puzzle picture
210: Hold Me Tightly
Status: Closed


1mcurtis 46 1603 33,758100
2Judecca 46 1603 26,02597
3feet1st 46 1603  20,00694
4caglar 46 439  16,95191
5Milward 46 1603 Void Crushers16,29888
6aap 46 1603 Richard Dawkins Foundation16,06685
7vakobo 46 554 Russian team15,26282
8infjamc 33 21 14,02077
9Brick 46 1603 13,92675
10steveB 46 1603 Void Crushers13,75572
11Migi 46 1603 xkcd12,90070
12skorepeon 46 1603  12,83067
13auntdeen 46 128  12,52165
14LavenderSky 46 1603  12,51763
15Mark- 46 1603  12,27161
16CharlieFortsCon... 46 1603 Contenders12,27159
17stormrobberee 46 1603  12,13857
18Enzyme 46 1603 12,13055
19BootsMcGraw 10 8 Contenders12,06551
20xandy 46 1603  12,02449
21mat747 46 1603 Void Crushers11,99547
22anne romaine 46 1603  11,99246
23Dolichwier 46 1603  11,96944
24tallguy-13088 46 1603  11,96242
25Jim Fraser 46 949  11,95641

Need this puzzle? Log in to download.  


Milward's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 48 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/01/2009
Groups: None
Problem with puzzle

This puzzle doesnt work as you are allowed to add an arbitary number of segments. Make them into a helix and you just get a score as large as you want.

Joined: 10/10/2008
Groups: None

Oh, thanks for catching that! I'll swap it out on Wednesday with a fixed version since this puzzle is doubling as a homework assignment for an undergraduate class.


Joined: 11/30/2008
Groups: None
keeping the protein

it is possible for me to keep my solution or start from beginning?

Joined: 10/10/2008
Groups: None
The next version of the

The next version of the puzzle will hopefully be much more refined. We're planning on creating a single puzzle that will have multiple scaffolds with the same ligand that you can basically flip through. We're going to be using the ligand energy as the only competitive score. All solutions from the current puzzle will be analyzed separately.

Mark-'s picture
User offline. Last seen 22 weeks 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2009
Groups: Contenders
Scored separately?

So, is there any point in, those of us who made/are making a genuine attempt to find the best solution, carrying on with this puzzle.

I spent many hours trying to keep a top 3 position with, what I believe to be, a very promising structure. I now find myself in 14th place, and falling, with the prospect of having to redo all those hours just to get back to where I was before and with very little recognition for my previous efforts. Or, should I just join the 'Giant Helix Club' and get some more points on the board now?

Brick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/15/2008
Groups: Beta Folders

I don't this puzzle should be scored at all.

Even without building the giant helix, the puzzle allowed insertion of residues anywhere and everywhere.
It plainly is a broken puzzle.

Mark-'s picture
User offline. Last seen 22 weeks 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2009
Groups: Contenders
I see the scores have been

I see the scores have been awarded and, like I said, those of us who made an attempt to solve the puzzle, in the spirit that it was intended, have been penalised for trying to do the right thing.

Very disappointed Admin

Joined: 10/10/2008
Groups: None
Yeah, sorry about the

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. We're trying to figure out how to award the points in a way which would be fair. We'll fix that very soon. (Hopefully in the next 24 hours).


Mark-'s picture
User offline. Last seen 22 weeks 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 08/05/2009
Groups: Contenders
Thanks Austin

I don't think you will please everyone, whatever you do, but I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate a token gesture to acknowledge their efforts. I think we all understand it was a genuine mistake. Now, on to the next puzzle :)


Brick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/15/2008
Groups: Beta Folders
Can't just throw out the helix

You can't just throw out the giant helix solutions and score the rest.

There are many players who had high scoring solutions while following the spirit of the puzzle, but those solutions were surpassed when the helix silliness happened and the general thought was that the puzzle would be closed early and thrown away.

How would they get credit for their perfectly good solutions? If they get no score, they then become the injured parties.

beta_helix's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 hours 8 min ago. Offline
Joined: 05/09/2008
Groups: None
bonus points?

we are trying to think of a way of rewarding those who followed the spirit of the puzzle, without taking anyone's points away.

I think Austin will go through the solutions and award bonus points to those players who scored well while ONLY following the spirit of the puzzle description.

so if you were doing well and then decided to go crazy with the helix then you got your points already, and if you refrained from the crazy helix you will get bonus points as well.

we will try to do this as quickly and as fairly as possible.

Brick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/15/2008
Groups: Beta Folders
We can all email you our

We can all email you our saved "real" solutions :)

Joined: 10/10/2008
Groups: None
Little More Time

Seems that I've underestimated the amount of time it takes to pull and analyze the results from the fold it server. It might take a few more days to fix the scores. I think the way it'll be though is that I'll find the "cutoff" score under which there aren't any large helix insertions, and treat all those scores as a subset which will be scored again. (Giving the top scorer in that subset a max of 100 points). That way, people who worked the helix insertion angle already got their points from the initial score, and people who followed the spirit of the puzzle are scored as if those helix insertions weren't there. Everyone's happy, right?

Joined: 05/03/2009
Groups: Contenders
Interesting change of policy

The idea of subsetting solns and rescoring, is an interesting one. Once you've worked through 210, are you going to do the same for 192 and 174? And after that, will you comb through the feedback pages and pick up on the 'lost score' posts and reanalysis those of us who lost hours of work when our scores failed to register? I, mcurtis, mat747, Madde and all the others would be very grateful...

Redrawing the lines of combat, and handing out sweeties, (which is basically what you're doing) is an unwise decision. Helix-chasing is nothing new, but it has raised it's ugly head ever since the largely mutatable freestyle puzzles were introduced. 192 and 174 are the first ones that come to mind but there have been others, and they generate huge frustration. But the problem with them is not how players respond to the prospect of easy points, the fault lies with the puzzle design. There were several things wrong with 210, the end-date was set to Dec 12th, there was a ligand issue (I was playing it with the ligand from 195 at one point) and someone forgot to set a limit to additions. It should never have gone out in that state, and once it did it should have been pulled. I pushed the score to the stratophere in order to get it taken down, not for the points.

There are things we love about FoldClub, and there are things that drive us mad. But we learn to live with them. With the greatest of respect to Mark, there are many many players that have lost hours of work whilst we effectively beta test each new update, but at the end of the day you can only play your own game, in your own way. Changing the rules is not going to solve the problem. Proof-reading puzzles before release will. But, if 210 is going to provoke a policy change perhaps it's time to open up a forum piece and let everyone have their say. I'll even go first...

Joined: 10/10/2008
Groups: None
Please refer to:

Please refer to:


For the resolution to this issue.

User login
Download links:
  Windows    OSX    Linux  
(10.12 or later)

Are you new to Foldit? Click here.

Are you a student? Click here.

Are you an educator? Click here.
Social Media

Only search fold.it
Other Games: Mozak
Recommend Foldit
Top New Users

Developed by: UW Center for Game Science, UW Institute for Protein Design, Northeastern University, Vanderbilt University Meiler Lab, UC Davis
Supported by: DARPA, NSF, NIH, HHMI, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Boehringer Ingelheim, RosettaCommons