Re: Strange Games
Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:15 am
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
This?Martin Gardner wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=35368
If this isn't strange I don't know what is...
Yeah it gives you ten seconds if you want them or not, oh by the way:Kai Laddiman wrote:This?Martin Gardner wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=35368
If this isn't strange I don't know what is...
Excellent!Kai Laddiman wrote:These days, can a chicken not cross a road without a joke being made out of it? Seriously. Some people.
It is: (((6x5x5)+4)x9x2)-3, although I don't think I'd have managed it in 3 seconds either!Martin Gardner wrote:Interesting round 9. I'm pretty sure it is possible, although the computer says you can't get within 10.Ben Wilson wrote:Deliberate server breakage attempt? Certainly I can pick out at least one round there I could do within the time limit but the computer couldn't.
Classic.
A bit like this game, which is (apart from Kirk's various astronomical scores) the highest-scoring 15 rounder on Apterous. Yet I only got 8 maxes. You just have to pick the right rounds to concentrate in, I guess.Phil Reynolds wrote:Sometimes, how well (or badly) you play seems to have little impact on the final scoreline. In this game, Matt and I plodded along with 6s and 7s, both missing the max on practically every round (probably because we were too busy talking dirty to each other in the chat pane to concentrate on spotting words), and neither of us got the conundrum. Yet some easy numbers and a good 9 spot by both of us resulted in a highly respectable 89-104.
Obviously I can't say for certain, but it seems pretty unlikely that you could score in 15 rounds and not make 100. But it would be interesting to know the lowest scoring all-rounds-scoring game.Michael Wallace wrote:As I (repeatedly) explain to people who are not hardcore Countdown dudes, if you assume you get the numbers and the conundrum (not that unreasonable if they're all one larges) then you only need 60 points from 11 letter rounds to hit the century. Are there any games where someone has scored in every round and *not* managed it?
This seems like an Aptochallenge suitable for me.Charlie Reams wrote:it seems pretty unlikely that you could score in 15 rounds and not make 100. But it would be interesting to know the lowest scoring all-rounds-scoring game.
I was right... just. Here's the record, wherein Rob Thomas makes 100... just. Impressive that it's against an actual human, too.Charlie Reams wrote:Obviously I can't say for certain, but it seems pretty unlikely that you could score in 15 rounds and not make 100. But it would be interesting to know the lowest scoring all-rounds-scoring game.Michael Wallace wrote:As I (repeatedly) explain to people who are not hardcore Countdown dudes, if you assume you get the numbers and the conundrum (not that unreasonable if they're all one larges) then you only need 60 points from 11 letter rounds to hit the century. Are there any games where someone has scored in every round and *not* managed it?
Does that only take into account regular 15 rounders?Charlie Reams wrote:I've made a page of it.
Yes. Only the exact normal format counts. Otherwise you could abuse it quite a bit harder with maxes only.Matt Morrison wrote:Does that only take into account regular 15 rounders?Charlie Reams wrote:I've made a page of it.
Obviously with flat scoring you could abuse it pretty hard.
I'll do something about this at some point.JackHurst wrote:http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=41193
In the first numbers round we got better than a maximum.
In my HNA record I think I beat the max 3 times causing me to impressively come within one point of the maximum on a numbers attack. Had I not botched an earlier round I'd have beaten the max by a considerable margin.JackHurst wrote:http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=41193
In the first numbers round we got better than a maximum.
Every time I see CLITORIS recently, ELICITORS is always there. No wonder I'm shit in bed...Kevin Davis wrote:Round Three: Some men can find it, you know.
Every time I see CLITORIS recently, my SOLICITOR is always there. I wish he'd stop following me around...Kirk Bevins wrote:Every time I see CLITORIS recently, ELICITORS is always there. No wonder I'm shit in bed...Kevin Davis wrote:Round Three: Some men can find it, you know.
How did you calculate that? Just based on the proportion of rounds which have darrens from your database?Charlie Reams wrote:(Statistically a game like this happens about once every 46 thousand.)
Yep, 65606 darrenic rounds in 15684 games, or 38%. So assuming darrens occur independently (seems roughly reasonable), that gives one all-darrens game in, umm, 41587... I think I messed up the rounding somewhere, but you get the idea.Jon Corby wrote:How did you calculate that? Just based on the proportion of rounds which have darrens from your database?Charlie Reams wrote:(Statistically a game like this happens about once every 46 thousand.)
Aye, makes sense.Charlie Reams wrote:Yep, 65606 darrenic rounds in 15684 games, or 38%. So assuming darrens occur independently (seems roughly reasonable), that gives one all-darrens game in, umm, 41587... I think I messed up the rounding somewhere, but you get the idea.Jon Corby wrote:How did you calculate that? Just based on the proportion of rounds which have darrens from your database?Charlie Reams wrote:(Statistically a game like this happens about once every 46 thousand.)
It was a stunning spot, nice one. By the way Chris, my quietness during games is due to chat not working in case you were wondering.Chris Davies wrote:Not that strange really, but this is almost certainly my first palindromic nine-letter word.
Cheers Yeah, I reckoned it most likely meant that your chat wasn't working. I often have the same problem.Junaid Mubeen wrote:It was a stunning spot, nice one. By the way Chris, my quietness during games is due to chat not working in case you were wondering.Chris Davies wrote:Not that strange really, but this is almost certainly my first palindromic nine-letter word.
Multiplications are done before any other math operations, including division, so 10/2*7 is understood as 10/(2*7), rather than (10/2)*7.Neil Zussman wrote:Closest I'll ever get to a perfect speed 9: http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=42146 Pissed me off immensely. I got the first numbers, but for some reason apterous doesn't think 10/2*7 is 35. Which it clearly is. So in a way, I'm glad I messed up the other numbers as well. But it's still infuriating.
I decided to take my anger out on Prune in the next game, trying to only score with words that were maxes. Obviously this meant taking some stupid risks, but on the bright side, I set some records- like the lowest ever winning score (although it hasn't appeared in statland yet for some reason)
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=42154
This is not true. Multiplication and division are worth the same and so if you have an expression containing just multiplication and division, one should read left to right and thus would read it 10/2 then * 7.Chris Davies wrote:
Multiplications are done before any other math operations, including division, so 10/2*7 is understood as 10/(2*7), rather than (10/2)*7.
Chris was explaining what Apterous does, not how BIDMAS works.Kirk Bevins wrote: This is not true. Multiplication and division are worth the same and so if you have an expression containing just multiplication and division, one should read left to right and thus would read it 10/2 then * 7.
It used to trip me up all the time when I started out. Now I bracket the shit out of everything, just to be safe.Charlie Reams wrote:Chris was explaining what Apterous does, not how BIDMAS works.Kirk Bevins wrote: This is not true. Multiplication and division are worth the same and so if you have an expression containing just multiplication and division, one should read left to right and thus would read it 10/2 then * 7.
Kirk you got pwned in round 18.Kirk Bevins wrote:Good to see that in one round on goatdown, there was just a darrenical 4 available and I missed it!
http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ga ... 69#r642069
Odd how the conundrum turned out. That was my answer from the first conundrum which you never even got to see (the extra Es didn't even come up on my screen either, I just bashed a load of letters when it didn't let me press enter).Charlie Reams wrote:Played okay here but again could easily have been a max game in the hands of someone better.
Yeah, I was on a mission to cracking the eggs (no pun intended). I ended round early expecting to beat prune but he hit me with a max and I lost 7-0Matt Morrison wrote:Undeniably strange: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=45286
Jeez thats harsh! Congrats on the 70 points thoBen Wilson wrote:Probably the most vicious conundrum attack of all time.
This game had a higher max than that metamax...Dinos Sfyris wrote:Check out the fucking metamax!
Charlie Reams wrote:This game had a higher max than that metamax...Dinos Sfyris wrote:Check out the fucking metamax!
The max was 195, which is higher than 194.Callum Laddiman wrote:Charlie Reams wrote:This game had a higher max than that metamax...Dinos Sfyris wrote:Check out the fucking metamax!
Sorry, please may you point out where the max was higher.