c4countdown

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:49 pm**

Edwin Mead wrote:I managed to beat the max score in round 3 of this game.

Wow and that round was fairly trivial. I guess computer algorithms don't try 100x9 first and work from there.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:29 am**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Edwin Mead wrote:I managed to beat the max score in round 3 of this game.
Wow and that round was fairly trivial. I guess computer algorithms don't try 100x9 first and work from there.

It's a bug (now fixed) in the peripheral code rather than the solver itself; if you look at this and the other game where it happened (see Bug Reports), in both cases it was caused by a bot getting an inexact solution and then passing that to the arithmetician, which isn't supposed to happen.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:32 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Edwin Mead wrote:I managed to beat the max score in round 3 of this game.
Wow and that round was fairly trivial. I guess computer algorithms don't try 100x9 first and work from there.
It's a bug (now fixed) in the peripheral code rather than the solver itself; if you look at this and the other game where it happened (see Bug Reports), in both cases it was caused by a bot getting an inexact solution and then passing that to the arithmetician, which isn't supposed to happen.

I see. I played Prime in bullet numbers yesterday, and found that Carol was beatable in at least 7 of the 20 games. So I did what any right-minded person would do. I challenged Rex to a normal-time numbers attack. I've not finished the game yet, but needless to say, I ain't gonna win it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:36 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: I see. I played Prime in bullet numbers yesterday, and found that Carol was beatable in at least 7 of the 20 games. So I did what any right-minded person would do. I challenged Rex to a normal-time numbers attack. I've not finished the game yet, but needless to say, I ain't gonna win it.

It wouldn't work against Rex because, even if the arithmetician accidentally "intercepts" his solution, it'll be the optimal solution anyway.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:23 am**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: I see. I played Prime in bullet numbers yesterday, and found that Carol was beatable in at least 7 of the 20 games. So I did what any right-minded person would do. I challenged Rex to a normal-time numbers attack. I've not finished the game yet, but needless to say, I ain't gonna win it.
It wouldn't work against Rex because, even if the arithmetician accidentally "intercepts" his solution, it'll be the optimal solution anyway.

Do you use that optimisation in general? i.e. if the bot gets the solution spot on, do you still have the arithmetician recalculate a solution or do you use the bots'? At the same time, for hyper games why not mirror a human player's solution if it is more accurate than the arithmetician's?

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:53 pm**

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 2#r2270742

Possibly the hardest ever numbers game ever.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:48 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: I see. I played Prime in bullet numbers yesterday, and found that Carol was beatable in at least 7 of the 20 games. So I did what any right-minded person would do. I challenged Rex to a normal-time numbers attack. I've not finished the game yet, but needless to say, I ain't gonna win it.
It wouldn't work against Rex because, even if the arithmetician accidentally "intercepts" his solution, it'll be the optimal solution anyway.

Yeah - at the time I thought it might have just been that Apterous had some problem solving games in general, so challenging Rex at that point was the only option open to me.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:50 pm**

Simon Myers wrote:Do you use that optimisation in general? i.e. if the bot gets the solution spot on, do you still have the arithmetician recalculate a solution or do you use the bots'? At the same time, for hyper games why not mirror a human player's solution if it is more accurate than the arithmetician's?

In hyper I've found that the Carol/Rachel and Rex can each get it when the other doesn't (unless it's changed recently).

Posted: **Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:16 am**

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Simon Myers wrote:Do you use that optimisation in general? i.e. if the bot gets the solution spot on, do you still have the arithmetician recalculate a solution or do you use the bots'? At the same time, for hyper games why not mirror a human player's solution if it is more accurate than the arithmetician's?
In hyper I've found that the Carol/Rachel and Rex can each get it when the other doesn't (unless it's changed recently).

It has, but that can still happen occasionally.

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:54 pm**

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Chris Davies wrote:A new record the the lowest max in a 15 rounder, 99 points.
Another low max of 102 Notably low winning score as well due to many disallowed words!

Not too far off with this one:- Max of 100

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:55 pm**

During this game I was thinking that a better player would have got a max game, but then the ludicrous conundrum came up.

Edit: Wrong topic.

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:24 pm**

Bugger THAT for a game of soliders!

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:14 pm**

Ben Wilson wrote:Bugger THAT for a game of soliders!

Haha - that's not the only way of doing it though.

(100+6*5+1)*75+10+8

Posted: **Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:50 pm**

Can anyone say Darren? Also brag for a 14-maxer and scrag for botching the overall max.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:01 pm**

I thought this was quite funny, considering Al Murray was the DC guest.

Posted: **Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:09 pm**

Surprised you missed round 8! That probably belongs in the hardest Omelette round thread

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:22 pm**

I think Henry might have some sort of nightmare after not realising that the letters in Round 4 & 7 were the same!

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=224097

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2010 2:25 am**

Whilst on one of my pencil-fishing missions, I played this CSW Letters Attack where I was able to achieve an unusual feat of securing two pencils for two darrenic maximums in the same game. Not so unusual in itself, you might think, until I point out that one of those darrenic maximums was the plural of the other... ZINCATES and ZINCATE.

Incidentally, both words are CSW only, so don't go trying them in ODE play.

Posted: **Mon May 10, 2010 6:29 pm**

Ryan got 3 pencils in a row in this game then buzzed in and made an animal noise for the conundrum

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=239452

Posted: **Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:58 pm**

IS this the shortest ever Omeletteundrum?

Posted: **Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:31 pm**

Ben Wilson wrote:IS this the shortest ever Omeletteundrum?

Nope. In fact QQ is a valid Omeletteundrum, so apterous was clearly feeling merciful that day. Couldn't think of any other 2-letter ones but others may exist.

Posted: **Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:06 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ben Wilson wrote:IS this the shortest ever Omeletteundrum?
Nope. In fact QQ is a valid Omeletteundrum, so apterous was clearly feeling merciful that day. Couldn't think of any other 2-letter ones but others may exist.

XX would be, but it's not in the current conundrum list IIRC.

Posted: **Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:30 pm**

Simon Myers wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Ben Wilson wrote:IS this the shortest ever Omeletteundrum?
Nope. In fact QQ is a valid Omeletteundrum, so apterous was clearly feeling merciful that day. Couldn't think of any other 2-letter ones but others may exist.
XX would be, but it's not in the current conundrum list IIRC.

There are two nine letter words using XX, one of them is a plural. You can't set XX as an Omeletteundrum, because it has two answers, even if one is a plural. You wouldn't say SEATMINES is a valid conundrum now, would you?

Posted: **Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:54 am**

JackHurst wrote:
Simon Myers wrote:XX would be, but it's not in the current conundrum list IIRC.
There are two nine letter words using XX, one of them is a plural. You can't set XX as an Omeletteundrum, because it has two answers, even if one is a plural. You wouldn't say SEATMINES is a valid conundrum now, would you?

A fair point I hadn't really considered. A shame though, as JQ would be discounted for the same reason.

Posted: **Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:29 pm**

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?key=72 ... 1135788368

The 9 here was almost spelt out.

Posted: **Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:43 pm**

Eoin Monaghan wrote:http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?key=72 ... 1135788368

The 9 here was almost spelt out.

In Round 13, you mean?

Posted: **Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:51 pm**

Eoin Monaghan wrote:http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?key=72 ... 1135788368

The 9 here was almost spelt out.

This is arguably worse.

Posted: **Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:39 pm**

Scrag-worthy too, but whilst I know it's Touchdown and thus harder, I'd've probably only got about 5 of these if they were presented as normal conundrums!

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:16 pm**

Just noticed that Prune has declared EOIN 4 times.

Posted: **Sat Jul 03, 2010 2:39 am**

Charlie, you'd better be ready to extend that table of pencils.

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:13 pm**

Can anyone spot what is unique about this game?

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:08 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:Can anyone spot what is unique about this game?

For sure!

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:27 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:Can anyone spot what is unique about this game?

Clue?

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:Can anyone spot what is unique about this game?

If I had to guess I'd say the the difference between the amount of maxes the winning player and the losing player got were at their highest- in favour of the losing player.

Posted: **Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:45 pm**

Ben Wilson wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Can anyone spot what is unique about this game?
If I had to guess I'd say the the difference between the amount of maxes the winning player and the losing player got were at their highest- in favour of the losing player.

Yep! Mark had 5 more maxes than John but still lost. Possible new Statland page?

Posted: **Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:25 pm**

I've never known a star 30 guardian do this before...

Posted: **Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:21 pm**

Okay, wtf?

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:46 am**

Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:42 pm**

Graeme Cole wrote:Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...

Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:01 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...
Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.

Similar to ELECTION really.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:55 pm**

Kai Laddiman wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...
Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.
Similar to ELECTION really.

Haha, brilliant!

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:12 pm**

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...
Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.

I liked the wrong one

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:26 pm**

Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote:Mount Conundrum game. Round 18, nearly answered VISCOUSLY but realised it was VICIOUSLY. Then round 19...
Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.
I liked the wrong one

You can Unlike but apparently it's broken in the crappy skin, or something.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:17 pm**

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Just one letter different yet the hardness increases fivefold. Interesting.
I liked the wrong one
You can Unlike but apparently it's broken in the crappy skin, or something.

Don't think I'll lose too much sleep over it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:08 am**

Ian Volante wrote:
Don't think I'll lose too much sleep over it.

Neither will I, good man.

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 11:39 am**

bump for the bizarrely opposing darrens I managed http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=447221 in rounds 7 and 9 in this game

even weirder I'm probably sitting at about 3x the legal limit of alcohol right now and have no clue how I puller either of those spots out of my ass, let alone both of them -- note the total lack of ability before and after those

EDIT: though I'm a lot pissed about R2 and R11 being invalid -- for the former I figured that was common enough in at least political speech for recognisation, and the r11 if petabyte is good why not petabit?

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:02 pm**

Steve, are you an alcoholic?

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:11 pm**

Well considering I think I can still pull 60+% max at 2 large even after I lose the ability to walk

ummmmmmm

yea I'm probably an alchy, but because my mind reacts to alcohol in the weirdest way ever -- also I'm from the US so if you're playing me right after you wake up it's probably night here and I'm probably in one of many possible states of drunkenness -- and as such I have a weird berserker dispersal where I come up with ridiculous spots one round and get stumped by very easy ones the next

Yea I don't know either

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 12:51 pm**

Steve Balog wrote:also I'm from the US

Ha, that explains a bit. Why the hell were you pissed at like 7am on a Tuesday morning, hopefully from the night before?

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 7:19 pm**

I just finished my Master's degree (not sure of the equivalent in Europe, it's 6 years after grade 12) like last week and have no real responsibilities yet, so yea drunk Apterous at 8 AM after a night out why not

Posted: **Tue May 10, 2011 10:34 pm**

Steve Balog wrote:bump for the bizarrely opposing darrens I managed http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=447221 in rounds 7 and 9 in this game

even weirder I'm probably sitting at about 3x the legal limit of alcohol right now and have no clue how I puller either of those spots out of my ass, let alone both of them -- note the total lack of ability before and after those

EDIT: though I'm a lot pissed about R2 and R11 being invalid -- for the former I figured that was common enough in at least political speech for recognisation, and the r11 if petabyte is good why not petabit?

It is, but it's spelt PLEBEIANS

Posted: **Wed May 11, 2011 2:05 am**

Whoops, guess my memory of civilisations wasn't quite as good as I thought. Thanks for clarifying that.

Posted: **Mon May 16, 2011 7:23 am**

Ok, I don't know why on earth this bothers me so much.

Playing a drunk 2 big numbers attack against Velvet. In two rounds, I get:

50 25 2 10 10 3 -> 160
50 25 3 2 3 9 -> 837

Guess which one (and only one) of these two I managed to get. Now guess which one (and only one) the bot got. I mean I see (50+25+(3x3x2))x9 now but come on, I mean that's not even what the bot did ffs

Posted: **Mon May 16, 2011 4:18 pm**

She gets distracted easily.

Posted: **Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:48 am**

I didn't realise the "Everyone's a winner!" mentality applied to Apterous as well

Posted: **Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:44 pm**

Most appropriate conundrum ever?

c4countdown

Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games

Re: Strange Games