apterous.org

John Beresford Tiny query - is the margin of victory over the Bot the best way to separate two players on the same score? Theoretically, everyone could have got 200 on this, but 2 would go out because Waldorf put up a better performance against them, which is something totally out of the players control.
Seems harsh.

Chris Butler From what I recall from Matthews justification in previous tournaments, it's done this way to mirror the harshness of the Weakest Link where much of it is out of the players hands. Namely, the amount you bank depends on the player before you & you can be eliminated even if you were the strongest link

Matthew Tassier Indeed it would be harsh, but realistically we're never going to get a round where everyone maxes their game, and using the performance of the bot as a proxy for the difficulty of each players game to decide the WL in the case of a tie still feels reasonable to me. As Chris suggests, I like the fact that the danger of difficult (or impossible) rounds and an over-performing bot keeps even the strongest players on their toes. Harsh is not necessarily undesirable.

Spike Nard Is it fair for me to end the round early after getting the answer or should I be waiting until the end of the round to give the bot a chance?

Andy SC That makes no difference to what the bot gets i think, Spike.

Spike Nard oh right ta for that.

Anthony Endsor I think that's part of the skill against a bot. I'm sure there are instances when the bot would get the answer after a certain time and if you get it you should end the round early. Obviously against a human, they would have the entire 30 seconds anyway.

John Beresford Thanks for the replies, Matt and Chris. Just in case there's any shadow of doubt, i'm not bitching about the rules, merely raising a query that i can't quite get my head around. I'm not sure i understand how overall pts accumulated in the tournament can be less credible than the result against the bot, in the event of a tied score.
As seen here already, several have 200 pts for this round. Elliott and Robin only 'conceded' 50 pts each to the bot, but others, through no fault of their own, had Waldorf score 100 against them, even though they maxed the game. If the purpose of the tourney is to find the best player at this contest, then surely judging them by the randomly erratic performance of the bot against them is a bit of a nonsense.

John Beresford Actually, i just realised i AM bitching about the rules. :)

Matthew Tassier I think it's preferable to use this round's performance to decide the WLs where possible. While the 200 case is more difficult to justify, the average score of a WL from last year's tournament is about 125. As the bots are more likely to solve easy rounds than hard rounds I think margin of victory/defeat is a relevant tiebreaker.
Anyway, my programme ... er, tournament, my rules :)

John Beresford I love it when you're dominant, Matthew . xxxx

Matthew Tassier 17 max games this time as you ease yourselves into the competition, including this round's Strongest Link, Zarte.

Matthew Tassier Uncontroversially the tiebreak rules aren't needed this round, but sadly we must still lose two players. Thanks both for taking part, but Jason and Ailsa you are the Weakest Links, Goodbye!

Elliott Mellor Surely me and Emily are the strongest links, unless I've missed something?

Chris Butler Yeah you've missed something...... It should be you, Emily & Robin!

Max Welling Haha:)