A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
He's probably never been shown how to solve 962 before.Gavin Chipper wrote:Also - http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=351001 - round 20. Sponge is supposed to be like Rex on numbers isn't he?
Even better, the mathematician's method had the 3 left over on a 3 away solution....
I gleaned more info:Ian Volante wrote:Weird, I'll try to glean more info.Charlie Reams wrote:The applet isn't signed so... I have no idea.
Code: Select all
network: Connecting http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar with cookie "uid=381; sessionid=13450050521309346080; __utma=210967365.1337468131.1280677274.1291159408.1291162591.337; __utmz=210967365.1291065692.327.28.utmcsr=c4countdown.co.uk|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/viewtopic.php; uid=381; sessionid=13450050521309346080; __utmb=210967365.9.10.1291162591; __utmc=210967365"
network: ResponseCode for http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar : 304
network: Encoding for http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar : null
network: Disconnect connection to http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar
cache: Reading Signers from 0 http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar | C:\Documents and Settings\cheekbones3\Application Data\Sun\Java\Deployment\cache\6.0\29\2d84e61d-4e221157.idx
network: No certificate info for unsigned JAR file: http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar
network: No certificate info for unsigned JAR file: http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar
cache: Read manifest for http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar: read=45 full=45
basic: Applet loaded.Code: Select all
network: No certificate info for unsigned JAR file: http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jar
network: No certificate info for unsigned JAR file: http://www.apterous.org/client/apto4298095703.jarCunt.Gavin Chipper wrote:someone
It searches all 1-step methods first, then 2-step etc. So if it gets the target at all, it'll get it in the optimal number of steps.Gavin Chipper wrote:Edit - I've always thought it's weird the way it fails on hyper though. Every time it gets the target it gets it at least as efficiently as I do (so the same number of moves or less) and then every so often it just doesn't get it. If it's a case of it not being able to cover all the ground, why does it never get the target but less efficiently than the player?
TBH I'd just get a better anti-virus.Jamie French wrote:I've installed some new antivirus sodtware and its stopped me from playing apterous.
I can log into the game room and pick the first round selection but the clock will not start and I am presented with a blank white screen.
The following message is also delivered to my desktop
I think it got snowed in and couldn't make it to work.Ian Volante wrote:Wot no duel today?
There are different ratings for some variants, Joseph, are you taking that into account?Joseph Krol wrote:I've just noticed that it says something totally wrong on some games when you have finished, in the chat bit, regarding your rating. Could be showing ratings for the wrong people? Probably refernced earlier in the thread, or it could just be me. Probably one of those two.
JK
All variants in fact.Liam Tiernan wrote:There are different ratings for some variants, Joseph, are you taking that into account?Joseph Krol wrote:I've just noticed that it says something totally wrong on some games when you have finished, in the chat bit, regarding your rating. Could be showing ratings for the wrong people? Probably refernced earlier in the thread, or it could just be me. Probably one of those two.
JK
Umm, yeah. About that...Joseph Krol wrote:Out of interest, how can you view your ratings for the variants?
You can go to settings in the game and change your preffered variant. Then you can see your rating in let's say... Spoilage (if your variant is Spoilage, like me.)Charlie Reams wrote:Umm, yeah. About that...Joseph Krol wrote:Out of interest, how can you view your ratings for the variants?
I think that "chance of winning" thing is based on the players' ratings in that format, not personal bests.Kirk Bevins wrote:Would be interesting to know how the eye of apterous works (think this has been discussed before) as I've just noticed this:
"Your PB in this format is 149; your opponent's is 77. The eye of apterous believes your chance of winning is 19%. Dare you defy it?" My PB is nearly double his and I have a 19% chance of winning. I'd put a tenner on please...
Think you're spot on.Graeme Cole wrote: I think that "chance of winning" thing is based on the players' ratings in that format, not personal bests.
He is, but who were you playing? Your rating is so high I'm surprised there's anyone who would give you such a low chance of winning.Kirk Bevins wrote:Think you're spot on.Graeme Cole wrote: I think that "chance of winning" thing is based on the players' ratings in that format, not personal bests.
Ah, that explains it, cool stuff.
Well the game after. Then after that my percentage went up to like 37% chance of winning. Would loved to have seen what percentage it said for the first game as I forgot to read it.
Yes?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Often in goatundrums in a 30-second round, 30 seconds elapses when the full shuffle is revealed. This often leads to "That's Rhys's buzzer on 31.5 seconds...."
Rhys, please learn how the game works before you post such ridiculous bug reports. Go and read the help pages on Goatdown.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Often in goatundrums in a 30-second round, 30 seconds elapses when the full shuffle is revealed. This often leads to "That's Rhys's buzzer on 31.5 seconds...."
Weird. Previously it did 20 seconds before revealing.Matt Morrison wrote:Rhys, please learn how the game works before you post such ridiculous bug reports. Go and read the help pages on Goatdown.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Often in goatundrums in a 30-second round, 30 seconds elapses when the full shuffle is revealed. This often leads to "That's Rhys's buzzer on 31.5 seconds...."
Nope.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Weird. Previously it did 20 seconds before revealing.Matt Morrison wrote:Rhys, please learn how the game works before you post such ridiculous bug reports. Go and read the help pages on Goatdown.Rhys Benjamin wrote:Often in goatundrums in a 30-second round, 30 seconds elapses when the full shuffle is revealed. This often leads to "That's Rhys's buzzer on 31.5 seconds...."
Nope.Liam Tiernan wrote:Why no almanac for WALES? It is a country, isn't it?
Likewise, LEUCOMAS is on my list, but 13 others have declared it since I did.Graeme Cole wrote:According to the new unique words page I'm the only person ever to offer AVOWEDLY, but that isn't true.
So if you get 0 silver bugs you get -1?Charlie Reams wrote:New policy: I deduct one silver bug for every duplicate report.
Sometimes I would have thought it would be good to know errors aren't one-offs.Charlie Reams wrote:New policy: I deduct one silver bug for every duplicate report.
Yes, but when it's a bunch of static pages that I can look at myself, there's only a certain number of times I need to be told about it. My heart LITERALLY sinks every time there's a post in this thread (possibly not including this one) so a bit of quality control on the other side would be much appreciated.Gavin Chipper wrote:Sometimes I would have thought it would be good to know errors aren't one-offs.Charlie Reams wrote:New policy: I deduct one silver bug for every duplicate report.
We had a database crash earlier, looks like it happened halfway through saving your game. You can replay it if you're feeling honest.James Leroux wrote:I played today's Duel, and got a provisionally ranked 6th. My name didn't show up on the leaderboard on the front page, and while the game showed up in my history I'm not allowed to view it. Just now, I logged out and logged back in, and the game is offering me the Duel again...
I got 6th again, but it's still not showing up on the leaderboard...Charlie Reams wrote:We had a database crash earlier, looks like it happened halfway through saving your game. You can replay it if you're feeling honest.James Leroux wrote:I played today's Duel, and got a provisionally ranked 6th. My name didn't show up on the leaderboard on the front page, and while the game showed up in my history I'm not allowed to view it. Just now, I logged out and logged back in, and the game is offering me the Duel again...
As above, but with 1st place.James Leroux wrote:I got 6th again, but it's still not showing up on the leaderboard...Charlie Reams wrote:We had a database crash earlier, looks like it happened halfway through saving your game. You can replay it if you're feeling honest.James Leroux wrote:I played today's Duel, and got a provisionally ranked 6th. My name didn't show up on the leaderboard on the front page, and while the game showed up in my history I'm not allowed to view it. Just now, I logged out and logged back in, and the game is offering me the Duel again...
Always worked for me, save the game window.Kirk Bevins wrote:I tried accessing apterous on my mobile and it had changed. There were only three available buttons (log in, contact and one other) and you could read some writing behind but you couldn't do anything with it, e.g. when I clicked log in I couldn't type my password in as the 3 links on the left kept scrolling down with the rest of the page and clicking in the 'password' box didn't do anything.
That is... odd. Don't think I can change it now though.James Doohan wrote:Hyper unlimited letters attack has 30 seconds per round whereas the other hyper unlimited games have 45 seconds per round
Hyper touch numbers attack has 30 seconds as well (so presumably all hyper touch).Charlie Reams wrote:That is... odd. Don't think I can change it now though.James Doohan wrote:Hyper unlimited letters attack has 30 seconds per round whereas the other hyper unlimited games have 45 seconds per round
Nothing more than confusing terminology Jayne. The standard scoring method for Omelette and Aegilops is Stepdown scoring.Jayne Wisniewski wrote:I just played star 17 beefily facetious - all numbers standard scoring. However i score 1 point when i declared 9 away and 9 points when i declared 1 away - shouldn't this be 5 and 7? It made no difference to outcome but I thought i'd mention it.