Guestbook

22 Mar 2013 23:14 GMT

But, for now, "anonymous" players can drop you down, from fist place to second (single level list), although this does not benefit them, but I still lose. And this is bugging me most. What is your thought on this.
22 Mar 2013 22:58 GMT

I think we agree on that: exclude anonymous players from lists... but not exclude them from site. They must be welcome and be challenged!
22 Mar 2013 22:43 GMT

I mean, that if you try to make a list of "best players", there should be no "anonymous" there... And I thought, that you agree...
22 Mar 2013 22:29 GMT

I 'finally' see the point? I'm just trying to understand you and honor the good aspects of your ideas.
22 Mar 2013 20:29 GMT

To Arnold: yes, you finally see the point. Otherwise in the future is sure full of anonymous names at the top of "best result" list in the single level chart. "anonymous" could be Kasparov, who's making fun of us?
22 Mar 2013 18:26 GMT

to jormawitick: On the subject of anonymous players I was to short yesterday. Of course an anonymous player is welcome as a guest, to first try some games before he makes an account and becomes a challenger. But I think the scores of anonymous players (all of which are collected as one player called 'anonymous') must not be included in the gamelists. Instead, after completing a puzzle they could receive an alert-message like this: 'Well done and welcome! If you want to register your own scores and challenge other players (xxx at this very moment), you can make an account by clicking on "join" upper right…'
22 Mar 2013 17:19 GMT

You've got a point there: amount of first-placewinners per game doesn't necessarily indicate complexity of that game... but it indicates 'complexity of solution' (and challenges everyone to solve even the simplest games in least moves). Alternative could be to extend the calculation this way: point/winners/solvers. For example: 1 point/1 winner/100 solvers = 1/100 for winner (simple game) and 1 point/1 winner/3 solvers = 1/3 for winner (complex game). It's a choice, I think… or may be admin can make two new tables? Database is enormously large, so it's not quite easy!
22 Mar 2013 14:49 GMT

"Jotacartas" suggested the original idea of complexity definition for "collections". "Sum of levels solved by the 12 best players". I think it's based on wrong idea. Many collection contains both, simple and complex levels, and for minimal moves, makes even simple level hard. (different thing than complexity). Then you can't set the whole collection to same complex level, only single level. Remember that there are still many levels, that nobody has solved, how complex (hard) is that? Infinite ?. "quote: JotaCartas wrote: 23 May 2012 09:56 GMT To help beginners, I propose the collections to be classified by the following degrees of complexity, according to the current average of levels solved (sum of levels solved by the 12 best players / total of levels): I think you may have more accurate data, and possibly a better criteria. This is only a suggestion"
22 Mar 2013 14:40 GMT

to admin1: Idea of MnLsDad for third winnerlist (with inclusion of complexity) is better than mine: division of one point per puzzle among those with the shortest solution. If that's one person, he gets 1/1, two players get 1/2 each, three players 1/3 each, et cetera. Could this be made?
22 Mar 2013 14:29 GMT

to MnLsDad: You're right, I didn't read your suggestion well enough... sorry! In fact your idea is better than mine. Number of people who win first place is a very good indication of complexity, so division of one winnerpoint per game is probably the best base for new list!

Please login to add comments!