So for the "completed" puzzles, how close are the contest results to the actual protein folding? How does it compare to folding@home solutions?
I was going to post essentially the same question. How well can a general-purpose protein folding algorithm solve these puzzles in say under 24 hours with no human guidance?
This game does not originate from folding@home, as many have said, but instead rosetta@home: boinc.bakerlab.org.
You can see in the Economist print edition
"Players use their computers to fold proteins. The more chemically stable the folded protein becomes, the more points the players are awarded. In trials of the game hundreds of players were given 40 protein puzzles to solve (for the trials, the folding solutions were already known). Many of the best players were not scientists but were able to find the correct structure faster than computers."
As Benj said, the game originated from Rosetta@home. It is unfortunate that the person that posted it on slash dot entitled their post as something about folding@home 2. Implying that folding@home came first. Anyway...
1 day?? On Rosetta they have about 100,000 volunteer machines working on proteins and similations run for weeks. Now, they are working on more then one protein at a time, and they are sometimes reconfirming they can get results as good or better as the prior version of the program... but the point is with 1,000 humans playing the game for a few hours seem to be able to come up with as good an answer as hundreds of thousands of hours of crunching on home computers. Over time, studying how the players of the game are able to accomplish that, Rosetta@home will adapt and find ways to express to the computer program how to use a similar time-saving approach to solving the problem.