Not at all. When creating the ranks, I didn't add any bonus points at all for PHRASES. I changed the input data, because Adrian Kuegel rightly pointed out that Frank Raiser deserved double points for this problem.
The rule about doubling scores for first places has been removed. The additional points given to you, Pascal and Frank are merely meant to be some recompense for the time you took optimising your solutions.
Nah, we've learned a lesson. We are going to try and keep the test data large enough to prevent guessing. No more permuting is planned.
OK, I admit - I was in a filthy temper when adding this rule. It says 'preserving runtimes', it doesn't say 'preserving correctness'. Everybody plays fair, sort of .
On the whole, I am not sure whether we aren't missing the point of this contest here.
Challenges are governed by slightly different rules. See e.g. SOLSTRAS, which has no input at all. Similarly, for PSPHERE guessing input is (at least from my point of view) fairly harmless, I was expecting solutions to make use of the limited value of n to do some precomputation (though possibly less than you did ).
As for PAWNS I am frankly speaking a little disappointed, since only Adrian Kuegel's program was capable of solving more test cases than a human could solve within the time limit after a single short glance at the gaming board.
To cut a long story short: I think that the current ranks are fair and I'm not planning on changing them unless a bug is spotted.