CS164: Tournament Results

Preliminary Round

The following are the top five rankings for teams that successfully completed the checkpoint tests exp.py and prime.py. The programs that were actually run are slightly changed from those supplied with the skeleton; the changes are to the parameters supplied (number of primes, values exponentiated) and to comments.

		#cycles (smaller=better)
Rank	Team	exp.py	prime.py	Total
1	Team26	29263	524108	553371
2	Team14	25482	627884	653366
3	Team29	25006	737634	762640
4	Team05	26781	741241	768022
5	Team31	25086	813643	838729

Final Round

The following are the top five rankings for teams that successfully completed the five project benchmarks. Again, the programs that were actually run are slightly changed from those supplied with the skeleton; the changes are to the parameters supplied (number of primes, values exponentiated) and to comments. In addition, for this round we threw in a dummy use of input(), to prevent certain optimizations that, while allowed by the rules, are not in the true spirit of benchmarking (but see the Addendum below).

		#cycles (smaller=better)
Rank	Team	tree.py	stdlib.py	exp.py	prime.py	sieve.py	Total
1	Team31	233702	30577	21004	563054	85999	934336
2	Team29	246923	41420	27087	739715	107462	1162607
3	Team14	300071	37990	27190	792633	116967	1274851
4	Team26	354495	189553	34071	647056	135996	1361171
5	Team15	314651	48231	31943	994991	123133	1512949

Final Round: Addendum

Two projects used an (ahem) unorthodox approach. Taking advantage of the fact that programs that do no input will always produce the same results, they precomputed the outcomes of executed and simply generated code that printed a string consisting of those results. Here are the results for these projects on versions of the benchmarks that do not do input.

		#cycles (smaller=better)
Rank	Team	tree.py	stdlib.py	exp.py	prime.py	sieve.py	Total
1	Team14	3	3	3	3	3	15
2	Team20	4	4	4	4	4	20