From: "David Hruska" <>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Fall 2012 MATLAB Contest: October 31 - November 7
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:34:20 -0500
Organization: MathWorks
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <k79svi$bmi$>
References: <k4v77h$im6$> <k79o75$pvh$>
Reply-To: "David Hruska" <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: 1352169266 11986 (6 Nov 2012 02:34:26 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 02:34:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <k79o75$pvh$>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:782115

"Richard Zapor" <> wrote in message 
> I have re-run try146 which is leading with a score of 1307.67 and a time 
> of 46.97.
> The duplicate file re-run, try146 timechk,  scores 1309.88 with a time of 
> 48.145.
> Please re-run try146 as it appears to have been on speedburst.
> A delta time of 1.17 seconds is huge.
> Thank You,
> Richard Zapor

Hi Richard,

I appreciate the frustration when equivalent entries don't yield equivalent 
scores.  We see this performance variability, along with incessant tweaking 
of constants and random number seeds, as the part of the nature of the 
contest itself. However, over the years we've also seen that the winning 
entry will not be determined by a timing issue alone; algorithmic 
improvements are much more important. So my advice is to not get too caught 
up in these variations and instead focus on developing the next algorithmic 

MATLAB Contest Team