COOT 08 Plate Final - O'Neill vs Coates

[Charlie Reams]

Two big finals this week and here's the first; the deciding match of the COOT Plate, which has been unusually strong this year with many excellent performances. The competitors are Jon O'Neill and Matt Coates.

Jono entered the Plate after a surprise defeat by Martin Gardner in the first full round of the Cup. He then comfortably despatched me and Dan Vanniasingham, before emerging victorious from exciting semi-final with Matthew Green that was really decided by Jono's dominance on the numbers. His tournament highlights include AIRLOCK, FISTULAE and MATERIEL, and the usual array of successful numbers games.

Matt Coates began his COOTing season with a win over Matthew Green in the preliminaries, but lost to eventual semi-finalist Ben Wilson in the first round. Dropped into the Plate, he made an excellent century against Ben Pugh (with spots of BOOTLACE and REGLAZES) to advance to the quarter final. Further wins over Dinos Sfyris and an off-colour Jon Corby earned him a place in the final.

So which of these two fine competitors will be taking home the delightful COOT Plate, handmade from the bones of Scott Kenyon? Read on to find out!

C1: Jon O'Neill.
C2: Matthew Coates.
Game hosted by me.

R01: E E I E D R Z T P
R02: A O E L S N T D R
R03: A I E O T Y M R T
R04: E A O C L R K Q F
R05: 50, 75, 100, 25, 7, 1. Target: 199.
R06: A I E T L B N N N
R07: I A E O T D S R X
R08: U I A S S T N M E
R09: R P N C I O U A O
R10: 50, 100, 8, 2, 4, 4. Target: 565.
R11: I O U O S J R B E
R12: I I E T L P W G D
R13: E A O U C S P S V
R14: 25, 50, 7, 1, 4, 2. Target: 966.
R15: E N Q U I E S E D (conundrum)


SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER


Round 1: E E I E D R Z T P

C1: PETERED (7)
C2: DEEPER (6)
Score: 7–0 (max 7)

Round 2: A O E L S N T D R

C1: LEOTARDS (8)
C2: LODESTAR (8)
OT: DELATORS (8) SOLANDER (8)
Score: 15–8 (max 15)

Round 3: A I E O T Y M R T

C1: MATTER (6)
C2: OATIER (6)
OT: AMORETTI (8)
Score: 21–14 (max 23)

Round 4: E A O C L R K Q F

C1: LOCKER (6)
C2: ORACLE (6)
DC: EARLOCK (7)
Score: 27–20 (max 30)

Round 5: 50, 75, 100, 25, 7, 1. Target: 199.

C1: 199. 100+75+25-1 (10)
C2: 199. 7x25+75-50-1 (10)
Score: 37–30 (max 40)




Round 6: A I E T L B N N N

C1: LINNET (6)
C2: ENTAIL (6)
OT: ALBEIT (6) ALBITE (6) INNATE (6) NIBLET (6) TANNIE (6) TANNIN (6)
Score: 43–36 (max 46)

Round 7: I A E O T D S R X

C1: ASTEROID (8)
C2: ASTEROID (8)
DC: EXTRADOS (8)
Score: 51–44 (max 54)

Round 8: U I A S S T N M E

C1: MATINESS (8)
C2: MATINESS (8)
OT: ANIMUSES (8) MANTISES (8) TSUNAMIS (8)
Score: 59–52 (max 62)

Round 9: R P N C I O U A O

C1: COUPON (6)
C2: RACOON (6)
OT: PICAROON (8)
Score: 65–58 (max 70)

Round 10: 50, 100, 8, 2, 4, 4. Target: 565.

C1: 566. (8-2)x100-50+4x4 (7)
C2: 566. (8-2)x100-50+4x4 (7)
CV: 565. (50+4)x(8+2) + 100/4 (10)
Score: 72–65 (max 80)




Round 11: I O U O S J R B E

C1: JURIES (6)
C2: BURIES (6)
OT: BOURSE (6) BRUISE (6) BUSIER (6) RIBOSE (6) RUBIES (6)
Score: 78–71 (max 86)

Round 12: I I E T L P W G D

C1: WILTED (6)
C2: PIGLET (6)
OT: PITIED (6) WIDGET (6)
Score: 84–77 (max 92)

Round 13: E A O U C S P S V

C1: UPCASES (7)
C2: UPCASES (7)
OT: CASEOUS (7)
Score: 91–84 (max 99)

Round 14: 25, 50, 7, 1, 4, 2. Target: 966.

C1: 969. (25-7)x(50+4)-2-1 (7)
C2: 974.
CV: 966. (50-4)x7x(2+1) (10)
Score: 98–84 (max 109)

Round 15: E N Q U I E S E D

C1 buzzes on 3 seconds to say SEQUINED which is incorrect.
C2 buzzes on 3 seconds to say SEQUINED which is incorrect.
[Yes, this really did happen - they both buzzed and gave the same incorrect answer before I could stop them.]
The answer was QUEENSIDE.
Score: 98–84 (max 119)

So not quite the explosive contest that the form book might have predicted, with many uninspiring rounds and difficult maximums. Nevertheless, it was a well-contested battle with Jono's numbers talent handing him the decisive advantage once more. Statisticians will be pleased to know that Jono turned over exactly 9 maximums, and Matt 8.

All hail the new champion of the Plate, and I'm happy to hand on its lofty legacy to the ginger genius, Mr. Jon O'Neill.

Further summaries are at:
http://www.thecountdowncorral.com/cd/se ... eries=-102

[Jon O'Neill]

Woo!

Cheers for hosting Charlie, cheers for playing Matt.

[Julian Fell]

Matt, Matt, if you're 7 points down against a numbers wizard going into the last numbers round, and it's your pick, surely you've got to go for 1/5? Easy for me to say I suppose

No offence meant though, you both played really well - I think Charlie undersells you a bit, there were some excellent spots in there (UPCASES not exactly easy), you dealt well with some tricky numbers under pressure, and I'd have struggled against either of you. Good stuff, sorry I wasn't there to see it unfold at the time

[Matt Coates]

i know julian, but i remember reading somewhere that the target is easier to get with 2 lg.

never mind, didnt make much difference, i would have kicked myself had i got the conundrum tho.

well played Jono, and thanks for the tournament, thanks to charlie for hosting

[Jon O'Neill]

Two from the top gives a high proportion of solvable games, but that's not to say that the solutions are easier to find. On the contrary, with more than one from the top the number of angles of attacking the solution increase dramatically, which, for me at least, and perhaps other humans (as opposed to computers) is confusing. One from the top is much easier for a human to grapple with, I feel.

[Kirk Bevins]

Two from the top gives a high proportion of solvable games, but that's not to say that the solutions are easier to find. On the contrary, with more than one from the top the number of angles of attacking the solution increase dramatically, which, for me at least, and perhaps other humans (as opposed to computers) is confusing. One from the top is much easier for a human to grapple with, I feel.

Concurred.