You are referring to R2C1. Yes, that is allowed.



The following situation is NOT allowed because of R2C3.



Cells with numbers will have exactly same number of mines around them.
Cells with mines may have any number of mines around them

Cells without numbers and mines can NOT have 3 mines around them. [This is the only rule change wrt a standard Minesweeper puzzle ]

Ah thank you. I thought it meant:
(Cells without numbers) and mines can NOT have 3 mines around them
instead of:
Cells without (numbers and mines) can NOT have 3 mines around them

Looking forward to trying these twists. The hitori sum is my favourite new idea, normally the numbers just get ignored.

During IB review itself, we found that the wording is little cryptic. So I included the example such that all the scenarios are reflected.

Hope it is clear to all.

Ah, glad this was addressed, I just logged on to check on the same thing, and I had misinterpretted the instructions the same way. Thanks.
I look forward to this one. Thanks again to the organizers and creators!

Puzzle Booklet uploaded. It has 12 pages, each page has 2 puzzles (and instructions and solution to the example) of one particular type.
There is no cover page.

Twist has started.
Good luck everyone!

Wow! Phenomenal test with a nice balance of difficulties and many fun puzzles on both ends of the spectrum. The twists were very interesting, and you even managed to make Hitori fun! You don't know how much that means to me. Thanks a lot Deb.

The score page doesn't show the bonus properly. Will be uploading fixed score page in few minutes

Bonus should show up properly now - here is the link to score page - http://logicmastersindia.com/M201104P/score.asp - which you can view after you complete the test.

A twisted view of the score page available here - http://logicmastersindia.com/M201104P/score.asp?view=twist

Thanks a lot for the feedback.
Yes, Hitori is a type that is not liked by all. I'm glad that the 2 Hitoris came out well and you liked them.

Thanks for the test. I had fun. My favourite was the ABC twist, really good puzzles both. And I managed to avoid making any entry errors, although I did take a very cautious approach entering my answer keys this time, probably cost me some time as I doublechecked what I had put in each time.

thats a nice clarification.before looking at this post,i was surprised about the reduction as i thought it was calculated on the total score.This logic i think should be posted on the contest page too,to ensure no one is in doubt.

We've experimented with many bonus systems, not all of them are flawless - but we'll never have a bonus system where players need calculators (more than pencil and eraser) before submitting a puzzle.

that sounded funny.i didnt say the contestants would start calculating.in fact i liked this penalty(bonus)system:) Good and simple one.
To make it better,why not increase the number of intervals and make it 6 ,of 5 mins each.That can probably sharpen the evaluation.

Changing the interval to 5 minutes is an option. But it might become too stressful for players in last 30 minutes.
As the poll options indicate, we definitely can make adjustments to this system in future.

Nice twists. I liked L&M&I, Lights and Hitori Sum the most.

a question off the topic..I want to know if the preliminary online is all we need to give(as it used to be every year) ,or the regional rounds are required too?

Odd skyscraper: Some evens inside look like valid skyscrapers .The 2,4 in the third row can be valid and satsify the outside '3' at the same time.Is that a problem with the example? or will that hold for the test puzzle too?

Edited by anurag 2011-04-09 5:30 PM

I think the rule and the example match perfectly.

I don't understand why people like the reducing points. It's quirky and fun, but does it make the contest better?
As a middle-of-the-field solver, it doesn't change my strategy at all - I've always started with the puzzles that get me the fastest points, and leave the hard/slow ones for last. I assumed most people did this (unless they're intending to just do all the puzzles!).
If we scored this test normally, then wouldn't the rankings be almost exactly the same order anyway? e.g. we're all penalized a similar percentage of our total score in the end, except the fastest solvers who get an increased lead now.

And on a different topic, the puzzles were great and I enjoyed the test. Thanks Deb!

My own reason for liking it is that I think it's a much better tiebreaker than simple time bonus systems for sorting out the top of the rankings. For instance, awhile ago there was a test in which motris finished ahead of uvo by a single second. There might have been a clearer victor with a scoring system like this.

Speaking as someone who normally tries to solve all puzzles and doesn't prioritize order, with the occasional consequences, on this test I certainly prioritized order much more. If anything, the slight change I might imagine solvers taking is shifting earlier to "clean-up" solving time versus going after big fish. With 15 minutes left to 90 minutes, you are less likely to start a 60 pointer versus smaller puzzles.

One of the goals of the delayed scoring I think is to run shorter tests for longer times without necessarily compromising the results at the top. FLIP is a great example of this type of test. While this test has a lot of easy puzzles, it probably is still too long of a test to showcase the best benefits of this type of system, which would be a 40-60 minute for uvo test that gets run for 2 hours (or more) instead.

To build off Melon's comment, I'm not sure this system can ever better separate the virtual tie between Ulrich and myself when we are 1 second apart and completely correct, but diminished scoring can help when a solver stops solving (with something like an error) but is at 23/24 very early, versus 24/24 after much more time. The clearest example was unfortunate for me but on Broken Pieces where I was done first (several minutes ahead of others, 45 minutes before end of the test) but with an entry error that I never caught. I ended up 12th, but some (hopefully not just me) would say my rate of solving was fast enough that my small mistake equaling no time-bonus was not a big enough mistake to cost the amount of points it did. Broken Pieces was an easy test with about 2x the amount of time needed, and is maybe even a better test than FLIP to showcase where this scoring could improve rankings.

Edited by motris 2011-04-10 12:18 PM

I think 80-90% of rankings would not change much, whatever system you use. So, that may not be the best reason for not liking a particular system.

If the basic assumption for this system is that "top solvers should be able to finish the test within the first time slab (90 minutes, here)" then I do not understand how this system will help better define the rankings at the top (as they all are expected to finish within 90 minutes and rank according to their finish times anyway).

On the other hand, this system will further tend to increase the difference between top solvers and others. Top solvers will get (699 PLUS bonus) but others will be penalized and they may get about 70-90% of their score based on when and what they submitted. Compared to previous systems, there is no change in top solvers' score but others' scores is lesser. If this is what is desired, then, yes, this system indeed serves its purpose. But I am not sure that is what is desired.

Maybe, it can work better in easier tests.

Excellent puzzles. excellent presentation.
Once again I fell victim to the answer format - miscounted arrows, miscounted cells... not a good feeling.
Asides that, the new time format does raise some debates.
It's interesting, but I hate how prioritizing solving order suddenly becomes crucial.
What if this system is used on a test where the puzzles are all roughly the same level?
Then this would ultimately test solving speed as opposed to how well you plan your solving order.