Numbers Attack Tournament - Round 4

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:00 am

In Round 3, 29 of the 32 games were played, so thanks very much! Adjudications were:

Corby vs Hegarty [no word from either, given as a draw.]
Dent vs Murphy [Jay Murphy has disappeared, win for Ian.]
Reynolds vs Burgin [Jeffrey withdrew from the tournament this morning, sigh. Win for Phil.]

So here's the Pairings and standings for Round 4.

Things are getting tight at the top!

In Div A, 4 players remain unbeaten; Dinos plays Innis and James Hurrell plays Nick.
Meanwhile in Div B, Matt faces Clive and Crispy faces James Hall.
Exciting stuff, and please get your games played early if at all possible.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:48 am

Whilst it grieves me to point this out, I should be down in the rankings as having lost 3!

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:11 am

Also according to the standings you've got James down for 2 wins instead of 3 which has placed him below Neb in 5th.

Eep I've got Innis. Surely this is the end of dinos_the_mathematician?

J.Levison · Post by **J.Levison** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:03 am

jus noticed on the leabue b table that i am down as having one win and one loss, when infact i have two wins and one loss, is this becuase one of my wins went to a conundrum?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:04 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:Corby vs Hegarty [no word from either, given as a draw.]

Fair enough, I could only make weeknights, he could only make weekends. Fate kept us apart. If this were a movie trailer, we'd have gone on to challenge our fates and make the encounter against all the odds, in a "...but now they're making their own rules.... they're the only ones they know" kinda way, but it's not, so we didn't. Sorry.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:33 pm

Andrew Herbertson 154 - 181 Gevin Chapwell

For 14 rounds there was the dream of a max game. What Andrew might not have noticed is that over the last 13 rounds, he scored more than me.

Edit - just to clarify, this game was done "manually" (there was no tournament game) and this is in division B.

Andrew Herbertson · Post by **Andrew Herbertson** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:47 pm

Didn't notice that Gevin. Did look as if a max was on but good stuff anyway.

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:56 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=129516

Division B: Niall Seymour 135-93 James Levison

Posted here as neither me or James could get the blue tournament thing to load.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:09 pm

Niall Seymour wrote:Posted here as neither me or James could get the blue tournament thing to load.

How do you get "the blue tournament thing to load"? I've not been able to do it for any of my tournament matches.

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:39 pm

James Robinson wrote:
Niall Seymour wrote:Posted here as neither me or James could get the blue tournament thing to load.
How do you get "the blue tournament thing to load"? I've not been able to do it for any of my tournament matches.

I'm not entirely sure James. In my last two games against Darren and Howard the blue tournament thing automatically came up, but in both games my opponent challenged me. I assumed Charlie had programmed it so that if you challenge the person you are paired against to a numbers attack then it automatically comes up but now I'm thinking that this is wrong.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:51 pm

I think it's just if the pairing has been put into the auto-tourney system, if Player A is online, and then Player B comes online, at that point the blue tourney challenge will automatically pop up.
I think some of your confusion may rise from the way it is worded in-game. For example, when it happened to me and Feisty, it said (to me) "Waiting for you..." which made me think Feisty had initiated it. For all I know, it may have said "Waiting for you..." on his screen too, I don't think the game lobby can pop up of its own accord without the challenge being accepted.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:24 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:I think it's just if the pairing has been put into the auto-tourney system, if Player A is online, and then Player B comes online, at that point the blue tourney challenge will automatically pop up.
I think some of your confusion may rise from the way it is worded in-game. For example, when it happened to me and Feisty, it said (to me) "Waiting for you..." which made me think Feisty had initiated it. For all I know, it may have said "Waiting for you..." on his screen too, I don't think the game lobby can pop up of its own accord without the challenge being accepted.

I reckon it did appear automatically for me yesterday - the first I knew that Stuart had signed into apterous was when the game window appeared. I guess that when he logged in, I automatically challenged him ... ?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:30 pm

Jon Corby wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:I think it's just if the pairing has been put into the auto-tourney system, if Player A is online, and then Player B comes online, at that point the blue tourney challenge will automatically pop up.
I think some of your confusion may rise from the way it is worded in-game. For example, when it happened to me and Feisty, it said (to me) "Waiting for you..." which made me think Feisty had initiated it. For all I know, it may have said "Waiting for you..." on his screen too, I don't think the game lobby can pop up of its own accord without the challenge being accepted.
I reckon it did appear automatically for me yesterday - the first I knew that Stuart had signed into apterous was when the game window appeared. I guess that when he logged in, I automatically challenged him ... ?

Yeah that's the one. Except I had a funny feeling that it was a mutual challenging of each other thing. Did it say "Waiting for Stuart..." on your challenge then? This would kind of make sense as when it happened to me Feist was already online, and it auto-challenged as soon as I signed in, and appeared to come from him. If so, I guess it's the player who was already online that the challenge appears to come from. Can see how it's a touch confusing.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:24 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:I think it's just if the pairing has been put into the auto-tourney system, if Player A is online, and then Player B comes online, at that point the blue tourney challenge will automatically pop up.
I think some of your confusion may rise from the way it is worded in-game. For example, when it happened to me and Feisty, it said (to me) "Waiting for you..." which made me think Feisty had initiated it. For all I know, it may have said "Waiting for you..." on his screen too, I don't think the game lobby can pop up of its own accord without the challenge being accepted.
I reckon it did appear automatically for me yesterday - the first I knew that Stuart had signed into apterous was when the game window appeared. I guess that when he logged in, I automatically challenged him ... ?
Yeah that's the one. Except I had a funny feeling that it was a mutual challenging of each other thing. Did it say "Waiting for Stuart..." on your challenge then? This would kind of make sense as when it happened to me Feist was already online, and it auto-challenged as soon as I signed in, and appeared to come from him. If so, I guess it's the player who was already online that the challenge appears to come from. Can see how it's a touch confusing.

I never saw the challenge. I was doing something else when the game room popped up with Stuart already in it.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:42 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I never saw the challenge. I was doing something else when the game room popped up with Stuart already in it.

Yeah that still makes sense. So whichever player is already online auto-sends the challenge, and auto-accepts it, so it loads up when the 2nd player online accepts it without the first player needing to do a thing.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:13 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:I never saw the challenge. I was doing something else when the game room popped up with Stuart already in it.
Yeah that still makes sense. So whichever player is already online auto-sends the challenge, and auto-accepts it, so it loads up when the 2nd player online accepts it without the first player needing to do a thing.

That's definitely not by design.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:58 pm

Division B semi-final: Matt Morrison 158 - 148 Clive Brooker

I've got absolutely nothing but guilt about winning this. We were both below par.
Clive missed two numbers he had with misclicks, I missed one in the same fashion and forgot to declare altogether on two numbers, one of which I got in the last few seconds. I also managed to pull out an absolutely horrible bodge for R12, literally no idea what I was doing and I coud have ended on 500 out just as easily as bang on the target.

Just after halfway, after a few tactical 6 small picks and a couple of 'safe' declarations by me (along with Clive's second misclick loss), I'd worked a small lead.
Ever the tactical idiot, I continued to pick 6 small when easy 1 larges would have been far more beneficial, and Clive pulled back level.

In the end it went to tiebreak conundrums, which was totally unfair. I didn't think I deserved to win, and the conundrums made it worse, as Clive doesn't play them at all, so even not being great at them gave me a big advantage. First two went by interestingly - I guessed CONQUERER* for RECONQUER, and then as a joke (after Clive had incorrectly buzzed) went for IKILLFISH* when the answer was actually KILLIFISH. Neither of us even attempted TURBIDITY and then I was pretty relieved to see a more 'standard' suffix pop up that let me pick up the 4th one, WOUNDLESS, in 8 seconds.

Feel helluva guilty really, Clive deserved the win, and in the importance of a NAT semi-final it makes you realise how awkward resolving a numbers attack with conundrums is. (Though of course not as awkward as matching each other on an additional 20 numbers rounds would have been, and therein lies the conundrum.)

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:04 pm

Thanks for the comments Matt.

A draw looks pretty fair on balance. The misclicks were my fault (obviously). Heartbreaking though.

And well played.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:35 pm

Having looked through the game, if Matt still feels at all guilty, he shouldn't.

I conceded points on 4 rounds.

R1 was a standard split multiplication which I saw quite easily - (50*7-6)*2+1. However, I often find cases where I need to multiply by the larger small number first awkward to remember and reproduce even if I know I've got them right. Having a spare number floating around sometimes doesn't help either. Allied to first round nerves, all part of the game, 10 points down.

R12 and R13. Fair play to Matt. In R13 I stuck with declaring spot on because I thought I must be missing something obvious and would get nothing for one off anyway. Wrong option, end of story.

R14 was unfortunate. I replied to a bit of chat and inadvertantly hid the game just as Matt was started it. I didn't register that the music was playing until it had almost finished, and all I could do was click the target and hope to see a solution instantly. Two things:

I've no idea whether I would have scored anyway.

Anyone joining Apterous just to try and win a numbers tournament is going to find
unfamiliarity/inexperience a problem at some point. It's certainly no-one else's fault.

As for conundrums, I might have guessed KILLIFISH if I'd waited a little longer, so I had every chance. When playing the game I tend to regard the conundrum as a 10-point handicap.

I can safely say we both really wanted to win this one, and I am very disappointed, but I don't think there is any sense in which I deserved to win.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:29 pm

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 2493882590

Got trounced by Reuben. 185-158. 3 losses 1 win for me so far. How good is that!?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:34 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 2493882590

Got trounced by Reuben. 185-158. 3 losses 1 win for me so far. How good is that!?

25% good.

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Jon O'Neill 150-140 Richard Priest

Wasn't at all surprised to lose this one.At least it was closer than I'd expected.

Derek Hazell · Post by **Derek Hazell** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:54 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:Got trounced by Reuben. 185-158

Lucky for him he didn't get disqualified from this round!

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:14 am

Karen Pearson 121 - Jimmy Gough 98

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=130368

Finally I get a win. And it appears that, having won one out of four, I am officially as good as Kirk!

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:37 am

Looks like my game with Shaun (Hegarty) is doomed - he can't play until the weekend, but I'm not going to be around much at all from Friday to Sunday evening, and by Sunday evening Shaun is unable to play again. There's a slight chance I might be able to look in during the very early hours of the Saturday and Sunday mornings, so I'll keep my fingers crossed we might run into each other then. By that time of night I'll be fairly drunk, so if it goes ahead it might be, erm, interesting.

Gareth Mitchell · Post by **Gareth Mitchell** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:38 pm

Howard Somerset 111 v 158 Gareth Mitchell

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=130714

A fun game with Howard, with some misclicks by both of us.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:34 pm

Well played by James in Division A:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=130751

James Robinson 175 - 144 Ian Volante

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:45 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:... it makes you realise how awkward resolving a numbers attack with conundrums is.

Before I knew the format, I assumed it would be sudden-death numbers rounds, with the 'large' pick determined by the system (fixed at 1, say). I'm rubbish at conundrums.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:46 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Well played by James in Division A:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=130751

James Robinson 175 - 144 Ian Volante

Thanks for that, Ian. It was a tight game, just a couple of errors on Ian's part, such as Round 2, where he declared the right answer too late.

But, on the other hand, I'm now as good as Karen & Kirk!

James Doohan · Post by **James Doohan** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:57 pm

Division A ( I think?!)

James Doohan 169 - 101 Jon Stitcher

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?ke ... 8411513560

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:17 pm

Darren Carter 150-152 Edwin Mead

A close game where the lead changed hands often at the start but settled down and Edwin took the win at the end - well played Edwin.

Innis Carson · Post by **Innis Carson** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:50 pm

Innis 151 - 147 Dinos

Yet another extremely close game, the lead was changing hands constantly throughout it and I was behind going into the last round, but just snuck ahead thanks to an awkward final game (who picks 1 large anyway?). Really good game Dinos, well played.

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:51 pm

If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown and he won 151 - 147

Innis Carson · Post by **Innis Carson** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:53 pm

Brilliant. Read his one instead.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown and he won 151 - 147

Awesome

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:00 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown

Am still A-lolling as I'm typing this.

Richard Priest · Post by **Richard Priest** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:28 am

Dinos Sfyris wrote:If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown 151 - 147

Awesome.You should quit uni and go in for stand-up comedy instead

James Hurrell · Post by **James Hurrell** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:03 am

Rich Priest wrote:
Dinos Sfyris wrote:If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown 151 - 147
Awesome.You should quit uni and go in for stand-up comedy instead

Still wondering how I managed to get as far as 'before the climax I changed position' and thought 'this sounds weird'. Re read it and couldn't stop laughing.

If anyone is interested SF #2 between Nick and myself will be sometime on Sunday evening. Probably 6-7ish but TBC.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:22 pm

Michael Wallace 175 - 137 Kai Laddiman

The easiest set of 4 larges in a NA ever?

Chris Maudsley · Post by **Chris Maudsley** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:43 pm

Chris Maudsley 178 - 161 Ben Wilson

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=131695

A close game; on another day, Ben may have won, but I managed to hold out.

Julie Russell · Post by **Julie Russell** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:37 pm

Jay Murphy hasn't appeared. Sent a message on Monday and it hasn't been picked up.

Phil Collinge · Post by **Phil Collinge** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:15 pm

Sarah White hasn't showed either (for match with Supee).

Messages sent Weds and Thurs but neither opened.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:03 pm

Phil Collinge wrote:Sarah White hasn't showed either (for match with Supee).

Messages sent Weds and Thurs but neither opened.

I met her at CoLei2. I remember her saying that she was a fresher, and was having problems getting apterous to work on the uni internet. IIRC she was intending using a friend's off-campus connection.

So it's probably access problems. Hope she sorts things out, as it'd be good for her to practice, as she's recording in Nov!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:13 pm

Julie T wrote:
Phil Collinge wrote:Sarah White hasn't showed either (for match with Supee).

Messages sent Weds and Thurs but neither opened.
I met her at CoLei2. I remember her saying that she was a fresher, and was having problems getting apterous to work on the uni internet. IIRC she was intending using a friend's off-campus connection.

So it's probably access problems. Hope she sorts things out, as it'd be good for her to practice, as she's recording in Nov!

That's Anna Woodward.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:15 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Julie T wrote:
Phil Collinge wrote:Sarah White hasn't showed either (for match with Supee).

Messages sent Weds and Thurs but neither opened.
I met her at CoLei2. I remember her saying that she was a fresher, and was having problems getting apterous to work on the uni internet. IIRC she was intending using a friend's off-campus connection.

So it's probably access problems. Hope she sorts things out, as it'd be good for her to practice, as she's recording in Nov!
That's Anna Woodward.

I made exactly the same mistake when Sarah and I played in the tournament in an earlier round.
I'm not quite old enough to blame it on a senior moment, either.

In that case, Sarah is probably busy, as she's a working single mum - unless I've got that wrong too!

Sorry, Sarah and Anna!

It's not as though there are that many women on the forum to get confused with, either.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:46 pm

Dinos Sfyris wrote:If anyone's interested in seeing it I had my semi up against Innis earlier this evening. Playing with Innis is always a pleasure even if he dominates you relentlessly throughout, although this time saw us take turns being on top. Things were going well but alas before the climax I changed position thinking I could handle one large one and in the end i blew it.

Then Innis and I played Countdown and he won 151 - 147

I trust Emma's seen this post.

If not, I could always text it to her.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:39 pm

I must admit I thought my game with Shaun wasn't going to happen, so imagine my surprise when I fired up apterous to do the Duel last night and there he was! He then proceeded to BEAT MY HEAD IN throughout the following game, details of which you can observe remotely by clicking on this link:

Shaun Hegarty 190 - 140 Jim Bentley

It was a error-strewn nightmare for me (at one point I thought 14 x 4 was 54

ffs). But Shaun did brilliantly and it's a shame he misclickified the first round as he'd have had a perfect game were it not for that. Well done again, fella.