If one of them is shown, it's just one
possible creative product of a solver
that can be different with the author's
intended solution.
2. There's no proof that the solution is
optimal. If the lpb is published, it
opens the possibility that the new GHS
winner couldn't solve the level by
himself/herself. He/she just improved
the given lpb.
3. If lpbs of certain levels are
published, the new members in the future
may lose interest solving those levels.
Those levels become dead levels. Solvers
of all times should have the same chance
and excitement in solving the levels and
breaking the records.
4. Many levels are so difficult not
because they use complex trick. See
LaserTank #0040 "Down the Drain" for
example. Every player knows the rules,
but he/she may have difficulty solving
it. If the lpb is given, the player
learns nothing. (Compare to playing
tutorial levels like Tutor.LVL and
Tutor-with-Playbacks.LVL.) People are
too curious to see something they don't
know.
5. There are more than 13,000 levels
available. We can choose many good
levels, which are suitable to our
brain's capability.
Bye,
Suyono
ontheleewardshore wrote:
>
> I understand the philosophy regarding
> not releasing LPB (solutions) to the
> levels. But when I can't finish a
> crossword puzzle, I look at the
> answers - that way I can learn from
> the solution. Instead of not allowing
> members to see any solutions, what if
> members were allowed to have, say, 3
> LPB files. Or if that is too hard to
> maintain (since everyone would
> probably want different files), there
> could be several released for all to
> see. Maybe older levels or levels that
> have few solvers, a variety of
> difficulties and types. If such LPBs
> were available, I for one, would not
> go running to see them just because I
> could. I would still try hard to do it
> myself. It's just that sometimes, when
> you've beat your head against the wall
> and given up, there doesn't seem to be
> a reason not to see the solution. Then
> you'd smack your head and say "of
> course, I'm an idiot." Or maybe you'd
> think "that's SO ingenious, very
> good."
>
> Any interest?
> thanks for listening, Christopher
> Gordon
>