Heart Rate and Puzzling

 

I bought heart rate monitor after WSPC. There are some usage I expect, but the main reason is to understand what is happening when I solve puzzles.

In some endurance sports, heart rate is used to estimate energy consumption. For theoretical background, the best summary I have is here. I found some articles about energy consumption in chess, but no theory or data, so now I am collecting my own data. I will show some of them.

First one is from Japan Puzzle Championship.

Obviously high heart rate in the first round, especially at the end of that round, when I rushed in the final puzzle. It marked the highest 149, matching my feeling. Second peak is in the lunch break, just ascending stairs.

Next from recent LMD contest.

Quite low compared to the previous one, maybe because in home? Relatively high in Skyscrapers + Snake period and at initial finish. I predicted it was high when I found my error in post-checking, but it was not true.

And at an event.

Low rate in the final hour because I finished my main task. Still 2700kcal in 8 hours is unusual, explaining why I get sicky in highly competitive situation. I missed food during this record, and had bad headache in the next day, probably showing the importance of fueling.

Another feature is instability of heart rate. In comparison, pure walking is like this:

But I do not know what this means, I am not the specialist. Any information related to this field is welcomed. For the time being, I will continue to record, maybe I can attach the heart rate link to my YouTube video. I cannot record during WSPC under current regulation because I have to connect monitor and phone (this is why I began now), but maybe it will change in the future?

Puzzle League

Short news about what I am working on right now; I have planned Heads-up Puzzle League, and the first one was held last weekend.

The idea came when I saw the new format of GP Final two months ago. My first question was validity of the results from almost all easy puzzles, which can be checked by many trials. Then I found good format without so much helpers, and importantly, I am in Tokyo, Japan, where many good players can easily gather. Here I felt great possibility.

I am also trying to add video record and commentary, as in playoffs. They will appear on my YouTube channel from - hopefully - #2 or #3.

Hitori

Notice: Toketa vol.3 will be published. See here.



Hitori is the puzzle appeared in Nikoli in 1990. Classical Hitori was only searching puzzle; looking for certain starting points, and searching the row/column of unblackened cells. That was all. It is often said that Hitori is not in favor because of unnecessary clue cells, but I think this is not bad when regarded as searching puzzle.
On the contrary, modern Hitori is rather logical. Especially, in harder puzzle, we need to consider global connectivity, and I love Hitori with this logical deepness. Here, the authors tend to try to make searching easier, and unnecessary clues can actually be unnecessary.

Here is a (modern) Hitori, it would be better not to fill in empty cells....

solve in PUZ-PRE


Most Hitori I have solved in contests are classical searching ones, where noise clues are valid. I want to solve logical Hitori more.
By the way, Hitori Round in Logic Masters 2014 was great. It suggests some ways to resolve problems about Hitori.

24HPC in Japan, and a bit about JPC

On May 4-5, some Japanese puzzlers solved puzzles from 15th 24HPC in Joes' home. Almost two months have passed, but these days I have some time to review and solve the remaining puzzles,  so here are some notes about my experience and feeling. Scores can be seen here as a reference (I think you need to download to view properly).



Round 1
Lovely theme. My target that day was 900 points in each round, and I thought both of Magnets variants are low valued compared to the amount of work, thus I started from Japanese Sums and went backwards. After going back, I moved on to Magnets, but I broke it and I did not have enough time to retry.

I felt Compass has more chances to work well with other rules.


Round 2
I started from the highest. 25 minutes were left after smooth solve. My plan was not checking till the end, but taking rest after checking once. I used 5 minutes in this round, and it turned out to be error-free.


Round 3
Started from Four Colour Masyu and then Exclusive Mix, but sadly I made a mistake in the last cells of Masyu.

First one of Skyscrapers [Chaos] was harder than expected. Considering the point value, I feared to solve second one and solved Tents and Trees, which I saved for last, in the end of the round. But that Skyscrapers actually was very comfortable one. I regret having passed it.


Round 5
We solved all 14 rounds, but the Japanese round was the last round because some participants are authors/test solver. So next was Round 5.

This was my second choice for ignoring round,  and in fact I should have chosen this round. Targeting 900, I started from Voyage to France, but this was the start of the collapse. One more trouble was in DNA Sudoku. I thought the letters were only for "easier tracking", and believed the connected point was 5.

Second Tapa was my error. I like Spy Battleships type, by the way.


Round 6
My most disappointed round. Mainly because I broke Summons many times, and because I could not find how to solve Loopki. Changing a puzzle into another type is my favorite, but I even broke it! And I feel Loopkis are great, too. I had checked the patterns, but did not understand it enough.

I regret not solving Compass, too. Yes, I could not find the entrance at first glance, but giving up good puzzle is my sadness.


Round 7
I could not finish second Star Battles, and the others are my errors.

In my feeling, points distribution is inappropriate in many places, and hard puzzles tend to be try&error.


Round 8
75 minutes for solving, 5 minutes for checking, 20 minutes for the rest; same as Round 2. The difference is that I made errors.

The puzzles are stable. I am curious about the unfamiliar grid size.

Slash Pack can be solved so easily when uniqueness are used. It is too much valued in this sense.


Round 9
I wanted to solve at least one Battleships in Hexagon, but they were impossible. I have not solved them yet. Frankly, this type breaks the round. IFF rule should be inappropriate here.

Second Thermometer-Ying Yand had no solution. It was easy to find, so during the round we discussed and decided to treat everyone as correct. Scrabble had multiple solutions (probably 3 patterns were submitted at that time).


Round 10
My ignoring round. Arrow Maze was marked incorrect because of ambiguity, but I felt it is solvable. Even if this was ok, this is still my least raw score, but I made a bad choice in the sense of contest points.

They are much amount of try&error and were a bit too hard. In Arrows, I prefer second one for the same reason.


Round 11
Same experience as Round 2 or 8. Surprisingly, every time when I saw my watch, it showed "1:15". The puzzles were comfortable and good for the rest. It had been better if I had used symmetry in first Triple Block.


Round 12
15 minutes were left. I began feeling tired, and the puzzles themselves were harder than in Round 2. I solved intuitively in Fillominoes.

I started from high pointers again. Consistent theme through two rounds.


Round 13
Wonderful theme! I enjoyed Pentominoes thanks to this theme. And here is my joking error in Scrabble:

In Japanese pronunciation it can be B.... Our typical confusion is L/R, but B/V here.

Another error was in first Mastermind. It is so confusing to use a digit twice.

I felt first Group Sum Doppelblock is easier than second one. I am missing something with this type?


Round 14
Because of some troubles, I had little time for Dissection. I managed to solve two of them in the very last second. Satisfying spurt.

Stable Serkan round as usual.


Round 4
To be honest, this result was not expected. I am still wondering why. It is true that I am familiar with authors and puzzle types, but I think these are not enough to explain. What was critical?

I left 15 minutes for second and third of Honey Islands and Curve Data, and solved these four puzzles one by one. I finished in the last minutes. Considering authors, I do not recommend to solve these types earlier.

Here is a strange error:

Bodyless snake!

Second Battleships has cool logic.


Overall
We hold this event since last year (same days). I remember that last year I thought "I do not want to solve Latin squares, but nothing I can solve is left except these!" again and again. This year I do not hate these anymore, and I could enjoy more thanks to this improvement.

Next year, if puzzles are in public, we would like to use the same holidays again. We have many holidays in the first week of May, and this is called as "Golden Week".




Next, about JPC.

JPF has announced the schedule of JPC and JNPC;
JNPC: July 11 13:00-15:00
JPC:   July 25 13:00-15:30
Both are in JST.

Timings are fixed, but international participants are welcome of course. I expect English instructions from organizers.

Systems of WPC and WSC team selection are:
1. Top 4 players are in A-team.
2. Next 3s are in B-team.
3. If these 7s include at least one newcomer, next one is in B-team. If not, top newcomer is in B-team.
No one is seeded.

JPC is the event I can find least meaning for win. I still remember my disappointment two years ago. Ko is not in organizing team this year, and the selection is tough as usual. At least I have the right to go to Sofia because of Puzzle GP, but.... Let's see what will happen.

Two contests are held in different days this year, so I will join in JNPC, too. My fear is that I accidentally get A-team seat. I think the tendency of JNPC is different from that of WSC or other contests; it is rather puzzlish. With my position and eagerness about Sudoku, it is enough for me to compete unofficially in WSC.


By the way, about "puzzlish Sudoku" in conclusion. I do not think only the combinations with typical puzzle type are puzzlish. I do not have enough words to explain the difference well, but a typical example is Killer Sudoku; Japanese authors tend to make this type without fully using cages, and I am comfortable with this just as a puzzler.

It seems that some sudokers do not want a part of puzzlish Sudoku. But I do not know where is the boundary. I talked with Kota about this, and agreed that the boundary should be determined. I fear that I cannot meet good puzzles due to the ambiguity today. If you say these types do not fit Sudoku tests, they can appear in puzzle tests. Sudoku is a kind of puzzle, anyway.

JPC, WPC

JPC/JNPC were held in May. This year, JPF selected the A-team members as follows:

(1) The best Japanese who reached the top 10 (in Japanese only ranking) and have never participated in WPC/WSC (if he/she cannot join in, this seat goes to the second man)

(2) The 3 (4 if (1) is absent) best Japanese

(And everyone with 10n rank (in international ranking) gets T-shirts of Japanese team.)

As you can see here, the members in A-team for WPC are (1) Yuki, (2) Hideaki, Kota and me. Happily, I still have the chance for the playoff.

WPC/WSC are held in August this year and overlap with summer vacation. It is difficult to get plane tickets, so no B-team. But seat (1) still remains because JPF wants to open WPC/WSC for newcomers.  This is a good decision, I think. By the way, I know the discussion about last year’s WPC result in Tom’s blog. Tricky selection shows we haven’t selected “best” team intentionally (at least this year). Here is my opinion about how WPC and national qualification should be. I don’t know the history or the object of WPF well, so this is based on what I know.

It seems that some wants to treat WPC as if Olympic games. Deciding the champion should be a purpose of WPC, of course. But there is a big difference: in WPC, each country can send 4 (or 8) solvers irrespective of their capabilities. This is not a bad thing, because this leads to extend puzzle communities. Well, I think this is another object of WPC.

Now let’s think about first one. Puzzle is different from other sports: our contest can never be in the same condition. It depends on authors, contest style, and… so on. In WPC, we solve at least 2 days, but such period is very difficult to realize in national qualifications. Almost all has only 1 round, so there is no chance to recover. For example, in Japan, with so many good solvers, it is almost impossible to determine the best team. To say more, regardless of the style of qualification, many world-class solvers cannot go to WPC, though they can participate in online contests and have great results. So WPC is truly “world championship”?

In the discussion in Japan, Takeya proposed the idea that “top 50 in GP can participate in WPC without qualification”. This reminds me of the WC of Rubik’s Cube. Isn’t this similar to our genre? If each country can send 4 (or 8?) more solvers in addition to this rule (don’t think now about whether this year’s GP style is good for this purpose; this is another problem), maybe these extra seats can be used for newcomers. This is possible even now, but will be easier to do so.

Other merits exist. Organizers of national championships cannot be qualified now (like last year's Ko), but they may get their seat in GP. And for example, Yuta, who finished PGP in 7th place, couldn’t participate in JPC/JNPC because he has classes. Such sad things won’t occur using GP.

With the system, national championships don’t need to be top solver’s qualification. Again in Japan, before I know JPC, its style was not that of WPC; many puzzles depended on language. But maybe this is suitable for “J”PC. National competition can be used to determine wild cards, or A-team members.

Of course, there is a problem: limitation of capacity for organizers. What I can do by myself is just sharing ideas.

BTW, I didn’t participate in JNPC. I didn’t think I could be in top 3, and didn’t want to be 10n ranking. In this sense this system is not good. I’m looking forward to WSC, but before I go to London, I need to find time to solve JNPC.