| WSC report|
|WSC and WPC 2017 -> General Discussion about WSC and WPC 2017||12 posts • Page 1 of 1 • 1|
Diagonal Vision Author
|I get the point about personal definition and I agree. I didn't write my definition properly, but I think since 2015 I explained it quite clearly. |
That's what I expect from WPF, too. Discussion is not possible if only one part expose his definition and it has been so hard for me to understand the point of view of my opponents that the discussions often turned to ridiculous arguments.
What kicks my ass so often is: I'm quite experienced sudoku player, I played on-site competitions in 5 foreign countries, and almost never found a puzzle that I would qualify as non-sudoku, and when it was the case it was a so tiny part of the competition that it did never affect me. These competitions were organized by a WPF-member, exactly like WSC. I tested a lot of other competitions, including Indian Sudoku Championships. Again, I don't remember this issue being present, or again never at the level of what I see in WSC. I had also the chance to test ASC puzzles last year: completely in accordance to my definition of sudoku. This year I had a quick look at the ASC IB for sake of curiosity, I think only one puzzle was a bit off-rail, but no more. The sudoku Mahabharat you organize on this website is completely ok from my point of view. Why this way to do it, which seems to be adopted by a large majority of WPF members for national international and qualifying tournaments, is suddenly completely different at WSC? Authors are quite among the same group, players are quite the same... Why 2 different things?
Edited by Fred76 2018-05-01 4:47 AM
|Some reasons may be: |
* You are exaggerating and somehow feel 10 out of 200 puzzles is worse than 1 in 20.
* A long WSC gives better opportunities for grouping the puzzles, so the "puzzly" sudokus tend to concentrate in a few rounds.
* Unless "normal" tournaments of which there are plenty nowadays, the opportunity to contribute to a WSC is rare. Each author team wants to give their best and also wants to explore some new roads. Since it is very hard to invent new basic variants, these novelities tend to be more "puzzly".
(* You made a bit of a habit of ranting about WPF and WSC for whatever reason.)
Diagonal Vision Author
prasanna16391 - I could be very capable at both Sudokus and Puzzles but shouldn't need my puzzle solving capabilities extensively in a Sudoku competition. That's all I meant and I thought that's what you were going for too, because "X is a puzzle" and "X is a Sudoku" is just too subjective a discussion anyway.
I'm sorry but I could not disagree more with all your assertions. When I try to transpose what you say to other puzzle types, It become evident that lot of things are intellectually and hystorically inconsistent. I'll try to explain clearly these inconsistencies.
-> I agree with the relations you made between puzzle types and perhaps with your theories on capabilities, but again it tells nothing about puzzle types.
I don't know lot of definitions of sudoku that are self-consistent (in the meaning that sudoku is a puzzle type) and correspond to the historical basic facts that are not subjective. Here are 2 of them :
prasanna16391 - I think the best thing to do, for any competition, is to outline before it what will and won't appear, and then let participants decide if that is alright with them.
If we go to the end of your reasoning, it would be ok if the organizers of WSC 2018 say "we define sudoku as the set of loop puzzles". Then you will have a "World Sudoku Championship" based on solving loop puzzles. No, no and no !
In conclusion, I would say :
|12 posts • Page 1 of 1 • 1|
|Search this forum|
Printer friendly version