by gurth » Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:22 am
Pat, thanks for the info in your post of the 14th.
Re your question re ratings, I must say that I am fascinated by the different approaches to the problem of rating the hardness.
There are currently the 4 or 5 different systems, all very interesting to compare. None matches any other perfectly, but they DO match within certain limits, and all seem to have a general success.
For me, and many others I am sure, the SE is the most classic and interesting, being based more on a sequence of techniques based on criteria not directly related to computer-oriented techniques - by which I mean techniques apparently more related to how the computer can solve a problem, as opposed to how a human can.
Unfortunately the cost has been the massive expenditure of time involved in the SE rating of the hardest. Therefore I am attracted to the possibility of evolving a quick system that would match the SE results as well as possible.
If it seems to anyone that my efforts so far do not produce a good match, I would welcome any adverse comments. They would tell me that I need to improve my system a bit more. At least I can say that so far, my system agrees with SE in giving Golden Nugget the top rating, and the only other puzzles in my list whose SE I know, col0906 1503 and 4651, whose SERs are 11.2 and 11.3, also match each other closely in my system at ZC30 and ZC31.
If the SERs of the other puzzles in my list become available, then we will be able to assess the agreement between the two systems better.