How can someone do 105 moves in 28 sec's?
Using the autoplay feature can accelerate playing speed immensely.
Ok, get it. The top scores do 4 to 5 moves per second. Sure totally believable. I don't care if you have Trump himself with all his lying and this is way beyond believable
Check out DeusEx’s fast scoring explanatory video:
@eazygoinjr And check out this thread for further info:
That’s a leisurely stroll along the tow-path
The number of moves reported by the site is fairly meaningless. What matters is the numbers of clicks, or taps for folks like me who play on a tablet. If I play the same game a few times, I can usually find a solution that takes fewer than 20 taps. With more practice, I can execute those taps in under 10 seconds.
Pick a game, any winnable game, @eazygoinjr, and I’ll post a video of a sub-20th-second solution (no promise that it’ll be 105 moves)
I thought this kind of thread was a thing of the past now that the leader board was improved.....
Things that should be pointed out:
- Yes, 28 seconds is not that extraordinary...even with my mouse and old hands, I was able to manage under
40 secs when I tried hard enough.
- Yes, there are ways to get really ridiculous times with "bots" (or should I say "macros") that capture swipes or
clicks and can be tuned to play them back quickly. Denny is honest about it and uses the name
"Denny'sMacro", but there must be some others who don't 'fess up. (I believe you, Deus - you have worked
hard on your speed skills!). The fact that there are ways to automate seems to diminish the brag of topping the
speed leader board a bit (imho)
- And, yes, there is a moves based leader board for those of us that are only interested in solving the puzzles
once and have no interest is re-playing for speed or any other reason. Just click on "moves" in any of the
games in the leader board and to whole thing switches to moves based.
Umm, what’s your evidence that those atop the Moves-based leader board “are only interested in solving the puzzles once and have no interest is re-playing for speed or any other reason,” @dbwoerner?
Here’s my evidence to the contrary...
And I hope you don’t expect me to believe for a microsecond that 3BiggestCheat consistently records the lowest moves score and the second fastest time on his or her first play!!!
Deus, of course, I'm only speaking for myself here - and for some unknown reason I am occasionally at or near the top of the moves board but not the speed board. I do better with time on FlowerGarden (my new favorite) but with Spider (which I think I am very good at) and Seahaven Towers ( a sentimental favorite) it is rare for me to crack the top ten on either list.
Since "Uncle Roger" and "vampback" had the same number of moves in your example, the only reason I can think of for the multiple plays is to get a faster time. Do you have another explanation?
I couldn't find "3BiggestCheat" anywhere so I don't get the reference.
It just seems to me that people would be less likely to replay to reduce the number of moves and more likely to replay to get a faster time. Good players would tend to be able to pick a more optimal path, so it's not surprising to me that if they replay for speed, they would also make the moves board. However, they don't seem to dominate there....which is the reason I like "moves" better than "time".
BTW, as I think I mentioned, I acknowledge that your speed skills are most impressive - the fact that you can compete with the macros is amazing!
I'd just be guessing about why at least some of the top Moves players replay games--whether they're hoping to pare down the number of moves or to improve their times.
3BiggestCheat is one of my derisive twists on "3bc."
I disagree (respectfully, of course) with your assertion that "Good players would tend to be able to pick a more optimal path, so it's not surprising to me that_ if they replay for speed, they would also make the moves board._" Apart from Denny and 3BlowChunks, players rarely make both the leader board by both metrics. My hypothesis is that optimizing to increase speed and to reduce moves are diametrically opposed. As I noted in my first post above, speed is all about reducing the number of user actions (without regard for the number of card moves by the site's count). I don't track the number of taps it takes me to win a game in 5-8 seconds, but it's in the neighborhood of 16-24 (including taps to trigger auto-finish).
I have only a weak concept of the tactics for reducing the number of moves--my efforts to improve in that style of play have yielded no discernible results--but I suspect that you have little or no concern for the number of user actions it takes. I'd love to know the average number of actions it takes to win Freecell in 75-85 moves (which is the normal range for leaders).
Since you alluded to bragging rights (and how the cheaters in our midst tarnish the value of that), I'll just note that I'm motivated much more by the personal satisfaction of recording a score I'm proud of than by where that score ranks me on some list. It reminds me a lot of throwing discus and shot in high school. I was good but far from great. The main satisfaction was in improving my personal best; if I happened to make the podium, too, that was gravy. It's also a bit like playing guitar. I'm fairly new to the instrument and play infrequently, frankly I'm lame at it. Still, I enjoy practicing a new song and going from painfully picking out the notes to playing it smoothly by muscle memory. Mastering each Game of the Day is a lot like that.
Deus, u know i dig u the most, think ur super groovy and all, so i thought i would throw this into the discussion .. .. .. playing games, no matter how many or how well, may give u a sense of accomplishment, a "high" even, but u r limited to a finite number of board layouts, u can't create any more .. .. .. playing the guitar has the potential to connect u to the creative force within u, when u run out of songs that have already been written, u can write ur own, learn new instruments, play with other people, harmonize, etc., the possibilities are infinite .. .. .. just a thought from an artist who also likes to play games
Yeah, but playing the guitar makes my fingertips hurt.
...and it doesn’t work to practice guitar while watching TV
...and games provide more instant gratification
None of which are good excuses. But good enough
yeah, can't callous those fingertips tapping glass, and the songs they use on tv commercials? geez, the soundtrack of the boomer generation, who would wanna learn any of those old tunes??? wahhhhhhhhhhh 🙃
I have been experimenting with reducing my moves per game. I don't know if I am more clever when I am attempting to optimize number of moves. Undo is like running the odometer backwards, and some games are easier than others. Since I engage in certain strategies that allow me to compete in speed, it seems that most must employ similar strategies. Hope I am not offending anyone with that thought. So... I kinda assume people must be doing the same to minimize moves.
whatever ur doing its working, lasso! i see ur name in the top 10 of almost every game offered here! my strategy is simple, i tap until i hit a wall, hit replay and try again until i win (or get bored, lol) .. .. .. personally, i don't get offended by the opinions of others, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and ideas, it's cool to have a forum where we can share 'em
Deus, I just looked through the leader board, and I am surprised that I don't see you on the moves list as there are quite a number of the speed leaders that are in both (lasso, GeorgeGirl, jabba, greengab to name just a few are always in both for many games). That seems to me to support my statement about good players and optimal paths etc. Since the moves leader board is fairly new, I thought their appearance on that leader board was not their prime objective, though only they know if they are targeting both now.
I also think that since I never re-play a game that I have solved, the fact that I show up on the moves board sometimes also supports my statements above.
Anyway, I actually only saw you on the Freecell list. Perhaps my comments don't apply to Freecell which is a game that I tried decades ago and didn't care for. The games I like (Seahaven Towers, Spider, Flower Garden, and Calculation) all have players that show up in both lists.
P.S. I also only play for personal satisfaction - the main use of the leader board is to keep track of games that I had trouble with in the last week so I can easily go back and try them again.
Ah, that clears things up quite a bit in at least one regard: volume of play. Freecell has about 12 times the traffic of Seahaven Towers and around a hundred times that of the rest of the games you listed. Smaller pool of players = higher odds that a skilled player will make the leader board by both metrics. [stats from here]
Of those games, the only one I’m familiar with is Spider, which I play only rarely here. I don’t think power moves play much of a role in Spider—at least I haven’t figured out how to leverage them. With power moves out of the equation, my comments about fundamental differences between optimizing for speed vs. moves are moot. No clue if the same is true for the other games you mentioned.
Spider is an amazing game! There are so many paths you can go down it can be crazy to find the solution. When i first encountered it, I wrote it off as unwinnable, but when I discovered that it is nearly always winnable I became fascinated with it. I have mixed feelings about playing it here since the average game can take me 45 minutes (wall clock time including start overs) while easy ones take me 15 minutes. Hard ones - forget it....I need to go to bed B^) The current leader board for spider has a fastest time of over ten minutes and a range of moves from 245 to 456! I don't think I've ever seen it solved in less than 7 minutes here, I used to play a version I wrote that let me save the history files of promising paths so that I could play for 15 minutes and come back later and try something else. The hardest games literally took me months to solve and I went for over ten years before I finally found one that I believe is unsolvable. Now I hang out here B^)