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.
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 Guthrie 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 Guthrie oh right ta for that.
|Show all comments|
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.
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.
John Beresford I love it when you're dominant, Matthew . xxxx
Notes from the organizer: Round two will be played in Nice format against Apterous Waldorf. With targets (51-500) in Nice guaranteed to be possible without needing to use all the available numbers this format is fairly friendly. Waldorf will favour 1 large number probably fail to solve the majority of rounds exactly.
The two lowest scoring players will leave the tournament this round. If there is a tie for lowest score then margin of victory/defeat will be taken into account amongst tied players followed, if necessary, by total score in the tournament so far. The current total scores will appear next to each player's name below from this round onwards for convenience.
Runs from: 12 – 25 January 2018. Format: Nice Numbers Attack. Matches: One-off. Approved.
Fixtures: 46. Completed: 46.
|Notes||Player 1||Player 2||Status|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Bradley Horrocks||90 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Chris Butler||100 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Dave Noble||80 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Elliott Mellor||50 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Herbert Plank||50 – 180|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Jason Turner||77 – 187|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||John Beresford||100 – 190|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||John Gillies||50 – 187|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Johnny Canuck||90 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Jon Wilford||70 – 180|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Neil Collins||100 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Phil Collinge||50 – 180|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Robin M||50 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Ross Jeffries||54 – 170|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Sean D||120 – 200|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Tracey Mills||100 – 190|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Zarte Siempre||60 – 200|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Anthony Endsor||120 – 180|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Dan Byrom||60 – 197|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Eddy Byrne||67 – 187|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Ian Volante||80 – 200|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Jonny D||50 – 194|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Martin Hurst||72 – 180|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Sam Prouse||40 – 180|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Sean Fletcher||50 – 190|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Spike Guthrie||40 – 191|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Thomas Cappleman||100 – 200|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Tim Down||80 – 190|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Gevin Chapwell||90 – 200|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Ian Birdman||70 – 200|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Jamie French||90 – 200|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Matty Artell||97 – 197|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Thomas Carey||70 – 200|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Tony Atkins||50 – 190|
|191||Apterous Waldorf||Andy SC||107 – 174|
|190||Apterous Waldorf||Alex H||67 – 180|
|190||Apterous Waldorf||Ciaran Crawley||100 – 180|
|190||Apterous Waldorf||Emily Cox||50 – 200|
|190||Apterous Waldorf||J E||70 – 187|
|190||Apterous Waldorf||Steve Anderson||97 – 174|
|187||Apterous Waldorf||Ailsa Watson||100 – 157|
|180||Apterous Waldorf||Jason Larsen||107 – 111|
|174||Apterous Waldorf||Andrew Smith||60 – 177|
|197||Apterous Waldorf||Marcus Hares||90 – 200|
|194||Apterous Waldorf||Vincent Barcet||70 – 187|
|200||Apterous Waldorf||Norm Ahmad||70 – 180|
Key. Green: winner. Red: loser. Grey: tie. Light green/red: provisional. White: unplayed.
This website is not endorsed by or affiliated with Channel 4, the makers of Countdown, or any person associated with the aforementioned in any way whatsoever at all, never has been, never will be, and moreover is proud not to be. Yep.
Page generated in 0.0341 seconds. It's 05:43:18 on Friday 19 January 2018 here at Apterous Towers. Design and all good stuff copyright © Charles Reams 2008–2017. Some graphical and aesthetic elements by Matt Morrison and Jon O'Neill. Made with only organic Fair Trade bytes.