Coding Games and Programming Challenges to Code Better
Send your feedback or ask for help here!
I thow darts, but I’ve never heard of losing points in x01 game.
Anyhow, I need clarification on losing more points than have been earned.
For instance: first turn: 10 X X
is the minimum 0 or is this a -40 (+10, -20, -30)
incidentally, this would make the next turn advantageous if it is miss-miss-miss and back to 0.
The statement says:
If you miss three times in the same round, your whole total is reset at 0.
In other words X.X means -40 but XX. and .XX means -50 in the same round.
In your case, there are 2 misses in the same round, not 3, so the score is not reset to 0.
-40 looks correct to me.
you are incorrect, in author’s solution:
if (total<0) total=0;
Yes, I also had a question about this, considering that the condition does not explicitly state this, but I relied on the author’s common sense in the sense that the score cannot be negative, but only 0 or positive, and this turned out to be the correct guess.
P.S. I changed the statement by adding an indication that the score cannot be negative.
@BerserkVl, my interpretation based on the original statement wasn’t wrong. Your interpretation aligns with the author’s solution only after you revised the statement, not based on the original wording.
The author explicitly stated at the very start that the rules of the dart game are changed for this puzzle, so we can’t rely on the usual scoring rules.
I’ve tested the author’s own solution with the part you quoted removed (i.e. the part that resets the score to 0 when it’s negative), and it still passes all the cases. My own solution also works without any such reset.
Given that 1,397 people have completed the puzzle, I don’t see a need to add the “clarification” you mentioned, which in reality introduces an extra rule not present in the original statement. That’s why I’ve just removed it.
There’s no ambiguity in the statement. @TexasRebel’s confusion came from trying to apply their dart scoring knowledge, which doesn’t apply here.
With this message you show your incompetence:
- I do not know the rules of darts, so for me the phrase “the rules have changed” means nothing, I rely only on what is written in the puzzle statement. Actually, as when solving other puzzles, I first and foremost focus on the puzzle statement, and not on any knowledge from the real world.
- As was written above, I solved the puzzle without knowing whether the score could be negative or not, and therefore followed the path of common sense, which, after I solved the puzzle, coincided with the solution published by the author. At the same time, you did not use any common sense, did not look at the author’s solution, but immediately began to assert that the score could be negative.
- In order to beat the statement from double interpretation, I added a line that clearly indicates what situation cannot be. Does this line affect the previous solution - NO. Does this line change the very essence of the puzzle - NO. Does this line add clarity to the statement - YES.
- By adding this line I have removed an ambiguous place from the description, which corresponds to: The description must be clear and unambiguous.
- Mentioning that your solution works without the correct handling of the situation with a negative score only indicates that the tests in this puzzle are weak. It will not be difficult to come up with a test that will fail your solution and at the same time pass the author’s solution.
- For some reason you mention that the puzzle was solved by 1,397 people and that therefore no clarification is required. Although:
- firstly, I did not claim that the puzzle is difficult/impossible to solve without clarification,
- secondly, refusing to clarify in a place of ambiguous interpretation just because the puzzle can be solved without this clarification is stupid,
- thirdly, I believe that among those who solved it, they were also unhappy that the condition causes double interpretation, but they did not want to/or could not (since the corresponding post on the forum was created only in January 2024, while the puzzle itself was available more than 6 years ago), and even so, that this ambiguity raised questions for me and the person above in this post, which indicates that my clarification was definitely useful for this puzzle,
- fourthly, for some reason, when indicating the number of those who solved it, you kept silent about the percentage of those who solved it, which is currently 54%, it is clear that there is no connection with the negative score, but this clearly shows that There is some problem with the puzzle, given that its solution requires only the most basic knowledge.
-
Thank you for describing me as incompetent. This is surely the best and constructive way for one to start a reasonable discussion.
-
I don’t know the rules of dart either, so “the rules have changed” doesn’t make any sense to me either, but it could alert those who do know the rules.
-
You claimed to focus on the puzzle statement, and not on any knowledge from the real world, and then you said you followed the path of common sense and introduced a “no negative scoring” rule. You’re self-contradictory. The puzzle statement can be followed literally without adding that assumption, and negative scoring isn’t inherently at odds with common sense.
-
The double interpretation arose because you altered the original rule to fit your own common-sense view, rather than clarifying it.
-
Same as point 3.
-
Your view that certain cases are “weak” rests on your added rule, not the given statement.
-
You’ve made some unsupported assumptions which I don’t want to address.
- You point out to me that the rules have been changed by the author, but before that you don’t even clarify whether I know the rules of darts or whether I was guided by the real rules of darts, no, you just decide for yourself that I was guided by the real rules of darts, and that’s why you point out this remark of the author. And now you write to me that this is for those who KNOW the rules and they are the ones who need to read the puzzle rules more carefully. So why did you point this out to me in the first place?!
- You are wrong, the fact that I follow the written rules cannot mean that if the rules miss an important point, I cannot apply sound logic, which may also be based on the rules that the author has already described, to solve the puzzle. You can follow the statement of the puzzle exactly until the moment when it is clear and does not contradict itself. In this case, this is not the case. The rules of darts specified in the puzzle are logical and can be played by them in general, but they become illogical if we assume that the score can be negative, and why this is so is indicated in the comment above. And as I already said, introducing a negative score can give different results on the same test, and since I do not know what tests will be in the validator, I try to IMMEDIATELY write a solution that will be correct, and not try to defeat the validator or ask for help on the forum.
- You are again distorting my point of view to suit yours, firstly, the double interpretation arose because the people who pressed the approve button could not spend more time to make sure the condition was correct, secondly, I did not change any rules, if you still do not understand, the condition does NOT indicate how to handle a situation where the score may become negative, thirdly, this rule was originally intended by the author, as evidenced by his decision, and the fact that it coincides with my common sense plays an indirect role here.
- Weak tests literally mean that the author did not add a test that would test the case with a negative score. But this is an important test - I REPEAT, depending on how you process this negative score, the answer will differ. In other words, if the condition is given correctly, then no matter what test you come up with within the framework of this condition, the correct solution will always pass this test.
- You were the first to point out the number of people who solved it, although I repeat, I did not write anything about the impossibility of solving this puzzle!!!
P.S. Be sure to use the “Reply” button, otherwise you are arguing with yourself.
I don’t think this discussion thread should be flooded like this, so I’ll simply end here.