mar 18 22:59:30 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
You know, that's a very good idea; from my limited experience, I also think that's the source of the most complaints. Certainly it would be easy to give it a trial run??
User: TNmountainman
Message:
You know, that's a very good idea; from my limited experience, I also think that's the source of the most complaints. Certainly it would be easy to give it a trial run??
Date: Sat Mar 19 08:43:58 2011
User: tinysauto
Message:
I dont mind the real hard games. It's the long streaks that have a game pop up all one color across the bottom, and the cards are smiling just like Denny... lol
User: tinysauto
Message:
I dont mind the real hard games. It's the long streaks that have a game pop up all one color across the bottom, and the cards are smiling just like Denny... lol
Date: Sat Mar 19 09:10:11 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
What variant do you usually play that frustrates you in that way? Is it 13x0?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
What variant do you usually play that frustrates you in that way? Is it 13x0?
Date: Sun Mar 20 00:33:52 2011
User: Katya
Message:
I agree with roo. It's fun to occasionally be the first to solve a game that's looked like it's not doable. 6x6's take some thought - streaks are not very long and there seem to be a lot of unwinnables - but I would hate to see only winnable games there.
User: Katya
Message:
I agree with roo. It's fun to occasionally be the first to solve a game that's looked like it's not doable. 6x6's take some thought - streaks are not very long and there seem to be a lot of unwinnables - but I would hate to see only winnable games there.
Date: Sun Mar 20 05:30:33 2011
User: rbrandes
Message:
My frustration was with 13-0. The difficulty level is based on the deal algorithm, not on the actual difficulty as determined by the win/play percentage. It is very discouraging to hit several un-winables in level 5 before you even get a streak of five or more. What is really gets me is to work hard and have a big streak going and hit an un-winable. I find I no longer concentrate on winning the game anymore and play lazy because, like communism, there is little incentive to work hard. It is rare for me to have a streak over 20 anymore. And Denny, please stop saying Lucky13 is easy. Winnables may have an earlier tipping point than other variations, but I find some real challenges. Regards, Ray
User: rbrandes
Message:
My frustration was with 13-0. The difficulty level is based on the deal algorithm, not on the actual difficulty as determined by the win/play percentage. It is very discouraging to hit several un-winables in level 5 before you even get a streak of five or more. What is really gets me is to work hard and have a big streak going and hit an un-winable. I find I no longer concentrate on winning the game anymore and play lazy because, like communism, there is little incentive to work hard. It is rare for me to have a streak over 20 anymore. And Denny, please stop saying Lucky13 is easy. Winnables may have an earlier tipping point than other variations, but I find some real challenges. Regards, Ray
Date: Sun Mar 20 09:56:10 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Ray, I went to the "game stats" page and looked at that list, sorted as you did. I didn't count them, but I'd estimate there's only maybe 150 or so that have a winning percentage less than 25%, and have been won. That's out of 32,000 deals. So that's well less than 1% that would be that difficult, just picking that winning percentage arbitrarily. So my question would be, if that's too much of a risk, why not play 13x1 (about 30 or so unwinnable at both level 5 and level 6), or 12x1 (apparently only 1 unwinnable in level 5 and 17 unwinnables in level 6)?
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Ray, I went to the "game stats" page and looked at that list, sorted as you did. I didn't count them, but I'd estimate there's only maybe 150 or so that have a winning percentage less than 25%, and have been won. That's out of 32,000 deals. So that's well less than 1% that would be that difficult, just picking that winning percentage arbitrarily. So my question would be, if that's too much of a risk, why not play 13x1 (about 30 or so unwinnable at both level 5 and level 6), or 12x1 (apparently only 1 unwinnable in level 5 and 17 unwinnables in level 6)?
Date: Sun Mar 20 11:57:59 2011
User: rws33315
Message:
All level 10 of 13x1 are solvable-does this necessarily imply that all of the lesser degrees are also solvable?
User: rws33315
Message:
All level 10 of 13x1 are solvable-does this necessarily imply that all of the lesser degrees are also solvable?
Date: Sun Mar 20 12:07:44 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Good question, and I'm sure someone knows that answer. I should have said, regarding 13x1s,levels 5 and 6, "unwon", instead of "unwinnable". Looking at the unwon list of 13x1-5, the 59 (I just counted them) listed have been played at most 2 times... I would imagine the same is true of the level 6 games.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Good question, and I'm sure someone knows that answer. I should have said, regarding 13x1s,levels 5 and 6, "unwon", instead of "unwinnable". Looking at the unwon list of 13x1-5, the 59 (I just counted them) listed have been played at most 2 times... I would imagine the same is true of the level 6 games.
Date: Sun Mar 20 13:34:45 2011
User: Denny
Message:
rbrandes--take a look at the Cumulative Stats page for a good way to compare the variants difficulty. Link below. No, difficulty level has nothing to do with winnability. As I explain on the Instructions page, difficulty level is just a simple weighting that *on average* affects the solvability of the variant. Individual cases still buck the average. Also keep in mind that the win percentage is heavily influenced by the way the game deals out the difficulty levels. 8x4 has a higher win rate at level 6 simply because it weeks out folks who can't win 10 8x4-5 games in a row. At level 5, only 84% of the games are won. At level 6 which *on average* is harder, 90% are won. As far as 13x0 being easy, I played them for a long time. The 1st move sequence can be a little tricky but after you open up the column the games tend to be pretty mindless and solve themselves. I probably shouldn't call the "easy" because they're clearly not 10x6 easy, but by the mere fact that they're almost streakable that suggests they're pretty easy since you can win a good number in a row. There are plenty of variants where winning a few games in a row is a very rare thing. Denny
Link: Cumulative Stats
User: Denny
Message:
rbrandes--take a look at the Cumulative Stats page for a good way to compare the variants difficulty. Link below. No, difficulty level has nothing to do with winnability. As I explain on the Instructions page, difficulty level is just a simple weighting that *on average* affects the solvability of the variant. Individual cases still buck the average. Also keep in mind that the win percentage is heavily influenced by the way the game deals out the difficulty levels. 8x4 has a higher win rate at level 6 simply because it weeks out folks who can't win 10 8x4-5 games in a row. At level 5, only 84% of the games are won. At level 6 which *on average* is harder, 90% are won. As far as 13x0 being easy, I played them for a long time. The 1st move sequence can be a little tricky but after you open up the column the games tend to be pretty mindless and solve themselves. I probably shouldn't call the "easy" because they're clearly not 10x6 easy, but by the mere fact that they're almost streakable that suggests they're pretty easy since you can win a good number in a row. There are plenty of variants where winning a few games in a row is a very rare thing. Denny
Link: Cumulative Stats
Date: Sun Mar 20 13:41:03 2011
User: Denny
Message:
An no discussion of unwinnables would be complete without some history. I link below a post from June, 2008.
Link: Unwinnables
User: Denny
Message:
An no discussion of unwinnables would be complete without some history. I link below a post from June, 2008.
Link: Unwinnables
Date: Sun Mar 20 14:56:43 2011
User: ElGuapo
Message:
TNmountainmain wrote: "What I don't fully understand is why those who so much want the unwinnables removed don't just play variants that are all winnable." This is basically what I think Denny's asking in his MOTF. An all-winnable version has exactly the same merit in 4×4 as it has in 13×0 or any other variant. It eliminates the statistical "noise" that unwinnable games bring into streaking data. And the more unwinnables in a variant, the less meaningful the streak data becomes. With 13×0 there are so few unwinnables that we're able to at least have a conversation about who is the best 13×0 streaker. Denny wrote: "Does anyone else attempt to streak in one of the mostly winnable variants?" I think the better question is would we, if the unwinnables were removed. What's the point in streaking in 6×2 now? Interestingly enough, though, some of these variants with a lot of unwinnable games also turn out to be the most difficult deals to solve *when they're actually solvable*. I did a comprehensive study of win percentages for just the winnable deals here a few years ago. It's linked below, but here are the most difficult: 1. 4×4 2. 6×2 3. 6×3 4. 6×4 5. 7×2 6. 7×3 7. 10×0 8. 5×3 9. 9×0 10. 8×2 Not until 7×4 in 13th place on this list do we find a variant where unwinnables are not a significant obstacle. In short what I'm saying is that there are some very challenging streaking opportunities available here that have gone completely untapped. I'd love to play them in winnable-only mode.
User: ElGuapo
Message:
TNmountainmain wrote: "What I don't fully understand is why those who so much want the unwinnables removed don't just play variants that are all winnable." This is basically what I think Denny's asking in his MOTF. An all-winnable version has exactly the same merit in 4×4 as it has in 13×0 or any other variant. It eliminates the statistical "noise" that unwinnable games bring into streaking data. And the more unwinnables in a variant, the less meaningful the streak data becomes. With 13×0 there are so few unwinnables that we're able to at least have a conversation about who is the best 13×0 streaker. Denny wrote: "Does anyone else attempt to streak in one of the mostly winnable variants?" I think the better question is would we, if the unwinnables were removed. What's the point in streaking in 6×2 now? Interestingly enough, though, some of these variants with a lot of unwinnable games also turn out to be the most difficult deals to solve *when they're actually solvable*. I did a comprehensive study of win percentages for just the winnable deals here a few years ago. It's linked below, but here are the most difficult: 1. 4×4 2. 6×2 3. 6×3 4. 6×4 5. 7×2 6. 7×3 7. 10×0 8. 5×3 9. 9×0 10. 8×2 Not until 7×4 in 13th place on this list do we find a variant where unwinnables are not a significant obstacle. In short what I'm saying is that there are some very challenging streaking opportunities available here that have gone completely untapped. I'd love to play them in winnable-only mode.
Date: Sun Mar 20 15:19:29 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well said. Doesn't remove the "but what about what happened in the past" "problem", but that's not going to be solved, anyway, I don't think..... It would be nice to know a game was winnable, on one hand, because you would look harder to see a path, but by that same token, for me personally I'd just stare at each game longer if I didn't see that path right away. Tougher to take that you would know it's winnable but you just can't figure it out... .shrug "Win Rate Excluding Unwon Games" gives a higher solving percentage for 5x3 than 7x3 and 6x3? And same thing for 8x1 vs. 9x1. Wow. 'Course I know it's not that simple - "noise" and all...........
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well said. Doesn't remove the "but what about what happened in the past" "problem", but that's not going to be solved, anyway, I don't think..... It would be nice to know a game was winnable, on one hand, because you would look harder to see a path, but by that same token, for me personally I'd just stare at each game longer if I didn't see that path right away. Tougher to take that you would know it's winnable but you just can't figure it out... .shrug "Win Rate Excluding Unwon Games" gives a higher solving percentage for 5x3 than 7x3 and 6x3? And same thing for 8x1 vs. 9x1. Wow. 'Course I know it's not that simple - "noise" and all...........
Date: Mon Mar 21 14:14:09 2011
User: ElGuapo
Message:
Thanks, TNmm, just a couple more things. You brought up the "what about what happened in the past" problem in this thread, but I think Denny already solved that one. In case you or others missed it, the plan is to have separate scores for All Winnable than for Random. Personally I think the cleanest and most user-friendly option would be to combine them into one list, but still there would have to be an asterisk or color coding of the All Winnable persona in that case so anyone looking at the rankings could easily see which ones were obtained in All Winnable mode. As far as the wonkiness that comes up in my difficulty list, where 5×3 actually appears "easier" than 6×3 and 7×3 ... I don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much, but that's not necessarily an anomaly. It's a different pool of winnable games for each. It may well turn out to be inaccurate, since we don't actually know how many more unwon games are actually winnable, but I've found these numbers stay pretty consistent over time. Take it with a grain of salt.
User: ElGuapo
Message:
Thanks, TNmm, just a couple more things. You brought up the "what about what happened in the past" problem in this thread, but I think Denny already solved that one. In case you or others missed it, the plan is to have separate scores for All Winnable than for Random. Personally I think the cleanest and most user-friendly option would be to combine them into one list, but still there would have to be an asterisk or color coding of the All Winnable persona in that case so anyone looking at the rankings could easily see which ones were obtained in All Winnable mode. As far as the wonkiness that comes up in my difficulty list, where 5×3 actually appears "easier" than 6×3 and 7×3 ... I don't want to sidetrack this discussion too much, but that's not necessarily an anomaly. It's a different pool of winnable games for each. It may well turn out to be inaccurate, since we don't actually know how many more unwon games are actually winnable, but I've found these numbers stay pretty consistent over time. Take it with a grain of salt.
Date: Mon Mar 21 16:22:29 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
ElGuapo - I think you missed my point about "what happened in the past" -- not positive, though. Back in my posts on Fri Mar 18, first at 14:04:25, then at 15:06:45, I mentioned the theoretical possibility (haha) of someone winning 500 in a row of 10x0 "winnables only". How would we know that someone playing earlier, before "winnables only" was 'invented', might not have won 600 in a row, had they been playing only winnables? It's akin to wondering how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit in 1927 had he played 162 games instead of 154. We'll never know - unless, as free@last suggested, Denny has the records of every game ever played and could somehow back-check that - which I think we know ain't gonna happen... Another way to say it would be that all new "winnables only" records would technically be mildly asterisked by knowing that some player(s) in the past either did, or might well have, beaten whatever new records are created - but are lost in the annals of freecell history. I.e., it has nothing to do with keeping separate scores; it has only to 'deal' with the historically inaccurate(?) streak lists of "winnable only" games that will be created. Let me make it more concrete, and discuss as it pertains to 13x0. The all-time record there is 197, by tiorapatea. Had he/she been playing winnables only, that number could well have been 1970, 19,700 or more, perhaps. So if someone *does* play and win, let's say, 1000 in a row in a new winnables only category, that will have diminished value because it might not have beaten what tiorapatea (or anyone else) *would have* done way back when. On the other hand, I guess many will say it's fine to view this as a completely new game (though it's not really), and thus all that archival stuff is immaterial. .... And as to your last paragraph.......yes, I understand all that, and 'salted' that away... Still very interesting, though....
User: TNmountainman
Message:
ElGuapo - I think you missed my point about "what happened in the past" -- not positive, though. Back in my posts on Fri Mar 18, first at 14:04:25, then at 15:06:45, I mentioned the theoretical possibility (haha) of someone winning 500 in a row of 10x0 "winnables only". How would we know that someone playing earlier, before "winnables only" was 'invented', might not have won 600 in a row, had they been playing only winnables? It's akin to wondering how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit in 1927 had he played 162 games instead of 154. We'll never know - unless, as free@last suggested, Denny has the records of every game ever played and could somehow back-check that - which I think we know ain't gonna happen... Another way to say it would be that all new "winnables only" records would technically be mildly asterisked by knowing that some player(s) in the past either did, or might well have, beaten whatever new records are created - but are lost in the annals of freecell history. I.e., it has nothing to do with keeping separate scores; it has only to 'deal' with the historically inaccurate(?) streak lists of "winnable only" games that will be created. Let me make it more concrete, and discuss as it pertains to 13x0. The all-time record there is 197, by tiorapatea. Had he/she been playing winnables only, that number could well have been 1970, 19,700 or more, perhaps. So if someone *does* play and win, let's say, 1000 in a row in a new winnables only category, that will have diminished value because it might not have beaten what tiorapatea (or anyone else) *would have* done way back when. On the other hand, I guess many will say it's fine to view this as a completely new game (though it's not really), and thus all that archival stuff is immaterial. .... And as to your last paragraph.......yes, I understand all that, and 'salted' that away... Still very interesting, though....
Date: Mon Mar 21 17:26:51 2011
User: ElGuapo
Message:
I see, and of course agree that there's no way to fix the fact that earlier streaks may have extended much longer had the Winnable Only mode been around. That's true now, independent of what Denny does going forward.
User: ElGuapo
Message:
I see, and of course agree that there's no way to fix the fact that earlier streaks may have extended much longer had the Winnable Only mode been around. That's true now, independent of what Denny does going forward.
Date: Mon Mar 21 22:34:36 2011
User: free@last
Message:
Update: I've run all the x0 games from 9x0 to 13x0. I only see 13x0 and _maybe_ 12x0 as candidates for an unwinnable mode. The 13x1 and 12x1 deals are also done. There is only 1 13x1 that is not winnanable and it is in -12 which won't come up in normal play. 12x1 is a good candidate with only a few dozen unwinnables in the normal deals. Please note the solver was not written by me but by Shlomi Fish; my contribution was turning Denny's random code into a board generator that could be fed into Shlomi's program and parse the output for our needs. As I sit here, the program grinds away and occasionally stops for a bit to think about a particular game. I happen to notice it got an "out of memory" error for 11x1-9 31186. I decided to play it and did not find it particularly difficult at all. Why the solver couldn't manage it, I don't know nor care. Whether Denny wants to clean the database if someone plays one (during non-unsolvable play) and wins, is up to him. (Side note: 11x1 is looking like a good candidate with only a few hundred games marked unsolved from -5 through -9.) I have a dream that one day all Freecellers: traditionals and variations, wides and narrows, tournies and streakers, randoms AND winnables will play together. And when that day comes we will all sing... ah, nevermind.
User: free@last
Message:
Update: I've run all the x0 games from 9x0 to 13x0. I only see 13x0 and _maybe_ 12x0 as candidates for an unwinnable mode. The 13x1 and 12x1 deals are also done. There is only 1 13x1 that is not winnanable and it is in -12 which won't come up in normal play. 12x1 is a good candidate with only a few dozen unwinnables in the normal deals. Please note the solver was not written by me but by Shlomi Fish; my contribution was turning Denny's random code into a board generator that could be fed into Shlomi's program and parse the output for our needs. As I sit here, the program grinds away and occasionally stops for a bit to think about a particular game. I happen to notice it got an "out of memory" error for 11x1-9 31186. I decided to play it and did not find it particularly difficult at all. Why the solver couldn't manage it, I don't know nor care. Whether Denny wants to clean the database if someone plays one (during non-unsolvable play) and wins, is up to him. (Side note: 11x1 is looking like a good candidate with only a few hundred games marked unsolved from -5 through -9.) I have a dream that one day all Freecellers: traditionals and variations, wides and narrows, tournies and streakers, randoms AND winnables will play together. And when that day comes we will all sing... ah, nevermind.
Date: Mon Mar 21 23:22:52 2011
User: ElGuapo
Message:
This is not a right or wrong thing, just difference of opinion, but I don't see how 13×0 is any better a candidate for Winnable play than 4×4 or 5×3. If you're excluding all winnable games, what difference does it make that there were only a few dozen instead of thousands? I mean it'd still be cool if all we got was Winnable 13×0, but can you imagine Winnable 7×2? Right now two out of three of those games are impossible, so getting any kind of streak going requires immense luck or lots of playing time + incredible skill. Personally I'd love a playing mode that isolates the "incredible skill" side of the equation.
User: ElGuapo
Message:
This is not a right or wrong thing, just difference of opinion, but I don't see how 13×0 is any better a candidate for Winnable play than 4×4 or 5×3. If you're excluding all winnable games, what difference does it make that there were only a few dozen instead of thousands? I mean it'd still be cool if all we got was Winnable 13×0, but can you imagine Winnable 7×2? Right now two out of three of those games are impossible, so getting any kind of streak going requires immense luck or lots of playing time + incredible skill. Personally I'd love a playing mode that isolates the "incredible skill" side of the equation.
Date: Mon Mar 21 23:30:43 2011
User: ElGuapo
Message:
Incidentally if this is coming down to a question of workload, I wonder if a variant like 7×2 might be a good "pilot" to see if it does pique people's interest once the unwinnables are removed. I recognize that the silent majority of players here, if they're not playing 8×4, seem to migrate toward easier variants. I don't imagine the Winnable mode is going to suddenly change that. If this takes off, it'll be probably only be with us longtimers anyway. But for those of us in that boat, this could be a really cool thing.
User: ElGuapo
Message:
Incidentally if this is coming down to a question of workload, I wonder if a variant like 7×2 might be a good "pilot" to see if it does pique people's interest once the unwinnables are removed. I recognize that the silent majority of players here, if they're not playing 8×4, seem to migrate toward easier variants. I don't imagine the Winnable mode is going to suddenly change that. If this takes off, it'll be probably only be with us longtimers anyway. But for those of us in that boat, this could be a really cool thing.
Date: Tue Mar 22 00:07:02 2011
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:
El mas Guapo,"incredible skill" playing mode? What about Freakout,or Death Row in the Masters(or old-style Narrow)? If those dont require "incredible skill",Im not sure what will.
User: !_--FAST-ISHAM--_
Message:
El mas Guapo,"incredible skill" playing mode? What about Freakout,or Death Row in the Masters(or old-style Narrow)? If those dont require "incredible skill",Im not sure what will.
Date: Tue Mar 22 05:18:39 2011
User: free@last
Message:
Well, first, I was only opining on what has been run. I guess I don't think that 9x0 which has less than 2000 winnable games in the -10 offers enough games, but that's just my opinion. I plan to generate all the numbers for all the variants. I don't see workload being an issue.
User: free@last
Message:
Well, first, I was only opining on what has been run. I guess I don't think that 9x0 which has less than 2000 winnable games in the -10 offers enough games, but that's just my opinion. I plan to generate all the numbers for all the variants. I don't see workload being an issue.
Date: Wed Mar 23 11:32:59 2011
User: free@last
Message:
Another update: All 10xn - 13xn have been finished. Also, as I run the narrower boards, the time to run them is increasing. 9x looks like it will take a full 24 hours, maybe more. Things might change again starting with 8x since I won't generate the 8x0 variant as it is not in the drop down menu selection. For those interested, here is a list of them along with the number of unsolved games for that variant. (I didn't both to generate many of the files that would have just been 0.) 22746 10x0-10.txt 23518 10x0-11.txt 23507 10x0-12.txt 15080 10x0-5.txt 17115 10x0-6.txt 19037 10x0-7.txt 20402 10x0-8.txt 21713 10x0-9.txt 2275 10x1-10.txt 2532 10x1-11.txt 2605 10x1-12.txt 569 10x1-5.txt 794 10x1-6.txt 1106 10x1-7.txt 1373 10x1-8.txt 1852 10x1-9.txt 18 10x2-10.txt 13 10x2-11.txt 16 10x2-12.txt 1 10x2-5.txt 2 10x2-6.txt 5 10x2-7.txt 6 10x2-8.txt 12 10x2-9.txt 0 10x3-10.txt 0 10x3-11.txt 1 10x3-12.txt 0 10x3-5.txt 0 10x3-6.txt 0 10x3-7.txt 0 10x3-8.txt 0 10x3-9.txt 0 10x4-10.txt 0 10x4-11.txt 0 10x4-12.txt 0 10x4-5.txt 0 10x4-6.txt 0 10x4-7.txt 0 10x4-8.txt 0 10x4-9.txt 11930 11x0-10.txt 12414 11x0-11.txt 12673 11x0-12.txt 5925 11x0-5.txt 7212 11x0-6.txt 8652 11x0-7.txt 9647 11x0-8.txt 10992 11x0-9.txt 200 11x1-10.txt 265 11x1-11.txt 297 11x1-12.txt 34 11x1-5.txt 70 11x1-6.txt 93 11x1-7.txt 140 11x1-8.txt 186 11x1-9.txt 0 11x2-10.txt 0 11x2-11.txt 1 11x2-12.txt 0 11x2-5.txt 0 11x2-6.txt 0 11x2-7.txt 0 11x2-8.txt 2 11x2-9.txt 0 11x3-10.txt 0 11x3-11.txt 0 11x3-12.txt 0 11x3-5.txt 0 11x3-6.txt 0 11x3-7.txt 0 11x3-8.txt 0 11x3-9.txt 4769 12x0-10.txt 5188 12x0-11.txt 5147 12x0-12.txt 1841 12x0-5.txt 2387 12x0-6.txt 2973 12x0-7.txt 3470 12x0-8.txt 4201 12x0-9.txt 16 12x1-10.txt 25 12x1-11.txt 18 12x1-12.txt 1 12x1-5.txt 3 12x1-6.txt 3 12x1-7.txt 8 12x1-8.txt 9 12x1-9.txt 0 12x2-10.txt 0 12x2-11.txt 0 12x2-12.txt 0 12x2-5.txt 0 12x2-6.txt 0 12x2-7.txt 0 12x2-8.txt 0 12x2-9.txt 1654 13x0-10.txt 1789 13x0-11.txt 1846 13x0-12.txt 521 13x0-5.txt 690 13x0-6.txt 888 13x0-7.txt 1137 13x0-8.txt 1408 13x0-9.txt 0 13x1-10.txt 0 13x1-11.txt 1 13x1-12.txt 0 13x1-5.txt 0 13x1-6.txt 0 13x1-7.txt 0 13x1-8.txt 0 13x1-9.txt 0 13x2-12.txt
User: free@last
Message:
Another update: All 10xn - 13xn have been finished. Also, as I run the narrower boards, the time to run them is increasing. 9x looks like it will take a full 24 hours, maybe more. Things might change again starting with 8x since I won't generate the 8x0 variant as it is not in the drop down menu selection. For those interested, here is a list of them along with the number of unsolved games for that variant. (I didn't both to generate many of the files that would have just been 0.) 22746 10x0-10.txt 23518 10x0-11.txt 23507 10x0-12.txt 15080 10x0-5.txt 17115 10x0-6.txt 19037 10x0-7.txt 20402 10x0-8.txt 21713 10x0-9.txt 2275 10x1-10.txt 2532 10x1-11.txt 2605 10x1-12.txt 569 10x1-5.txt 794 10x1-6.txt 1106 10x1-7.txt 1373 10x1-8.txt 1852 10x1-9.txt 18 10x2-10.txt 13 10x2-11.txt 16 10x2-12.txt 1 10x2-5.txt 2 10x2-6.txt 5 10x2-7.txt 6 10x2-8.txt 12 10x2-9.txt 0 10x3-10.txt 0 10x3-11.txt 1 10x3-12.txt 0 10x3-5.txt 0 10x3-6.txt 0 10x3-7.txt 0 10x3-8.txt 0 10x3-9.txt 0 10x4-10.txt 0 10x4-11.txt 0 10x4-12.txt 0 10x4-5.txt 0 10x4-6.txt 0 10x4-7.txt 0 10x4-8.txt 0 10x4-9.txt 11930 11x0-10.txt 12414 11x0-11.txt 12673 11x0-12.txt 5925 11x0-5.txt 7212 11x0-6.txt 8652 11x0-7.txt 9647 11x0-8.txt 10992 11x0-9.txt 200 11x1-10.txt 265 11x1-11.txt 297 11x1-12.txt 34 11x1-5.txt 70 11x1-6.txt 93 11x1-7.txt 140 11x1-8.txt 186 11x1-9.txt 0 11x2-10.txt 0 11x2-11.txt 1 11x2-12.txt 0 11x2-5.txt 0 11x2-6.txt 0 11x2-7.txt 0 11x2-8.txt 2 11x2-9.txt 0 11x3-10.txt 0 11x3-11.txt 0 11x3-12.txt 0 11x3-5.txt 0 11x3-6.txt 0 11x3-7.txt 0 11x3-8.txt 0 11x3-9.txt 4769 12x0-10.txt 5188 12x0-11.txt 5147 12x0-12.txt 1841 12x0-5.txt 2387 12x0-6.txt 2973 12x0-7.txt 3470 12x0-8.txt 4201 12x0-9.txt 16 12x1-10.txt 25 12x1-11.txt 18 12x1-12.txt 1 12x1-5.txt 3 12x1-6.txt 3 12x1-7.txt 8 12x1-8.txt 9 12x1-9.txt 0 12x2-10.txt 0 12x2-11.txt 0 12x2-12.txt 0 12x2-5.txt 0 12x2-6.txt 0 12x2-7.txt 0 12x2-8.txt 0 12x2-9.txt 1654 13x0-10.txt 1789 13x0-11.txt 1846 13x0-12.txt 521 13x0-5.txt 690 13x0-6.txt 888 13x0-7.txt 1137 13x0-8.txt 1408 13x0-9.txt 0 13x1-10.txt 0 13x1-11.txt 1 13x1-12.txt 0 13x1-5.txt 0 13x1-6.txt 0 13x1-7.txt 0 13x1-8.txt 0 13x1-9.txt 0 13x2-12.txt
Date: Wed Mar 23 12:01:46 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Remarkably good evidence that Denny's difficulty algorithm works as it is supposed to.
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Remarkably good evidence that Denny's difficulty algorithm works as it is supposed to.
Date: Fri Mar 25 18:45:28 2011
User: KINGOFMEMPHIS
Message:
OK, HERE IS MY PROBLEM WITH THE UNWINNABLES IN THE 13X0 GAMES. AN UNWINNABLE GAME SHOULD BE IN THE DIFFICULTY 10 RANGE. (OVER 50 WINS) IT IS SO MUCH FUN TO BE ROLLING ALONG WITH A FEW WINS, THEN RUN ACROSS AN UNWINNABLE WITH A DIFFICULTY FACTOR OF 5. WHAT IS UP WITH THIS?
User: KINGOFMEMPHIS
Message:
OK, HERE IS MY PROBLEM WITH THE UNWINNABLES IN THE 13X0 GAMES. AN UNWINNABLE GAME SHOULD BE IN THE DIFFICULTY 10 RANGE. (OVER 50 WINS) IT IS SO MUCH FUN TO BE ROLLING ALONG WITH A FEW WINS, THEN RUN ACROSS AN UNWINNABLE WITH A DIFFICULTY FACTOR OF 5. WHAT IS UP WITH THIS?
Date: Fri Mar 25 19:03:25 2011
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, if it's *really* unwinnable, don't you think it should maybe be something like difficulty 2000? Difficulty infinity? [Or..............as Denny (and others, including rbrandes above) has (have) repeatedly explained - difficulty level is about the dealing algorithm, not the inherent difficulty in winning a particular game.]
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Well, if it's *really* unwinnable, don't you think it should maybe be something like difficulty 2000? Difficulty infinity? [Or..............as Denny (and others, including rbrandes above) has (have) repeatedly explained - difficulty level is about the dealing algorithm, not the inherent difficulty in winning a particular game.]
Date: Fri Mar 25 19:13:48 2011
User: firenze
Message:
If unwinnables are your biggest problem, you may want to consider that unwinnables are not your biggest problem.
User: firenze
Message:
If unwinnables are your biggest problem, you may want to consider that unwinnables are not your biggest problem.
Date: Sat Mar 26 12:36:50 2011
User: free@last
Message:
9xn's took about 48 hours to run through. 8xn's (starting at 8x1) look like they may take longer. Based on what I see, there are a few "types" of games: games that very quickly can be won by the solver, games that very quickly can be determined to be unwinnable (both of the preceding run around 5 games/second), games that have so many possibilities that the solver runs out of memory, and, rarely, a game that fits in between (solvable or not). My assumption is that these games, if solvable, might be especially difficult. So, I watched the games go by until I found one of these tweeners that was solved. I tried it a few times and didn't even approach anything that seemed like the right track. If you'd like to try, it is 8x2 2761-8. Best of luck!
User: free@last
Message:
9xn's took about 48 hours to run through. 8xn's (starting at 8x1) look like they may take longer. Based on what I see, there are a few "types" of games: games that very quickly can be won by the solver, games that very quickly can be determined to be unwinnable (both of the preceding run around 5 games/second), games that have so many possibilities that the solver runs out of memory, and, rarely, a game that fits in between (solvable or not). My assumption is that these games, if solvable, might be especially difficult. So, I watched the games go by until I found one of these tweeners that was solved. I tried it a few times and didn't even approach anything that seemed like the right track. If you'd like to try, it is 8x2 2761-8. Best of luck!
Date: Sat Mar 26 13:04:59 2011
User: free@last
Message:
7 tries. Geez. 3/26 12:02 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 6:43 Won 3/26 11:55 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 7:48 Lost 3/26 11:47 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 4:26 Lost 3/26 11:42 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 5:33 Lost 3/26 11:31 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 3:14 Lost 3/26 11:27 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 2:03 Lost 3/26 11:25 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 2:07 Lost 3/26 11:22 am 8x2 2413-8 Other 0:58 Lost
User: free@last
Message:
7 tries. Geez. 3/26 12:02 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 6:43 Won 3/26 11:55 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 7:48 Lost 3/26 11:47 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 4:26 Lost 3/26 11:42 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 5:33 Lost 3/26 11:31 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 3:14 Lost 3/26 11:27 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 2:03 Lost 3/26 11:25 am 8x2 2761-8 Other 2:07 Lost 3/26 11:22 am 8x2 2413-8 Other 0:58 Lost
Date: Fri Sep 9 19:11:00 2011
User: newgirl
Message:
i'm playing 13-0 winnables. I've got a good streak going, and some are really hard. I just got a new game, don't know the number because it doesn't tell you that unless you QUIT, but I can't see a way of even getting one column open. how can there be an unwinnable in the winnables?
User: newgirl
Message:
i'm playing 13-0 winnables. I've got a good streak going, and some are really hard. I just got a new game, don't know the number because it doesn't tell you that unless you QUIT, but I can't see a way of even getting one column open. how can there be an unwinnable in the winnables?
Date: Sat Sep 10 01:22:10 2011
User: Uberman
Message:
There have been a few games posted on this forum about seemingly unwinnable games, only to then be won by some of the best freecell minds around. Post the game number on here once you've finished, if you like, and I'm sure they'll be willing to tackle that one too. That is, of course, if it really is winnable.....ahem.
User: Uberman
Message:
There have been a few games posted on this forum about seemingly unwinnable games, only to then be won by some of the best freecell minds around. Post the game number on here once you've finished, if you like, and I'm sure they'll be willing to tackle that one too. That is, of course, if it really is winnable.....ahem.
Date: Sat Sep 10 18:04:35 2011
User: roo
Message:
There is not supposed to be newgirl. If it turns out that game is truly unwinnable, Denny will be obliged to remove it and allow you to continue your excellent 800+ streak. Seeing as you've got that far you are used to solving the toughies which have turned up about once every 50 deals from my experience. This one must be a doozy. One option is to take a screenshot and allow us to see what you are seeing, or just describe the deal here. As we don't know the game number we can't "mess up" the statistics. Then we can confirm whether it is winnable, or at least see if a column can be cleared. Usually we can't confirm whether it is unwinnable, although in 13x0 often it is bleeding obvious. If it is winnable, anyone solving it should go no further than telling you that fact, otherwise it is no longer "your" streak. So far free@last has an impeccable record with supplying only winnable games, and he's(?) been challenged many times now, so I think there must be a way. It will be interesting to see this particular deal.
User: roo
Message:
There is not supposed to be newgirl. If it turns out that game is truly unwinnable, Denny will be obliged to remove it and allow you to continue your excellent 800+ streak. Seeing as you've got that far you are used to solving the toughies which have turned up about once every 50 deals from my experience. This one must be a doozy. One option is to take a screenshot and allow us to see what you are seeing, or just describe the deal here. As we don't know the game number we can't "mess up" the statistics. Then we can confirm whether it is winnable, or at least see if a column can be cleared. Usually we can't confirm whether it is unwinnable, although in 13x0 often it is bleeding obvious. If it is winnable, anyone solving it should go no further than telling you that fact, otherwise it is no longer "your" streak. So far free@last has an impeccable record with supplying only winnable games, and he's(?) been challenged many times now, so I think there must be a way. It will be interesting to see this particular deal.
Post follow-up