[DruulEmpire]

There can be damn few things that a man can say he truly excels at, and no doubt there are thousands out there way faster than myself, but somehow I have always gotten a sliver of satisfaction from being able to solve computer solitaire -- nothing elaborate, no Spider Solitaire or anything like that, just the most basic format -- in under a minute.  I'm a little steamed that my Sixty Second Solitaire thread vanished from here many years ago, but nonetheless I kept my hand in the game.

It is a matter of perverse coincidence that I achieved my highest score to date -- 16967 in 43 seconds -- on the day of what I call the "O-low," the low the Dow hit a mere seven weeks into the new Obama administration.  That low was 6547, and it was on Monday, March 9, 2009.  Quite simply, my solitaire was doing at least 10,000 points better than the economy.

Highs like that got away from me over the years.  I developed computer trouble which made it easiest for me to just ignore the solitaire, and in any case my mouse moved less fluidly, which you really can't afford in order to play a great game.  However, over the past year or so I've put this computer through a couple of rehauls.  I rediscovered the solitaire and was soon earning five digit scores and even beating the one minute deadline all over again.  Still, I figured the greatest days were over.

Now I'm not so sure.  Yesterday I scored 16247 in 45 seconds, and just now I scored 16602 in 44 seconds.  I've no idea where exactly I "go" from here.  17000?  43 or even 42 seconds?

I find that I don't particularly care.  I'm just glad that, whatever I had, it's not lost.

Anyone can discuss this as they like, as literal game playing or as metaphor.  Personally, I would kill to solve a web sudoku in under three minutes, even though that's not so statistically amazing at all.

V to rtpoe below: always, always.  To Pal: well, to each their own.

[rtpoe]

Playing with yourself again?

[Palomine]

Upon reading your "O-low" all I could think of was cunnilingus and Oprah Winfrey's taint.

[DruulEmpire]

Continuing the topic of simple yet futile computer games:

Minesweeper drives me nuts.  Its Beginner game is small and cramped, so you can still lose at it, but your odds of surviving are pretty good.  I once solved a Beginner in 3 seconds, basically a function of at least two very luckily placed mouse clicks.

Minesweeper is a game in which a vast gray grid is laid out, and it hides several bombs.  You get to plod on square after square, blindly, constantly hoping you never get blown up.  All right, so you do get clues, in the form of numbers -- a 1 means there's another bomb nearby, 2 means two, etc.  This is a grid, so the highest you can stumble upon is 8, and I've revealed a 6 a few times.  Still, these clues can be piss-poor.  Sure, something's nearby, but where?  You can sit and stew and sweat over it all you like, but a lot of situations are just plain ambiguous, if not deeply cryptic -- for the most part, you're still flying blind.

Beginner is small and cramped, but doable.  Next comes Intermediate.  (I don't even want to THINK about Advanced.)  "Intermediate" (ha!) offers a grid of 16 by 16, that's 256 squares, and there are 40 bombs -- 40! -- hiding in all that.

For a while now, I've had to give up on any idea of actual victory.  My scores?  The number of squares left when I inevitably blow up the grid.  I basically keep track of anything 20 or below.  I once had eight squares left to go before I blew up.  Later, seven.  And just the other day, four.  And I figured, that's as close as I may ever get.  Seriously, this game belongs with the dictionary definition of "tantalize."

But just now it happened.  I actually solved a 256 square puzzle with all forty bombs intact.  And in 97 seconds -- just under a hundred.  It's enough to make you feel the tiniest little bit like Jeremy Renner.

I also note how high the clues got.  1's are to laugh at, 2's are as common as pennies.  This game yielded 19 3's and a single 4.  It would have been so much cooler with some 5's or even a 6, but no matter.

Today I figure, Cash in your chips and walk away.  But eh ... maybe I'll back.  I'm like that.    

[DruulEmpire]

All right, so as of today: 93 seconds, 12 3's, 4 4's, 2 5's.  If I actually multiply that, that's 62, just over the 61 from the last time.

Is this game actually teaching me something -- besides, obviously, tenacity?

[DruulEmpire]

Another Minesweeper solution.  18 3's, 3 4's.  Took 115 seconds, though.  Maybe I'm slipping.  Or just appreciating the value of being careful.

PS: just now, only 8 3's and 4 4's -- but in 86 seconds.  I guess that the moral is there's a tradeoff between the fast and the cool. 

[DruulEmpire]

At the top of this thread a little over a month ago I wondered where I go from a score of 16967 in 43 seconds first set back in March 2009.

I found out today.

17327 in 42 seconds.

All things being equal, I just wish my bowels would move.

[DruulEmpire]

Minesweeper update:

Just this morning, solved another intermediate Minesweeper in 73 seconds.  15 3's, 7 4's and a 5, for an informal score of 78.

Fast AND cool.  Awright.

[DruulEmpire]

88 second Minesweeper today, but not much, very thinly scattered: 9 3's, a 4 -- and a 6.

That 6 makes something new.  Till now I've taken a 6 as an omen that it won't solve.  Not any more.

[DruulEmpire]

88 second Minesweeper today.  3 4's, 15 3's.

[DruulEmpire]

101 second Minesweeper.  3 4's, 11 3's.

What really hurts is how long it takes to track down some one nagging perfectly redundant-seeming gray square.  So many much cooler time scores are lost, trying to get that very last square just right.

[DruulEmpire]

See, now, this is more like it.  Minesweeper record breaker: 70 seconds.  14 3's and 3 4's.

Add for today: 115 seconds, 15 3's, a 4, three 5's.

[DruulEmpire]

Minesweeper today: only 13 3's and 2 4's -- but in a record 65 seconds.

[DruulEmpire]

17 3's and 6 4's in 77 seconds.  By my informal scoring, a nice high 75.

And a little later: 20 3's and 7 4's in 86 seconds, informal score 88.  Took longer, yet points beat seconds.

[DruulEmpire]

More Minesweeper: 4 4's and 14 3's gives an informal score of 58 in a record 63 seconds.

Also, was one square away from solving one with an informal score of 81.  Hate it one that happens.