Message #1580

From: Melinda Green <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Reorganizing the various halls of fame?
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:39:15 -0700

Hello Matthew,

I’m still astounded that more than one person has solved the full 120
cell. Being first might have been enough motivation for me in the past,
but after that is really hard for me to understand. I’m glad that you
are working on other puzzles and looking for shortest solutions. The
pentagonal duoprism is sort of like the cube’s pretty little sister. It
seems like the natural first puzzle to try after solving the cube. It
was Don’s default puzzle in his first prototype, and it is easy to see why.

Regarding your new log files, I think you can currently edit the wiki
without an account but you will want to create an account here
and log in so that your name will be linked with your edits.

Regarding compression of some consecutive twists on a single face, I
agree that they should count as a single twist. We’ve discussed this a
fair bit in the past and it turns out to be a feature that has a
surprising number of complexities. Issue 28
<> talks to this
a bit but there should probably be one created specifically on this
point. It would be great if you would read that discussion
<> in the
message archive and synthesize its conclusions into a new enhancement

Regarding sorted lists of shortest solves, I don’t see any reason not to
include all solutions. It’s just more work to maintain and police them
that I do not want to do, but really, whatever you guys want to do is
fine with me. That’s sort of what wiki’s are all about. It’s better to
have to ask forgiveness than permission.


On 3/22/2011 12:59 PM, Galla, Matthew wrote:
> 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.
> >