"I'm not sure it works that way with regard to hot streaking - the play period expires 30 minutes after the start time"
I was thinking more in terms of a solver. Cards would be near useless in timed competition. Probably not a good subject to breach.
I only mentioned it because it seems that the concensus seems to be that some people here would cheat to inflate their image.
Regardless it's obvious some players have skills on a different level organically.
"Regardless it's obvious some players have skills on a different level organically."
No: each of us is at some point on the same single scale.
The level of player skill is what Elo is trying to measure. The skill involved is the ability to solve freecell using one's brain, not the ability to keep track of a deck of cards over several trys, or programming skill.
When my short-term memory is completely lost, I'd like to think using crib notes would fall under the auspices of fair play.
Of course not. That's another one of TT's 'tricks'. And you know better than that.....
Yes, it is. Conciliating "fair play" and an even playing field. Using "crib notes" is prima facie the same as a screenshot, a whiteboard, etc. Is it not?
But he's lost his short-term memory. He's probably in diapers, eating dinner through a straw, He forgot who Westmoreland was.
Some charity.
If his short-term memory becomes "completely lost", then he wouldn't be playing this game. I think, and hope, he's just joshing there.
Westmoreland? Gads. That takes us back. I guess I still cannot use crib notes.
Firenze is getting pliable as the years pass. Not too long ago, he told me that counting cards on my fingers was an external aid.
Pliable? Not with that stick up his ass. He told me I couldn't bring my boyfriends home anymore after Bills front line destroyed his living room rug.
Since my strategy can extend to usually 5-6 moves, yes I do see a time when it will become necessary. Hepatic encephalopathy while not requiring diapers, can be aided by games such as Freecell. Just saying.
Sounds nasty, redberet. Hang in there, and all the best.
I suspect, however, that you may not be the "he" being discussed. The tone seemed to morph to the conjoined twins of TT/E2. I could be wrong.
"No: each of us is at some point on the same single scale."
When I read that I started hearing the Barney song in my head:
You are special, you’re the only one
You’re the only one like you
There isn’t another in the whole wide world
Who can do things you do
Oh, you are special, special,
Everyone is special
Everyone in their own way
FWIW, I looked at the recent play and Elo History for
| Lindyhopper_Agame |
and it just doesn't look like a profile of someone who is using aids. And, we know there are people out there on the spectrum that seem to be just freaks at various endeavors. Look at this record from various sources:
The record for memorizing the most decks of cards is held by Dave Farrow, who recalled 59 decks of cards, or 3,068 cards in total.
That's bonkers. I tend to think that the players using external aids at the top of the Elo ratings have already self-stated it.
But why don't the ones who do not use external aids self-state it. I find that baffling. It would clear up a lot of suspicion by other players.
I would believe them, either way.
Most players don't get into discussion at all. So, not surprising.
Also, just decided to look at Recent Play and Elo History for SirPape. Lots of strangeness in there.
SirPape win percentages:
avg time
8x4 95.68% 8:04
8x3W 98.17% 5:39
9x2w 96.84% 5:03
those are pretty strange numbers, but it's an old account so I can think of a possible explanation.
SirPape has *always* been "a strange one", I'm sure you'll recall. Bizarre methodology(?).
No stranger than most people one encountered in chat 25 years ago. He dipped in and out of talking and you could see his wins and losses. Unusual only in that he was/is German and we'd communicate in that language. He was friendly with ameise and her daughter (nick escapes me for the moment).
mm, Bluemonster, I think.
No, perhaps no stranger personality-wise, but certainly winning strategy-wise. If you don't remember, go back and read about his 'strategy' to win 3 consecutive 4x4s. It's voodoo-esque.
Since none of the top ten with the exception of spugeddy2 and TT have stated their use/non-use of aids, I am continuing on with the assumption that they all use some sort of aid.
Dr. Bombay said above that most players don' get into discussion. That may be true. However, Hop, an obviously good player (and programmer) posted to this thread, so is probably following it. Yet hasn't committed one way or the other.
Earlier, not all that long after he came on the scene, he responded to my third (I believe it was) query about that, and (best as I recall) he denied use of cards. Seems like it wasn't a blanket denial of all external aids (again, only to the best of my recollection), but I don't want to speak for him - which is why I was giving him a chance to personally respond before writing what I just did. And that is most certainly not an accusation of any kind. It's a bit puzzling why, in the past, and now, hasn't been inclined to speak out - but obviously not for me to 'splain.
More than one of the top players who follow and post on this board have said nothing. I am not certain what it all means.
Tip of the hat to those who responded with cool heads.
TN, a deck of cards would be too amateurish for someone of Hop's abilities. Hop's forte are his computer skills which appear to be extensive.
"However, Hop, an obviously good player (and programmer) posted to this thread, so is probably following it. Yet hasn't committed one way or the other. "
I have a feeling that you have started this thread to attack me. I don't like somebody tell me what to do. Besides even if did, nothing will change, I guess. So why do so?
And what is the correlation with being a programmer? I'm sure there are a lot of people here who may write some piece of code.
"Hop's forte are his computer skills which appear to be extensive."
How do you assess that? So I guess you are qualified to do do?
Actually, when I started this thread, I thought that you, Hop, would be the first to come forward, clear the air, and challenge the others to do likewise. While I had a lot of reservations on the other players, I considered your play to be of extremely high quality, especially in tournaments, and that you played the game straight, no aids.
I had no intent to attack you personally.
I have no desire to respond to the rest of your attempt at diversionary questioning above.
You have given me the answer that was sought.
I doubt we will hear from any of the rest.
You are better at seeing "the answer" than I am, firenze. The fact that he doesn't give a full-throated denial of external aids use almost leads one to believe otherwise. Almost. And I'm still not sure why just not declare whatever 'it' (the "answer") is? Sorry, Hop, but your response is more obfuscatory than anything else - and I don't like saying that. And like firenze notes, you're clearly a very top player regardless, but we still don't know for certain. I believed your earlier response - and still do - but (again as I recall) my memory is that you stopped short of a total denial. Just pointing that out - it is NOT an accusation.
I absolutely agree with red beret. This has become a witch-hunt and needs to stop.
Players spend thousands and thousands of hours playing these games - very many doing so as a competition. It's only "fair" for them to know what the competition actually is. Can solvers be used? Cards? Whiteboards? If it's a real competition, all the cards need to be laid on the table (so to speak), just so's we know what's what. And yes, clearly some don't want to do that, which is technically their right.
It seems that Hop has always seemed to want to be "above the fray", and that's his right to be that way. And on one hand admirable and idealistic, which I can identify with. But he also should realize that 'fairness' argues for disclosure of that information. I think of it as a necessary nuisance. If one is going to take part in these competitions, then everybody *should* know what one's up against. Then they can make their own decisions about whether it's worth their while to engage in such competitions. That's the main point of this. It's NOT a character attack - merely a quest for knowing exactly how level - or not - these playing fields are.
It's perhaps almost akin to the old quote about "rights": "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Whatever Hop, or anyone else is doing, is their "right" to do here, as there are no enforceable strictures. But because said behavior(s) affect others, said others 'deserve' to know how level the playing field is, and where the foul lines are. How can that be argued?
If anyone is "above the fray", its Hop.
If he (or anyone else) has opinions they are free to share them if they so choose... same as anyone else. They are not obligated because you or anyone else insists.
Somewhere on the first page of this thread is my question about indignation being equated with truthfulness.
Got the answer. What is it is anybody's guess.
Mastermind. i think that was a different hijacked thread. that aside i still don't get it. please clarify
Mastermind can throw some wise words every now and then, in his caliber.
"Sorry, Hop, but your response is more obfuscatory than anything else - and I don't like saying that. And like firenze notes, you're clearly a very top player regardless, but we still don't know for certain. I believed your earlier response - and still do - but (again as I recall) my memory is that you stopped short of a total denial. Just pointing that out - it is NOT an accusation. "
That's my point. I did it and you are srill in doubt. If I do it once again nothing will change. You will still be in doubt.
Not so. I took you at your word and believed your original denial. And that hasn't changed. And you'll have to agree that I have not it brought it up a single time since - 'til now - and only now because it just seems the appropriate time to fully clear the air. Should you choose to do so. My memory is that your denial was limited - or at least it seemed that way. Doesn't mean that was your intent; just the way it came across. And please don't take offense; none intended, and this is in no way an accusation. In no way. If I remember the nuance of your denial incorrectly........please say so.
Just understand this is not an attack - only a quest for understanding *everybody's* use, or not, of 'those things'. And clearly.......I have no personal axe to grind. I'm certainly not chasing elo points, nor streaks; none of that stuff. This is only a stand for idealism and fair play.
don't answer him Hop.... in spite of his verbiage denying it is an attack... it is an attack
Thou speakest with a forked tongue, cellmate. I have no interest whatsoever in attacking him - or anyone else here personally.
"don't answer him Hop...."
Sigh!
Ok, I'm done. That's all I/we can do. Nobody here 'owes' "us" (all the other competive players (of which I'm really only on the very periphery of anyway)) an explanation, revelation, denial, or anything else. It's just been a great point in time to clear the air. It baffles me 🤷🤔 that someone wouldn't want to, but ok - not for me to decide. Just be assured no "attacking" was going on - at least from this corner. Good luck.
Quite some time ago, I was visiting my grandfather in a retirement complex. We were chatting with him in his room, and I noticed he had a Games magazine open to a puzzle. Being a subscriber to Games myself, I was familiar with this style of puzzle and knew it to be challenging, Remarkably, my grandfather was solving it in the sequence of the clues, not requiring getting additional bits from other answers. (It was not unlike a crossword where answers to vertical clues can inform the answers to horizontal clues). My grandfather was brilliant man, a former petroleum engineer, and fully capable of solving puzzles; but, in his advanced years, such a feat was nothing short of amazing.
I quietly pointed out the puzzle to my mom and asked her if he'd always been a puzzle genius. She told me that she had watched him solve the puzzle by flipping to the answers in the back of the magazine and filling in the letters one at a time. I found it funny and certainly thought nothing less of my grandfather.
Was my grandfather cheating? No. He was just solving the puzzle in a 100% stress-free manner. However, it was interesting to know that was how he was doing it.
Buzz, you have been playing with my boy too much. I'm calling your mother.
I don't even plan 5 moves ahead.
ELO is worthless without incorporating time. (Chess has chess clocks)
"ELO is worthless without incorporating time"
I agree completely. The problem is the game can be paused and the setup is still visible. My thought would be some kind of time bonus or penalty for faster or slower than average time (the games ELO would determine expected average time). If the game is paused there would be no time bonus.
Only issue with that would be time penalty would be lost also.
When ELO was devised there was some discussion on time and the explanation was something like the opponent (the deal) has unlimited time. I found that idea confusing and maybe flawed.
But isn't this why tournaments exist - or largely why?
As I've 'splained before - and as is true of others - I'm more often multi-tasking than not whilst playing. Watching ballgames, snacking, taking phone calls, etc., etc., etc.
When playing chess, with clocks, one is clearly devoted to that activity at the exclusion of all else. So, imo, freecell is quite different, except for tournaments. Maybe a bunch of you all take it more seriously than I do? Just a counter opinion; but if that's what most want, then......
Back when deadlies and such came about, I advocated that ALL tournaments be deadly, knowing that wasn't gonna happen. But my science background, as well as math contests when much younger, put a HUGE premium on accuracy, in lieu of speed. That's just my bias. The whole idea of beating a game with brute force (a large number of fast attempts) just seems foreign to me. But again.........just my bias. Quite a number of very sharp, smart folks here see it differently.
The ratings are just a measure of skill at streak play. There's no time component to streak play. Nothing to do with the deal having unlimited time, whatever that might mean. (Hope it wasn't me that put that idea out there, it wasn't intended.)
Well, TN, I'm one of those "others" like you who sometimes multitasks --- while participating in tournaments -- I'm not participating to the exclusion of all else. I almost always start five or ten minutes late. I've pondered suggesting, now that Mr. FixIt is happily retired and has oodles of time on his hands, to calculate "alternate tournament times" where one adds only the time of the individual games, disregarding bathroom breaks and phone calls, or just giving a total time from first start. I recall there was a mention years ago to not do the tourney times to prevent an alt from surfing the games before the main, but there are - in everyone's mind already - those who scam the system, and those who play "fair".
I've won dozens of tourneys when I subtract my start time, or win the never-won game after the game clock expires (but before the next tourney launches)
I like deadly tourneys, perhaps a metric can be developed which considers number of losses in the tourney, whether that's simply a number displayed in the winner list or otherwise.
No, the one-and-only time sensitive play on this site is Hot Streak
I mindlessly opened thread concerning the 11x0 Saturday streak competition. I have no interest in these things; it was purely by accident. However, I noticed a certain someone finished near the top who openly discloses his used of physical cards, and that fact was acknowledged (and lightly protested) in a post below the final standings.
If I were competing in this event (and I never have), I would be deeply annoyed by the use of physical cards as an aid unless one of three things is true:
a) I don't care about standings, competitions, streaks, or associated metrics. I play only for fun
b) I play for the spirit of competition, so anything goes. I don't use cards, but if someone does, so what?
c) I use cards, too.
I will eliminate option (a) immediately. This place drips with competition. Players find every measure possible to show themselves (and everyone else) where they stand.
Option (b) no doubt applies to some, particularly those who want to do their absolute best with no outside help. If they lose to someone using cards, that's pretty annoying, but so be it.
As time passes and we have more discussion on this topic, I grow increasingly convinced that Option (c) is pretty common, maybe even dominant.
To be clear, I don't care. Although I play here, I have not intentionally played a game for a streak or that counts for Elo in years. So, card users can knock themselves out. I have no idea how card users can convince themselves that that are actually extended a streak, but whatever. That's their dilemma, not mine.
d) Lots of people are self-delusional. You can ignore them.
Maybe put another way, lots of people are going to be tempted by the dark side. Playing with cards has pooped into my head on a handful of occasions but I knew if I went down that path, I'd no longer enjoy playing nearly as much. So, I've never really been tempted. I'm guessing that's more players than those who have succumbed.
e) your best buddies with TitanicTonys_deckofcards so you saw he posted and didn't mindlessly open that thread.
Oh wait, that doesn't belong in the list of possibilities.