« ZIP Chess Challenge! by Bob Lodge | Main | Download »
GAMES '06 Thread
For Feb - Dec. 06 GAMES discussions...
Comments
The most important question - when does our new contest begin?
Posted by: Paula | Dec 23, 2005 12:47:06 AM
Has anybody heard anything about the "Acorn & Tree" contest yet?...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Dec 28, 2005 3:54:07 PM
Sounds interesting...
Posted by: dlxv7711 | Dec 28, 2005 4:21:18 PM
Please post the rules for it.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Dec 29, 2005 10:30:51 AM
I don't have my issues in front of me, but isn't Acorn & Tree the mother-father-baby picture matching contest from ~Oct 2005?
Not much to discuss on that one, IMHO
Posted by: Jay Winter | Dec 29, 2005 11:23:14 AM
ugh yes, sorry
Posted by: Jim Miller | Dec 29, 2005 3:49:37 PM
Looks like the March Games contest will be called "Triple Cross" (from the Games website correction in the bottom left-hand corner). I'm predicting another fun acrostic nightmare!
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 30, 2005 8:13:08 PM
I was wondering if anyone has been notified yet that they won something in regards to the "Acorn & Tree" GAMES contest?...
How long does GAMES take to notify winners?...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Dec 31, 2005 12:15:28 AM
Jim from Minn....From my own experience, Games notifies winners about 4 to 5 weeks after the contest deadline.
The deadline was Dec. 1st, so the winners should be notified within the next week, give or take a few days.
I too am anxious to hear the results on this one.
Good luck!
Posted by: Toni | Dec 31, 2005 2:59:31 PM
Hi,
I've started a daily quiz on my Blog that gives out Rs 100 or roughly $2.50 everyday to anyne who gets the answers of al the 10+1 questions I put up. There is a variable time limit for each quiz.
Posted by: Mithun | Jan 5, 2006 1:17:41 AM
The online contest#4 is over. I was dumb and submitted Hank Aaron instead of Babe Ruth :) But there were "hundreds" of correct answers anyway, good luck to those with the correct answer in being selected as one of the 5 winners.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Jan 6, 2006 9:26:33 AM
National Puzzlers League...
I happened across its website www.puzzlers.org
are any of you familiar with this group? Any feedback about it?
Posted by: Paula | Jan 6, 2006 1:13:26 PM
Mark: You weren't the only one.
Posted by: Jeff R. in San Diego | Jan 6, 2006 1:47:39 PM
The National Puzzlers' League is concerned with word puzzles. Members receive a pamphlet every month or two with member-submitted puzzles. Most of the puzzles are called "flats", which take the form of poems or lyrical parody, and the solver needs to solve for transposals, charades, rebuses, letter banks, etc. They also have cryptic crosswords, trigram puzzles, and other types of non-flats. Everything on the pamphlets are member-submitted, so only members can solve. The website offers details about joining.
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Jan 6, 2006 8:22:22 PM
Minneapolis Stores No Longer Stocking GAMES.
In the past year, the local out-of-state paper newsstand stopped stocking Games and GWOP, then Barnes & Noble dropped them. I went into "Games by James", which usually has a spinner rack of issues and it was gone.
I complained to the manager, who told me that the publisher
(not the distributor) had placed a minimum annual order of $1000, pre-paid by credit card. She said she loved the magazine and it drew dozens of people into her store, but she only sold $200 a year. I asked, "Was it Kappa Publishing?" and
she replied yes. While we were discussing this another customer
came in, asked for Games, then walked out unfulfilled.
I haven't found either magazine at Borders, my last resort.
Is something going on? Should I get a subscription or not?
Are they going under again? I'll make a donation, if necessary.
I'm sure someone at Kappa could try to convince me that this was a valid business decision. Doesn't seem so to me.
Where in the Minneapolis area can I regularly purchase either or both magazines? If my alarmist tone is justified, please
forward this note to those in a position to do something.
You folks are better connected than I, got the editors on speed dial.
If I'm completely misreading the situation, then,
as Emily Littella would say on SNL,
"Never Mind".
Tim
Posted by: Tim Szeliga | Jan 8, 2006 9:39:45 PM
To Tim...
I don't know about Minneapolis but where I live in Minnesota you can go to the local Barnes & Noble, Shinder's, or B. Dalton's store and pick up a copy of GAMES magazine.
The only place I can find GWOP is at Barnes & Noble...
I have the current issue of GWOP which I bought at Barnes & Noble. The new one should be coming out in the latter half of January.
The GWOP magazine at Barnes & Noble comes in at different times so you have to check every week. It's best to check every Friday. Sometimes it comes out early, sometimes on schedule, & other times it's a month late...
It's also best to check every week because sometimes they only buy a handful of GWOP issues & get sold out within a week.
A side note. If you don't see GAMES magazine on the shelf and ask when they're going to get it, be sure to specify which GAMES magazine you want. There is a different magazine about games called GAMES. It's a little confusing...
I have however, found that certain GAMES issues are very erratic when it comes to availability...
There have been a couple of times over the past two years where only one store chain (B. Dalton, Barnes & Noble, Shinder's) had a particular GAMES issue in stock. Kind of like a "limited edition" issue...
I have yet to figure out why...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Jan 8, 2006 11:36:42 PM
I have been having this very same problem.
I live in Northwestern Wisconsin and suddenly (since about October) I haven't been able to find GAMES anywhere. This includes Minneapolis and several of its suburbs. I've tried Barnes&Noble, Shinders, Wal-Mart, Cub Foods....all places I've found it in the past.
So I'm getting ready to renew my subscription - BUT I am worried about sending my money in and then not receiving any magazines. (As happened the last time they "had problems")
Posted by: Paula | Jan 9, 2006 9:05:11 AM
Has anyone heard from GAMES regarding "Acorn and Tree" contest?
If not, my guess is they had thousands of entries and are still working on the results.
Hope someone here has heard from them, or will very soon.
Posted by: Toni | Jan 10, 2006 1:46:10 PM
I have been a GAMES subscriber for almost a year now, so I hadn't realized the problem of finding GAMES in stores. This week, I looked for GAMES at a Madison, Wisconsin, Barnes and Noble Store. I couldn't find any GAMES magazine issues in the store, but I remember seeing both the December 2005 and February 2006 issues in the past few months.
I hope the lack of issues in the stores doesn't mean that GAMES will be discontinued soon because I just renewed my subscription.
I never entered the "Acorn and Tree" contest. I thought that it would be too much guessing. I also wondered if anybody who entered the contest knew some of the people who were pictured. Knowing some of the people would reduce the guessing element of the contest.
Posted by: Laurie | Jan 10, 2006 6:30:59 PM
http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/ is updated today with the March issue of Games, including the cover picture and contents hilites. So I assume it's still in bzzzness.
Contest results are for Hiding Places and A Beautiful Cut. The new contest is Triple Cross III. Can someone remind me how Triple Cross contests work?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 10, 2006 9:46:28 PM
Hi,
The new issue of GWoP comes out on January 24...
So I guess they're still making it too...
The contest is called "Pearls of Wisdom"...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Jan 11, 2006 4:21:07 AM
Laurie, that's a good question: does anyone know the people in the "Acorn and Tree" contest?
Another question; were the people in the contest made aware they would be in the magazine?
My guess, they're GAMES staff or relatives of GAMES's staff and neither can enter the contest.
Posted by: Toni | Jan 11, 2006 7:01:44 AM
Thinking further on this 'guess'...someone has got to know them! Can GAMES keep track of all their friends, or bar them from entering?
Posted by: Toni | Jan 11, 2006 7:19:39 AM
I was wondering about the "Acorn and Tree" contest too...
Are those their real names?...
Could one of those pictures be the famous R. Wayne Schmittberger?...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Jan 11, 2006 11:41:37 AM
I'm a terrible procrastinator and hadn't gotten around to renewing my subscription, which just ended. Also I was wanting to subscribe to GWOP to save a bit and avoid having to look for it. Someone in town always has it but they seem to change frequently who does and who doesn't. Just now I did a Google and found this place:
http://www.mags4cheap.com/magazines/index.php
which is currently offering a combo deal of both GAMES and GWOP for $30 total, which is the best deal I'm aware of. Hope it's legit, I just processed it.
I must be getting old. I still remember when the expensive magazines were 35¢, most were 25¢, some as low as 15¢, and all comic books were a dime! (On the other hand, one was expected to work hard for $1.25/hr, too.)
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 11, 2006 12:42:06 PM
A new design for the Games WoP cover?????
Millions faint.
Posted by: Jeff R. in San Diego | Jan 12, 2006 3:54:02 PM
It seems that they are saying that the reason there were only 67 entries in the Perfect Cut contest is because of the mistake they made when they introduced it. How do they know? Maybe it was just daunting. I wish the Triple Cross contest was just a little more involved then just finding six words (yes, its challenging, but sometimes the more complicated contests are more fun. Did I say "sometimes"?)
Posted by: Ross | Jan 16, 2006 10:18:49 AM
I thought that the "A Beautiful Cut" contest was good because it was challenging, and didn't favor programming over pencil and paper solving. (I am biased because I won a T-shirt in the contest.)
The "Triple Cross" contest will give programmers an advantage. Being able to calculate the highest scoring words from an electronic word list is much faster than going through a dictionary manually.
Posted by: Laurie | Jan 16, 2006 2:52:54 PM
Can someone please expound on the rules for the Triple Cross? Thx.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 16, 2006 8:25:57 PM
Oh, right...A "Beautiful" Cut. ABC...that was the whole point, wasn't it? In the Triple Cross, you make up six words of seven letters each to be fit into a grid of three words across...top, middle, bottom, and three words down interlocking...top, middle, bottom, and they have a letter-scoring system. They say the last Triple Cross contest was 25 years ago...I was a subscriber then, too. It's good to go back to the old stuff for contest ideas. Anyone remember the Scavenger Hunt where you had to find a small sugar packet with a penguin, a calendar from the 1950s, a swizzle stick with a heart on top, and a letter written to a president, among other strange things? That's the only contest I remember.
Posted by: ross | Jan 17, 2006 6:12:05 AM
Thanks. How does the scoring work for Triple Cross? Can someone post the rules?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 17, 2006 9:21:46 AM
Is anyone else working on the Triple Cross contest? Can you tell me what the deadline is for entering? My magazine copy doesn't have it. The last paragraph sorta ran off the edge of the page.
Posted by: Jeannette | Jan 17, 2006 9:22:20 AM
According to GAMES website:
*In the March Triple Cross contest, the deadine was inadvertently omitted. Entries must be received by April 3, 2006.
Posted by: Laurie | Jan 17, 2006 9:57:51 AM
Laurie, I agree. Programmers have an advantage in "word-list" contests. I stay away from them ever since a contestant had won with a 900-word list (compared to my 60). Now I don't waste hours of my time searching the dictionary.
I haven't received my March issue yet but when I do I will give the contest a try since it doesn't involve making more than six words.
Oh, and I too won a tee shirt. (20/52)
Posted by: Toni | Jan 17, 2006 10:13:32 AM
Scoring for the contest is like in Scrabble--a certain value for each letter, less common letters being more, then add it up. Maybe if we make up a word like zyquzyiouz, assign a definition, keep using it, and circulate it around, we can keep entering it in these contests, until the judges get fed up and decide it must be valid, then we'll win. Otherwise, all the words I know have at only e's and t's.
Posted by: Ross | Jan 17, 2006 12:47:25 PM
Thx for the deadline, Laurie. I'm glad to know I wasn't the only person who couldn't find it.
Ok, I have another question regarding this contest. I found a fairly high scoring word that I might like to use. I looked it up in Websters and the dictionary had "often Capitalized" in the listing. Does this mean it's invalid? I know "usually cap" is invalid, but not sure what "often cap" means. I've never seen it before. Am I just splitting hairs here?
Posted by: Jeannette | Jan 17, 2006 1:13:27 PM
Webster's seems to have some sort of strange aversion to capitals. All the entries are spelled in lowercase, but capitalized words will say 'often cap', 'usu cap', or 'cap'. But most words we would think to be always capitalized are given the 'usu cap' label: place names (Aachen), names of months (Ab, April), languages (Abenaki), etc. In fact, the only words they seem to put 'cap' for are names of genera and other biological classifications. Also, it would seem easier to simple capitalize the headwords instead of adding the easily-missed labels, especially in capitalized phrases where they have to specify which letters are capitalized (e.g., black and tan, often cap B & T). So I don't know what GAMES does, but I would say that if their usually cap is our cap, then their often cap would be our usually cap, so often cap would probably be valid.
Posted by: Will Nediger | Jan 17, 2006 2:52:42 PM
What *specifically* are the scoring rules, please? Do crossing letters count both ways? I need it spelled out, don't have the issue. Even better if someone scans the contest page and posts it somewhere - I've done that in the past when I got the issue early.
If the word acceptability rules haven't changed for this contest, GAMES accepts the "sometimes cap" and "often cap" words, but not the "usu cap" or "cap" words. If a word has different designations in different senses, the least restrictive designation counts.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 17, 2006 4:32:02 PM
I bought the March issue at the store yesterday, then when I got home it had come in the mail, first of my subscription. Oh well.
The March contest pages are at http://files.j--a.net/GAMES/GAMES_contests_3-06.pdf
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 19, 2006 10:11:07 AM
I see the GAMES website says GAMES on sale Jan 17 and GWOP the 24th. I found the GWOP on the 17th, but no GAMES. Wonder if they switched the dates?
I've already solved the GWOP contest, "Pearls of Wisdom", a cleverly designed word mechanic that starts slow but accelerates as you get a toehold. The first 1/5 takes as long as the last 4/5. I don't think I'd allow the three stars they gave it, but it is enjoyable and clever.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 19, 2006 4:49:17 PM
I saw the March GAMES on sale January 16, a day earlier than on the website. As a subscriber, I still don't have my issue yet.
Last year, I bought the July GAMES shortly before I received the same issue as the start of my subscription.
Jim, thanks for posting the scanned pages that have the March contest. I don't know when my March issue will arrive.
Posted by: Laurie | Jan 19, 2006 5:56:34 PM
Thanks for the scan Jim, I have not received my issue yet.
>Laurie: I thought that the "A Beautiful Cut" contest was good because it was challenging, and didn't favor programming over pencil and paper solving. The "Triple Cross" contest will give programmers an advantage.
I agree completely -- the current contest is boringly easy to program and find a top solution (depending on the quality of your word list). I might run it at some point but will not submit a computer generated solution for this one. In contrast, ABC was a very difficult problem that was a good challenge for computer vs human. Congrats again to Kevin!!
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Jan 19, 2006 9:38:05 PM
Yes, way to go Kevin, and also Toni who came in second!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 20, 2006 2:41:35 PM
Bob....I came in 2nd?? Wow! I was notified that I'd won a tee shirt but I didn't know where I ranked.
Thanks for letting me know, and for the 'way to go'.(I haven't received my issue yet.)
And congratulations to Kevin!!
Posted by: Toni | Jan 20, 2006 8:43:13 PM
Toni, just check the winner list on the pages that Jim posted a link to above. (1-19 10:11:07 AM) You had the best score after the winner.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 21, 2006 2:13:44 PM
Thanks Bob, I already did. You were right!
Makes me wonder what kind of score I would have gotten if I'd known programming.
Posted by: Toni | Jan 21, 2006 6:08:28 PM
Thanks all, and my congrats to Toni as well. Now it would be nice if they send me the $$$. :) I returned their winner's info form with SS#, etc., in early December but no prize yet. Any former winners know how long it takes?
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 22, 2006 6:35:00 PM
Thanks Kevin.
If it's any consolation, I haven't received my tee shirt yet, either.
If memory serves me right, at least a month, or month and a half has passed since I sent in my return form.
GAMES seems to be exceptionally slow in responding, but I would think you should see your check soon. If not, write to them.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Toni | Jan 22, 2006 7:59:25 PM
In my experience GAMES has been slow (but sure!) in payments and prizes. After selling two or three contests I learned that it was best just to forget about it and eventually a nice surprise showed up in the mail. Usually the contest had recently hit the newsstand by the time the check showed up. But they never forgot or needed reminding, just a bit slow. Ditto when I've won T-shirts, which sometimes have extra delay if their supply ran out.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 23, 2006 2:01:38 AM
Kevin, My tee shirt arrived today!
So watch your mail....hopefully your check will be arriving very soon too!
Posted by: Toni | Jan 23, 2006 11:34:38 AM
Has anyone completed the "patchwork Puzzle" Contest from GWOP? I had a good start on the word list, but haven't had the time to put into the grid. The deadline is next week...
Posted by: Paula | Jan 24, 2006 9:11:59 AM
I finished the Pearls of Wisdom contest in a half an hour. Now all I have to do is to motivate myself to send in my entry.
Question: Are we required to handwrite everything on our postcards, including the addresses, or can we type address labels and stick them on, say, 100 postcards?
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Jan 25, 2006 4:22:04 PM
Sometimes I write out my cards and other times I use labels. I've never seen a rule against using labels.
Their main rule is that multiple entries be mailed separately, as opposed to placing 100 cards in one big envelope.
Posted by: Toni | Jan 25, 2006 9:24:34 PM
As always, it's exhilarating to know that the mental labor that went into my contest entry is pitted against the cleverness of people who submit multiple, nay, 100 duplicate entries, turning it instead into a contest of who risks the most postage and stationery money - basically lottery tickets.
The GAMES online contests should be a field day for such people, as they try to outdo each other with hundreds, thousands, or perhaps millions of spammed email entries.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 26, 2006 9:38:29 AM
Games and GWOP could always, at any time, institute a "one entry per person or household" rule for their contests. Until then, there's nothing wrong with submitting multiple entries. That's just part of the competition.
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Jan 26, 2006 11:45:24 AM
I always considered the intent of multiple entries to allow you to submit different answers - in case you "weren't sure" or you revised your original answer or you had multiple ideas (as when submitting captions for cartoons, etc.)
It is true that as the rules are now that you can just send multiple copies of the right answer, but I really wouldn't call it "part of the competition"...
Posted by: Paula | Jan 26, 2006 1:33:02 PM
I think of the multiple entries question as a meta-competition, although for the contests that involve guessing the average answer or something along that line, it's a meta-contest to begin with. I usually only submit multiple entries when they differ in some way and that's not very often.
My five minutes of programming for the Triple Cross contest shows 243 words scoring better than 30 (max is 47 for ???). 6,825 words score 20 or better. But of course, your mileage will vary with the quality of your word list (there are 33,806 total 7-letter words on my list at present). I don't expect programming the rest of the challenge will be very difficult, but I often get surprised.
Posted by: Matt Dickey | Jan 26, 2006 4:46:17 PM
I always assumed that multiple entries were allowed to save them the chore of checking for them, an onerous task if you have thousands of entries. The postage cost and the time required to manufacture them should be sufficient to prevent any one entrant from submitting a ridiculous amount. Even if you get carried away and make 200 postcards and spend $48 postage to send them, you never know if some other fanatic did the same thing, only with 250 cards! And even if you buy yourself an 80% chance, you still might lose. And what if, after all that, your answer is wrong, or not the maximum?
A few times, years back, when I was very confident of my answer and also hopeful that traps I had discovered would waylay much of the competition, I sent in a bunch of entries. I think the most on one puzzle was about 80 of them, $15.20 at the then 19¢ postcard rate. I set up a computer doc to make four copies, 2 x 2 on an 8½ x 11 sheet. Ditto the address side. Made masters and photocopied 20 copies, 2 sides on pastel card stock available at any good art supply store. Quarter each sheet (carefully, as 4¼ is maximum allowable width for USPS postcard rate, so trim one if you get off center) and hand apply stamps (all lick and stick in those days.) I don't recall offhand what the contest was, but I did win a T-shirt for my effort!
No reason to think they need to be handwritten, or different answers. Stuffing the ballot box is allowable in the snail mail contests, with barriers to ridiculous extremes pretty well built in. These days, postage alone on 2084 cards (or 1283 envelopes) exceeds the prize, and some old contests had over 8000 entries! I do think they should limit email entries to one of any answer per email address, thus allowing improved entries, or varied guesses, while limiting identical ones. I assume computers could easily check it however they want to set it up.
I loved it when they came up with the Wish You Were Here contest that had to be entered on an original picture postcard bearing that phrase. Nice way to keep it reasonable.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 26, 2006 10:54:32 PM
I think stuffing the ballot is perfectly fine if the rules allow it and the prize is something of value (like $1000 or a big screen TV). If someone does the risk/benefit analysis and is willing to spend the time and effort on such an endeavor, then I say go for it.
I remember a contest two or three years back where you were given something like twenty multiple choice questions, and you were asked to guess which answers would be most popular among all entries to the contest. The moderators of the contest would then pick all entries that guessed correctly for question 1, and eliminate the rest. They would then pick all entries that guessed correctly (among the remaining entries) for question 2, then repeat for each successive question until question 20, and then randomly choose one of the entries that made it all the way to the end for the grand prize and for the t-shirts. The winner had flooded the magazine with something like 200 identical answers. Once the moderators got passed one of the questions, I think question 12 or 13, that entrant's entries were the only ones left. That entrant won the grand prize, and I think was also awarded all of the t-shirts (I could be wrong about the t-shirts). This was one example of multiple identical entries definitely working in his or her favor.
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Jan 27, 2006 3:55:30 AM
I can tell you from experience that if you win the grand prize, they do not also give you the runner-up t-shirts. I was the sole winner of a GWOP contest a few years back, and I submitted 5 entries for the contest. I only received the grand prize (and I am not complaining about that at all).
Five entries is my cap, and I'll only do that if I believe that those multiple entries will give me a double digit percentile chance of winning. Otherwise, I'll submit one entry (two if I have varying answers for, say, a Calculatrivia contest).
Posted by: Jay Winter | Jan 27, 2006 4:58:30 AM
Alan - In a few GAMES contests that aren't of the "judged" type, perhaps including the one you describe, the very essence of the contest invites readers to make multiple submissions. But that's not the case for typical highest-score type skill contests.
Bob - The Pearls of Wisdom contest originally mentioned is a typical GWOP canned-answer contest. You know when you have the correct answer, so that's not an uncertainty or calculated risk holding anyone back from sending multiple entries. I disagree that ballot stuffing is an honorable thing to do for any GAMES contest (except the kind mentioned above). But it doesn't take one entrant submitting "a ridiculous amount" of entries to radically skew winning odds for a contest; it can also happen by even a small group of entrants engaged in a modest stuffing war. Imagine, as is frequently the case, that a GAMES skill contest has about 10 people tying with the best answer. If just 1 or 2 or 3 of those people each decide to improve their chances by buying themselves 9 extra entries, the chances of winning that everyone else has decreases by 50%, 75%, or more.
I don't know what motivates GAMES not to have a no-nonunique-entries-per-address rule for their typical skill contests. I know for a fact the argument that manually culling for duplicates is too time-consuming, is not a good one. 10,000 items can be sorted by a small team of people in a few hours. Determined entrants could use addresses of friends and family, but that would really be a major pain to dissuade such people.
Im rehashing old territory by bringing this topic up again. But frankly, I'm very surprised that some people here, on a forum dedicated to mental gamesmanship, think that cost/benefit and buying entries has anything to do with the ethos of these contests, or that something is ok just because it isn't strictly prohibited. It seems like most of the contests offered even right here on this site accept only unique or first entries. Why can't we play the same way with GAMES contests?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 27, 2006 7:54:08 AM
This is classic game theory (ironically). When I was playing Ultimate Calculatrivia, all I was focused on was solving for X. When I solved for X, and felt quite certain that I was right, the thrill of figuring it out was plenty. In fact, my first thought was that I was the only person who had figured it out, and was pleased with myself. Further reflection, and living with my glory for a few days before submitting, made think that maybe others had indeed found the red herrings and pieced it all together. I'm an ethical guy, but I presumed that other people would submit multiple entries - I know one person who told me he sent in 100..all wrong, by the way. Then my focus was on winning the $1,000 - so I had no choice but to submit multiple entries (10, I believe).
If we all knew that no one was allowed to submit multiples, most reasonable people would probably not try to hatch some system (friends and relatives) to get multiple spots in the hat. But, if any reasonable person had evidence that even one person was doing so, then this 'game theory system' would suggest that over time, equilibrium would happen when most people start to submit multiples through some system. (The theory is the same as many game theories, including the prisoner's dilemma, and oligopoly or cartel market pricing stratgies).
X = 10 7/8
Posted by: Michael | Jan 27, 2006 11:37:40 AM
Re: Multiple GAMES/GWoP entries - Move to Canada where US bound postcards and letters cost $0.89...
Posted by: Warren Fraser | Jan 27, 2006 8:31:41 PM
Michael - But now you've put our beloved puzzle competitions in the same category as prisoners stabbing each other in the back or entities trying to squeeze out the maximal profit. I don't agree. Many things in the world should not be interpreted in the context of that kind of game theory. I say keep being ethical, don't let desire to win these things or concern about what the other guy is doing change what you really want to do. If you agree that buying entries isn't a good way to operate, one good thing we could do is collectively lobby GAMES to impose clearer and stronger rules.
Bottom line for me is that these contests shouldn't be about spending more money than the other person.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 27, 2006 11:03:27 PM
This discussion is always interesting... For me, it strengthens my belief that the only great "fixed-answer" contests are the very difficult ones. Many in GWOP, like Matchagrams and crossword variants, are fun to solve but impossible to enter without fear of the stuffers (or in many word puzzles, fear of the programmers, as we've also debated). Thus two more reasons why I loved A Beautiful Cut, to which even the winning solution is very unlikely to be that of lowest order, which might never be known. Of course, the number of ABC entrants was exceptionally small, so its appeal wasn't very wide.
In case anyone suspects gloating, since I won ABC... I volunteer that in a feat of profound stupidity, I solved Ultimate Calulatrivia but discovered too late that I'd submitted my answer in unacceptable decimal form, ejecting myself from contention. Some men really don't read directions.
X = 10.875, I swear!
Posted by: Kevin | Jan 28, 2006 2:39:46 AM
I remember that contest where only the progressive most popular answer continued to the next step, and I thought of that same strategy. But I also realized that it would only take one other entrant doing the same thing to throw a monkey wrench in the works. Also some questions had 3 or 4 or more choices, not just two, and they were cleverly chosen to make it difficult to second-guess other entrants. I decided that although the strategy could work, and apparently did for the winner, the odds weren't that good. In fact, for all we know there were many other entrants with the same strategy, and perhaps only the luck of coinciding with more singles determined which one won.
I'd prefer a rule of no identical entries from one entrant, but as long as they don't impose that limit, you have to consider all angles when entering. I guess a good contest would be one where it's best answer (like highest score) rather than one right answer, yet not amenable to computer analysis. A worthy challenge for composers.
Just to set the record straight, I've been entering GAMES contests for over 25 years, and have only sent in more than, say, 10 entries maybe half a dozen times. Most have been a single entry, sometimes with an attempt to be the FIRST one they receive, mailing it the day the magazine showed up.
Another type not likely to get too many multiple entries is the scavenger hunts. Wonder if there will be another one of those some day? Now they'll have to be careful not to include too many items you can find on eBay! :-)
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 28, 2006 2:54:22 AM
I just used those as examples, Jim. Game theory pops up everywhere. Also, the Prisoner's Dilemma is pervasive, made famous in interrogation of thieves, but not often really relating to prisoners (parents unwittingly apply to children all the time). Integrity and ethics are (hopefully) inherent among puzzle solvers - and yet so is the desire to win within the rules. I think this is more about human nature and less about surreptitious strategies.
Posted by: Michael | Jan 30, 2006 9:32:08 AM
Well, this is certainly a lively debate. I will usually send in more than 1 answer if I feel it will increase my odds significantly. I mailed in 10 correct answers for the Calculatorture contest. I don't think I've ever sent in more than 10 for any contest.
For contests like the Cartoon Rebuses, I'll usually only send in 1 or 2 entries. I know GAMES will receive thousands of entries so unless I'm prepared to mail 500-600 postcards I won't make a dent in the odds.
I've never considered multiple entries or using computers to be unethical in the contests. As long as the contest creators allow these methods then there is nothing wrong with using them.
I think the magazine has done a good job of varying the contests to give programmers and non-programmers both decent contests that are enjoyable.
I'm currently using a computer to find a decent answer for the Triple Cross contest. Even though I'm using a computer, I'm finding that it's still a lot of manual work as well. It's a challenge to find words that are high qualifiers. Someone earlier said he found a word that scored 47? My best word scores 46 points. I've also had to eliminate some good words when I discovered they weren't listed in Websters. (jacuzzi, pizzazz). I may send in 2-3 identical entries for this one, but I'm also afraid that this is another contest that will be flooded with identical winning entries.
Posted by: Jeannette | Jan 30, 2006 2:48:00 PM
Yeh, I had pizzazz on my list of words... subsequent checking against the print version has shown it to be nothing but an illusion and a snare. I had to throw out about 8 or 10 high scoring words because they were from the Addenda. Seems like every time I put together a solution with a new high score, it uses at least one bogus word. I was up over 200 points with pizzazz!
Posted by: Matt Dickey | Jan 30, 2006 4:59:00 PM
Speaking of Calculatrivia...
It's been too long...
Posted by: Paula | Jan 30, 2006 6:25:18 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to post this question, but this is the place that seems to get most attention recently. So.. Is February 6th too soon to end the "Simple Multiple Choice Quiz"? If it works for everyone, I can have your papers graded, award the prizes and post the results by the eighth.
Posted by: DonV | Jan 31, 2006 10:16:55 AM
Hello, All. Just stumbled across this forum serendipitously. It's nice to see a corner of the Web devoted to discussion of GAMES and WORLD OF PUZZLES.
For those who may not be aware, comments can also be sent directly to the editors at games@kappapublishing.com. Reader feedback is a big part of what shapes the magazines, and it's always nice to share your likes, dislikes, and suggestions; it's the only way to ensure your individual thirsts for puzzles are being satisfied. So type away!
Posted by: Shawn Kennedy | Jan 31, 2006 1:23:10 PM
Calculatorture? I resemble that remark! :-)
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 31, 2006 5:20:25 PM
Because GAMES doesn't limit the number of entries per person or household, sending in multiple entries (identical or not) is a matter for each individual to decide. I usually have only sent in one or two entries. I have won one T-shirt on a random draw, and I sent in only one entry.
I did send in five entries for the "All in the Cards" contest, but they were all different. Did anyone else enter that contest?
Regarding the Triple Cross contest, I expect that all of the prizes will be determined by random draw. I also was wondering what word scored 47 points. I had many words disqualified due to being in the addendum.
Posted by: Laurie | Jan 31, 2006 8:29:48 PM
I'm gathering here that some people's approach to life is that if there isn't a law or rule specifically forbidding doing something, then it's {ok | fair | ethical} to do it, and anyway, talk about ethics is mainly a bunch of hot wind in the face of everyday practical reality. Go for the $$$$$ however, everyone else is. It's just 500 bucks and an insignificant contest.
Am I far off?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 31, 2006 10:18:33 PM
Jim, you seem a bit annoyed, taking this "friendly" discussion a bit too seriously.
True, to some it's "just" $500 but to others, $500 is a lot of money. I'm assuming, whoever enters this contest is doing so with the intention of winning the top prize.
As far as rules and ethics go, GAMES, when it states "multiple entries must be mailed separately" EXPECTS multiple entries, so that makes it ethical to send in as many or as few entries as you wish.
Working on these contests have been fun, but, striving for the top prizes, having discussions here... comparing notes and strategies and rules and such....that's the full enjoyment.
We love this site!
And that's my penny's worth!
Posted by: Toni | Jan 31, 2006 11:51:53 PM
Toni - Another way the phrasing which appears in the rules for many of GAMES' contests - "each entry must be mailed separately" - can be interpreted is that the entries are assumed to be non-identical, and GAMES is cautioning that envelopes won't necessarily be opened to discover multiple, different entries (aligns with the fact that for most scorable contests, GAMES rules require that the score also be written on the envelope backside. They don't want to bother with opening envelopes if they don't have to).
The rules for December's "All in the Cards" and for February's "Creepy Crawlers" don't say anything about multiple entries. What do you conclude with those...does silence give sanction? If so, why didn't they just repeat the "each entry must be mailed separately" line in those rules?
The magazine is all about mental challenges, not about who can best afford to boost their chances of winning by paying the most. There are lotteries enough across the continent for that. And I wouldn't be surprised if many GAMES readers are low-income, kids, or seniors - why disadvantage that sector?
If GAMES made a statement on this which proved my belief about their intentions wrong, I'd be amazed and disappointed.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 1, 2006 1:32:43 AM
I realize that my statement regarding multiple entries wasn't clear.
I can't make ethical decisions for other people.
If people find loopholes in rules that make contests unfair, the rules should be changed.
I would like to see the following changes to the GAMES contest rules:
Only 1 entry per household will count for each contest
One T-shirt per household per year
One grand prize per household per year
Posted by: Laurie | Feb 1, 2006 7:51:50 AM
Jim....Since there seems to be several different opinions and theories on GAMES' instructions, maybe it's time for GAMES to clarify them.
Laurie makes some good suggestions. Limited winnings would give non-winners the chance they would not otherwise have had, and also would increase the winning advantage to the groups you mentioned(low-income, kids, and seniors). And finally, would help the non-programmers who ordinarily have to compete against the high-scoring programmers!
As for Dec. and Feb. contest rules: the exclusion could have been an oversight. Look at March's incomplete instructions, for example.
So the solution, it seems, is to change or fine-point the rules.
Posted by: Toni | Feb 1, 2006 12:01:38 PM
I'm half-facetious here, but in the same vein that there are lotteries to boost people's chances of winning things, there are also social programs to help people who are on fixed incomes. I don't think that the amount of money you make (or don't make) should have anything to do with this discussion - for even if that was an issue, the most destitute person on the planet can afford two stamps if s/he can afford one...and that's one more than the millionaire who mails only a single entry. I'd welcome the rules to be changed, but the ethics of multiple GAMES entries disadvantaging the poor is a bizarre tangent.
Posted by: Michael | Feb 1, 2006 3:35:46 PM
Jim>Another way the phrasing which appears in the rules for many of GAMES' contests - "each entry must be mailed separately" - can be interpreted is that the entries are assumed to be non-identical
I don't think that phrase implies in any way that the entries are non-identical.
Anyway the new online contest is posted. Its not too tough, but the last one had me thinking a while...
But: only one entry per email address :)
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Feb 1, 2006 3:36:57 PM
Michael - Let's not go into the amount of cash social programs give to the poor to blow on contest entries. Some people earlier were talking about submitting 100 entries to influence contest outcomes...that's about $50. That amount isn't available to everyone. An extra $10 is hard for some people. My point is that disposable income shouldn't matter, period, for our fun little mental gamesmanship.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 1, 2006 6:50:23 PM
Well, personally I don't believe it's unethical to send in multiple identical entries and I think it's bizarre to even think that it is unethical. Until GAMES modifies their rules to disallow the multiple entries, I have to assume that others will be sending them and so I must also in order to compete.
I consider myself a very ethical person. I'm not trying to bypass the rules or even do something shady.
On the other hand, if GAMES modifies the rules to "1 entry per person" and I send in an entry under my name, my mom's name, my dad's name, my neighbor's name, my work address, my school address, my sister's home and work addresses, my brother's college address.....etc, that would be unethical since I'm obviously trying to skirt the rules and gain an unfair advantage.
I would love to see the rules changed to "1 per household" for high skill contests like calculatorture and alphabetorture (Yes, Bob, you deserve the moniker). However, even if they do, I guarantee that some contestants will try the trick I described above. Contests like Cartoon Rebuses and probably the current Triple Cross don't need the rule since they will receive 1000s of correct entries and sending in multiples won't really increase your odds significantly.
Posted by: Jeannette | Feb 2, 2006 8:12:29 AM
I don't think its unethical to send in more than one entry. But still, I send in only one entry per contest. I believe if it was meant to be, then I'll win. Well...er...I guess it has never been meant to be.
Posted by: Ross | Feb 2, 2006 5:09:52 PM
Ross...one day you will surely win! I never thought i would, but in 2000 and again in 2002, i won the thou solving two Patrick Berry puzzles - "From Pillar To Post" and "T Squares". And both were solved without the use of a computer AND but one entry submitted per contest!
Since then i have quite often submitted more than one entry per contest. However, with a three - going on four - year drought, i think i might return to the 'one per' to increase my odds!
Posted by: Warren Fraser | Feb 2, 2006 9:40:29 PM
Has anyone heard from GAMES about the "Acorn and Tree" contest?
I wonder if they're still sorting through the thousands (?) of entries, since it was purely a guessing game.
Posted by: Toni | Feb 2, 2006 10:06:51 PM
I'm sure if they didn't restrict to one entry per mailing, they would be receiving computer paper boxes with ten reams of entries enclosed! I think that is the only reason, and they do not care if multiple entries are identical or different, as long as they are mailed separately. And yes, obviously they need to have the final answer on the outside, so they only need to open envelopes for final confirmation, after all sorting and drawing has been done.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Feb 3, 2006 12:38:25 AM
And I wonder what those people who sent in 50 entries to T-squares would think if they knew someone who just sent in one entry was the winner. See? One is all you need. Congrats, Warren.
Posted by: Ross | Feb 5, 2006 12:32:28 PM
GAMES Online Contest #5 = Easiest thing I've ever done.
Posted by: Ben | Feb 6, 2006 3:32:01 PM
Ross, if the correct entry pool consisted of 4 people each with 50 entries and 400 people with 1 entry, there are 2 chances out of 3 that the winner drawn will be one of the singles, rather than the multiples. Nevertheless, each INDIVIDUAL multiple entrant has 1 chance in 12 of winning, while each single has only a 1 in 600 chance!
Don't confuse the above with, say, buying lottery tickets, when odds are tens of millions to one. Buying one ticket for the pleasure of knowing your chances are greater than zero is one thing, but people who spend $20 or $50 or $300 for fistfuls of tickets are deluded. Yeah, yeah, 20 chances out of 100 million is 20 times as good as 1 chance out of 100 million, but both are basically ZERO, while the extra $100 bill you threw away was very real. I still have more fingers on my two hands than the number of times I have bought a lottery ticket. (Knowing math takes the fun out of it.)
As I've said, I rarely send more than one entry to GAMES contests these days, but the times I would be tempted to attempt a blitz would be if I cracked a particularly difficult one, filled with subtle traps and seemingly good wrong answers / red herrings, and had a fair degree of confidence both that many would be waylaid or give up and also that I had the correct answer myself. even this can be a humbling experience, however, when the results show a surprisingly large number of correct answers received.
I still remember the First GAMES Scavenger Hunt, some 25 years ago, or more, in which entrants were challenged to find 30 really tough items, package them up and send them in. This was long before the internet and Google, so finding stuff like an ORIGINAL printed calendar page showing a full moon on Friday the 13th (there had been about 5 in the previous century, none very recent) took a fair amount of research just to know where to start looking. They gave SIX MONTHS to the deadline, and boldly stated they were sure NOBODY would get all 30! I managed to get all 30 with just a week to spare, and got it mailed with confident hope! To my surprise and theirs, they received over 800 sets of all 30 items, including one that arrived TEN DAYS after the magazine hit the stands!
A few years back I sent GAMES some suggestions for scavenger hunt items. Trouble is, now some of them can easily be found on eBay! :-)
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Feb 6, 2006 7:47:16 PM
I remember the scavenger hunt contests. They looked like a lot of fun to do. However, I was only a kid at the time with absolutely no means of finding even 5-10 of those items, let alone all 30.
I would really love to see a return of the scavenger hunt. In today's world the challenge would be to come up with 30 items that either cannot be easily found on e-bay and cannot be easily forged.
I also would like items that are found by the folks that work the hardest to obtain them, not the ones who are the richest.
Hey! I got a good idea for a contest. GAMES should hold a contest to come up with good scavenger hunt items. The best 30 ideas receive t-shirts and the winning items are presented in a future Scavenger Hunt contest.
Posted by: Jeannette | Feb 7, 2006 10:51:01 AM
Conversely, I think that a contest like that might create a niche market for some E-bayers. I can't see a scenario where a list of Scavenger Hunt items would not eventually become available on an auction site (even with 'GAMES Magazine contest item' listed in the description).
You could, however, combine a (calcula)trivia contest and a scavenger hunt. The answers are the items that you must send it. Leave it to the puzzle creator to define the obscurity of the items.
Posted by: Jay Winter | Feb 7, 2006 1:00:59 PM
Or, perhaps you would have to obtain items in order to get the necessary information to make the calculations...
x = # of T's found on the wrapper of the original Nut Goodie candy bar times the # of times the Empire State Building is shown in the original King Kong movie.
Posted by: Paula | Feb 7, 2006 1:24:44 PM
Jay...clever idea for a contest! Contestants would have to do some math work to know what to look for. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun. It would be interesting to find out how many could go the whole route.
A suggestion for the contest name.. "Calculate the Hunt"...or "A Calculating Scavenger".
Now it's up to Adam Fromm, or Bob Lodge, or (?) to sharpen the pencils and dust off the reference books, and make this puzzle a reality!
We believe in you guys!!
Posted by: Toni | Feb 7, 2006 1:29:07 PM
> Programmers have an advantage in "word-list"
> contests. I stay away from them ever since a
> contestant had won with a 900-word list
> (compared to my 60).
Would that happen to have been Word Decathlon (Word Olympics?) back in 1996 or so?
I came in second on that contest because of a difference of 2 words (out of 465) between myself and the winner. I was really pissed off that I came in second because myself and the winner had IDENTICAL entries except for those two words. One of the words, "interstates" (yes, I still remember it 10 years later), was invalid because Web3 listed it as only an adjective, and thus a plural was invalid. Arg! I wrote a letter to Games, but that did no good and never even got a reply back from them. I couldn't believe that they didn't even verify that the winning entry was legal, or at least check the differences in our two entries.
And yes, I used a computer. But don't think that was made it so easy. I kept track of my time, and if I remember correctly, I spent about 40 hours on programming and optimizing (mostly the latter part), about 200 hours verifying all the words (which led to more iterations as each word was eliminated), and nearly 3 months of computer time. Yes, I was obsessed. But it was fun nonetheless. Yet I'm still pissed off to have lost to an invalid entry.
I've been entering Games contests for about 12 years, and have never won, but have about 7 T-shirts.
They go back and forth on the word list contests. Some are trivial using a computer, but some, like Word Decathlon, ABC, Cell Mates, and even Triple Cross, are daunting even with a computer. The "problem space" is just so large that it takes a long time to do an exhaustive search for the best solution.
My favorite contest ever didn't involve a computer at all. It was about 4 or 5 years back and involved all sorts of really hard trivia, and I seem to recall that the answer was President Garfield or somesuch. There was some really nice subtlety in it, though, were one of the trivia questions could have been Garfield or McKinley or something, and if you chose the wrong one, you'd still end up getting a good-looking answer at the end.
I also liked the one where they had each letter of the alphabet made up from the letter from some logo. I spent probably 40 hours over 3 months working on that one. The last 5 or so were really hard. But I remember finding them. One was from the Round Rock baseball team, another from some women's basketball team, and the last was from KidPix software.
Posted by: Taed | Feb 7, 2006 4:22:07 PM
Hmmm, the really fun part would be creating a red herring leading to something a bit difficult to find, just enough to seem plausible, while obscuring the real item that is simple to locate! Hee hee!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Feb 7, 2006 4:23:33 PM
Taed, The contest I referred to was not that long ago; maybe four or five years ago, at the most. I don't recall the name of it.
Bob, that sounds like a(tee-hee)fun contest to solve. I knew I could count on you for a great idea!!
Have you started an outline yet...hmmm?
Posted by: Toni | Feb 7, 2006 8:07:30 PM
Taed: I agree GAMES screwed you on the INTERSTATES ruling. It's not in the main body of my printing, nor even the Addenda of that printing, though it is on the CD version, which contains an accumulation of all the Addenda, sadly merged into the main body. But that doesn't mean anything.
There are some rare cases of words appearing in the main body of one printing of Web3, but not in other printings, and this has been a factor in at least one GAMES contest (which involved Kyle Corbin of Raleigh, NC I think), so that could be an explanation, but unlikely.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 7, 2006 8:27:06 PM
Taed: That Round Rock/Sam Bass question was from
Adam Fromm's May 2001 'Alphabetrivia'...
Posted by: warren fraser | Feb 7, 2006 10:02:14 PM
April GAMES hit my mailbox today. A scan of the contest pages is at:
http://files.j--a.net/GAMES/GAMES_contests_4-06.pdf
There's also a Hidden Contest.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 7, 2006 10:15:55 PM
Jim, thanks for the advance look at GAMES' April contest!
BTW, readers, the results for "Acorn and Tree" is also on the April contest page. I was surprised at the total number of entries for that contest....only 378! I thought there'd be thousands!
Posted by: Toni | Feb 8, 2006 7:40:36 AM
My calculation for Solitaire Poker says there are 27,361,774,516,435,859,275,776,000,000 permutations to sort through in a brute force method, though that's quickly reduced a little by ignoring rotations and reflections. I'm curious what people, especially Mark M., think how computery this one is.
On a different topic, the typical sentence "You may enter more than once, but each entry must be mailed separately" is absent from the rules for this contest; they say "Mail your entry to...". The results for Acorn and Tree seem to give a little insight: "Three different contestants (one of whom submitted three entries, which all counted in determining the scoring average but could only win one prize) tied for highest with 80 points...", but the winner was determined on tiebreak, so no random draw had to be done and GAMES' methodology for it therefore isn't mentioned.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 8, 2006 9:32:14 AM
I finally have my subscription back on track -- (word to the wise: if you're a winner of a GAMES online contest, be certain to check what date your free subscription begins, especially if you already have a currently-active one.) I just got the April issue last night.
I haven't found it yet (or even tried), but has anyone gotten close to finding the Hidden Contest? I'm surprised that no one has posted a successful discovery and that the entry is (entries are) already in the mail!
Posted by: Sean F | Feb 8, 2006 11:21:50 AM
The April issue is out already, that was fast. I haven't received my copy yet but since I just got March's issue a couple of weeks ago, I don't expect April's too soon.
Hi Sean,... you're right to be aware of the start date of your winning subscription so that it starts after your paid subscription ends. Otherwise, if they overlap you don't get the benefit of the free subscription .
I won a subscription also, but I avoided messing up my GAMES subscription by picking a magazine that I'm not getting. It is easier than dealing with overlaps, or delivery arrangements, or missed issues.
Posted by: Toni | Feb 8, 2006 1:48:09 PM
I was wrong in my Triple Cross assessment of puzzle size for computerization. I worked on it yesterday, and was able to get a program that ran the entire problem space brute force on my 500,000 word dictionary in only 7 hours on my 3 GHz Pentium IV. (I think I did some clever optimizations, so I'd be curious at other people's run times.) I'm only on my second iteration of weeding out invalid words, but I suspect that I'll end up with a valid score over 200. (If anyone wants to share their highest valid score (not solution, just score) with me, I'll share mine when I'm done in the next day or two.)
They better reject all of those entries with "pizzazz" in them! :-)
I had written to them a few times about the problems with different versions of Web3 over the years, not just the online versus printed versions (which they recently corrected), but for them to specify a specific printing of Web3, namely the one that they have at their office.
For example, in my printing of Web3 (1969 or so), "astrocompass" is listed with the "-s" plural. In recent printings, they corrected that to "-es". So, is "astrocompasss" valid? My Web3 says yes. Is "astrocompasses" valid? My Web3 says no. So, if I were put in a situation where that word came up, which plural form should I use? I'd need to know which printing that they had in order to figure out the validity of the word, but they've never specified that.
Then there's weirdnesses in the Web3 "dictionary rules", such as the inflections of "toney" (namely are they the same or different from "tony", of which it's a variant).
If they would just say "For a word to be valid ... it must be in Web3, the 1997 printing" or whatever, it would clear up so much confusion for all of us.
I chat with Kyle Corbin sometimes as well; he has always beaten me, with the exception of Word Decathlon. We approach the puzzles differently, though. I always want to make it 100% computerized because I'm a professional programmer and have no tolerance for doing things manually like that. He usually does the "thinking" by hand, but then uses the computer as a helper to find interesting words to use or to do subsets of the puzzle.
Posted by: Taed | Feb 8, 2006 1:49:57 PM
The online Web3 (2002)lists "pizzazz" as a valid word (with 'pizazz' and 'pazazz' as varient spelling forms of the word).
Your arguement regarding dictionaries is a valid one. It's all very confusing.
Wouldn't you think an 'unabridged' dictionary should include a fairly common word like 'pizzazz', with various spellings.?
Posted by: Toni | Feb 8, 2006 2:30:46 PM
Taed on Triple Cross> was able to get a program that ran the entire problem space brute force on my 500,000 word dictionary in only 7 hours.
Right, its not too hard to do a (reasonably) complete search on that one. I added some constraints to the words I was adding – if I was very strict it found the high score in only a few minutes. I ran it overnight including many more words to make sure, but had no improvement on the score. I won't bother sending in an entry for this one because I didn't feel like I did enough work in programming it :)
Jim> My calculation for Solitaire Poker says there are 27,361,774,516,435,859,275,776,000,000 permutations to sort through in a brute force method...I'm curious what people, especially Mark M., think how computery this one is.
This one has far more combinations than Triple Cross and we can't really do a brute force. We could do some kind of branch and bound and set minimum scores that cut off most of the combinations. I'm also going to try simulated annealing to optimize the arrangement of each set of cards. I'll probably send in an entry on this one.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Feb 8, 2006 7:06:06 PM
You have to remember that Web3 originally came out in September 1961. The dictionary at that point was functionally "frozen". All new words were added only to the Addenda, not to the main body of the dictionary.
I found this for the etymology of "pizzazz": 1930s: thought to have been coined by Diana Vreeland (c.1903-89), US fashion editor.
Thus, it's not a big surprise that it didn't make the cut for 1961, but is surely in the Addenda by now (which is why it's in the online version).
It would be useful (for us anyway, no one else would care) if the online version said whether it was an Addenda word.
And "unabridged" just means "uncut from the original", not "contains every word in the world". I don't think that there is an "abbridged" version on Web3, however.
Posted by: Taed | Feb 8, 2006 7:18:35 PM
Oh no, not the dreaded simulated annealing. I will stick with trial and error. I had a computer game of solitaire poker, so I know what makes a good score.
Posted by: Laurie | Feb 8, 2006 7:23:04 PM
Where do you find a red herring? Maybe its with the rainbow trout? Maybe e-bay? I vote for Bob to make the next hidden contest. Just when you thought you found it...aaaargh!
Posted by: Ross | Feb 8, 2006 7:37:41 PM
Mark, if you already got a valid score for Triple Cross, then why not send it in anyway? Or is it not even "respectable" in your opinion? If it's over 190 or so, I'd recommend that you send it in; the top scores will probably cut off around there.
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | Feb 8, 2006 9:58:57 PM
Simulated annealing can be very dangerous. I actually did some prison time in Indiana for attempting it.
Posted by: DonV | Feb 9, 2006 12:04:44 AM
Here's a very good description of simulated annealing (this actually never came up my computer science classes, though I'd heard the term before, so I had to look it up).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | Feb 9, 2006 9:03:51 AM
I was wondering...
About how many words are in Webster's 3rd?...
Posted by: Jim from Minnesota | Feb 9, 2006 3:16:23 PM
The preface of my 1961 edition of Web3 says that it "has a vocabulary of over 450,000 words". That doesn't include plurals and other inflections. My online word list has 1.2 million words (including all inflections), but I didn't derive that from Web3 in any way.
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | Feb 9, 2006 5:24:35 PM
I found the April hidden contest (for once). I stumbled on it. (No , that's not a clue.) I won't say everyone will get it...I already got in trouble for that a while ago. It's nicely hidden, but not super complicated. Good luck!
Posted by: Scott | Feb 10, 2006 2:57:48 PM
Today, I received a letter that I won a T-shirt in the "All in the Cards" contest. I also received my April issue. I'll start looking for the hidden contest.
Posted by: Laurie | Feb 10, 2006 4:18:53 PM
>has anyone gotten close to finding the Hidden Contest?
Got it today :)
>Mark, if you already got a valid score for Triple Cross, then why not send it in anyway?
Just my point of view, but if I solve a contest by easily programming a complete search and definitely finding the top answer, I don't want to send it in. I don't want to take away from the chances of people who spent time manually solving it. For difficult contests to program where I have to spend time designing search strategies and I am not guaranteed to find the optimal solution, then I do want to send in my result for competition. I did enter A Beautiful Cut and probably will enter Solitaire Poker.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Feb 11, 2006 9:03:33 PM
Well, I finally got a Triple Cross over 200 made up of all legal words. That was my goal, so I'm basically done except for some minor improvements...
Solitaire Poker, ho!
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | Feb 12, 2006 9:44:03 AM
Taed...A week ago I was thrilled when I reached a score of 200. Then a day or two later I noticed a few adjustments I could make to get my score over the 200 mark.
That's where I am now, over 200, and working to increase it even further.
Posted by: Toni | Feb 12, 2006 10:42:59 AM
Before I start on Poker, I had to check out the Sticky Math problem (in the answers, GAMES states that the author believes it is not possible to create a puzzle with 9 cells containing 1-9). I wrote a program to exhaustively check every possible configuration of adjacent cells. It found 4 configurations for 8 cells containing 1-8 including the puzzle #6. It found no configurations for 9 cells, so I guess GAMES is safe with their T-shirt there.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Feb 12, 2006 4:07:56 PM
Yay -- All my years playing a version of Poker Solitaire on my old Macintosh will finally pay off! It's nice to see they found a way to make a challenging contest out of it.
That said, I solved it by hand yesterday, and I believe I can prove that I've got the maximal solution. Take that, programmers! :)
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 12, 2006 6:55:06 PM
Jim> My calculation for Solitaire Poker says there are
Jim> 27,361,774,516,435,859,275,776,000,000
Jim> permutations to sort through
I got a different number which is 5 times larger:
25! (for the permutations)
* 9 (for the number of 5x5 grids from the 7x7)
* 25 * 25 * 25 (for the 3 swapped-in cards)
/ 2 (horizontal symmetry)
/ 2 (vertical symmetry)
/ 4 (rotations)
= 136,328,994,521,463,744,000,000,000,000
But whoever is right, the point is that it isn't possible to solve it via brute-force.
I suspect that this is the largest puzzle space that they've had as a contest, but the ABC cutouts might have been larger (I didn't work on that one and I'm not sure how to even compute it).
Posted by: Taed | Feb 13, 2006 1:02:15 PM
I get yet another number for possible permutations.
= 21 (combinations of eliminated rows)
* 21 (combs of eliminated columns)
* 25! (permutations of 25 cards in a 5 x 5 array)
/ 8 (perms eliminated due to symmetry)
* 76 (for each perm, 1 original perm + 25 new perms for each of three new cards)
21 * 21 * 25! / 8 * 76
=64,984,214,476,535,165,779,968,000,000 final 5x5 arrays
Can someone tell me if I'm right?
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Feb 13, 2006 7:46:24 PM
I wasn't dividing by 8 to eliminate symmetry, on purpose - trying to get the full count. But I now think Alan's calculation is correct, after being challenged to look at it some more. Nice mini-puzzle in this contest.
Full count would be 519,873,715,812,281,326,239,744,000,000.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 13, 2006 10:14:30 PM
Assuming 12 Straight Flushes were attainable, then the highest score possible would be 600. But since I believe a score that high is unlikely, due to the card arrangements and the elimination of rows, does a score of 300 - 400 sound more reasonable?
Is there anyone who believes that a score in the 500's is possible?
I'd like to know a score to work towards if I should attempt this puzzle.
Posted by: Toni | Feb 13, 2006 10:15:46 PM
Toni-- If you took a complete deck, and could array any 25 cards, I believe the highest possible score is only 389; straight flushes of different suits can't cross, so you can only have 5 of them. The contest's constraints lead to a solution much lower.
(Anyone concur that unconstrained max=389?)
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 14, 2006 12:46:16 AM
I love the discussion, but I'm not sure if we should be tipping each other off on a live contest. Perhaps this could go 'off-line' until after the deadline.
Posted by: Michael | Feb 14, 2006 6:27:26 AM
Thanks Kevin, that's helpful.
Michael, what's the difference if a number is mentioned or not? We still have to show proof.
Which rows and columns to eliminate, how to arrange the remaining cards in order to achieve that score of say, 389,is the secret that should NOT be mentioned here. Afterall, that is the challenge of this contest.
Personally, I like to have a goal to work towards, like taking a math test and trying to get a score of 100 or more!
Posted by: Toni | Feb 14, 2006 10:12:17 AM
From Kevin: That said, I solved it by hand yesterday, and I believe I can prove that I've got the maximal solution. Take that, programmers! :)
As a mathematician the word PROVE makes my gears turn...Hmmm...
Posted by: Paula | Feb 14, 2006 11:02:03 AM
I'm fine with the discussion to date I think...I'd just be afraid that it might inadvertantly slip to greater hints, given that someone already said that certain combinations are not possible. The fact that straight flushes cannot cross each other is tacit, yet is a hint of sorts.
I'm pretty sure we have had this loose conversation before about another contest, and the moderator asked that we not discuss basic strategies or approaches until after the contest closes. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited.
Posted by: Michael | Feb 14, 2006 1:25:48 PM
I agree, Michael: we shouldn't discuss anything more, to avoid hinting. Just to be clear: my comment about 389 referred to free-reign with a complete deck, a theoretical max in any Poker Solitaire game, a fact that doesn't really help in this contest (and which I expect can be found on websites about the game).
Paula, I'll certainly keep my proof to myself till the deadline passes -- just in case foot needs to go in mouth. :)
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 14, 2006 2:38:27 PM
I received the following response from Wayne Schmittberger, the chief editor at GAMES, on the topic of duplicate contest submissions. Based on what he says, their policy seems to be entirely pragmatic. I haven't yet rebutted his points - the policy is not at all clear, screening duplicates is easily done (it just looks formidable), and there are better alternatives to "if you can't beat 'em, support 'em".
So as promised I am amazed and disappointed, and in the future I'll put more of my contestical energy into other venues, like the online PQRST contests, which treat contestants' brainwork equally. It seems that anytime money is involved, someone has a scam.
---
From: Wayne Schmittberger
The way Games contest random draws have always worked is that each (correct or high-scoring) entry has an equal chance, so sending in multiple duplicate entries does increase the chance of winning. The way our rules are written, I think this is implied.
It would not be practical for us to screen out duplicates, especially when there are a large number of entries. If we did screen them out, then we would not be able to prevent people from achieving a similar result by entering under the names of various family members and friends.
Wayne Schmittberger
> Hi,
>
> I participate in a blog which discusses GAMES' contests. One issue
> which comes up repeatedly is the resolution of ties in scored skill
> contests (as opposed to creative, judged contests).
>
> In particular, there are people who believe that GAMES permits
> contestants to mail in identical contest entries under the same name and address.
> Some people do this in the hopes that if there is a tie, and they
> submit, for example, 100 identical entries which have the high score,
> those 100 entries will all count and their chances of winning in the
> random draw will be multiplied by that many times. The phrasing which
> inconsistently appears in the rules for some of the skill contests -
> "You may enter more than once, but each entry must be mailed
> separately" - bolsters their interpretation of the submission rules,
> they argue. They also claim that the magazine staff would be too
> overtaxed to sort high-scoring entries and weed out duplicates.
>
> Other people believe that GAMES weeds out duplicate high-score entries
> from the same person before conducting the random draw - and if GAMES
> doesn't, it should. Their argument is that GAMES skill contests are
> just that - mental challenges for the readers - and favoring those
> with more money to gamble on postage, and the lottery ethos, are
> inconsistent with the magazine's celebration of recreational gaming
> (not in the Vegas sense of "gaming") and mental challenge. Why
> conduct brain game contests and then allow the winner to be decided by
> gutsiness and $$$? They also argue that the "each entry must be
> mailed separately" line appears very inconsistently in the skill
> contests, that that line doesn't imply that duplicate entries will
> count, and that it is actually not that much work to sort and weed out
> duplicate entries that may number even in the thousands (and can provide a simple method to do so).
>
> It is understood that a small number of GAMES contests, by nature, use
> data from all entries, usually in the form of averages, and encourage
> multiple entries so that readers may attempt to sway the results if
> they want to, and this fact is not in question. The most recent
> example is "The Acorn and the Tree". But in the April contest results
> for Acorn and Tree, the issue of resolving ties is touched upon but
> still not made clear. What if all three contestants had also
> submitted the winning tiebreak score of 20, including the contest who submitted three entries?
> Would the random draw for winner have used all three entries from that
> one contestant, multiplying their chances of winning three times
> compared to the other finalists, because this one person spent an
> extra buck or so on postage and stationery?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Miller
---
Posted by: Jim Miller | Feb 23, 2006 6:00:46 AM
I have not found the Hidden Contest yet. Would anyone like to give me a hint? Please e-mail me. Mahalo.
Posted by: Maui Hawaii | Feb 25, 2006 12:32:38 AM
You're amongst friends here, 5-0, and I've only been hanging out a few months myself, but the sentiment tends to run pretty heavily against hints.
Posted by: Jeff R. in San Diego | Feb 27, 2006 3:49:43 PM
Jeff R.:
Yah your right but I have recieved e-mail hints from here before, so as I would not go crazy til they printed the magazine. Would you have any hints for me? E-mail me.
Mahalo.
Posted by: Maui Hawaii | Mar 1, 2006 5:06:28 PM
The contest for the May issue is to develop a game using a solved or unsolved Soduko board. (And in the pencilwise section, there's a Soduko puzzle within a crossword). But this is just a brief interruption from the excitement of March Madness. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Posted by: ross | Mar 12, 2006 8:28:09 AM
New GWoP arrived on Thursday. Contest is a gridless-plus crosswod style puzzle. Sure to be a challenge!
But I'm sure March Madness will distract me too much anyway!
Posted by: Paula | Mar 12, 2006 4:18:06 PM
CONGRATULATIONS to Jim from Minnesota!
although his name isn't listed as the winner in the December GAMES contest, I suspect he will be sharing in the prize.
Four of the winners were Lessard's from Bloomington! Now in perusing this site, I see that Jim has been silent when it comes to voicing opinion about multiple entries.
I don't know if all of the Lessard entries were identical or not. I have said before that I am not against multiple entries that are unique, in case you are unsure of your answer. By the rules, identical entries are legal and some of you think they are okay (to better your chances)I don't think they are in the "spirit" of the contest. I only hope that Jim didn't submit identical entries under different names, allowing him to win multiple prizes for one solution. In my opinion that would be dishonest.
So Jim - with plenty of T-Shirts on hand - any chances you'll be hosting a contest soon?
Posted by: Paula | Mar 19, 2006 2:37:16 PM
Hidden Contest - Found!
After posting my April 2006 Hidden Contest inquiry on Feb. 8th, I really hadn't made any honest attempt at finding it until last night. Amidst the madness, both the real tourney and our home-cooked one, I decided to take a glance through the magazine to see if I could find anything suspicious. There's only one thing I can say both cryptic and helpful: having some familiarity with the magazine and its puzzles will be to your advantage. Good luck!
Posted by: Sean F | Mar 20, 2006 5:53:51 AM
Sigh... I finally sent in my two highest-scoring Triple Cross answers. I had actually found both on my first day of working on the contest, but I kept working on it thinking that I'd find some better words and solutions along the way. But, alas, no.
And I got the same highest score as Kyle Corbin, so I suspect that there may not be a higher score possible.
In other news, I posted my first submission at http://www.gullible.info/ today, with more to come tomorrow and next week...
Posted by: Taed | Mar 20, 2006 12:45:32 PM
I just solved the GWOP "Bar None" contest. It wasn't as difficult as I thought it would be, but it was challenging enough.
Posted by: Alan Lemm | Mar 21, 2006 5:38:10 PM
Now that the Triple Cross III deadline has passed, just how well did everyone do?
I got 212, and I suspect that other people did as well... I found in on the first day of my working the puzzle. I spent another 6 or so weeks on the puzzle and never improved my score...
jabbing / zigzags / wriggly
jazzbow / buzzwig / gypsyfy
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | Apr 3, 2006 9:21:46 PM
I seem to have the same story as Taed. My high score was 212, with the exact same words...imagine that. I also found it quite early, and spent a lot of time trying in vain to improve it.
Posted by: Brent | Apr 3, 2006 9:31:52 PM
My score was 212 also. I spent a few days on the contest, but much of my time was spent looking up words in the unabridged dictionary.
Posted by: Laurie | Apr 4, 2006 6:51:41 AM
Yep, 212 here too.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Apr 4, 2006 8:17:27 AM
I didn't try this contest, and I'm almost glad I didn't knowing that all of you are arriving at the same answer. Nonetheless, good luck to each of you with the final drawing.
Posted by: Sean F | Apr 4, 2006 8:26:59 AM
Games Online Contest #6 is up at http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/contest6.html
Similar to Contest #2 - this one shows details from 15 game boards for which you must identify the games. Deadline 6/1/06.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 15, 2006 3:03:40 PM
My April issue got waterlogged & tossed out. I figured out the hidden contest before that & know that May 1 is the deadline. Can someone help me out with the address??
This will teach me to procrastinate...
Posted by: Fies | Apr 18, 2006 9:29:56 PM
GAMES Hidden Contest
P.O. Box 184
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Good luck, Fies!
Posted by: Sean F | Apr 19, 2006 5:46:02 AM
Thanks, Sean! Hope you found it too.
Posted by: Fies | Apr 19, 2006 11:08:04 PM
The July (!) issue is out with a contest to construct a word search grid with all 50 states in the smallest rectangle possible. ("Winners must redeem prizes by January 31, 2007." Wonder what that's all about.)
They got 2,311 correct entries in February's Creepy Crawlers contest, an easy cryptogram.
Cover is neither a puzzle nor a game, depicting a miniature circus which is the subject of a 6-page feature inside.
Posted by: Jeff in San Diego | Apr 20, 2006 1:22:51 AM
I think it was the July/August 1980 issue which had a similar contest - a standard bounded stuffer, packing as many states as possible into a 15x15 grid. It was called "United States".
Also from 80 or 81 there was an issue with a picture of a miniature circus on the cover, or inside front cover, I can't remember which. I wonder if this is coincidence.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 20, 2006 9:45:40 AM
Jeff, I assume "word search grid" means that state names are allowed to go in all 8 directions, and that adjacent letters don't necessarily have to form part of a state name? Are isolated islands of states allowed in the grid?
Also, what are the official winning criteria and tiebreak criteria? This contest sounds like a nice complex problem. Thanks.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 21, 2006 1:18:41 AM
You're right. I remember giving up on that States Word-Search contest back in the 80's after trying for a while. But those were my younger puzzling years. I don't remember the miniature circus though.
Posted by: Ross | Apr 21, 2006 10:12:47 AM
The more I think about it, I think it was an illustration of a miniature theatre stage, not a circus.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 21, 2006 12:39:34 PM
Yeah, Jim, if you haven't seen the issue yet, it is all eight directions. I don't have it here with me, but I believe there's not much to the winning criteria. You're supposed to multiply the # of letters across in your word-search grid by the letters down to derive the "area," I guess, putting that number in a prominent place on the entry as an initial screen.
I don't know anything about programming, but was wondering whether this will turn out to be one of those contests that benefits from a computer-assisted solution.
In any event, it also seems to me that GAMES is looking to its readers for more and more puzzle ideas. The Sudoku thing last month, the earlier contest to develop a hidden contest, and now this.
Posted by: Jeff R. in San Diego | Apr 21, 2006 4:38:41 PM
Actually the instructions say:
"each word may run horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, either forward or backward -- six possible directions in all." They even repeat "the usual six directions" later.
Don't ask me where they get SIX, sheesh...
It looks like it will be computationally difficult, so computer solutions are possible but its not possible to do any kind of exhaustive search, optimal solutions cannot be guaranteed unless someone comes up with a clever idea.
Posted by: Mark Mammel | Apr 21, 2006 5:25:30 PM
Is it like a true word search where entries crisscross without restriction, or is it like a crossword where adjacent letters always have to be part of a word?
Do all the states have to be linked in one unit?
Is there a tiebreak, perhaps # of letters in the grid?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 21, 2006 5:39:39 PM
True word search, no restriction. May even have disconnected portions, though it's doubtful optimum solution would have such. Winner is smallest area of rectangle, LxW. Tiebreak is random draw, no letter counting.
Yeah, it's eight directions, not six. That has to be a goof. Maybe they'll publish a correction on the website, if they haven't already.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Apr 22, 2006 5:18:27 PM
Oh, now I see. "Horizontally, vertically, diagonally, either forward or backward." They just went 3x2, forgot there are TWO diagonal directions.
My GWOP subscription finally kicked in. They sent me the issue I paid full price for, 2-3 weeks earlier at a newsstand, thinking mine wouldn't start until the following issue. Kinda cuts into the subscription savings. Oh, well.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Apr 22, 2006 5:53:48 PM
I got my issue today. I see that MISSISSIPPI is misspelled with a 5th S after the 4th one....how has Games handled this in the past, accept both spellings?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 22, 2006 6:24:02 PM
Mini-puzzle: What's the maximum number of states that can pass through a single letter in the grid?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 23, 2006 11:50:18 AM
Offhand, I'd say eight. You can use any eight that either begin or end with the same letter, such as A. It would be possible to double up on KANSAS and ARKANSAS. but there are no states beginning with AS or ending with SA, nor enough beginning or ending with S to stretch it that way to nine.
If by "pass through" you are excluding endpoints, then the answer is six. KS on top of AR, and on the common N, LA and MT can cross from opposite directions, plus pick any other two states with an interior N for the two remaining directions.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Apr 23, 2006 11:17:56 PM
I meant that endpoints are allowed. But the answer is not 8!
Posted by: Jim Miller | Apr 24, 2006 12:49:38 AM
I couldn't believe they spelled Mississippi wrong. How funny would it be if the winning solution requires the misspelling? And the "all 6 directions" thing was quite a DUH moment. They're slippin', I tell ya!
Wasn't there a much more recent GAMES puzzle (besides the 1980/81) that packed a word set into the smallest rectangle? Or something similar?
--Kevin
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 26, 2006 6:31:03 PM
"Mini-puzzle: What's the maximum number of states that can pass through a single letter in the grid?"
It's 9. Kansas/Arkansas aren't needed, but another embedded state is...
--Kevin
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 26, 2006 7:23:44 PM
Virginia, of course.
Posted by: Jeff in San Diego | Apr 27, 2006 3:27:16 PM
Okay - It's May 1st. Can we discuss Solitaire Poker? I am particularily to find out how Kevin was so confident in his answer.
Posted by: Paula | May 1, 2006 11:20:19 AM
My answer is 254. I'm running around right now, but I'll post my details tonight, and why I think it's the maximal solution. If my proof is bogus, I shall be duly humiliated! :)
Posted by: Kevin | May 1, 2006 2:12:47 PM
8!
Posted by: catnapping | May 1, 2006 7:28:27 PM
Drat! I got my "Dear John" letter today. Yet another T-shirt for Triple Cross III. Did anyone here end up as the winner?
Posted by: Taed Wynnell | May 2, 2006 8:43:38 AM
The GAMES web site has a note that only the correct spelling of Mississippi will be allowed for Crossing State Lines - not the typo in the contest rules.
I've done a lot of preliminary thinking about this contest, and I've convinced myself I know what the general form of the high-scoring entries will look like, and that a computer will not be essential to maximizing the score (though it could relieve a little drudgery). I'm also convinced that the high score will be from among a set of about 5 possible high scores I've calculated, which are all within about 30 points of each other.
In other words, I think that a lot of work could be put into some complicated algorithms, but that would be overkill and can be obviated with some forethought. Of course, I could be wrong.
Posted by: Jim Miller | May 2, 2006 3:05:06 PM
Solitaire poker:
Some earlier posts calculated the ginormous number of permutations of cards, but only the 441 possible sets of 25 need be considered; finding the best arrangement of each (+/- wild card) is not time consuming (basic Solitaire Poker ordering strategy). But narrowing from 441 is the key. I wrote up my process, which I believe is sufficient to find the maximum score, here:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~klash/solitairepokerstrategy.htm
and my solution:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~klash/solitairepokercontest.htm
If anyone beat 254, it was all for nought! :)
--Kevin
Posted by: Kevin | May 2, 2006 3:50:52 PM
My score for "Solitaire Poker" was also 254. I didn't attempt a proof of the best score. When I got to 254, I just thought that it was the best score that I could get.
For "Crossing State Lines", I originally thought that most people would end up with the same score. After a few attempts and calculations, it may have many more possibilities. I don't have a 30-point spread between the area ranges that I have calculated. My best score has Mississippi spelled correctly, so it is good that GAMES made the correction. I would like to change a few spellings of some of the states in order for my grid to be a little smaller.
Posted by: Laurie | May 2, 2006 5:07:23 PM
With all the word search grids that have been published over the years, I wonder how many using the 50 state names are already in print. Of course that's