Survey on how to organize the puzzles in a WPC
By Peter Ritmeester, the Netherlands
At the General Assembly in Oulu 2002 it was decided to organize
a survey to find out what the competitors thought of that year's competition.
The idea was to gather information and ideas that may help future organizers.
As a result, in November I wrote the survey in such a way that
it included possible guidelines for future competitions and asked puzzlers comment
on this. Although I received answers from only twelve puzzlers, they answered
the questions at great length. These twelve included the top three in Oulu (Niels
Roest and the Voigt brothers) so it will be interesting to read what they think.
PRINCIPLES
The basic principle of the WPC 2002 was to test the widest possible range of
solving skills. Therefore it included:
- speed solving (fairly easy puzzles with little time)
- deep solving (difficult puzzles)
- optimizing
- time bonus puzzles
- manipulative puzzles
- team puzzles
1. What do you think of this principle?
2. Do you think any of these categories was over-represented?
3. Do you think any of these categories was under-represented?
4. Did you miss a certain category?
All agreed that a wide range of categories is good, and future
organizers should attempt this too, provided it is evenly balanced. Of course,
to balance it in such a way that everybody is happy is impossible. For instance,
some puzzlers thought manipulative puzzles were over-represented in Oulu, but
one puzzler thought they were under-represented. Some also thought too many
points were involved with the time bonus part and that difficult puzzles were
over-represented, although this was only because time was too limited.
TYPES OF PUZZLES
In order to test all solving skills, and to have some variation, all puzzles
fell roughly into these categories:
- manipulative puzzles
- logic puzzles
- puzzles with words
- number puzzles
- observation puzzles
5. Do you think any of these categories was over-represented?
6. Do you think any of these categories was under-represented?
7. Did you miss a certain category?
Although each puzzler had his own favourite he would like to see
more of, there was no overlap, with all puzzlers mentioning a different type.
Again, some thought that manipulative puzzles were over-represented. But, in
general, they thought the categorization was fine.
FAIRNESS OF PUZZLES
In order for the championship to be fair, the Oulu WPC followed these standards:
- no general knowledge was required or even helpful, not even
a famous person as a solution
- all word puzzles used Swahili, not English
8. What do think of not asking for any general knowledge?
9. What do you think of using Swahili?
10. Do you think the puzzles were fair, so that non-English speakers (and solvers
who don't use the Roman alphabet) had as much chance to win as anyone else?
11. Do you have suggestions on how to make the championship more fair?
All agreed with not asking for general knowledge. As a certain amount of general
knowledge questions was included in WPC guidelines in the past, we conclude
we need to have another good look at these guidelines.
Almost all thought using Swahili was a good idea. Although puzzlers
using the Roman alphabet still had the advantage, and some developed a feeling
for Swahili during the championship, this advantage would have been a lot greater
had English been used, as in previous years. An alternative may be to use a
nonexistent language or Korean, perhaps (provided no Koreans competed).
Almost all thought the puzzles in Oulu were fair for non-English
speakers, and the fact that Japan won the team contest points to this too. Some
suggested as possible improvements:
1. A set-up like in Hungary 1999, where for each puzzle type,
there were three puzzles: easy, medium and difficult. Because of this, fewer
introductions were needed, and it afforded more differentiation.
2. The introduction booklet should be publicized well before the
championship, so that non-English speakers have more time to prepare.
INSTRUCTIONS
Most puzzles (parts 1, 5 and 7) had short instructions. The special puzzles
had longer instructions.
12. Should all puzzles have short instructions, for the sake
of simplicity and clarity, even if this would mean fewer special puzzles?
13. What puzzles should have been dropped in Oulu, because the instructions
were too long?
All thought that special puzzles should not be banned, even if
that would mean longer instructions. They all thought none of the Oulu puzzles
should have been dropped for this reason. One puzzler thought the instructions
should have been longer, clarifying more.
INSTRUCTION BOOKLET
The goal of the booklet was to give enough information to solve the puzzles,
but no more. A solved grid alone was considered enough information to make the
puzzle understandable.
The idea was that giving an entire puzzle as an example (both
the puzzle grid and the solution) would make it too easy to practice before
the start of the competition. This was considered undesirable, because more
experienced teams might unfairly benefit from practice and finding solving tricks
before the start of the competition.
14. Do you think the instructions were clear enough? If not,
why not?
15. Do you agree that the instructions should provide only a minimum of information,
to prevent practicing? If not, why not?
16. What is your general opinion about the instruction booklet?
All thought that, although not perfect, the instructions were
clear and the instruction booklet was fine, with one exception: The instructions
should also have provided an example puzzle, and not just the solution. Almost
all disagreed that practicing should be prevented. The main goal should be absolute
clarity, and this can only be provided with complete examples.
LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY
Obviously, it was not intended that all teams -- or no team -- would solve a
certain team puzzle, as happened this year. In the future, giving bonus points
based on time of solution or order of finish could ensure that scores will be
differentiated in case a team puzzle is too easy. Giving solving hints could
ensure that scores will be differentiated in case a puzzle turns out to be too
difficult.
17. Do you think organizers should always use time bonuses
and solving hints with team puzzles in order to ensure differentiating scores?
If not, why not?
Most puzzlers approved of this, although they thought the time
bonuses in Oulu were too large. Some good points were mentioned here:
A. The regular time-bonus system can be unfair: the amount of
points you get depends on what other teams do. An alternative scoring system
could be that you get extra points depending on how many minutes you have left.
B. Hints should only be given to prevent puzzlers getting stuck.
The system used with the Oulutronic (where the total amount of time given depended
on how many teams solved the puzzle) should be used more often.
In this championship, all puzzles could be solved entirely by
logic. But as time was short and the puzzles were difficult, solving entirely
by logic was not always the best procedure. Sometimes it was better to make
a hypothesis based on intuition and hope to be lucky (as in chess).
18. Do you think luck was too big a factor in this championship?
Seven puzzlers thought yes. One of them called it an "unintended
over-emphasis on intuition." Some remarks:
- Looking at the top puzzlers, there were no real surprises, so
luck did not rule all.
- Even if time was not so limited, in every WPC there was this kind of luck:
Starting with the right hypothesis saves you time, which makes you score more
points with other puzzles.
Wei-Hwa Huang had a suggestion that would make sure that logical
puzzles are solved logically. If a puzzle is designed to have multiple solutions,
say three, then ask for all three solutions. A lucky guess will find one. But
only a logical analysis will find all.
PLAYOFF ROUND
In order to attract media attention and potential sponsors, as well as have
an exciting finale to the event, the WPC this year ended in a playoff round.
Three finalists seemed like an appropriate number to watch, and 30 minutes seemed
about the right amount of time for the test to be fair -- but not so long as
to be boring. The organizers tried to present a mix of puzzles representative
of the rest of the WPC.
19. Do you think the playoff round was fair?
20. Did you like watching the playoff round?
21. Would changing the playoff round in some way have made it better?
22. Should we have a playoff round in every WPC?
Everyone thought the playoff round was basically fair and fun
to watch (in case they were not competing themselves!), although some criticized
certain details. Like Niels starting 10 seconds too late; the puzzles were distributed
too late among the audience; clocks were not visible enough to all the audience.
One thing several puzzlers mentioned was that the finalists should
have ways to erase items entered. The battle ships for instance was pretty difficult,
and the usual way to solve them is to try out a hypothesis with an erasable
pencil. This was not possible.
Basically, a playoff round is certainly recommended to do each
year, although it may still be at the discretion of the organizers.
FINALLY
23. What is your general opinion of the puzzles in Oulu?
24. Which puzzles, if any, did you really dislike?
25. Which puzzles did you like the most?
26. Do you have any other comments about the puzzles, or the organization?
All puzzlers liked the puzzles a lot; one thought them too difficult.
For what they liked best and least, all mentioned different puzzles, with the
exception of the changing block maze, mentioned by two as being the nicest puzzle.
All thanked the organizers for a great championship, with one criticism mentioned
by four: There should be no announcements about buses, food, et cetera during
competition, as this is very distracting.
