Score page link - http://logicmastersindia.com/M201109P/score.asp

As usual, please use the score page to settle all claims

For Fortress, the Answer Key instructions advise: "Write the length of separate white cell blocks in the marked rows and/or columns (write 0 if there is none). The answer for the example would be 1, 1."

Frankly, its a bad noninstructive example. If there were 2 separate white cells of length 1 in the first row, should the answer have been 11, 1 (a one for each separate white cell block) or 2, 1 (providing the aggregate "length of the separate white cell blocks")

Thanks.

For Galaxies, the Answer Key instructions advise: "Write the length of distinct regions parts in the marked rows and/or columns."

Just as in Heyawacky, symmetrical "galaxies" can double back on themselves and have arms or legs separated by other galaxies. In such instances should the answer reflect each portion of a multi-part single galaxy by the length of its aggregate distinct parts, or each portion separately?

Thanks.

Edited by thesubro 2011-09-03 8:02 AM

Does anyone know of a good tutorial for how to do Heyawake? That is easily my biggest blind spot now when it comes to puzzles. I managed to get everything else on this test solved (and mostly correct!) near my target time, but never finished the Heyawake. I've been practicing them, and still it's rare for me to finish one.

In that case, you still need to enter the "different" number of galaxies.

As for having fun, this test was certainly a lot of fun. Thanks a bunch for the elegant puzzles, Ours brun! :)

And the test was definitely doable in the time allotted, but that didn't prevent me from breaking a puzzle because I couldn't count to 3, restarting, getting to the final step, and then wondering for 5 minutes why it didn't have a unique solution, again because I missed something and couldn't count to 3. I ended up not solving it. Oops.

It should be 11,1
Note that several puzzles in this test use the same mechanism for answer key. Please check NURIKABE, HEYAWACKY, HORSE SNAKE, LITS

As usual, LMI is the the top site for online puzzle test fun, both in terms of the quality of the test taking mechanisms as well as the product. Thanks for all of the hours that the puzzle creators (By Bastien « Ours brun » Vial-Jaime) and Deb put into these efforts.

With that all said, I personally stink at Galaxies and Snake puzzles, so I was not looking forward to them on the test - and my concerns were accurate. I guess I will need to wait for a treatise to be published by Motris or MellowMelon so that I can advance my puzzle career.

Folks, great fun again. Thanks so much.

TheSubro

i dont see the password and Pdf can not open, anyone knows? (my time is started, immediate pleasee :) )

The password is shown below the timer. If you still can't see the password, send me a message

ahh sooo, ok i see thanx for reply

All claims will be looked into. Sometimes, it might take a while.
Please check your forum inbox for updates.

Will the Hall of Fame entries be based on how much better than the Target Time you achieved?
Sure we want to know who was fastest overall, but the same names are always seen on the podium.
Here is a rare chance for the normal puzzlers to achieve a small amount of glory! :)

My pulse is racing more than on any other test. Waiting till the end to do all the typing didn't help. Many good designs and definitely "sprint" was the captured feel. Thanks Bastien!

Yeah, I can concur with having the pulse racing. Although here, that took the place of the huge amount of sweat I've started to feel all over me after finishing a 90+ minute test.

With no one participating now, Sprint test is over. MellowMelon (33:51), motris (34:05), xevs (37:48) take the top 3 positions. Their timings are extremely close (note that xevs took 3.5 minutes to recheck all answers before hitting 'Claim Bonus'). All of them and 3 more in top 10 are well ahead of their 'target' time.

Thank you everyone for participating and for voting in the poll. It is important for us to know what everyone expects.

Some stats :
Total number of participants : 264
Number of non-zero scores : 210
Number of players claiming bonus : 41
Number of players getting bonus : 36
Number of players submitting all 15, but not claiming bonus : 4
Number of players with all 15 correct: 29
Number of players with 14 correct: 19

Median Score : 110

Please post any feedback you might have regarding the test

• Length of the test
• Difficulty of puzzles
• Complexity of puzzles
• Number of puzzles

Bastien will share his thoughts some time later in the day.

Can I ask how I got 4 points out of 5 on Masyu? Was there partial credit somehow?

It looks like your answer was on the "accepted" list, but was not actually correct for the described answer mode. The solution should be 13,22, for lengths of line segments in the indicated rows, and your entry was 24,33 with consistent overcounting. So you got credit, but it counted as a typo for -20%.


------------------
I really liked the test, particularly the page with the Star Battle (123 theme) and the Tapa below (with 1234 by quadrant theme). Some other puzzles also had cute themes that didn't compromise the lower difficulty goal.

You'll notice though that I am the voter with the least interest in seeing these every month or even every quarter. Just as I liked the Screen Test when it was run a year ago, I felt that was something that could happen every year and be a welcome change from the usual. I view this kind of test the same way. I would not want a Sprint Test to replace the 2h tests we've been having every month, nor to add on a third monthly test if that is the alternate option. But I wouldn't mind it once or twice a year as a (literal) change of pace.

One side comment on scoring - we have consistently been granular on the order of minutes when it comes to bonus. I see no reason to not have fractional points to give the most correct accounting of relative performance (particularly when this test greeted me with my score of 986.252 which has excessive significance anyway). One side effect is with fractional bonus you will never have the rankings incorrectly sorted after a test which I seem to see this time around with Janka1 behind Spelvin despite earlier submission and onigame ahead of two others despite being in the same minute too. Order could change with refreshing, but it should certainly sort by score and then time. (I think the specific bug is sorting on last correct submission and not "claim bonus" time.)

Edited by motris 2011-09-05 8:21 AM

I think its sorted based on "points + last correct submission time" currently. It should perhaps be changed to "points + claim time + last correct submission time". We are seeing this effect because of many claims this time (unlike earlier tests).

Certainly a glitch there. Will fix that in a while.

Updated score page - http://logicmastersindia.com/M201109P/score.asp

skywalker > Janka1 > spelvin
ByronosaurusRex > S_Aoki > onigame

Also,
Para > tarotaro > ppeetteerr

Players with same scores but less than 14 puzzles correct are sorted by "Last Correct Submission" irrespective of "Claim Bonus Time"

It was not necessarily a typo, but was a misunderstanding of answer key. It was debatable whether it should be 100% or 80%. We had same problems in JPL as well (even though the authors had done a splendid job of explaining using an image)

In fact we had players who entered row A using one method, and row B using another method. So clearly, it is not a good answer key.

We should be using Method 4 described here for loop puzzles.

I dont understand this result.
As I see the score page, I think the target time column is totally pointless. If you delete it, then the order wont be change.

I thought before the test the target time is important. And I thought I will get points for my saved minutes from my target time. This would be logical.

We had planned the Sprint test such that a 'lot' of players should be able to complete the whole set. That also meant top players will be completing the set much earlier. That is when we thought of adding a 'target time' for each player based on LMI ratings.

While giving bonus points based on 'target — achieved' certainly came across my mind, it was not done primarily because of reasons below.
1) There was no scientific / logical way to compute the target time. Rakesh had an interesting idea, but we stuck to a simple linear formula.
2) There are several new players who were playing first time. They didn't have a target time. For example onigame, Nilz
3) There are several players who have started to play at LMI recently (just 1 or 2 tests). Target time for them is clearly not accurate. For example murat, TiiT

In future Sprint Tests, it will be definitely interesting to fine tune target time. But I'm still now sure if we can give some points based on 'target — achieved' because of points 2 and 3 above.

And should there be penalty if target < achieved?