c4countdown

In Round 1, only 3 games went to adjudication as follows:

Andrew Hulme vs Reuben Kay - RK has disappeared and is disqualified, AH given the win
John Gillies vs Jay Murphy - JM likewise vanished and disqualified, JG given the win
James Hall vs Josh Overhill - did not manage to find a time. JO has been unavailable so JH given the win.

So there are two new spots to replace Reuben Kay and Jay Murphy. Anyone taking this place will of course start with a 0-1 record, so it will purely be for fun. First come first served.

For everyone else, thanks for completing your games, and good luck in Round 2: the current standings and pairings for Round 2 are available here.

Fix.

Michael Wallace wrote:Fix.

Well, Reuben was quite good about it, even though he says Andrew is the one who hadn't been replying to his attempts to arrange the game.

I can't see the new tournament page, the link above isn't working.

Am I being stupid or is there a problem?

Edwin Mead wrote:I can't see the new tournament page, the link above isn't working.

Am I being stupid or is there a problem?

It worked fine for me, although it's not clickable. Have you tried copying it into the address bar?

Derek Hazell wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Fix.

Well, Reuben was quite good about it, even though he says Andrew is the one who hadn't been replying to his attempts to arrange the game.

He didn't bother to sign up himself. He didn't bother to respond to my question about people having trouble organising their game. He hasn't bothered to contact me in any way. Conclusion: Clearly a timewaster.

It's working fine now. I got an error message earlier when copying the link, but it looks like it's fixed (the link is also now clickable).

Charlie Reams wrote:He didn't bother to sign up himself. He didn't bother to respond to my question about people having trouble organising their game. He hasn't bothered to contact me in any way. Conclusion: Clearly a timewaster.

As I am fairly new to Apterous, I hadn't bothered to look into this tournament, but I have just noticed that it actually says to e-mail you on the front page.

Henry Meier wrote:Henry Meier 161-151 Reuben Kay

Looks like he still managed to get through to Round 2 anyway.
Perhaps I should try the next numbers tournament, if only to get a better understanding of how it all works.

Derek Hazell wrote:Looks like he still managed to get through to Round 2 anyway.
Perhaps I should try the next numbers tournament, if only to get a better understanding of how it all works.

That's because it's not a knockout tournament, Derek. Everyone plays one game a week for the 5 weeks.
How everything else is worked out, though, I have no idea!

Julie T wrote:How everything else is worked out, though, I have no idea!

It's simple - Charlie randomly assigns the winners/losers to play each other, and then pairs me up against someone really good.

Maybe.

Edit: And yes, I realise that it would be a bit unlikely for him to randomly assign games and then the player left over for me to be a really good one, but that's just the way his twisted mind works.

Julie T wrote: How everything else is worked out, though, I have no idea!

More or less this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_tournament

That Swiss thing is quite interesting and I can see the advantages of it but it also makes it harder for you to win the better you do (and harder to lose the worse you do), so could it not end up with the field clumped closer together than they should be?

Gavin Chipper wrote:That Swiss thing is quite interesting and I can see the advantages of it but it also makes it harder for you to win the better you do (and harder to lose the worse you do), so could it not end up with the field clumped closer together than they should be?

I'm utterly confused by the whole thing. When Charlie explained it to me the other day, he said he thought that as I was one of the top winners in the division (won by the highest margin) I'd end up facing someone who had also won (to keep pairings well matched) but only by a small amount (to still give me a reward for winning well in the first match). For once I thought I finally understood how it worked. Except me and Feisty got put together, the two top winners in the division, so that theory got blown out of the water and I'm as confused as ever. Same has happened in Division A with #1 and #2 paired up.

Barry Evans 164 - Jim Bentley 130

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=123839

Matt Morrison wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:That Swiss thing is quite interesting and I can see the advantages of it but it also makes it harder for you to win the better you do (and harder to lose the worse you do), so could it not end up with the field clumped closer together than they should be?

I'm utterly confused by the whole thing. When Charlie explained it to me the other day, he said he thought that as I was one of the top winners in the division (won by the highest margin) I'd end up facing someone who had also won (to keep pairings well matched) but only by a small amount (to still give me a reward for winning well in the first match). For once I thought I finally understood how it worked. Except me and Feisty got put together, the two top winners in the division, so that theory got blown out of the water and I'm as confused as ever. Same has happened in Division A with #1 and #2 paired up.

Given 16 in the score division, a classical Swiss would pair 1-9, 2-10, 3-11, 4-12, 5-13, 6-14, 7-15, and 8-16. I suspect either (a) Charlie forgot the difference between Swiss and KOTH, or more likely (b) some other tsh setting is taking over that I'm forgetting about. (I'm pretty sure there's no Gibsonization going on.) I must admit I have never gotten tsh to get through an entire Swiss tournament without something bizarre happening in the pairings. Since tsh's traditional milieu is to run 24-player tournaments with 31 rounds, or however outrageous top-level Scrabble gets, it has a tendency to play rather fast and loose with the traditional rules in the hopes that everything doesn't come to a screeching halt after 18 rounds or so.

Cheers for that Feisty, always a lovely source of tournament-based knowledge (as I've just told you in our game room).

Division B: Matt Morrison 142 - 121 Andrew Feist

Division B

I forgot to use the blue tournament challenge, sorry. My game with Peter Lee ended 161-154 in my favour, although it could have gone either way.

Thanks again to Peter for an enjoyable game that remained tight throughout.

Gavin Chipper wrote:That Swiss thing is quite interesting and I can see the advantages of it but it also makes it harder for you to win the better you do (and harder to lose the worse you do), so could it not end up with the field clumped closer together than they should be?

If you have too many rounds, yes. With 32 players and 5 rounds, it guarantees that there will be exactly one player who wins all of their games, and hence is declared the unique winner, just like a knockout; for the other players, it keeps the tournament interesting by pairing people with roughly equally successful opponents. John Chew has written extensively about the subject and basically no pairing system can be completely optimal in all respects; he designed tsh and the Chew pairing system which is (I just remembered) what we use here.

Division B

Ian Dent 117 v 189 Gareth Mitchell

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=124152

Andrew - I'm around usually between 1:30 and 2:30pm; or 5:30-6:30pm during the week. Please let me know your best times.

Charlie Reams wrote:If you have too many rounds, yes. With 32 players and 5 rounds, it guarantees that there will be exactly one player who wins all of their games, and hence is declared the unique winner, just like a knockout; for the other players, it keeps the tournament interesting by pairing people with roughly equally successful opponents. John Chew has written extensively about the subject and basically no pairing system can be completely optimal in all respects; he designed tsh and the Chew pairing system which is (I just remembered) what we use here.

OK, it's just that what I was thinking was that a good player is going to play more good players than the others, making it harder to do well. Obviously this will only happen to him once he does well to start so he shouldn't end up slipping below worse players, but by pairing people against other players doing similarly well, I intuitively see that as dragging people towards the middle and winning about half their games. I know can be guaranteed to have a 5-0 winner if you do it with 32 players and 5 rounds, but I would still guess you'd have more 3-2/2-3 results than under some other system.

I thought the idea of a big winner playing a small winner was also to stop people going soft.
For example, I won my first match by 60-odd which put me #2 and ended up playing Andy who had one by 70-odd and was #1.
Surely I could have just gone soft once I'd already won the match, ensured I only won by 10 or 20 points instead of 60 and then faced a weaker opponent in the next round?
I dunno, I'm probably saying stupid, it fucks with my head. I appreciate that only one person can get the 5-0, but it seems like by going soft once I've guaranteed the win I can make my path to achieving a 5-0 easier?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:If you have too many rounds, yes. With 32 players and 5 rounds, it guarantees that there will be exactly one player who wins all of their games, and hence is declared the unique winner, just like a knockout; for the other players, it keeps the tournament interesting by pairing people with roughly equally successful opponents. John Chew has written extensively about the subject and basically no pairing system can be completely optimal in all respects; he designed tsh and the Chew pairing system which is (I just remembered) what we use here.

OK, it's just that what I was thinking was that a good player is going to play more good players than the others, making it harder to do well. Obviously this will only happen to him once he does well to start so he shouldn't end up slipping below worse players, but by pairing people against other players doing similarly well, I intuitively see that as dragging people towards the middle and winning about half their games. I know can be guaranteed to have a 5-0 winner if you do it with 32 players and 5 rounds, but I would still guess you'd have more 3-2/2-3 results than under some other system.

If you mean "a Swiss system tournament enforces a bell-shaped curve"(*) then you're correct. If you seem to expect a uniform distribution then you will get more in the middle then you are expecting. OTOH, why you would expect a uniform distribution I don't know.

(*) Technically, it follows a binomial curve with p = 0.50, but as n grows the binomial curve gets more and more like a normal curve so there.

Matt Morrison wrote:I thought the idea of a big winner playing a small winner was also to stop people going soft.
For example, I won my first match by 60-odd which put me #2 and ended up playing Andy who had one by 70-odd and was #1.
Surely I could have just gone soft once I'd already won the match, ensured I only won by 10 or 20 points instead of 60 and then faced a weaker opponent in the next round?
I dunno, I'm probably saying stupid, it fucks with my head. I appreciate that only one person can get the 5-0, but it seems like by going soft once I've guaranteed the win I can make my path to achieving a 5-0 easier?

I ranked 7th in goal difference in our division, and I'm playing number 12. It goes like this:

1v2
3v8
4v9
5v10
6v11
7v12
13v14
15v16

Some of the players are joint but I've just assumed the program puts them in the order they're listed.

That's the winners anyway. It will be interesting to see who gets paired up next time.

Andrew Feist wrote:If you mean "a Swiss system tournament enforces a bell-shaped curve"(*) then you're correct. If you seem to expect a uniform distribution then you will get more in the middle then you are expecting. OTOH, why you would expect a uniform distribution I don't know.

(*) Technically, it follows a binomial curve with p = 0.50, but as n grows the binomial curve gets more and more like a normal curve so there.

I wasn't saying I expected a uniform distribution or anything. My point is that the system seems to force people into the middle. It might end up like that anyway or it might not, but not necessarily because it is forced that way. In a sense it seems like a handicap system. Success ballast.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Andrew Feist wrote:If you mean "a Swiss system tournament enforces a bell-shaped curve"(*) then you're correct. If you seem to expect a uniform distribution then you will get more in the middle then you are expecting. OTOH, why you would expect a uniform distribution I don't know.

(*) Technically, it follows a binomial curve with p = 0.50, but as n grows the binomial curve gets more and more like a normal curve so there.

I wasn't saying I expected a uniform distribution or anything. My point is that the system seems to force people into the middle. It might end up like that anyway or it might not, but not necessarily because it is forced that way. In a sense it seems like a handicap system. Success ballast.

The point is not to force people in the middle. I'm not sure what records look like in British professional leagues; here in the USA for instance, though, baseball teams tend to land between 60-100 and 100-60 almost all the time; NFL teams tend to end up between 5-11 and 11-5; etc. Or look at high-level round-robin chess tournaments (although there you add draws). The point of the Swiss system, mostly, is to make sure that the winner has played high-caliber competition.

Ben Wilson 187 - 167 Stuart Arnot

Cracking game from both players, fortunately I was able to find form just when I needed it.

Ben Wilson wrote:Ben Wilson 187 - 167 Stuart Arnot

Cracking game from both players, fortunately I was able to find form just when I needed it.

Yeah. One or two that I was annoyed to miss, but Ben was excellent! Jolly well played!

Welcome to Reamspost #5000!

Gavin Chipper wrote:I know can be guaranteed to have a 5-0 winner if you do it with 32 players and 5 rounds, but I would still guess you'd have more 3-2/2-3 results than under some other system.

That's correct, and it's by design. The Chew system considers it more important for people to have close, exciting games (where each player expects a close to 50% chance of winning) than for the final standings to reflect the exact ability of every player (which would also require rather more games). This is the tension that exists in any pairing system, and no system can resolve it perfectly from all perspectives.

Matt Morrison wrote:Surely I could have just gone soft once I'd already won the match, ensured I only won by 10 or 20 points instead of 60 and then faced a weaker opponent in the next round?

Yes, and that's a valid criticism of the current system. Maybe a fairer metric than score would be to consider the round in which the game became mathematically decided. (This is still somewhat manipulable, but rather less, and it would be a brave player indeed who would try.) I'll consider this for a future tournament.

Charlie Reams wrote:Maybe a fairer metric than score would be to consider the round in which the game became mathematically decided. (This is still somewhat manipulable, but rather less, and it would be a brave player indeed who would try.)

Do we know anyone who has the nuts to throw a handful of rounds in order to stage a late comeback? *invites humorous responses*

Tyron Potts 135 - 155 Gevin Chapwell

Another tight game.

Edit - also I'm linking to this again because I don't think it has been so far in this thread.

Jon Corby wrote:James Robinson 145 - 168 Jon Corby

Did much better than I thought. Complacency cost me maybe a smallest glimmer of victory.

James Hurrell wrote:Andrew - I'm around usually between 1:30 and 2:30pm; or 5:30-6:30pm during the week. Please let me know your best times.

Will be on at 2 o' clock thursday. This ok?

James Robinson wrote: Did much better than I thought. Complacency cost me maybe a smallest glimmer of victory.

Isn't your nickname the Human Calculator?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote: Did much better than I thought. Complacency cost me maybe a smallest glimmer of victory.

Isn't your nickname the Human Calculator?

Maybe so, but in fairness I rarely used that nickname at school. The only reason it was brought up on the show, because they decided to put it on my notes, I never put it on my application form, so I'm not quite sure where they got that idea from, but it was slightly true, so I went along with it. The more common one that was used at school was "24", nothing to do with the Kiefer Sutherland TV drama, but to do with something else.

You being the "Kirk-ulator" definitely has a better ring to it, and you're definitely much better at maths. I think since joining Apterous, my maths skills are definitely nowhere near what I thought they were.

James Robinson wrote:Maybe so, but in fairness I rarely used that nickname at school. The only reason it was brought up on the show, because they decided to put it on my notes, I never put it on my application form, so I'm not quite sure where they got that idea from, but it was slightly true, so I went along with it.

I'm confused - so it's a nickname you gave yourself at school, which you never mentioned to any of the Countdown crew, but they somehow guessed it?

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Maybe so, but in fairness I rarely used that nickname at school. The only reason it was brought up on the show, because they decided to put it on my notes, I never put it on my application form, so I'm not quite sure where they got that idea from, but it was slightly true, so I went along with it.

I'm confused - so it's a nickname you gave yourself at school, which you never mentioned to any of the Countdown crew, but they somehow guessed it?

I didn't give myself the nickname, it was by someone at school, I think one of the teachers actually, but when we did the runthrough of the notes that Jeff was going to introduce me with it said "James' nickname is 'The Human Calculator'" and since it was true to some extent, it was just left in.

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:Maybe so, but in fairness I rarely used that nickname at school. The only reason it was brought up on the show, because they decided to put it on my notes, I never put it on my application form, so I'm not quite sure where they got that idea from, but it was slightly true, so I went along with it.

I'm confused - so it's a nickname you gave yourself at school, which you never mentioned to any of the Countdown crew, but they somehow guessed it?

I didn't give myself the nickname, it was by someone at school, I think one of the teachers actually, but when we did the runthrough of the notes that Jeff was going to introduce me with it said "James' nickname is 'The Human Calculator'" and since it was true to some extent, it was just left in.

I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm confused - so it's a nickname you gave yourself at school, which you never mentioned to any of the Countdown crew, but they somehow guessed it?

I didn't give myself the nickname, it was by someone at school, I think one of the teachers actually, but when we did the runthrough of the notes that Jeff was going to introduce me with it said "James' nickname is 'The Human Calculator'" and since it was true to some extent, it was just left in.

I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

Derren Eadie was standing in for his sick brother Damian on that particular day.

Jon Corby wrote:I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

I've not got a clue!

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

I've not got a clue!

Was it on your original contestant notes? (from when you were originally on 6 years ago or whatever. You know, the first time you were originally on. Not the second time you were originally on.)

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

I've not got a clue!

Was it on your original contestant notes? (from when you were originally on 6 years ago or whatever. You know, the first time you were originally on. Not the second time you were originally on.)

I honestly don't know, it's not impossible I suppose, although I'm amazed that Damian and the researchers went back to find that out! It wasn't even used the first time round!

Very dodgy.

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

I've not got a clue!

Me neither. I'm 100% certain that anything we mention re contestants info on the show is supplied to us by the contestant themselves. It's ridiculous to think that we can just guess some nickname and it turns out to be slightly correct. I can only think you must have put it on your form, James.

Haven't got access to it at the moment, but i'll have a look tomorrow if you want clarification. The data protection act prevents me from actually stating what was on your form unless you consent to it, so if you don't consent, only me and you will ever know

Ian Dent wrote:Very dodgy.

I dunno, I think the production team must do some undercover investigation work on all the contestants. I'm not sure I ever told them anything apart from my first name, yet somehow they knew my surname, where I lived, what I did, the names of my children for Christ's sake, plus also the fact that I was interested sexually in Susie Dent, which is something I'd only discussed with my closest friends. Something is definitely afoot (my cock)

Edit: Oh yeah, now Damian mentions it, maybe I did put all that on the form.

Jon Corby wrote:Oh yeah, now Damian mentions it, maybe I did put all that on the form.

And they still gave you an audition? Bloody hell.

D Eadie wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'm still confused. How did "they decide to put it on your notes", if it wasn't on your application form?

I've not got a clue!

Me neither. I'm 100% certain that anything we mention re contestants info on the show is supplied to us by the contestant themselves. It's ridiculous to think that we can just guess some nickname and it turns out to be slightly correct. I can only think you must have put it on your form, James.

Haven't got access to it at the moment, but i'll have a look tomorrow if you want clarification. The data protection act prevents me from actually stating what was on your form unless you consent to it, so if you don't consent, only me and you will ever know

I'm fairly sure I didn't because I don't recall there being a part requesting any nickname or anything like it and that was used when I was at high school, so I wouldn't have thought of any use to bring it up this time round. But, if you do find my application form, I'd quite like to know to put to my mind at rest, as well as nearly everyone else's.

James Robinson wrote:

D Eadie wrote:

James Robinson wrote:I've not got a clue!

Me neither. I'm 100% certain that anything we mention re contestants info on the show is supplied to us by the contestant themselves. It's ridiculous to think that we can just guess some nickname and it turns out to be slightly correct. I can only think you must have put it on your form, James.

Haven't got access to it at the moment, but i'll have a look tomorrow if you want clarification. The data protection act prevents me from actually stating what was on your form unless you consent to it, so if you don't consent, only me and you will ever know

I'm fairly sure I didn't because I don't recall there being a part requesting any nickname or anything like it and that was used when I was at high school, so I wouldn't have thought of any use to bring it up this time round. But, if you do find my application form, I'd quite like to know to put to my mind at rest, as well as nearly everyone else's.

That sounds like consent to me, Damian!


Although I have been wrong about this before

James Robinson wrote:I'm fairly sure I didn't because I don't recall there being a part requesting any nickname or anything like it and that was used when I was at high school, so I wouldn't have thought of any use to bring it up this time round. But, if you do find my application form, I'd quite like to know to put to my mind at rest, as well as nearly everyone else's.

It's on the information you gave to us, mentions the human calculator name plus Huddersfield Town, Roger Moore and other such bits and pieces. Not sure why this query ever came about, but there is your answer anyway. It's certainly better than the nicknames i was given at school, put it that way.

Well that's that little mystery (which wasn't ever really a mystery because that was blatantly the only answer) solved.

D Eadie wrote:

James Robinson wrote:I'm fairly sure I didn't because I don't recall there being a part requesting any nickname or anything like it and that was used when I was at high school, so I wouldn't have thought of any use to bring it up this time round. But, if you do find my application form, I'd quite like to know to put to my mind at rest, as well as nearly everyone else's.

It's on the information you gave to us, mentions the human calculator name plus Huddersfield Town, Roger Moore and other such bits and pieces. Not sure why this query ever came about, but there is your answer anyway. It's certainly better than the nicknames i was given at school, put it that way.

Oh well, not the first time I've been wrong on this forum. Thanks anyway, Damian.

EDIT: Sorry for wasting yours and everyone else's time.

How do you get in touch with someone to organise a game because my opponant hasn't been sroun this week and I won't be around much later in the week.

Send whoever it is you're playing a private message. That normally does the trick, Andrew.

How do i do that

Its ok i worked it out. God i can be slow sometimes

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=124629

Jon O'Neill 184-110 Ian Volante.

It's also worth checking out the only points I dropped in this game.

Jon O'Neill wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=124629

Jon O'Neill 184-110 Ian Volante.

It's also worth checking out the only points I dropped in this game.

Ouch in every sense!

Jon O'Neill wrote:It's also worth checking out the only points I dropped in this game.

Haha. You suck.