WSPC 2017 • Schedule • Participation • Location • WSC • WPC • Contact •Search •Recent
WSPC 2017 • Schedule • Participation • Location • WSC • WPC • Contact •Search •Recent
 WSC report | |
| WSC and WPC 2017 -> General Discussion about WSC and WPC 2017 | 15 posts • Page 1 of 1 • 1 |
Fred76 |
| ||
 Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337   Location: Switzerland | I just discovered the WSC report on the WSC/WPC website. Let me please comment on 2 rounds : Let me say first that I've not yet found someone who think this puzzle is a sudoku (I'm not saying that they don't exist – I didn't really search them – but only that the few people which whom I discussed about this puzzle, regardless of how experienced they are at sudoku and/or puzzle competition agreed to qualify this puzzle as non-sudoku). I think it's a very bad thing in itself. But then, you argue : « it has lesser points allotted », what I can't let you say, because it's exactly the opposite ! You judged it only based on the IB : 120 points for a 20 minutes round, effectively it looks like a small-weighted round. In reality, the puzzle was solved by the top player in 8 minutes, which allows him to earn 180 points: 22.5 points/minute of solving. Typically during the whole WSC, top players of rounds earned 11 points/minute of solving. Typically a 8-minutes puzzle was worth 90 points in the whole WSC. I don't think there was another part of the competition where a player can earn 22.5 points/minute of solving. I don't think you can say about a puzzle which brings twice more points/minute than others, being in this regard the most important puzzle of the whole competition that « it has lesser points allotted ». I know non-sudoku and unfairness in WSC are both ok from the WPF board point of view, but...I don't think it's a good future for WSC to put on a pedestal a puzzle which is qualified by numerous players as being a non-sudoku. « Circling back to the discussion of what a Sudoku is for the WSC, we had this idea of holding a round full of Sudokus with potentially puzzlish rules but designed to require more Sudoku solving. » If you mean that you're able to create a sudoku which has a set rules containing non-sudoku puzzle things, I think it is not something new. But in my opinion, this round demonstrates clearly that it would have been very easy to remove the non-sudoku puzzle things to the set of rules without changing the nature of the round, because either the non-sudoku puzzle thing was missing from the competition puzzle itself (example : star battle sudoku), or it was just a trivial decoration (examples : Japanese sum sudoku and word search sudoku).
Fred | ||
| rakesh_rai |
| ||
Mean Minis (2020) Author Posts: 774  Location: India | Fred76 - 2018-04-29 3:34 PM Thanks for enlightening everyone on the most important puzzle of WSC 2017. Your explanation is an interesting read. I have one clarification on the sample size used - is it "few people" or "numerous players" as both have been used at different places in your explanation, and do not necessarily mean the same. I just discovered the WSC report on the WSC/WPC website. Let me please comment on 2 rounds : ..few people ..... numerous players ... You can also share your comments on the other sixteen rounds, even though they were less important. | ||
| Fred76 |
| ||
Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337 Location: Switzerland | rakesh_rai - 2018-04-29 10:42 PM Fred76 - 2018-04-29 3:34 PM Thanks for enlightening everyone on the most important puzzle of WSC 2017. Your explanation is an interesting read. I have one clarification on the sample size used - is it "few people" or "numerous players" as both have been used at different places in your explanation, and do not necessarily mean the same. I just discovered the WSC report on the WSC/WPC website. Let me please comment on 2 rounds : ..few people ..... numerous players ... You can also share your comments on the other sixteen rounds, even though they were less important. Thanks for your answer. You're right, "numerous" was not a precise word, it was only an assumption I made based on the fact that all the players from whom I heard something on this subject had the same opinion. Please replace "numerous" by "several" players. I didn't test a lot of WSC rounds so far, just a few of them, including round 7 because someone asked me my opinion about it. And as I didn't take part in the WSC, my comment is not a feedback of the competiton, only a reaction to the WSC report I read on this website. Fred | ||
| kiwijam |
| ||
Posts: 187 Location: New Zealand | Fred, the point of Round 7 is that these sudoku types also appeared as a round in the WPC, where they solved very differently. | ||
| amitsowani |
| ||
PR 2020 (Casual and Word) Author Posts: 349 Location: India | Thanks for providing feedback on the WSC report, you are on of the very few who have done that :) Fred76 - 2018-04-29 3:34 PM If you mean that you're able to create a sudoku which has a set rules containing non-sudoku puzzle things, I think it is not something new. But in my opinion, this round demonstrates clearly that it would have been very easy to remove the non-sudoku puzzle things to the set of rules without changing the nature of the round, because either the non-sudoku puzzle thing was missing from the competition puzzle itself (example : star battle sudoku), or it was just a trivial decoration (examples : Japanese sum sudoku and word search sudoku). If we go back to the origins of the WSC I believe one of the aims was to introduce the wider range of puzzles to participants who have only been exposed to sudoku. Although the competition puzzles are not publicly available the IB is and hopefully participants would have familiarized themselves with the underlying puzzle types as well. As to the actual event the sudokus in the WSC and WPC were meant to be as sudoku-like and puzzle-like as possible. I will no agree with you completely regarding the absence of puzzle element or trivial decorations, but to some extent that was part of the design. Fred76 - 2018-04-29 3:34 PM Star battle sudoku : If your point is to state that a star battle sudoku is a sudoku if there is only one star in each row/column/region, then I agree with you. But it is exactly the kind of things that you can clarify in the IB. Do you find it is really too hard to write the rules as « Place a digit from 1-8 and a star into... » ? The instructions are generic enough to support any number of stars. For the sudoku competition we chose to go with 1 while for the puzzle competition we went with 2. Fred76 - 2018-04-29 3:34 PM Paint it black sudoku : I'm not very surprised to see in this round a puzzle which would be nominated in the category of « most uninteresting WSC/WPC puzzles ever seen in a competition ». Was your point to demonstrate that solving sudoku is not more interesting than copying 81 digits in a grid ? We had stated in our responses to one of your queries prior to the world championships that we will not step back from experimenting. This particular puzzle was a high risk puzzle which was very likely to generate a lot of conversation. There will be those who find it non-interesting but hopefully there were others who were able to spot it under the competition pressure. Being one of the invigilators it was fun :P to see many of the participants darken the cells completely. Also the puzzle was designed so that both the shading and classic solving part was very easy so that there is'nt very high variance in solving times. | ||
| Fred76 |
| ||
Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337 Location: Switzerland | kiwijam - 2018-04-30 8:11 AM Fred, the point of Round 7 is that these sudoku types also appeared as a round in the WPC, where they solved very differently. As a player, when the IB is published I like to prepare myself for the competition. If there are some new variants, I try to get all implications, tricks, logic and technique induced before the beginning of the competition. Round 7 of WSC has same instructions as Logidoku round of WPC, it means I've to prepare exactly the same way even if the competition puzzles are very different. For me the only way to get well prepared for this kind of round is to be an experienced puzzle player, because you have to master all techniques of underlying puzzle types. amitsowani - 2018-04-30 11:35 AM If we go back to the origins of the WSC I believe one of the aims was to introduce the wider range of puzzles to participants who have only been exposed to sudoku. Thank you for pointing out what is probably the origin of the issue. While it is quite antithetical to organize a competition about one puzzle type (sudoku) and to state that one of the aims is to introduce a wider range of puzzles to participants, I think sudoku offers the possibility to propose a very large range of variations without exceeding some clear limits concerning the nature of the puzzles. I would like to illustrate this point with the example of Japanese sum sudoku. The limit that has been crossed here is about shading cells. The nature of sudoku is not about shading cells, but about placing symbols. However, it is absolutely possible to create a sudoku variant with the idea of a japanese sum puzzle without the need of shading cells, I've seen such variants in the sudoku GP finals (2016) or German Championship (2017). I consider these puzzles as sudoku variants, unlike the one which combine shading and symbols placement. And you demonstrate with round 6 that it is still possible to create novelties without need of transgressing the boundaries of sudoku. amitsowani - 2018-04-30 11:35 AM hopefully participants would have familiarized themselves with the underlying puzzle types as well. I think it is not a good assumption. For me it is not far from saying that all WSC players are experienced puzzle players. The consequence is that the WSC ends up now to be a competition exclusively for experienced puzzle players. I understand the will to encourage sudoku players to play other puzzle types, but you need to understand the difference between encouraging people and forcing people. WSC players are now forced to play a large variety of puzzles that one can qualify as non-sudoku. I hope I'll not hurt someone, but in my opinion WSC and sudoku GP are not (more) sudoku competitions, that's why I don't take part in these competitions anymore. Most of the GP rounds and WSC rounds are ok, but it became usual to see rounds containing other puzzle types, and when these puzzles are overvalued as in the 4th round of WSC, it can be very discouraging for players whose wish is to solve sudoku. The 4 WPF competitions (sudoku GP, puzzle GP, WSC and WPC) are now made for experienced puzzle players, no one of these is close to meet my minimal criteria to be a sudoku competition, thus I had no other choice to retire from worldwide competition. I know I'm not an exception and several players are now less and less motivated to take part in such WSC. I hope it's not a hidden goal of WPF to discourage people to take part in these competitions. Fred | ||
| prasanna16391 |
| ||
2021 World Sudoku+Puzzle Convention Organizer Posts: 1801  Location: India | Like Amit, I'm glad we are discussing the report, even if it is based on perceived negatives :) For what its worth, even though you are just commenting on the round you were asked to comment on, I hope you can consider looking into the other rounds too. Fred76 - Thanks for your answer. You're right, "numerous" was not a precise word, it was only an assumption I made based on the fact that all the players from whom I heard something on this subject had the same opinion. Please replace "numerous" by "several" players. I think whatever word you use, it seems to just be a random way to bolster your opinion than to make a solid added point - I have received positive feedback on the entire WSC, including round 7, from 'several' players too. Whose several/numerous is stronger? What's the solution for this? Do we just compare numbers and say majority wins? It all seems like a less than useful tangent to me. Fred76 - Round 7 of WSC has same instructions as Logidoku round of WPC, it means I've to prepare exactly the same way even if the competition puzzles are very different. For me the only way to get well prepared for this kind of round is to be an experienced puzzle player, because you have to master all techniques of underlying puzzle types. I disagree with this. In my opinion, it depends on what these 'techniques' are. Star Battle has untouch rules for 1 or 2 numbers with each other - you have solved Sudokus with untouch rules for all 9 numbers with themselves, and found it fine. How big a leap is it really? Word Search Sudoku has certain target strings hidden in the grid. That is basically shapes Sudoku but without direction/orientation given - what special techniques are required here? I don't really see the merit in closing one's mind completely to new logic just because the name has a Puzzle type in it. If in hindsight, you had to use techniques beyond your capability as a Sudoku solver, and you reached a roadblock because of it, it is definitely worth inspecting and potentially criticizing. But again, this is my opinion. My only issue is you are presenting yours as fact. Fred76 - While it is quite antithetical to organize a competition about one puzzle type (sudoku) and to state that one of the aims is to introduce a wider range of puzzles to participants, I think sudoku offers the possibility to propose a very large range of variations without exceeding some clear limits concerning the nature of the puzzles. This isn't antithetical as a fact. Its antithetical IF the primary motive was to promote Sudoku. The WPF's primary motive is to promote a wider range of puzzles. However, the ways to do this can definitely be discussed and made clearer - it is also important to conduct a fair Sudoku competition in the process. But its all perspective Fred. I've seen that you are generally on board with innovation within "your" definition of what a Sudoku variant can be. Here itself you have given round 6 as an example. But then if I go further, I have seen instances of players who say there should be no variations at all, or that Math variants with extra calculations shouldn't be allowed, or that concept based variants shouldn't be allowed, and so on. There was actually a person who frequently contacted us after an Indian competition about this same thing - they had issue with variants like Diagonal and Extra Region: Nothing other than Classic should be in a Sudoku competition according to them. So now where exactly is the line of what makes a Sudoku competition fair? How do we encourage that particular person to compete based on their views? Its a futile exercise, and not doing so shouldn't be mistaken for an effort to discourage them. 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. As Amit said, we expressed our willingness to experiment many months before the WSC. We also put forward certain percentages and other parameters of our targets. Now your problem with round 7 seems to be none of these things but just that the rules presented hinted at a challenge beyond a Sudoku solver's capabilities. Technically isn't that true of any Sudoku? Authors could put a Classic Sudoku in the IB and then use one of those mad chain techniques which are only there for computer algorithms. But participants trust the organizers to put together a competition which is fun to solve and a realistic challenge. | ||
| Fred76 |
| ||
Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337 Location: Switzerland | Prasanna, I don't know if it's about my level in english, but I have the impression you totally misunderstood my message. prasanna16391 - I think whatever word you use, it seems to just be a random way to bolster your opinion than to make a solid added point - I have received positive feedback on the entire WSC, including round 7, from 'several' players too. Whose several/numerous is stronger? What's the solution for this? Do we just compare numbers and say majority wins? It all seems like a less than useful tangent to me. Again, I say I'm sorry for the bad choice of word "numerous", I didn't make a poll nearby all WSC players, it's not my task. I was speaking about round 4, not round 7, and please read carefully, I didn't say that they didn't like the round or the puzzle, I only said they qualified the puzzle as non-sudoku type. Now if you want to take care about feedback only if they are positive or expressed by a majority of players, that's not my problem. prasanna16391 - Star Battle has untouch rules for 1 or 2 numbers with each other - you have solved Sudokus with untouch rules for all 9 numbers with themselves, and found it fine. How big a leap is it really? The question about star battle is not about untouch rules, it is about repeating symbols. No, it's not a big leap, but if you search for big leaps to find what the limits of sudoku are, I don't know which WPC puzzle type will not be considered as sudoku. prasanna16391 - I don't really see the merit in closing one's mind completely to new logic just because the name has a Puzzle type in it. ????? I said exactly the opposite: I'm open to (almost) all kind of logic if the nature of the puzzle is a sudoku (the name has no kind of importance for me, neither the fact that this logic comes or not from another puzzle type). I was speaking about technique only because I don't think all puzzle types in this round are sudoku, thus there are potentially a lot of techniques and tricks to learn before the competition. I can't know that there is no new technique to learn before having studied it and without being experienced in these kinds of puzzles. If I understand well, you were advocating that a puzzle type can be a puzzle or a sudoku depending which kind of logic is used to solve it. Keep quiet and don't argue everything and its contrary... prasanna16391 - If in hindsight, you had to use techniques beyond your capability as a Sudoku solver, and you reached a roadblock because of it, it is definitely worth inspecting and potentially criticizing. Again, are you advocating we should be open to new logic or not? You contradict what you just said before... I don't understand what you mean by capability of a sudoku solver. I'm very capable, thank you. You're saying it could potentially be a problem if a player is not able to solve a puzzle because he has not enough capability to solve it? Do you think sudoku players are so poor that they are not capable to solve puzzles? Thanks for the tip of arrogance. Competition is about capability to solve puzzles, if these puzzles are sudoku, then it is a sudoku competition, who is more capable and fast will earn more points. This is not an issue. The issue is which puzzle types are sudoku and which are not. prasanna16391 - This isn't antithetical as a fact. Its antithetical IF the primary motive was to promote Sudoku. Yes, promote sudoku as a primary motive is what I expect for a federation that claims organizing World Sudoku Championship. Is it too much demanding? I don't understand in what would it be a problem to promote wider range of puzzles AND sudoku. I understand less and less why the WPF want to organize a World Sudoku Championship. prasanna16391 - it is also important to conduct a fair Sudoku competition in the process. What do you mean by "fair sudoku competition"? prasanna16391 -But its all perspective Fred. I've seen that you are generally on board with innovation within "your" definition of what a Sudoku variant can be. Here itself you have given round 6 as an example. But then if I go further, I have seen instances of players who say there should be no variations at all, or that Math variants with extra calculations shouldn't be allowed, or that concept based variants shouldn't be allowed, and so on. All these questions are of very different nature. The question: what kind of sudokus are appropriate or do we want in competition? is also an interesting question and I participated in discussions on this subject in the past. The question: What types of puzzles are sudoku? precede these question. If a puzzle is not a sudoku, how could it be an appropriate sudoku? 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. That's exactly what doesn't make the WPF with sudoku competitions. prasanna16391 - As Amit said, we expressed our willingness to experiment many months before the WSC. We also put forward certain percentages and other parameters of our targets. vopani - 2017-01-30 11:55 AM Also to be clear as authors we have decided to not include any hybrid variant which does not naturally fit into a sudoku solving experience. This mean we have avoided hybrids which do not relate to any other sudoku type. Am I the only who think there is a contradiction between what you announced and round 7? prasanna16391 - Now your problem with round 7 seems to be none of these things but just that the rules presented hinted at a challenge beyond a Sudoku solver's capabilities. As I answered before, it has nothing to do with someone's capability, it's about puzzle type. If you think all the puzzle types of round 7 are sudoku, then the logidoku round would have been fine in WSC, too. Fred Edited by Fred76 2018-05-01 3:05 AM | ||
| prasanna16391 |
| ||
2021 World Sudoku+Puzzle Convention Organizer Posts: 1801 Location: India | The question: What types of puzzles are sudoku? I think we are mostly just misinterpreting each other, so I'll focus on this part - this is actually exactly what I wanted to put out there and I am sorry I wasn't clear. I run workshops and meets fairly regularly and interact with a wide range of Sudoku solvers. The person I mentioned in the example genuinely believed Diagonal, Extra Region, etc. are NOT Sudoku. I have met many solvers who do not understand how what we call 'basic' variants are Sudoku. And then on the other side I have even met solvers who think 'ANY' grid based logic puzzle which has a set of numbers is a Sudoku. Some of these may seem wrong to you and me, and some of them are probably wrong factually too - but that's how perspectives and opinions work. In your entire post and replies you keep saying something is a Sudoku and something is a puzzle, and all the implications surrounding it. But all of it is your personal definition. So even when we do give a definition, it will still have grey areas. I just explained how some types relate, in my opinion - Star Battle to Untouch, Word Search to Shape, and I'd add Japanese Sums to Frame too. Now you can disagree that they do, but it isn't factually a contradiction - it just is according to you. According to me it isn't. What I can tell you is we did deliberate on these points, considered them, and did our best to uphold our own definitions - it is one of the big reasons why Hamle Sudoku appeared in the WSC Rejects contest rather than Round 7. And regarding my point about 'several' and 'numerous' and whatever else - my point wasn't that we wouldn't take your or other negative feedback seriously - it was the opposite. We will take it seriously even if you let it stand on its own, and there isn't anything useful in saying random quantifiers of other players just to make the point 'look' stronger without providing actual stats. And when I said capabilities, it wasn't about you being capable or XYZ being capable. Its got nothing to do with anyone actually. 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 apologize as that wasn't clear but I meant no arrogance or implication that you (or anyone else) aren't capable. | ||
| Fred76 |
| ||
Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337 Location: Switzerland | 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? Fred Edited by Fred76 2018-05-01 4:47 AM | ||
| Realshaggy |
| ||
Posts: 69 Location: Germany | 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.) | ||
| Fred76 |
| ||
Diagonal Vision Author Posts: 337 Location: Switzerland | 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 :
| ||
| 15 posts • Page 1 of 1 • 1 |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version |
