John Beresford

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

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

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

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

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

Spike Guthrie

Spike Guthrie oh right ta for that.

Anthony Endsor

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

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

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

Matthew Tassier

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

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

Matthew Tassier

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

Matthew Tassier

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

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

Chris Butler

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

Max Welling

Max Welling Haha:)

Show all comments
Elliott Mellor

Elliott Mellor Interesting...it's showing Chris has commented but there's no actual message showing...

Marcus Hares

Marcus Hares Seems like comments as well as chat are vanishing, but only for some (I can see the comments)

Elliott Mellor

Elliott Mellor Marcus has posted what it says in chat, I'll post here that I would nice your comment, Chris, but I'm unable to.

Jason Larsen

Jason Larsen Thank you Matthew

Matthew Tassier

Matthew Tassier Well spotted Elliott, and, though I'm tempted to deny it, congratulations, you are this round's Strongest Link!

Tourney round: Weakest Link Numbers Tournament 2018: Round 2 - Nice

<< Round 1 - Junior | Round 3 - Unlimited Junior >>

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.
Good luck!

Ran from: 12 – 25 January 2018. Format: Nice Numbers Attack. Matches: One-off. Approved.

Organizers: Matthew Tassier.

Fixtures: 48. Completed: 48.

Results and fixtures

NotesPlayer 1Player 2Status
200Apterous WaldorfBradley Horrocks90 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfChris Butler100 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfDave Noble80 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfElliott Mellor50 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfHerbert Plank50 – 180
200Apterous WaldorfJason Turner77 – 187
200Apterous WaldorfJohn Beresford100 – 190
200Apterous WaldorfJohn Gillies50 – 187
200Apterous WaldorfJohnny Canuck90 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfJon Wilford70 – 180
200Apterous WaldorfNeil Collins100 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfPhil Collinge50 – 180
200Apterous WaldorfRobin M50 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfRoss Jeffries54 – 170
200Apterous WaldorfSean D120 – 200
200Apterous WaldorfTracey Mills100 – 190
200Apterous WaldorfZarte Siempre60 – 200
197Apterous WaldorfAnthony Endsor120 – 180
197Apterous WaldorfDan Byrom60 – 197
197Apterous WaldorfEddy Byrne67 – 187
197Apterous WaldorfIan Volante80 – 200
197Apterous WaldorfJonny D50 – 194
197Apterous WaldorfMartin Hurst72 – 180
197Apterous WaldorfSam Prouse40 – 180
197Apterous WaldorfSean Fletcher50 – 190
197Apterous WaldorfSpike Guthrie40 – 191
197Apterous WaldorfThomas Cappleman100 – 200
197Apterous WaldorfTim Down80 – 190
194Apterous WaldorfGevin Chapwell90 – 200
194Apterous WaldorfIan Birdman70 – 200
194Apterous WaldorfJamie French90 – 200
194Apterous WaldorfMatty Artell97 – 197
194Apterous WaldorfThomas Carey70 – 200
194Apterous WaldorfTony Atkins50 – 190
191Apterous WaldorfAndy SC107 – 174
190Apterous WaldorfAlex H67 – 180
190Apterous WaldorfCiaran Crawley100 – 180
190Apterous WaldorfEmily Cox50 – 200
190Apterous WaldorfJ E70 – 187
190Apterous WaldorfSteve Anderson97 – 174
187Apterous WaldorfAilsa Watson100 – 157
180Apterous WaldorfJason Larsen107 – 111
174Apterous WaldorfAndrew Smith60 – 177
197Apterous WaldorfMarcus Hares90 – 200
194Apterous WaldorfVincent Barcet70 – 187
200Apterous WaldorfNorm Ahmad70 – 180
200Apterous WaldorfBen Andrews110 – 190
197Apterous WaldorfRahul Suresh60 – 190

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 1.1305 seconds. It's 16:14:25 on Sunday 21 October 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.