puzzle picture
408: Exploration Puzzle 1 Round 1
Status: Closed


1CharlieFortsCon... 62 2046 Contenders16,42850
2Bletchley Park 8 18 Contenders12,58449
3Mark- 62 2046 Contenders12,28947

Need this puzzle? Log in to download.  


Joined: 12/06/2008
Groups: Contenders
Illogical scoring?

Why are "contacts" more important than novel structure?

I finally got on the board with a mediocre score and improved it as much as I could by rebuilding and moving around the sections of the protein.

Frustrated because I hit a dead end early, I randomly banded together unrelated sheets, and wiggled, hard. The exploration score shot up before the other score dipped below 1960.

When it was all done, I had mangled one of the sheets: bent it so badly that it no longer bonded completely with its next-door neighbors, and was hanging part-way out into oblivion... but closer to the unrelated sheets to which it was temporarily banded. And I now have 3rd place on this puzzle, with a hideously ugly protein.

Scoring fail? Or have I discovered the cure for AIDS?

SabineA's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 years 10 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 08/31/2010
Groups: None
Something else that I noticed

Something else that I noticed yesterday was that someone appears to have changed the LUA get_score() to return the exploration score rather than the normal energy score, thus ensuring that scripts don't work properly. Team AD released a couple of scripts that do something like summing the segment scores to patch them.

If contacts are that important, why not lock off the secondary structure, and score only on beta sheet contacts, otherwise the result is going to be the 'my morning hairstyle' type structure.

Perhaps the way to do it is to turn the peptide into a giant helix. That might be what they're looking for :)


Joined: 12/06/2008
Groups: Contenders
While we're on the subject....

In other puzzles, merely trying to work it earns you a point for participation. Not so, here. The result is skewed awarding of global points. One point for 23rd place?? Was this intentional?

Joined: 05/19/2009
Groups: Contenders
That is a bitter pill.

That is a bitter pill. Wasting my weekend for a weird puzzle and earning only 3 points leaves me with the conclusion that I should leave these puzzles alone and leave a script running on the other ones. I have better things to do with my spare time.

beta_helix's picture
User offline. Last seen 17 hours 7 min ago. Offline
Joined: 05/09/2008
Groups: None
this will be addressed...

I'm posting a news item about this issue

infjamc's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 8 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/20/2009
Groups: Contenders
This is unfortunately correct

This is unfortunately correct since the denominator used in the score calculation is the total number of players on the scoreboard:

22nd place out of 46: (24/45)^7 * 100 = 1.23 ==> 2 points
23rd place out of 46: (23/45)^7 * 100 = 0.91 ==> 1 point

B_2's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 years 38 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 11/29/2008
Groups: None
That rapidly decaying scoring

That rapidly decaying scoring algorithm is pretty harsh when there are only a few participants.

And that's another measure of how messed up this was, less than 50 people able to get on the board.

lynnai's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 12 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/16/2008
I quite liked the puzzle in

I quite liked the puzzle in general, such a nice change from the QTTN where I have to wonder what the point is.

But yeah the implimentation could use a little ironing out.

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