Message #1578

From: "Galla, Matthew" <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Reorganizing the various halls of fame?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:59:58 -0500

Melinda, checking only the shortest/first solutions for cheating sounds good
to me, and as spelwerdzrite (funny name btw) pointed out, I don’t think
cheating should be too much of a concern for this group beyond the standard
hypercube puzzle

Speaking of uploading solves though, I have started working on a few of
these smaller 4D puzzles after suffering through the wrath of the 120Cell
and have a few solves to submit, but I’m not entirely sure how to go about
doing that. Do I need to make a wikipedia username?

There’s no rush, as none of my solves are on new puzzles, but one is a
record shortest by just over half the current shortest ({5}x{4} Pentagonal
Duoprism, Size 3 in 489 moves). As a side note, I still believe a
theoretically more accurate way to count moves is to only count rotations of
unique cells (so clicking the same cell twice/three times in a row only
counts as 1 move), but I can live with the current counting scheme so again
no rush.

Seeing as a majority of my solves are not new records, I of course obviously
approve of these descending lists. It can also show who else is even working
on these things that just haven’t made the 1st or shortest solution cut.
Gelatinbrain keeps only the first 50 in each of his record categories: so
I think a smaller cap of perhaps 10 or 15 would be appropriate for this
group, if we even get there! :)

-Matt Galla
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:22 PM, spelwerdzrite <>wrote:

> Hmmm… I hadn’t considered cheating, that really does pose an interesting
> threat to such a competitive feature. However, this doesn’t seem to be the
> group that is full of cheaters.
> — In, Melinda Green <melinda@…> wrote:
> >
> > In principle it sounds fine to me though there are a couple of
> > consequences. Right now only the records for shortest involve a single
> > solution that everyone can examine to detect cheating, etc. Your way
> > requires that all log files need to be published and more importantly,
> > it requires more work from all solvers who are beaten to assure it was
> > done legitimately. If nobody objects, then this is fine with me. I just
> > don’t want to maintain the list for the cube.
> >
> > Maybe the entire official HOF should also be moved to the wiki? That
> > would certainly be the easiest for me! :-) If we do that, I will still
> > volunteer to police the cube solutions for cheating, just not for any
> > shortest records other than new solvers or for shortest records other
> > than the top for each size. Opinions anyone?
> >
> > -Melinda
> >
> > On 3/21/2011 11:20 AM, spelwerdzrite wrote:
> > > I’m suggesting we organize each puzzle’s records by categories of
> earliest solves and shortest moves, but not for the single highest achiever,
> but as a descending list. This will also help build a better competition for
> individuals wanting to rank higher in the shortest moves bracket.
> > >
> > > I’d love some input on this idea.
> >