wait.. isn't that what everyone do?

I think most people do this and it is really each groups choice.

This is as I see it, the fundamental flaw in the idea that team solutions are the end-all, be-all. Were we all to grab up someone's initial "the top score" solution, then we'd all be working the same solution, whether or not it is flawed to begin with..>For instance, suppose one was to consult the PDB for a copy-cat solution...Is that the "right" solution"...I personally don't know... It might be, or it might be a phantom solution. this is one of the reasons that I prefer to work alone.

Xiando, I think you are underrating the value of team play. Take a look at the highest scores in expired puzzles; it's usually an evolvers score rather than an individual score that ends up being highest. This despite the fact that it's my impression that most play is done solo. In group play people bring different skill sets, a new pair of eyes, and individual styles of play to the problem so even if (for example) you're making no headway tweaking the odds are another team member will come along and make progress with a rebuild or something else. And when, as inevitably happens, the eyes start to glaze over (you can only look at proteins for so long), someone else, perhaps on the other side of the world, will take over.

As for getting 'stuck' in a bad configuration of the protein: well, that's always possible no matter what your style of play. But I suspect that its less likely to happen in team play: everyone starts out as individuals on a new puzzle and after perhaps a couple of days people who are doing well will post their solutions for group sharing. There's no guarantee that such solutions offer the best chance for further progress (indeed sometimes the player may post any misgivings they may have such as "This doesn't look quite right") but the odds certainly seem to favour it. Many possibilities to get it right as opposed to one.

and if we are 'stuck' in a bad configuration, since other members uploaded their solution, you can pick them up and try to improve them, then reupload the new improved one . In VC, each player choose a letter, and add it before the score , B for bzip, C for Mike_Cassidy, G for gla, F for me.. and if we improve one solution we add the letter in question before the improved score.. meaning we can have

B 10350 by bzip, B 10355 by Mike, B 10357 by Madde, B 10358.5 by firejuggler, B 10358.7 by TheBobGuy
C 10345 by Mike_Cassidy
ect...

this mean that, if the 'B' original solution get stuck, you can alway try to improve another one to get a better score, so might end up with a C 10360 by bzip..

we always have 2 or 3 original solution to *start evolving * with

If the team model is taken to its extreme, one solution will be worked. That one solution may not be the solution. This is what I alluded to in my previous post.

Perhaps I should not have ended with a reiteration of my *own *personal *choice to solve these problems on my own, but I guess the constant reminders that "I really ought to join a group", and the implicit (and often explicit) statements that groups are more important instills in me a need to remind you all of the flaws in your logic, when taken to its inevitable end, ie, one "best solution" ganged by a multitude... I prefer to use the rules and see what happens when my mind works it. This is one of the reasons I chose to participate. The *personal challenge. If you choose to work as a evolver, that's your choice. It is not mine, both for the reason of the challenge, and for the reason that the mission was laid out as using one's intuition and three fundamental rules to solve proteins. I've personally (note that I said personally) always found that too many cooks spoil the soup. In my experience, it also ends with everyone making the very same soup.

If I get stuck in a bad configuration, then I'll restart or fix it. in any case i will have given it my best shot using the tools with which I was provided. I will try to avoid using others work and will try to avoid using the PDB as well, unless the researchers explicitly state that it is now a standard tool for these purposes. I don't hold that you should or shouldn't, I simply do so myself. If the end-game structure is similar to that of the top scoring puzzle, then it has enhanced the statistical correlation of the results and method. If not, it increases the variance. In either case, I believe that it provides valuable information.

As I said above, the fundamental flaw in the team model is that it encourages duplication, which I view as the antitheses of intuitive thought. I worry about the science. I ask the question, "What is the 'native structure', and how is it known that it is the 'native structure'"? "was an intrusive measurement system used to garner the data from which the 'native structure' was determined? Is the "known native structure" correct in the first place? (that for anyone who might happen to be using the PDB as a guide for winning the game play). The tools used traditionally to image these structures is quite destructive and can lead to incorrect modeling of the structures involved.

If score is itself a valid measure and my solution deviates only by a few tenths of a percent from the top team score, then statistically speaking, if my model and the team model are fundamentally different, which is right? this one? that one? both? neither?

My comment was designed to make people remember that it is dangerous to rely too heavily on the team model, because of a built in flaw. That of rote. What color car (pick black)? We were asked to provide an essential human ingredient, intuition. I personally feel that team play can lead to a reduction or elimination of that characteristic in favor of "following the leader".

For instance, at the time of this writing, my solution to puzzle 107 is 0.51% deviant from the top team solution, and only 0.33% deviant from the second place team score. These are quite small and with any hope be made smaller by close.

I recently posted pics of my working solution to the main chat and have been told by many that it is not at all like the top solution. Perhaps it is totally wrong, I don't know, but if the score comes close to, matches, or exceeds (unlikely) the team score, then it is a measure of uncertainty in something, either the scoring system or something else. In either case, I believe that information is of value. IMO, the team model dissuades paths that deviate from the chosen team structure.

I urge team people to remind themselves that multiple paths should be endeavored and that unlike the current popular opinion amongst some team cheer leaders, individual efforts (ie solo players) are just as important to this project as teams, if for no other reason than that we offer alternative approaches that the team model intrinsically dis-includes from its solution set.

I do participate in teams, just not in this venue, aside from the global team effort (folding, mentoring, moderating, submitting bug reports, offering suggestions to enhance the software development, etc.) to the best of my ability. I fully recognize that teams are important for division of labor in many tasks. This isn't in dispute. And it is part of the reason that I have chosen to volunteer for the tasks.

In closing, I have to say that it's odd to me that you don't address my original statement, instead parrying it into a misunderstanding on my part as to the value of a group/team. Really...I have no misunderstanding. I am merely bringing up a point which should, in my opinion, be considered more by team proponents than it often is, and again that is that the team model often leads to a narrow set of "right" methods and solutions. I just wish you guys would acknowledge a basic truth instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet by attempting to make my statement into an intellectual and/or emotional shortcoming on my part...

Had *I been on "the other side" of this, I would have likely responded by saying.."that's true...we employ this... to get around it..." Admitting a reported caveat is what I call forthright. Parrying it into a personal issue is imo unproductive.

If the team model is taken to its extreme, one solution will be worked.

Not quite true. Firstly its not "one solution will be worked" but rather that all team members, in the extreme situation you describe, will start from the same initial configuration. But individual team members are then free to take that configuration in any direction they wish. Just as everyone begins with the starting configuration Baker Labs see fit to present us with at the start of each puzzle and proceeds from there.

Secondly the team model is not taken to an extreme, certainly not on AHAP. Typically what happens is that people start working as individuals when a new puzzle is posted (always the fun bit) and, inevitably, some do better that others. After perhaps a day, one of the higher scorers will post their solution, and people who haven't been doing well on their own will stop banging their heads against a brick wall and try evolving (at least that's what I do). People also go back and forth quite a bit on the group and solo solutions: its not rigid. They may also come up with entirely new solutions: very useful if it appears that the current group solution is stuck. Its hard to define when that is, but indications include a messy-looking protein, an inability to make progress, and a mediocre score. It's a bit of a judgement call as to when to throw away your previous hard work, which is always slightly tough to do.

You also mention that the team model encourages duplication. I know you were referring to structure but as far as effort expended is concerned I believe the exact opposite is true; it saves a lot of time. If a particular change needs to be made only person on the team has to find it. We all only have so much time to spend on this.

I've tried both solo and group play and find the latter much more productive. I agree it would be undesirable to have everyone on a single team, but the sharing of solutions is very powerful. Progress is made in any field by building on the work of others.

I'm not questioning your desire to fold solo: that's entirely up to you. But I disagree with your suggestion that the team approach is fundamentally flawed. And please, this is not intended as a personal issue: I'm not quite sure why you think it is.

to see what I'm saying in either point, then I guess it's not worth continuing to discuss it with you.

well I can say that on our team (AHAP), it's not uncommon at all for somebody a few days into a puzzle to pass the group score with their solo score, and we all switch over and start evolving a different solution.

People don't just stop working on their own solution or trying different things simply because a better solution is there for the group score. A lot of our big breakthroughs come from solo work, and a lot of them from group work.

I would suspect other teams operate similarly, and have similar experiences.