Hi, I've made a really stupid and costly numpad-style mistake. I'm not sure whether you can do a "manual override" on such thing :)

PS. It's funny how nikoli made me to dislike several puzzle types. I never really thought that fillomino can be so entertaining/interesting, especially since in general I dislike puzzles with numbers/digits.

Yep, we figured it was a Numpad typo. You should already have those (hard-earned) points.

hey i think in the test the shape filimino is wrong...please check the top one

ok srry i dont no then.
thank u.

hey i got it just did silly mistake ..

Ok - I'm deleting your original post. Players may get confused.

That was fun. Sadly my sloppy handwriting cost me 7 points on the shikaku fillomino. Misread one of the digits. Obviously didn't think that digit could go there as it clashes with a given.

Great Test. Many puzzles that weren't super hard. I did enter my answer for the easy Sum Fillomino on the greater-than answer key (they're on the same answer page) Check for me?

Personal frustration on being 1 second slower than desired in typing the last answer. Oh well. This happens.

It's hard to rate this test. Normally I use an internal scale that starts at 5-6 (or lower) for my least favorite puzzles, up to 10 for my favorite. While that would work within everything here, it would not do justice to this test relative to others. I don't have any least favorite puzzles here - nothing that solved in an inelegant or unfriendly way. All I saw were quality puzzles and a lot of really creative designs.

In a few cases I think I could pass the Pepsi challenge and ID the designer, but even with these guesses I have both Grant and Palmer to thank for my favorite puzzles. A superstar team with an excellent test. Thanks.

Re: Para
mathgrant and I knocked our heads together on this for awhile, but in the end we are giving you those 7 points. Good job on your performance too.

Re: TroyS
Normally I'd say "I'll tell Deb and he'll fix it when he wakes up", but it appears to me that you would have had the answer wrong anyway. Look at the last few entries of column B. Sorry. Glad you enjoyed the test.

Re: motris
Thanks a lot for the glowing review and the blog recommendation. :D I think mathgrant and I may have an informal contest on our blogs to guess who wrote each of the puzzles after it's all done, so maybe you can try that out for fun. Great performance too. You may know what I mean when I say I thought you were in trouble 55 minutes in... but then I don't know the whole story. Your classic speed floored us both.

Edited by MellowMelon 2011-06-05 4:59 AM

I've changed in any case.

Re motris: I am so, so, so, so very excited that you liked this test so much! It means so much to me, someone whose only experience in the competition setting is your 20/10 test on which I scored a meager 777, having you, a grandmaster of construction and solving alike, say this about a test to which I contributed half of the puzzles. Honestly, though, even if I made the puzzles, Palmer is probably responsible for most of what made my puzzles come together along with his to be an actual test, and I think he deserves far more of the credit than I do. (I only allow myself to have top billing on the cover page of the IB because my name comes first alphabetically. :) )

If I don't post here much, it's not because I don't care about this test and what you guys think of it; it's because Palmer keeps saying the same things I would say, except more authoritatively. *laughs*

Edited by mathgrant 2011-06-05 5:09 AM

I think there is a lot to be said about how having a good co-author makes one's own work better; so I'd never single out recognition of one author here over the other as it's clear the combination of authors and styles worked better here as a test than either alone would have been.

You co-wrote Mutant Sudoku with Wei-Hwa Huang, so perhaps I should trust you when you say that. :P

I typo'd my greater-than (bottom) entry (should have been a xxxxxxxxxx before the last 2 digits). I'll take a manual override if they're still available :).

Edited by debmohanty at 2011-06-05 8:45 AM (since the answer key is partially revealed)

That one ended up being harder to decide on than Para's error. But you now have those points too.

Thanks! My puzzle for you ;).

Excellent stuff all around, as expected. Only thing that could've been better is if I was able to count to numbers above 3. :)

Message to mystery_boy

Please introduce yourself in the forum.

Message to cmd2do

Please fill-in your correct country and realname.

Thanks. Seems a bit odd to confuse those 2 digits, I know. But if you'd seen the handwriting you'd get it. Also got commented on it by judges during the WSC last year.

The possibility of having handwriting that can confuse those two was easy to accept. The issue of how plausible it is to have a wrong solution with a digit swap like that took a bit more thought. Not that we're accusing you of lying about the handwriting, but if anyone else submits the same solution...

More generally, shouldn't there be a consistent rule about mistyped solutions (those in the right box but which don't match the key)?

Everyone is essentially doing the test on trust since it would be easy enough to get a friend to help with a couple of puzzles, or maybe go to an internet cafe and view the PDF in advance from a different IP address (or even run a password cracker), so in principle I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to ask for typos to be corrected. If people want to cheat they can do so anyway after all, and it's usually pretty obvious if they do.

However in practice we all know it's faster to do the puzzle without entering the key so clearly getting the key correct and checking takes time, so isn't it unfair to penalise those who do take the time to check by awarding points to those who got it wrong? In general I'd have thought it would be better to require the key to be correct on the basis that typing it in accurately is "part of the test", however trivial a part.

If you do allow corrections, however, shouldn't they be applied consistently? E.g. allow a single digit only to be deleted/inserted/substituted if accompanied by a promise that it was a typing error not a puzzle mistake - that might be a reasonable rule for example. However some puzzle-based judgement as to how likely the person is to be lying (as is taking place here) is surely an awkward precedent to set. For full disclosure I had my single digit typing error rejected for correction, and I'm sure it was much harder to be sure of than those above, but I do think it's a reasonable question to ask generally. If it's done on "likelihood that player is lying", what is the threshold for that likelihood?

I'm always firmly in the middle of the results table and I really don't mind whether I personally get 4 points more or not, but wouldn't it be a good idea to have a consistent rule?

Sorry, perhaps I should have excluded the word "lying" entirely from my post. The issue of trust is actually not a factor in the decisions at all; in fact we are only looking at the answer. Something to note is that the manual override system is done by entering the person's wrong answer as an alternate correct answer, so this is why I bring up the idea of someone else giving the same answer. One person's typo, like perhaps in your case, could be another's mistake on the page.

Although I can't reveal details until after the test ends, your sample rule about "allow a single digit only to be deleted/inserted/substituted if accompanied by a promise that it was a typing error not a puzzle mistake" may result in the problems of the above paragraph for a particular puzzle in this test. There is a common wrong answer being submitted that is plausible as a typing mistake but also very likely to be an error on the page. If we follow this rule and accept one person's promise that this commonly mistaken digit was a typo, the manual override system forces us to credit every single person that made the error. Whether this is a problem with the system itself or not could be argued, although my opinion is that it's fine.

The rule that we are applying consistently is whether there is a sensible incorrect answer on the page that could result in someone giving the wrong answer being debated. If we find reasons to believe there isn't one, we typically give credit. If we can imagine a situation in which a minor mistake results in the answer we got, we don't give credit. This admittedly involves some subjective considerations, but mathgrant and I are being as thorough as we can in applying this principle. For example, if we get an answer with a wrong row or column entered, we'll both redo the puzzle part of the way to see what the implications of getting that particular row/column right are.

On the topic of checking when wrong answers can get credit, there is the point that the vast majority of incorrectly entered answers are not getting points, although the posts in this topic may give a different impression. So checking your answers is still important.

As a final note, I think the only 100% fair way to do manual overriding is to have none of it at all. But personally I think a sufficient level of fairness can be reached without having to resort to such an extreme, and I personally like LMI better for the occasional leniency.

Edited by MellowMelon 2011-06-05 10:46 PM

I understand. I've been on the other side and it takes a little thought to figure out where the mistake comes from and if there's another explanation for it. For some puzzle types it's much easier to figure out than for fillomino as there's no restrictions to the answer key content. Especially with the units digit implication there's more to look into.
I don't really think this manual override system should be questioned. I've been involved in it and the decisions are always made fairly. There's always the option to file for corrections in puzzle championships as well.