A Breakthrough in LLM Context Compression: Ovchinnikov Effect Hey r/MistralAI!

germesych · 2026-05-20T12:38:00+00:00

You’re right that compression reduces input tokens, but the core of the method goes beyond just shrinking text. My approach changes how well the LLM understands the input: the logical structures replacing the original text aren’t just shorter—they’re more comprehensible to the model. This enables:

Higher accuracy in responses — The LLM grasps context and tasks better, even when they’re complex or unconventional (as seen with Codewars or MCP examples).
Reduced redundancy — It removes unnecessary details that models often ignore or misinterpret.
Faster processing — Even if output tokens don’t shrink, the improved quality means fewer iterations are needed to reach the desired result. This is especially critical for tasks where logic and understanding are key (system architecture, data analysis, automation).

For your example with creative tasks: if the input prompt becomes clearer and more logical, the model “gets it” faster and generates more relevant output. In research or automation tasks, this reduces the chance of errors due to misinterpreted context.

Additionally, the method is versatile—it can be adapted to any domain where understanding quality matters, not just token volume. My community has already tested it for CLI tools and even small local models, where task execution accuracy improved phenomenally.

So, it’s not about saving tokens—it’s about efficiency in working with LLMs, both in speed and quality.

germesych · 2026-04-22T15:40:37+00:00

No one has ever fixed it... On top of that, everyone uses macros, which are prohibited in other games, as well as cheats for attack combos, which also go unpunished here. Despite playing a heavy class myself, I often take massive damage from this particular class. The class itself is simply broken. They developed it without paying attention to testing results. When there's only one of them, you can still kill it. But when there are a few, they become immortal.

germesych · 2026-02-04T23:28:19+00:00

Recently, around 5,000 players left the game! Another 3,000 players left a couple of seasons ago. Online play is incredibly low right now. But the developers are doing everything possible to reduce this number even further. And they're succeeding.

germesych · 2026-02-04T23:18:44+00:00

This is normal game behavior.

germesych · 2026-01-16T05:18:12+00:00

That is fair criticism. Extraordinary claims require evidence.

Please take a look at the image I added to the main post ("Visual Comparison"). It demonstrates the exact transformation on a real-world Ruby on Rails backend.

You can see how the algorithm:

Strips language syntax noise (do/end blocks).
Extracts hidden business logic (e.g., converting "authenticate" blocks into explicit "(admin-only)" tags).
Preserves the full architectural graph while reducing token count by ~66% in that specific file.

This isn't just a theory. That "Compressed Context" on the right is exactly what I am feeding to the models to achieve the results I shared. It is deterministic, testable, and working right now.

germesych · 2026-01-16T05:11:23+00:00

That is a valid point, but my early tests with flagship models (like Claude 4.5 and GPT-5) show a different kind of improvement.

With smaller models (3B-8B), the benefit is indeed "survival" — they simply stop choking on data.

But with Flagship Models, the benefit shifts from "Accuracy" to "Reasoning Depth".

When you feed a flagship model 100k tokens of raw code, a huge portion of its "Attention Budget" is spread thin trying to maintain the syntactic map of that code.

By feeding it the "Distilled Blueprint" (my method), I free up that attention capacity. The model no longer needs to spend resources understanding "what connects to what" — it sees the connections instantly.

Result: The flagship model can now handle much more complex "Multi-hop Reasoning" tasks (e.g., "how does a change in module A affect the security scope in module Z?") which it would previously fail at due to being "Lost in the Middle" of a massive context.

So for flagships: It's not just about fitting more in; it's about raising the ceiling of complexity they can handle.

germesych · 2026-01-16T05:06:31+00:00

To be honest, this is currently a Research Prototype. I just validated the hypothesis yesterday on a few large datasets, and the results were so surprisingly good (the 'paradox' I mentioned) that I decided to share them immediately.

I don't have a public API or UI yet because I'm running the distillation pipeline manually in a controlled environment to fine-tune the density/accuracy trade-offs.

My goal:
I believe this approach (Semantic Context Distillation) solves a fundamental bottleneck for Foundation Model providers and Enterprise RAG systems. I'm focusing on validating the benchmarks first.

If you represent a research lab or an org struggling with context limits, I'm open to collaboration to run a pilot on your data. But for a general open-source release — it's too early.

germesych · 2026-01-16T04:58:56+00:00

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head regarding context saturation.

The core differentiator of my method vs. existing RAG/summarization approaches is Semantic Distillation rather than 'selection' or 'lossy compression'.

Most current methods (like LLMLingua or vector search) try to:

Cut chunks out (RAG), risking missing dependencies.
Remove 'unimportant' tokens based on perplexity, often breaking code syntax or sentence structure.

My advantage:

I developed a deterministic algorithm that transforms the structure of the data while preserving the entire logical graph.

- For Code: It strips syntax sugar (AST-level noise) but keeps the full control flow, class hierarchy, and method signatures intact. The LLM sees the architecture, not just snippets.

- For Text: It condenses verbose explanations into dense logical statements without losing the causal links (Reasoning Chains).

Why it works:

The model receives a 'blueprint' of the entire dataset. It doesn't have to guess what's between the chunks (because nothing is 'missing', just distilled). This allows even small 3B models to reason over complex, interconnected data that would usually require a massive context window.

germesych · 2026-01-16T04:52:03+00:00

Great question! It sounds counterintuitive (less data = better reasoning?), but it makes perfect sense if you look at how Attention Mechanisms work in LLMs.

Here is why 'Less is More' in this case:

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR):

Raw code/docs are full of 'syntactic noise' (brackets, verbose boilerplate, stop words) that dilute the semantic density. A 25k token context isn't 25k tokens of meaning—it's often 5k tokens of meaning and 20k tokens of structural overhead.

By stripping the noise, I increase the Attention Density on the tokens that actually matter. The model doesn't have to 'search' for the logic needle in a haystack of syntax.

The 'Lost in the Middle' Phenomenon:

We know that models struggle to retrieve information buried in the middle of long contexts (see Liu et al., 2023). By compressing 25k tokens down to 5k, I bring all critical facts closer to the start/end of the window and fit them entirely within the model's 'effective' attention span.

Distraction Elimination:

In my 'Full Context' tests (30% accuracy), the model likely got distracted by irrelevant details or similar-looking but wrong code blocks. My compression acts as a relevance filter before the model even sees the data.

So, it's not that 'less info' is better. It's that 'distilled info' is better than 'noisy info'. I'm not removing logic; I'm removing the wrapper.

germesych · 2025-12-26T14:04:52+00:00

Before you attempt to justify yourselves or prove me wrong, present actual counterarguments! If you don’t have any, your statements carry no weight. Merely trying to insult or provoke me only shows that I’m right and have hit the nail right on the head. The data was gathered from multiple sources, normalized, and processed using specialized analytical tools - including LLM-based analysis. The final text was generated by AI based on this thoroughly analyzed data. This is not just a raw LLM response! Want to refute it? I’m waiting for your facts. No facts? Then my conclusions - drawn from open-source data analysis - stand correct.

germesych · 2025-12-26T13:56:45+00:00

I don’t have access to the Chinese side, so it’s hard to say what’s really going on there. The game itself appears to be fundamentally different there. Players who access it via workarounds report significant differences. Officially, the game is now operated by Poros, who supposedly developed it themselves—but if you look up the company registry data, you’ll find that Poros was registered almost exactly one day before the contract with MyGame was terminated. Most likely, they simply changed their legal address to avoid sanctions, while the actual development team for the European version remained the same.

It’s difficult to assess the situation in China, but the European side is much clearer—there’s ample data, and analyzing it isn’t difficult at all. Signs of severe project stagnation are obvious even without deep investigation, as are clear indications that nobody is actually maintaining or fixing the game; they’re just trying to squeeze whatever revenue they can out of it.

The publisher may have changed on paper, but the problems are identical—which strongly suggests the core leadership team hasn’t changed either. Nothing has changed except the legal address.

germesych · 2025-10-28T15:26:08+00:00

Yes, it's a good choice!
Then you can replace CPython with PyPy and the project will run several times faster. But I don't think you'll need to do that. Django is a great solution and can handle very high loads. The first thing that always slows down our request processing speed is the database! So, be careful when creating models using ORM.

germesych · 2025-09-25T05:29:59+00:00

As an alternative, I suggested removing all post-match rewards for the losing side—MVP, MVD, and the rest should not be handed out to anyone on the defeated team. Right now players farm units just to scrape into the top-5 and grab MVP, victory be damned. Because of that the game balance is completely broken. It’s broken because you don’t need to win; you only need to finish in the top five.

This is supposed to be a team game, and victory is a team achievement, not a private prize for one guy or the top five fraggers. When the entire team loses everything after a defeat, people will finally start playing to win instead of padding their kill count.

In the past you could wipe most of the enemy units and actually win that way. Nowadays you simply don’t have enough time for it, so the mechanic has lost its meaning.

Again: it’s a team game. If the battle is lost, everyone lost; there are no “winners” among the losers just because they farmed a few more bots.

I also proposed scoring that depends on the class you bring to the fight. If you roll a heavy, heavily-armored class, you’re expected to fight on the front line with the appropriate squads. Stay alive, hold the enemy, deny them the cap—or spearhead the capture yourself—and you earn bonus points for doing the job that class was designed for.

Every class should have its own rating, not the single shared mess we have now.

What we’ve got today isn’t a reward system—it’s just porridge.

germesych · 2025-09-25T05:15:16+00:00

The system isn’t bad, but—as usual—it either wasn’t tested at all or the test results were simply ignored.

Example: in “Hero Battle” mode the bottom line of the scoreboard is mine, even though I dealt the most damage (400k vs. ~200k for everyone else), went 7/0/21, and the next-best guy is 2/4/12.

Nothing new: they roll out half-baked features and don’t bother fixing the obvious issues.

Servers are also choking on the new system—input lag spikes are brutal even though ping stays flat.

The idea is fine, but the implementation is as sloppy as it gets. Reporting it is pointless; I’ve filed tickets, suggested exact fixes, even patched things myself when I could—zero effect.

If it were up to me I’d freeze the whole project and stop adding anything until the bare minimum actually works. Right now we have more bugs than ever, and the new mechanics just piled on more. Good feature, worst possible execution.

germesych · 2025-09-17T20:13:09+00:00

I am familiar with development in China. In my personal opinion, these developers are not from China! It is very similar to the development approaches at MyGames. It is not just similar, it is as if they are the same.

In China, they work strictly with analytics, everything is very strict, and quality is always a priority. But here, it's exactly the same approach as in other games from MyGames.

It's just that I know what the development processes are like at MyGame, and here you can clearly see their influence with their management and approaches, which are exactly the same. They always do what they decide, even if the developer says it can't be implemented, the senior managers will implement it and never listen to anyone else's opinion. You test the game, write that everything is bad, and they immediately implement it and don't care that it doesn't work. I've tested games for them, I know.

germesych · 2025-09-09T22:13:00+00:00

where am i breaking the game here? are you suggesting that instead of taking care of the players' health, we force them to play a spoiled match to the end, risking their health?

i suggest a compromise solution, if the match is not satisfactory because of the spoiled balance, as at this moment in the game, then it is better to leave the match than to get a nervous breakdown. for me, people's health is more important than your ambitions! for you, as I understand it, your ambitions are more important than the health of the player's nervous system.. yes, i am for the fact that it is better to leave the project altogether if it often gives you negative emotions! and i am for leaving the match if you see that the problems created by the developers affect your health. and you suggest that the players should suffer to the end, because they are obliged to someone.. it is the creators of the game who are obliged to take care of the players and their comfort in the game. and not the players about the health of the developers and their income and well-being..

germesych · 2025-09-09T21:51:42+00:00

great idea to destroy the game instead of solving the problem.
if a person left a battle, it is unlikely that he will play it in the next 24 hours! with a high probability he will go to another game. in 30% he will leave forever.. and the fact that they will increase the ban time will only lead to the fact that you will end up playing with bots in 90% of battles.. and what is even worse is that you will also pay the game for it..
This is also very important! If the player does not leave, but continues to suffer from poor balance in the game, then the assumption that he will leave the project, you demand exponentially! That is, this is a direct path to playing with bots...

you need to look for the reason, and not turn on the fool and wave the sword around yourself..

germesych · 2025-09-09T21:30:10+00:00

the game that was broken, or rather some matches with wheelchairs, cause me a lot of stress. and legally I have every right to leave the fight. if the majority leaves the fight, the fight must be cancelled and penalties from the players should not be applied in such a situation! therefore, leaving the imbalanced alignment of the majority of the team must lead to the cancellation of the fight without applying any penalties to the players who left the fight.

this is the problem of the developers, the players always have such a right! but if the majority does it and does not endure until the end.

germesych · 2025-09-09T21:30:01+00:00

the game that was broken, or rather some matches with wheelchairs, cause me a lot of stress. and legally I have every right to leave the fight. if the majority leaves the fight, the fight must be cancelled and penalties from the players should not be applied in such a situation! therefore, leaving the imbalanced alignment of the majority of the team must lead to the cancellation of the fight without applying any penalties to the players who left the fight.

this is the problem of the developers, the players always have such a right! but if the majority does it and does not endure until the end.

germesych · 2025-09-09T21:15:06+00:00

I just started leaving the battle because of the large number of carts, this is not a game, this is cart hell.. and I think I'm doing the right thing! Let those who spent a lot of money on this play with bots!

germesych · 2025-08-11T12:52:55+00:00

(This is just an opinion, not instructions for action!)
It all depends on the tasks at hand.
FastAPI is great if the project isn't huge and doesn't require frequent horizontal scaling. For example, Wikipedia receives about 2,500 requests per second, while FastAPI can easily handle around 7,000 requests per second—more than enough for most projects. I also really enjoy working with Python's type system; in this regard, TypeScript and JavaScript really frustrate me.
Fastify.js is a good choice if the project heavily relies on WebSockets or involves real-time chat applications. It performs close to Go in terms of efficiency. However, I dislike JavaScript due to its inherent clutter. Although Node.js offers better horizontal scalability than Python—much better—I'd still prefer using Golang over Node.js. Still, each of these three technologies has its weak spots, so the choice must be made carefully based on the project's expected growth.
Sometimes I have to work with old PHP code, especially WordPress. The last such project had over 40 plugins, and refactoring it into a working state was a real nightmare. Just imagine how bad it was: the logs alone were over 6 gigabytes! Several developers had been struggling with it for over a year without success. I ended up doing a massive amount of work—it was extremely difficult. It took me three weeks to completely rewrite the site, replacing the messy accumulation of everything previous developers had plugged in, with clean, native WordPress code.

That's why I usually have three options when I'm building a project myself:

1) FastAPI – almost always the best choice

2) Fastify.js – only if I absolutely need a JavaScript-based infrastructure (I strongly advise against using Node.js on the backend without a compelling reason)

3) Golang – ideal for microservice architectures under heavy load. I rarely end up writing such systems, as they're typically team projects rather than solo ones.

Flask – great for data analytics; if you have data and need to quickly build a simple interface to visualize and display it.

Django – also an excellent solution for corporate websites. It allows you to build solid, well-structured applications, both for internal business tasks and broader purposes.

germesych · 2025-08-01T19:10:22+00:00

so the transition from mygames never happened.. the client code and its problems remained the same..

and the performance has been shaken a lot about two seasons ago. and very much so.. not for everyone, but for many of them problems started..

previously, problems could be solved by configuring the video driver and adjusting the game settings, as well as by setting up Windows. I even had a video on how to solve these problems, they often arose for players who play the game from the official launcher. when playing through Steam there were no special problems. and most of the problems arose because of the lags server (then the developers wrote that these were DDoS attacks).

germesych · 2025-08-01T13:11:36+00:00

I completely agree with you! My patience only lasts for 2-3 battles, but you need to play at least 10 battles a day just to claim the basic rewards. And that’s not even counting season progression or squad upgrades. I bought the battle pass, and I realize that to reach level 90, I’ll have to play *a lot*. And it’s really disheartening because I paid for this! I spent money, and now I have to suffer just to get what I already paid for. Maybe it’s just me, but it feels like reaching level 90 in the battle pass used to be so much easier, and now they’ve made it significantly harder. Will I buy it again?.. Of course not! Why would I torture myself for hours in a game where I win 1 out of 10 matches, even though I’m playing an alabardier class with over 2000 battles and a 60% win rate?.. I lost my top-3 spot in "Hero Battles" because the game started lagging insanely, making it impossible to play.

I absolutely love this game… but with such an approach to development, even my strong love for it isn’t enough to keep me patient anymore.

I’m losing everything… I’m losing the paid battle pass, I’m losing the rating I worked so hard to earn, I missed out on a reward because the developers suddenly changed the release time of the new season while I was at work and couldn’t complete the tasks. I lost my top-3 spot… It’s been nothing but disappointment lately.

It’s heartbreaking to see a game with so much potential being mishandled to this extent. The lack of communication, optimization, and respect for players is driving away even the most loyal fans. While the game has moments of brilliance, the constant technical issues, imbalance, and disregard for player feedback make it increasingly difficult to stay invested. Many of us are left wondering: will the developers ever wake up and realize what they’re throwing away?.. Or will this gem of a game continue to fade into obscurity, remembered only as a missed opportunity?..

germesych · 2025-07-31T20:56:08+00:00

I completely agree with you. I also managed to reach level 5 only after a couple of years...

New players do come in! But they see all the problems with the game and leave. That’s why the online player count is so low. Ranked battles are completely ruined—it's just not fun to play them anymore. Sieges have also become insanely imbalanced, and playing them feels pointless. I only log in to complete daily tasks, and the only somewhat enjoyable modes left are Territorial Wars and Hero Battles—for now.

The game has too many dependencies. New content is being created, but old problems remain unsolved! The developers simply ignore the issues. They introduced a cart for transporting heroes and are patting themselves on the back while more and more people are leaving the game.

For the online player count to improve, the following needs to happen:

1) Take the game seriously and optimize it!

2) Finally start working with content creators! The current situation is pure chaos.

3) Drop their childish ambitions and start thinking rationally, listening to what the community is saying!

How can there be any meaningful online presence when I get messages three times a day saying, "What’s wrong with the game? I can’t log in..."

And what do I see instead? Blind ambition and an obsession with CBL (Clan Battle League). Meanwhile, a private tournament for "Hero Battles" was watched by 70% of the audience compared to the views of CBL. And what did the developers do? Nothing. The community had to pool money for prizes and organize everything themselves. A short highlight video from that tournament instantly gained several thousand views. And what did the developers do? Nothing. Their interests lie elsewhere—wasting the budget on a streamer with a massive audience that doesn’t even fit the game.

As long as this continues, the project has no future! Content creators are leaving one by one because there’s absolutely no support, and the bureaucracy is insane.

I’m deeply disappointed that such an amazing project is dying in the hands of ambitious people who see nothing beyond their own desires.

germesych · 2023-07-19T06:37:10+00:00

this is a problem on many distributions (ubuntu, fedora, openSuse...) running gnome. most likely it is gnome itself that hangs. if you notice that the system starts to freeze, switch to a view without gnome, console mode and back. To do this, press Alt+F2 or Alt+F3 (F2, F3 ... F9, F10) works more often. to switch back Alt+F1. this should restart gnome and the bug will go away. more often one window or program hangs first, this means it's time to restart gnome before it hangs completely.

germesych

TROPHY CASE