For example, try to solve different neighbours with letters. At the end you will be able to identify which letter stands for which number.
The "eyes" in the tents have only two possiblities - to form a "square" or "tetramino". It is obvious, that one construction should not be used twice.

Edited by greenhorn 2013-10-31 1:25 AM

Define "good ranking". Are we then saying that, in this test for instance, the top 10 was a completely fair reflection of skill, but the rest of them were all dependent on luck? Maybe in one test if a person has a bad day due to puzzle selection, then you'd say that one performance was on luck, but that is about the same level of luck as someone solving 9 out of 10 puzzles the fastest, and then getting completely stuck on one to the extent that they can't finish. Over a bunch of tests, both of these factors get negated and generally the rankings turn out fair. Its why in the WSC/WPC the preliminary rounds usually end up being a fair reflection of skill, even though they probably have the same finishing level of top few.

In general, I disagree with this point that a bunch of solvers clearing the same set of tasks minimizes the luck factor. There's always luck involved that a person with the most skill overall still might not spot that one deduction necessary to solve one puzzle. There's also then the choice issue, where you know this test is finish-able and should be done by you, but you're stuck, so do you guess, and then you enter into more luck territory. I made this last point because its the same as a slower solver taking a chip at a high pointer even if they're not sure of finishing within time and then choosing to guess through with time running out. In the end, I just feel both scenarios even out for everyone and its just down to the individual and the relevant competitors having a good or bad day, as it is in most competitive environments.

I'm saying "good ranking" in the sense of robust to changing conditions. Let's say two different test solvers were used for the test, and new scores were applied. Would Murat's 13/15 without Akari and Slitherlink still be better than all of the solvers with 14/15 solved? What if the test ran for 70 minutes. Or 80 minutes. How one sets the rules and scores for a test solvers cannot complete can cause large swings in rank position in these ranks. Regardless of how one sets these things when a test can be finished, the top 10 are basically unaffected. That is what I mean by having a good ranking for those solvers. It doesn't matter if player A was a tester or X was the time and not Y.

To Josh's question -- I definitely found the test rewarded me for being able to sense where intuition and logic would work well. I did use letters with different neighbours to link a whole bunch of cells, but then went to intuition and using uniqueness to get the assignments quickly. The Battleship, surprising enough, was really done by logic which is unusual for the type and made it one of my favorite puzzles. There is a really neat consequence of the logic of the two "1" rows and the two columns with three available spots that each need to take "2"s. Once I caught onto that, it was a much different puzzle.

Edited by motris 2013-10-31 3:55 AM

I actually disagree with this too. It may be just a perception thing, but points do play a role sometimes in how players subconsciously approach the puzzle. If I do a 7 pointer, I'm expecting an easy path. That could derail my run of solving if it turns out to be hard, I get frustrated, and decide either its not worth the points or just put up with it. Whether I finish the test eventually or not, it does cause a slight change in my progress over the test.

I'll give an example - I finished TVC XV. After the previous two, I was expecting to be around that level where if I have a good day I finish, else I'll come up just short. One of the puzzles that really got me stuck was a Double Back Tapa. It was 63 points, which was still a good enough sum for that test to be patient and have a look at it. So I stayed at it without ruining my thought process and needing to change strategy. If it was worth say 30 points, it definitely would not have been worth the waiting, and I now have a choice on whether to stay on it or break my progress and go to a new one. And at least for me, that has resulted in a mistake or two later, in the past.

Maybe some people aren't like that, and just stay the course no matter what, in which case your argument holds true. But that can't be everyone's way. Whether a person finishes or not, they could be affected by points distribution, which could in turn affect the rankings.

In the Tents puzzle I assumed that neither of the top 2 patterns could be a square as this would mean a non-unique solution with respect to which tree was connected to which tent.

I can't see where the password is the booklet this contest, which happened while I was on holiday. I'd like to do the puzzles... am I missing something?

I meant to get the password removed from the pdf file, but missed to do it.
The password is now available in the (archived) page - http://logicmastersindia.com/lmitests/?test=M201310P3.

Thank you!