Re: contest #2 derek
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:25:48 +0200, Tone Skoda <tone.skoda at siol.net>
wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Pete Lomax" <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>> You might be interested in mine then. It is 12X faster than the
>> winning entry (2X faster than yours) and 100% correct.
>
>If it works 100% correct (it does as I checked it) why didn't you win then?
>(not that I have anything against Jason Mirwald)
>
Talking about shooting oneself in the foot! I yanked it at the 11th
hour, entered compe#3. Mind you, I did actually post the best
algorithm in #3 too, even though a stupid linefeed buglette made me
judged second.
I actually put a rackload of code in there to start panicing every 30
seconds; in fact the test set given I solved 4 of the five entries in
under 10 seconds (yes, for four, ie 2.5 seconds each on average)
Even the hard beast (#3) ran in 50seconds & progressed well enough to
avoid invoking the panic button...
OH, what the heck, I was going to post this private, but anyone who
has my code (Rob already posted it), uncomment:
if length(wschk)=2 then rank+=32*32*1024 end if
if length(wschk)=3 then rank+=32*1024 end if
in procedure pick_best_comment().
WOW! Two tiny changes: 97.42%
Sure C.K (well done mate!) won, rightly too, my bugs, my bad!
But that's not the point. 2nd in the "hard" competition is damn good &
I'm rightly proud.
I've already grumbled publicly about the test conditions (2+ weeks
ago). They are on record. No doubt I won't let it lie.
Expect me to repeatedly remark on the unrealistic/ unfair aspects of
this competition. Please give credit:- I ain't grumblin for not bein
first, just voicin my opinion!
Pete
big oaks from little acorns grow
big aches from little toe corns grow
quick folks by fakes can hoax the slow
crypt jokes from such ideas grow
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
