Fool-Proof Improvement Timeline?

Kalayaan

After completing the LG CC and fool-proofing the problem sets using the Pacifico method, I've gone through PT 1-5 of the LG Bundle. I've seen ~108 unique games at this point. LG has always been a weak point of mine (the first simple seq game problem set took me about 3 hours), and the CC seems to have really helped my accuracy. I'm around -2 average.

However, my timing is still much too slow. It's been taking me around 10-15 extra minutes to finish each section in the bundle.

I'm going to continue with the Pacifico method. If anyone's been in a similar situation, at what point in the bundle, or in the PTs phase, did you start to see your LG reach -2/below territory?

Alex

I had to do at least 20 sections before I hit my first -2 on a fresh section. Everyone is different though, and you're making great progress! Just keep hammering away...

Seeking Perfection

I'm not sure exactly. I may have reached a -2 fairly early, but didn't regularly get timed -2s for any significant length of time.

Before foolproofing I started out really struggling to get to the last game, but there could have been a time or two on a PT I made it far enough into the final game to end up with a -2. I would say I was probably averaging -4 with a range from about -2 to a high end of -8.

For me it wasn't about getting to a specific number of misses, but just getting to be able to finish the section. I did this within the 35 minutes for the first time about halfway through the bundle maybe PT 18 or 19. I know I didn't happen to miss any that first time I finished on time. I couldn't regularly finish until close to the end of the 35 and even after that still had trouble every sixth test or so on average.

When I finished the section, I always averaged about half a mistake. I would miss two about a eighth of the time, 1 about a quarter of the time, and 0 about 5/8ths of the time. But my average misses would have been higher(but probably not as high as -2) because when I couldn't finish I would revert to about -4.

Anyways I got to an average below -2 by the end of the 35 test bundle, but I still had enough variation from those sections I would struggle to finish to keep me worrying and foolproofing more sections right up to the test where I got a -1 on the easy September games.

After finishing the games section on the September test, two thoughts went through my head during the break "Don't mess this up on one of your good sections" and "Please don't let that have been an experimental section." Thankfully I didn't mess it up and my experimental was an RC section. Some people get good/confident enough to prefer an experimental games section. I don't understand them, but I hope you are one of them.

Good foolproofing!

Kalayaan

@"Alex Divine" said:
I had to do at least 20 sections before I hit my first -2 on a fresh section. Everyone is different though and you're making great progress! Just keep hammering away...

@"Seeking Perfection" said:
I'm not sure exactly. I may have reached a -2 fairly early, but didn't regularly get timed -2s for any significant length of time.

Before foolproofing I started out really struggling to get to the last game, but there could have been a time or two on a PT I made it far enough into the final game to end up with a -2. I would say I was probably averaging -4 with a range from about -2 to a high end of -8.

For me it wasn't about getting to a specific number of misses, but just getting to be able to finish the section. I did this within the 35 minutes for the first time about halfway through the bundle maybe PT 18 or 19. I know I didn't happen to miss any that first time I finished on time. I couldn't regularly finish until close to the end of the 35 and even after that still had trouble every sixth test or so on average.

When I finished the section, I always averaged about half a mistake. I would miss two about a eighth of the time, 1 about a quarter of the time, and 0 about 5/8ths of the time. But my average misses would have been higher(but probably not as high as -2) because when I couldn't finish I would revert to about -4.

Anyways I got to an average below -2 by the end of the 35 test bundle, but I still had enough variation from those sections I would struggle to finish to keep me worrying and foolproofing more sections right up to the test where I got a -1 on the easy September games.

After finishing the games section on the September test, two thoughts went through my head during the break "Don't mess this up on one of your good sections" and "Please don't let that have been an experimental section." Thankfully I didn't mess it up and my experimental was an RC section. Some people get good/confident enough to prefer an experimental games section. I don't understand them, but I hope you are one of them.

Good foolproofing!

Thanks for the advice, guys. I just finished a fresh take of LG from PT 6 and went -4 in 44 min. The fact that most people seem to think that the earlier LGs were easier worries me. Simply reaching -2, not even averaging -2, seems unlikely by PT 18 at this rate.

Seeking Perfection

@Kalayaan said:

@"Alex Divine" said:
I had to do at least 20 sections before I hit my first -2 on a fresh section. Everyone is different though and you're making great progress! Just keep hammering away...

@"Seeking Perfection" said:
I'm not sure exactly. I may have reached a -2 fairly early, but didn't regularly get timed -2s for any significant length of time.

Before foolproofing I started out really struggling to get to the last game, but there could have been a time or two on a PT I made it far enough into the final game to end up with a -2. I would say I was probably averaging -4 with a range from about -2 to a high end of -8.

For me it wasn't about getting to a specific number of misses, but just getting to be able to finish the section. I did this within the 35 minutes for the first time about halfway through the bundle maybe PT 18 or 19. I know I didn't happen to miss any that first time I finished on time. I couldn't regularly finish until close to the end of the 35 and even after that still had trouble every sixth test or so on average.

When I finished the section, I always averaged about half a mistake. I would miss two about a eighth of the time, 1 about a quarter of the time, and 0 about 5/8ths of the time. But my average misses would have been higher(but probably not as high as -2) because when I couldn't finish I would revert to about -4.

Anyways I got to an average below -2 by the end of the 35 test bundle, but I still had enough variation from those sections I would struggle to finish to keep me worrying and foolproofing more sections right up to the test where I got a -1 on the easy September games.

After finishing the games section on the September test, two thoughts went through my head during the break "Don't mess this up on one of your good sections" and "Please don't let that have been an experimental section." Thankfully I didn't mess it up and my experimental was an RC section. Some people get good/confident enough to prefer an experimental games section. I don't understand them, but I hope you are one of them.

Good foolproofing!

Thanks for the advice, guys. I just finished a fresh take of LG from PT 6 and went -4 in 44 min. The fact that most people seem to think that the earlier LGs were easier worries me. Simply reaching -2, not even averaging -2, seems unlikely by PT 18 at this rate.

I wouldn't worry that people thought they were easier. I felt like any difference was marginal. There was a hard question type that was added fairly recently in the history of the test which threw some people for a loop. You have to replace a rule without changing the overall effect. However, other than that I would say that for a long time the games section was getting easier just because there were fewer unusual games until a couple years ago when they started popping up again, but at a lower rate than they once did. Additionally, its early to know if it is a trend but the June, September, and December(I haven't actually seen the December test so I can't say for sure) games were all regarded as fairly easy. Some people think this might be a response to the threat of losing market share to the GRE. Others think it is happy accident which may not continue.