::: comment :::
m_b_metcalf wrote:g.r.emlin wrote:::: adjustment 2009-01-22+16:17:00-0000 m_b_metcalf se-mismatch -100 :::
Sorry for this slip. But I still don't understand what's wrong with 8.6. Can
gsf or
g.r.emlin advise?
here are the relevant referee log entries
(coding nugget: anyone coding long running apps should log major actions
and retain the logs for future ref)
the second grid field is the canonical grid and I used the canonical grid from the adjustment message as the lookup key
- Code: Select all
entries:8.8/8.8/6.7 30 100002300000040050000600007000080020004503800070090000200008000030010000006700004 100006700050080036009200400000900500000070020800001000040000001700000600002500000 m_b_metcalf 2009-01-22+14:46:00-0000 3m00s 107 728 X pearl
penalties:8.6/8.6/6.7 0 100002300000040050000600007000080020006509100070060000200003000090010000005700004 100006700050080036009200400000900500000070020800001000040000001700000600002500000 m_b_metcalf 2009-01-22+15:13:00-0000 3m00s -50 678 P dup-puzzle
penalties:8.6/8.6/6.7 0 100002300000040050000600007000080020006509100070060000200003000090010000005700004 100006700050080036009200400000900500000070020800001000040000001700000600002500000 JPF 2009-01-22+15:39:00-0000 6m00s -50 296 P dup-puzzle
this shows that m.b. stumbled on two equivalent puzzles, one orientation yields se rating 8.8/8.8/6.7 and the other 8.6/8.6/6.7
the rules count this as a penalty
but maybe it should be a bonus because I don't think there are many puzzles+permutations that produce an se difference like this