This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors.
Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.
in reply to Re^7: Perl Golf Ethics
in thread Perl Golf Ethics
Having said that, I still enjoyed golfing on the non-magic-formula parts of the problem and found that to be challenging-in-the-extreme ... to the point of melting my brain at times. :-)
Me too, and that's why finding out that there was a magic key was so bothersome to me. I DID have fun, and I DID work on it, and to find that I started out at a distinct disadvantage from the start is the pisser.
I agree with you that it was unfortunate that fonality chose a problem where knowing of a previous similar golf gave a significant advantage.
So perhaps my concerns aren't "rubbish", eh?
|
Re^9: Perl Golf Ethics
by eyepopslikeamosquito (Archbishop) on Jan 04, 2007 at 21:20 UTC
|
I DID have fun
Agree
I DID work on it
Agree again
to find that I started out at a distinct disadvantage from the start is the pisser
Now this is where we diverge. Like Jasper and `/anick, had this happened
to me, I would see the funny side of it, laugh at myself, shake my
fist in the general direction of the person one stroke ahead of me
on the leaderboard and swear to get even next time. :-)
It's only a game after all.
So perhaps my concerns aren't "rubbish", eh?
What I said "rubbish" to was your assertion that the competition
was essentially a test of knowledge of ancient romanic magical
formulae and not a test of cleverness and coding skill.
I found that claim to be insulting to all the golfers who worked
so hard and so deviously to shave off just one more stroke.
Now, if you are suggesting that, armed with Ton's magical romanic
formula, you could have somehow swept majestically past the Golfic
Emporer Tonius Hospelius to claim the $350 bounty, I will happily
walk down the main street of Chicago in my underwear, swinging a
five iron, shouting "That Lester guy is talking rubbish again!". :-)
| [reply] |
|
|
I found that claim to be insulting to all the golfers who worked so hard and so deviously to shave off just one more stroke.
That would include me, too, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone else their fruits. If anyone was insulted by that, I apologize. I just wanted a level playing field.
| [reply] |
Re^9: Perl Golf Ethics
by eyepopslikeamosquito (Archbishop) on Jan 06, 2007 at 17:51 UTC
|
to find that I started out at a distinct disadvantage from the start is the pisser
Luckily, this disadvantage is unlikely to have affected
your final position at all since none of the players in
your section of the leaderboard used the magic formula.
I've gone through every solution in
the top 30, noting who used the magic formula and who didn't.
Those who used it had scores of: 99, 102, 107, 111, 114, 118,
119, 122, 129, 135, 143.
For the sake of analysis, let's assume the tournament was
played with a rule that forbade the use of any magic formulas.
As Ton has already pointed out, not knowing the magic formula
costs an expert golfer no more than about five strokes.
So you might add a five stroke penalty to all those scores above.
However, not all those golfers are experts (though most are),
so let's be brutal and penalize them all by forty
strokes. Doing that pushes the worst of the scores above
up to 183, still three strokes ahead of your score.
So it seems unlikely your position in the tournament would
have changed at all had the playing field been more level.
Oh, one more minor nit, since you are so hot on level playing
fields. I noticed towards the end that you joined forces with
another competitor. Do you think it fair, or a "level playing
field", for an individual to compete against a team of two,
who are able to pool the best of each other's ideas?
| [reply] |
|
|
Luckily, this disadvantage is unlikely to have affected your final position at all since none of the players in your section of the leaderboard used the magic formula.
It's not an issue of where I ended up. I'm sorry you spent the time investigating the what-ifs.
Do you think it fair, or a "level playing field", for an individual to compete against a team of two, who are able to pool the best of each other's ideas?
Clearly, yes.
| [reply] |
|
|
Clearly, yes
It's not clear to me. ;-) Why do you think it fair?
Clearly, if you took any two individuals from the
150-200 stroke range and put them together, they could not
possibly do any worse and almost certainly could shave quite
a few strokes (as you and Pete did) by combining their ideas.
Notice that TPR did not think it fair in
TPR(0,6)
(and others) where their rules stated:
There is also a special leaderboard for teams. There will be no prizes awarded to the best team, other than the admiration of your fellow golfers. If you are in a team, you can't also play individually.
Admittedly, it probably makes less difference at the sharp end of
the leaderboard. For example, though I would be honoured to pair
with Ton, I'm sure it would not improve our score one iota. :-)
Update: There is some luck involved on who you pair with. For example, pairing with pijll wouldn't have helped much because we both found the formula and both missed the symbolic reference trick. However, pijll or me pairing with Jasper or ambrus would be in the running for third place because one found the formula, the other the symref trick.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
