View Full Version : Record times...

02-07-2013, 06:55 PM
I thought that unrealistic times for records weren't going to be posted. This has been addressed in at least 1 thread, probably more. I seem to recall a general consensus that times for 5X5 puzzles couldn't be achieved under 100 seconds without aids or memorization. I have seen a puzzle by zenobia43 with a record in the low 60 seconds and one by tulga.more of 65 seconds. Why do we have to compete with puzzle scores that at best were achieved by memorization and at worst by use of aids.

02-10-2013, 12:06 AM
I'm surprised there is no comment about this issue. It's usually been a popular a larger concern among the solvers...

03-03-2013, 06:40 PM
Until now I was just playing and I first hear about consensus like this... Really there was something like this? I mean, ok, in some older types of games I kind of remembered some patterns (never wrote it down, etc., but recognizing it in the middle of game helps a little in faster ending, in minimal it helps to look at clues person needs at that moment), but I can manage without any help or any memorizing do 5x5 under 100, or even under 80 without bigger problems - even when I play them first time (or after long time, which is the same for me), when they are easy enough (and then there are some, that I do over 200 or even over 300 seconds, of course, even more, when they are evil enough or if I'm just dumb at that time, which occurs sometimes :D), I'm not sure about under 70, but maybe I did 1 or 2 or something like this that fast (not counting these same-pattern-ones)...
I'm just writing it 'cause it just surprised me, that someone said, that it can't be done, etc. And nope, I'm not cheating, I like this game and it would steal fun from it...

03-03-2013, 07:46 PM
Here's one of the threads I was referring to: http://www.logic-puzzles.org/forum/showthread.php?t=28&highlight=times. I'm not saying you are cheating. You certainly sound credible. So you might well be achieving very fast speeds. I was referring to comments in this and other threads where the administration weighed in on the subject.
As to doing puzzles quickly, there is new research pouring out about how people think. I know personally how an Asperger's brain can see things very differently. I have found ways to rule out squares merely from the patterns in the grid as I'm solving puzzles. So called savants experience the world very differently than most. Scientists are creating ways for non-autistic people to tap into that kind of thinking. I would love to be able to see things from multiple points of views as I believe it is a way of opening ones mind to new ideas and leads to more valid conclusions. I'm also not saying that being a savant is somehow a bad thing. It is merely a different way of seeing the world. I would also bet a lot of money that there are autistic players on this site. It's a pity that autism has a negative connotation to some people, thus causing it to remain in hiding.

03-04-2013, 02:50 PM
Talking about record times!! I just looked at my PC and saw that somehow I had neglected to click the Submit button on a puzzle last night. :eek:

My solve time was 40522 seconds. Now that must be a record!!

03-04-2013, 04:09 PM
Laura, I saw that and wondered if your awesome 100% record had been spoiled by a server glitch. I'm glad it wasn't. :) Almost 30,000 games now without a single miss.

The server started two extra games for me this morning, and so far, it hasn't let me see the games or list those games in the recent games list.

If you see my games, send me a screen shot so I can see what I missed.

03-04-2013, 05:39 PM
Thank you, Zenobia! I'd rather spend hours (and have done so) to maintain a 100% solve rate.

The last time I looked you were at 100%. Your losing 2 games definitely sounds like a glitch. Perhaps you could contact Admin and see if your Recent Games list can be corrected so that the missing puzzles appear.

You have an awesome solve-time and solve-rate record!

04-02-2013, 08:40 PM
I can regularly solve these puzzles pretty quickly. While my average time is something like 170 seconds, I have solved 4x4 puzzles on this site in as few as 65 seconds. No cheating, no pattern-memorization; I just solve them using logic, and using the geometry of the grid, which is, after all, why it's there. Here's how I do it:

Reading the clues is the slowest part of the process. First I fill in the grid with the *solid* facts as quickly as I can. X's and dots. Then there are usually 3 sometimes 4 clues which are not direct dots or exes, but rather relational information between categories. These three I memorize as I skip past them and then fill them in last. From there (and with those 3 sometimes 4 clues in my head) I focus on the grid. All the information is there. No more reading: rereading clues is what slows you down, and once the info is on the grid you don't need to revisit the clues. I do use geometry: if there are 3 dots on the grid forming a partial rectangle, I know to fill in the last dot.

I also save time by skipping extraneous X's. No need to fill them all in, if you can look at a grid of dots and learn to see where the X's should go without having to laboriously click click click them all in place. If I can see in my head that two lines of X's "added together" leave a single gap between them and I know they are equivalent, I know that gap has to have a dot without clicking in all the exes to prove it.

Also sometimes when I get the puzzle down to only 2 dots missing, I guess, and if it's wrong, I go back and switch them. While I could use the clues to solve it, guessing the last two dots -- even if I get them wrong the first time -- can be quicker than trying to find the relevant clue.

Maybe the problem is that all these puzzles are structurally so very similar. That doesn't mean it's cheating to learn how to do them quickly. Some greater variation in their construction might be a good idea.

08-23-2013, 05:58 AM
I thought that unrealistic times for records weren't going to be posted. This has been addressed in at least 1 thread, probably more. I seem to recall a general consensus that times for 5X5 puzzles couldn't be achieved under 100 seconds without aids or memorization. I have seen a puzzle by zenobia43 with a record in the low 60 seconds and one by tulga.more of 65 seconds. Why do we have to compete with puzzle scores that at best were achieved by memorization and at worst by use of aids.

I think it's handled now. At least I've never seen a record score of under 101 seconds, and I score under 100 on occasion. It says it's a new record, but I doubt it's kept. I'm not nearly as fast as some here. So I think a score under 101 counts for your own statistics, but not as a record score.

I have no memory of past puzzles. I think it's realistic for me (at least) to get to about 55 seconds for a 4x4 and 75 on a 5x5. I'll probably improve a little more, but not much.

09-03-2013, 02:24 PM
i had several 5x5 puzzles that I had scored under 100s without aid or memorization, yet none of my scores are posted... 5x5 under 100s is very, very possible without cheating.

09-06-2013, 05:41 PM
I just like to play while watching tv and often go over a half hour because I'm more into the show. Also I like filling in all the X's. I guess it's my touch of OCD :D that doesn't let me put in just Dots and leave the rest blank unless I'm tired or made a mistake and have to go back and start over. Filling in the puzzle vertically doesn't finish the game, only completing the dots horizontally. Sometimes that's annoying. I don't always have to fill in the 'extra' common boxes.

10-03-2013, 08:07 AM
I just posted a monthly score of under 100 seconds for the first time. I did not do all the puzzles this month, however. I did any 4x4 which came up, and also any 5x5 with an 'average solve time' of under 4 minutes 25 seconds. My normal time for a puzzle in that category is around 75 seconds, and the inevitable mistakes and brain cramps create a certain variability. As the end of the month approached, it was exhilaratingly stressful, because I knew that a poor score would throw the average up far more than a good score would bring it down.

In this subset of puzzles my insight is: if the clues were in the most efficient order one could write the solution down very quickly. So I go hunting for clues which address certain areas of the puzzle. In the 5x5 puzzles with low average times, focusing on the clues which give information about the top left hand category seems to be the fastest.

There are certain 4x4 puzzles that I have seen the path efficiently - my best time is 32 seconds.

10-15-2013, 03:04 PM
What is the cutoff time for 'realistic' records that are kept? I've just joined and for most of the puzzles I complete it says I have a new record. Is this just because people with good times have their records ignored?

10-26-2013, 08:40 AM
The "realistic" cutoff is one of 99/100/101. I read it a while ago, but I can't quite remember. I've seen a record of 101 while playing, I can't remember anything less.

If I were to write a program to solve these puzzles, I'd expect it to run in a couple seconds, tops. I did write a program to solve sudokus once. Puzzles that I could manually solve in 200-300 seconds took less than a second in processing time. I don't think I implemented the screen-scraping/parsing, I just manually input a couple puzzles and ran the thing to see how it did. Now, on that site, I am sure people were automating because it showed solve times on a bell curve, and there were always some under 5 seconds.

The "realistic" limits here are too high, but I'm betting the fast solvers see "new record" more often than we really achieve it, not that it gets saved as such. I solve the 4x4s in under 100 seconds about half the time now, with my best times being in the 60s. I'm usually closer to 200 seconds for the 5x5s, but I've done a few of them in under 100 seconds as well. Of course, whatever the limit that is set, it is easy for a computer program to put a "delay until time is just over this boundary" statement in, if the goal is to set records.