Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
James Laverty
Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm
Location: West Bridgford

Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by James Laverty »

Since when could 100 be a target again????
Definitely not Jamie McNeill or Schrodinger's Cat....
User avatar
Tony Atkins
Fanatic
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Tony Atkins »

(9x8) + (4x7) =100, just be awkward
CO-MSO every August
CO:Rea 20th April 2024
Philip Wilson
Devotee
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Philip Wilson »

James Laverty wrote:Since when could 100 be a target again????
Shame that when it Did appear, the 100 itself wasn't drawn!
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Mark Kudlowski »

James Laverty wrote:Since when could 100 be a target again????
The probability of getting 100 (or any specified number) as the target after N rounds is 1- ((899/900)^N).

So after 20 numbers games ~(1 normal week), we are talking of a 2.2% chance.
It would take 624 games for a 50/50 chance of 100 having turned up.

This is still a random process though - past results have no bearing on future ones.

As Philip Wilson said in the previous post, that round could have been even more trivial if one of the large numbers had actually been 100 !
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Very sorry to have been a "no call, no show" in Recapland today. Note to self: Never drastically and recklessly configure your computer's registry keys again, especially less than an hour before 3:10pm. Thanks to JR for this unscheduled mission.

Shame I missed this one. Seriously though, that target in Round 6 was 100% uncalled for. The possibility of being able to solve a numbers game by declaring a number without any operators attached to it is just ugly, in my opinion (even if it didn't happen this time, it did once).
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Gavin Chipper »

DATIONS was a beater in round 2.

On the 100, I think most people were under the impression that 100 couldn't be a target, even if it was the case in the past. Because of this, Apterous doesn't allow it, nor would most people allow it at CO-events. Out of interest, the new CECIL first made an appearance in episode 5625, and this was episode 6405. That's less than 900, so without bothering to do any calculations, it's certainly not a freak event, and 100 could have been possible all along with the new CECIL.

Interestingly, on Apterous Charlie is of the view that at least one calculation should be done, so if the target number is in the selection, you'd still have to do at least one calculation. I wonder if the "Countdown takes precedence over our opinions" rule of thumb would have overruled this had 100 been in the selection and someone made the target out of just the 100.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by David Williams »

Could I request that recaps are done immediately in weeks where Gyles Brandreth is in Dictionary Corner. I just can't watch him at all.
User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 2025
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Graeme Cole »

The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Graeme Cole wrote:The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.
Interesting. Thanks for that. But I think it would be generally useful for this sort of thing to come out more often. Often people allude to these guidelines but when asked for more information, like a quote, it never seems to come and these people disappear back into the woodwork.
Philip Wilson
Devotee
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:41 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Philip Wilson »

Graeme Cole wrote:The 100 was definitely a mistake, unless the rules have changed in a way I wouldn't expect. The rules document I was given, albeit a few years ago now, says that the target "will be a number between 101 and 999". It also says that the contestants' working "may use a minimum of two and a maximum of all six of the selected numbers", which implies that if the 100 had appeared in the selection, you couldn't just use it on its own.
Ok, but if the lowest possible target is 101 then there is no way of using less than two of the selected numbers to reach the target, so in that case the 2nd rule is automatic.
If the above is rewritten to include 100 in the target range, then maybe the 2nd part would be omitted.

Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?
I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Johnny Canuck wrote:
Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?
I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.
Contestants don't always find the best solution.
User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Kiloposter
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃

Re: Spoilers for Tuesday 2nd August

Post by Johnny Canuck »

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:
Philip Wilson wrote:Assuming that 100 is not a possible target but it is the nearest a contestant can get to the actual target, would they be able to use it on its own then?
I don't think this can ever happen, because regardless of how few small numbers there are -- even only two of them --, it will always be possible to apply some set of operators on them to generate a number between 1 and 5 which when added to the starting 100 would produce a total that is nearer to the target than 100 alone.
Contestants don't always find the best solution.
Of course they don't, but still, I think it would be extremely unlikely for even the densest of contestants to be completely unable to use even one of the other starting numbers in a circumstance where the target was below 110 and there was a 100 in the selection.

If someone did try 100 = 100 for a target in the 101-110 range, I don't think they would be flat-out denied the points, but I do believe this breach of etiquette/Contestant Guidelines would cause them to not air the round. IMO, they would probably just reshoot it and tell the person to declare 100 + 2 or whatever instead. I see this as the numbers-game equivalent of someone declaring a dirty word -- when this happens, the round is reshot and the contestants are told to say different words of the same length.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Post Reply