Crossword - Comments
Search Comments
|
||
|---|---|---|
| Date | Submission | Comment |
| 2011-04-21 20:19:23 UTC |
Faster - no ram_li_czech_2 by Ram-Li-Czech |
Just noticed this entry. Nice results! I'm lucky it wasn't any faster...
by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-21 17:19:19 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
Nice entry!
It would be great most rules (like the scoring function) were properly documented in http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/contest/contests/32/rules ... by Franck Dernoncourt |
| 2011-04-21 08:55:20 UTC |
Rapid Weight Loss May Be Harmful by Nicholas Howe |
Congrats! And I second what Abhisek said.
by James White |
| 2011-04-21 08:53:25 UTC |
let's see 3 by David Smith |
Nice variation!
by James White |
| 2011-04-21 08:20:08 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
impressively fast though!
by Oli |
| 2011-04-21 07:42:12 UTC |
Rapid Weight Loss May Be Harmful by Nicholas Howe |
Congrats Nick! Personally I was impressed by your algorithm to pack tightly and often completely (score=0) when min(wordlength)==gridsize.
by Abhisek Ukil |
| 2011-04-21 01:25:36 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
The scoring algorithms incorporates cyc and nodes. I posted it in haiku form on the blog, but here it is in normal form: score = k1*result + k2*e(k3*runtime) + k4*max(complexity-10,0) + k5*nodes
Where: k1 = 0.0025 k2 = 5/900 (0.000555) k3 = 1/9 (0.111111) k4 = 1 k5 = 1/900 (0.0011111) by Alan Chalker |
| 2011-04-20 23:12:58 UTC |
Rapid Weight Loss May Be Harmful by Nicholas Howe |
Oli -
The title does relate to the algorithm, sort of. I created this one by removing some of the solver calls that were in Valle, hoping to make it faster. I only eliminated ones that were never used on the sample testsuite, but I didn't know for sure whether they might be necessary on the real testsuite. Thus I was concerned that my 'slimming' of the program might be harmful to its score. by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-20 22:41:21 UTC |
Rapid Weight Loss May Be Harmful by Nicholas Howe |
I guess it is only fair that you win as your solver was still the best in most cases, I think. Being its founder you were most able to tune it I guess :) (I have no idea myself of how it works)
by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 22:31:44 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
you are right, cyc=100, should have fix that! great contest to all and congrats to Nick!
by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
| 2011-04-20 21:59:37 UTC |
Rapid Weight Loss May Be Harmful by Nicholas Howe |
Congratulations :)
Does the title relate to the algorithm somehow? by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 21:55:35 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
Resolution is 15th
by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 21:55:19 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
If you compare with a random entry like 'Resolution' by Volkan, yours is half the cpu time and 30,000 less. However it has 100 cycles (10 for volkan), and more nodes, maybe that compensated the good scores?
by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 21:06:22 UTC |
lasttry01 by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
something weird with the scoring mechanism... not good enough to contest the winner entry anyway
by Alfonso Nieto-Castanon |
| 2011-04-20 20:58:28 UTC |
Valles Marinaris by Nicholas Howe |
Misspelled the name of Valles Marineris. How embarrassing! Good thing this one didn't win.
by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-20 20:49:15 UTC |
The Kitchen Sink by Nicholas Howe |
damn, I forgot to update the board-flipping several times too... too bad!
by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 20:29:08 UTC |
The Kitchen Sink by Nicholas Howe |
Still waiting to get my hands on this code :) Phew.. that's a long queue even with queue-in-darkness introduction.
by Amitabh Verma |
| 2011-04-20 18:46:02 UTC |
Faster - no ram_li_czech_2 by Ram-Li-Czech |
One more comment:
This solution has the following performance on the 100 provided training scenarios (on my PC): results: 5940021.00 time: 41.68 by Ram-Li-Czech |
| 2011-04-20 18:38:27 UTC |
Faster - no ram_li_czech_2 by Ram-Li-Czech |
Makes me feel good that I have the lowest score (not all the final submissions in the queue went through, though).
Problem: slow, high node Three new solvers: ram_li_czech: modification of james_1, forming 2x3 blocks rather than 2x2 ram_li_czech_3 : pretty proud of this one, it uses only the grid (1:2:end,1:2:end) for placement, zero bogus, nice patterns! Often creates nonsense though :) ram_li_czech_2: My favourite. Starts placing 2x3 blocks ala ram_li_czech. Once exhausted, starts placing from the most important pieces. No bogus, and the result looks pretty dense. Give it a try! Too bad it is slow... Have a nice day! by Ram-Li-Czech |
| 2011-04-20 18:17:42 UTC |
The Kitchen Sink by Nicholas Howe |
That's a pity!
Would it beat valles marineris? I see the latter is first but hasn't crossed the 6M by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 18:04:03 UTC |
C'est nul! 2 by Claire |
Pas si nul que ça ;)
by Oli |
| 2011-04-20 17:48:19 UTC |
The Kitchen Sink by Nicholas Howe |
To fix the bug, change the 9 on line 75 to a 12. With that alteration, this would have been my best entry on the sample testsuite.
by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-20 17:31:09 UTC |
NBW Combo Yot Lat 2 by Nicholas Howe |
This is a combination of Albert's NBW entry and my own Lattice code line, which I hadn't submitted because I overlooked the deadline. May be a lucky break for me, if this code helps me with the overall prize. Fingers crossed...
by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-20 17:25:19 UTC |
Valles Marinaris by Nicholas Howe |
I think this is my best entry score-wise. It breaks 6M on the sample test suite, barely. We'll see how it does when the queue clears!
by Nicholas Howe |
| 2011-04-20 17:23:37 UTC |
The Kitchen Sink by Nicholas Howe |
This one has a bug in it, found after the deadline.
When fixed it does break 6M on the sample testsuite, but probably not the real on. by Nicholas Howe |
