This is an overlay of level 1 start and target reached.

You will notice:

- that ball in tails is higher than on ground level

- path is slightly curved at beginning and end

- perimeter of ball is one pixel lower than ground level (well, that is noticable in picture in part 2)

- the target cat is one pixel lower than the start cat (I do not assume that this is intention.)

I measured that distance between centres of ball is approx. 325 pixel.

The counting stops at 752. Therefore 248 is deducted from 1.000. Therefore there is a contradiction to my assumption in part 1 that every crossed pixel deducts 1 point.

I therefore adjust my theory as follows:

The counting system counts every pixel crossed. The sum is multiplied by a constant. The constant is below 1.

The constant may be dereived as follows:

325 direct line from centre to centre of balls

248 = 1000-752

325:248=1:x

x=248/325= 0,7630769230769231

0,76 and so on is to odd to be choosen by Ola. I assume therefore that Ola chose a nice constant as 0,75 = 3/4.

248*4/3= 331,66 ~ 332

I assume that the slight curve makes the path longer than the direct connection.

Taking the second chart in part 2 into account you may add easily 6-7 pixel to the measured direct line of 325 and come to 332. And with an adjustment constant of 3/4 you come easily to 248 and finally 752.

So my thesis is that the counting system uses the following formula:

score = 1000 - (number of crossed pixel * 0,75)

It will not be easy to proof the formula, though.

I did not believe that an analysis of level 1 provides so much remarkable observations.

You may ask what is the purpose of this analysis. Well, for the time beeing it is only basic research. Maybe the findings/assumptions lead to something later.

You may ask why should Ola chose a constant of 0,75. Well, I have no clue.

Maybe the whole idea is bullshit after all. But anyhow, does anyone have a better explanation of the counting system?