c4countdown

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=453683

Whew, don't come much closer than this. A less horrid conundrum there and my tournament could easily have been over. Excellent game, well played Matt.

Josh?

I imagine I'll be online a fair bit over the next few days, so hopefully our paths will cross at some point JW.

Only

James Bradley
Scott Gillies
Dan Abrey
Mark James

left.

Added Bradley-Gillies. Only James or Scott have a chance of getting to the finals still, by winning 2 in losing then the final (their 3rd) game of the season, and in doing so scoring more than Martin Bishop's 272 points.
With all due respect to James, I imagine Martin's only chance is to hope that Scott ends up winning all 3 and becoming the first quadrachamp of series 2.

So, if all I've done is right, the following seven are guaranteed entry to the finals:

Innis Carson 4 492
James Robinson 4 439
Lloyd Pettet 4 412
Dinos Sfyris 4 400
Jonathan Wynn 4 387
James Doohan 2 291
Charlie Reams 2 287

Additionally, the first 5 are locked in with their 4 wins, but James or Charlie can be displaced by one seed depending on what happens in the final three matches.
Wynn vs Sfyris is the only definite quarter-final so far then.

Been closely following my slide down the rankings, but it's only just occurred to me that my "prize" for clinging on to the end will be a match up with Innis. Hmm...

Out of interest, what are the criteria for being allowed to reapply?

Michael Wallace wrote:Out of interest, what are the criteria for being allowed to reapply?

Human.

Scott's got two wins now. Just Gillies - James left.

Cheers Martin. Added that now. Almost finals time, woo!

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=461875

It's finals time

aptoSOS.01 Finals
http://www.apterous.org/to_tourney.php?tourney=25

Quarter Finals
Innis Carson (1) vs. Martin Bishop (8)
James Robinson (2) vs. Charlie Reams (7)
Lloyd Pettet (3) vs. James Doohan (6)
Dinos Sfyris (4) vs. Jonathan Wynn (5)

Scott will begin series 2 (I'll add it as soon as finals done and various technical stuff sorted with Charlie) with 3 wins and 301 points.

Having a little think about second series (aka. how to stop Innis winning every single series).

Am now thinking it is a good idea to exclude finalists from taking part in the subsequent series. So the 8 finalists won't be able to compete in Season 2, but will be free to enter for Season 3.
This should make the finals for next season that much more interesting, whilst still leaving lots of top names to come through (Davies, Bevins, Gillies off the top of head).

I'd completely randomise the list of entrants (if possible, if I could get enough entrant confirmations quick enough to start the thing) so that what happens happens and the draw you get is pure luck.

Positive feedback, etc.?

Matt Morrison wrote:Having a little think about second series (aka. how to stop Innis winning every single series).

Am now thinking it is a good idea to exclude finalists from taking part in the subsequent series. So the 8 finalists won't be able to compete in Season 2, but will be free to enter for Season 3.
This should make the finals for next season that much more interesting, whilst still leaving lots of top names to come through (Davies, Bevins, Gillies off the top of head).

I'd completely randomise the list of entrants (if possible, if I could get enough entrant confirmations quick enough to start the thing) so that what happens happens and the draw you get is pure luck.

Positive feedback, etc.?

Sounds good to me, although you could maybe make it a bit more complicated and say the champion can never re-enter (we can have a CoC for that), and then maybe the losing finalist can't reapply for n series, semi-finalists for n-1 series, and quarter-finalists for n-2 series? I dunno, I just dunno if it's good to have every other series dominated by the same set of finalists? Maybe that wouldn't happen though.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Am now thinking it is a good idea to exclude finalists from taking part in the subsequent series. So the 8 finalists won't be able to compete in Season 2, but will be free to enter for Season 3.

Sounds good to me, although you could maybe make it a bit more complicated and say the champion can never re-enter (we can have a CoC for that), and then maybe the losing finalist can't reapply for n series, semi-finalists for n-1 series, and quarter-finalists for n-2 series? I dunno, I just dunno if it's good to have every other series dominated by the same set of finalists? Maybe that wouldn't happen though.

You're probably right actually, good thinking. It would need to be staggered in some way. Trouble is, we can't go and ban Innis from taking part in any more than 2 seasons, that would be somewhat unreasonable. I dunno, maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable, I'm just too nice a guy and I don't want to exclude more people than I want to.

Maybe the winner and the runner up are excluded for 2 seasons.
3rd/4th/5th/6th for 1 season
7th/8th free to enter straight away again?

Trouble with that I guess is that you then also have to decide who is 5th/6th and 7th/8th out of the four losing quarters.

cool - just dinos-jon left for quarters

Matt Morrison wrote:cool - just dinos-jon left for quarters

Good times, those games came out of nowhere! I checked last night and none had been played!!! I've pm'd Dinos now so hopefully we'll play asap.

Jon.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Am now thinking it is a good idea to exclude finalists from taking part in the subsequent series. So the 8 finalists won't be able to compete in Season 2, but will be free to enter for Season 3.

Sounds good to me, although you could maybe make it a bit more complicated and say the champion can never re-enter (we can have a CoC for that), and then maybe the losing finalist can't reapply for n series, semi-finalists for n-1 series, and quarter-finalists for n-2 series? I dunno, I just dunno if it's good to have every other series dominated by the same set of finalists? Maybe that wouldn't happen though.

You're probably right actually, good thinking. It would need to be staggered in some way. Trouble is, we can't go and ban Innis from taking part in any more than 2 seasons, that would be somewhat unreasonable. I dunno, maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable, I'm just too nice a guy and I don't want to exclude more people than I want to.

I was thinking it might be a bit harsh to ban people. These competitions are for fun (supposedly) and to exclude someone from the fun for being too good seems a bit mean. But then again there are loads of tournaments and stuff that come up.

Will be about tonight but not in the room as I've got a heckload of stuff to sort out, but if Wynn is about someone fb message me and I'll get the last QF done and dusted.

Played my QF with Jonathan. It was pretty close for the first two thirds of the game and when Wynn came back to within 10 I thought a comeback was on the cards. But I managed to run away in the last leg to win 120 - 74.

I then decided to make my semi with Innis as quick and painless as possible before I could gather any sort of expectation that I might win and have my dreams inevitably crushed! It was actually a lot closer than I thought it would be and saw Innis slip up an uncharacteristically human amount of times (he missed 3 maxes) and lo and behold I found myself in a rarely seen position, ahead of Innis at the conundrum! Naturally I fluffed it even with Innis pretending not to see it for a whole 14 seconds while I pondered INTERVANE^, a 2 letter transposition of the actual answer!

Here's the game Innis 101 - 92 Dinos

All the best in the final!

Shame it didn't count and you get a second chance at Innis then.
Added the semis to the system now.

I'd like to contest the next series of aptoSOS, please.

Adam Gillard wrote:I'd like to contest the next series of aptoSOS, please.

THIS

Well, I've made the final.

Maybe I might win a final this time.

Probably not, since it's either Innis or Dinos in the final........

I played Innis again and lost (a lot more convincingly this time) so I'd like the previous game to be the one that goes on record or indeed this one, which annoyingly happened straight away afterwards...

Dinos Sfyris wrote:I played Innis again and lost (a lot more convincingly this time) so I'd like the previous game to be the one that goes on record or indeed this one, which annoyingly happened straight away afterwards...

Unlucky Dinos, woulda been a good victory.

Just to add this is the first tournament I've taken part in since being on apterous and I've really enjoyed it so all credit to Matt and Ian (and potentially anyone else who deserves it-sorry in advance :O )is very much due for organising it (and more so for managing to get it to the end )

I thankyous for your organisational skills, and very much look forward to playing in the next one (in which I'm allowed to take part of course )

Thanks Jon! Nice message

I assure you the second season will be (possibly) bigger and (definitely) better so that's something to look out for.

THE FINAL IS NOW PUBLISHED - could Innis and/or JR let us know when you plan to play, I'd quite like to watch the conclusion.

SECOND SEASON - please do start sticking names in, preferably wait until the final is over actually, just so we can give Innis and/or JR some praise before the thread becomes another list of names.
Was hoping for some feedback on my exclusions idea.
JR and Innis will definitely be out for two seasons. (1st and 2nd)
I think this time round at least I'll just put Dinos and Doohan (3rd and 4th) out for 1 season, and leave Charlie, Jon, Martin and Lloyd to re-enter. If anyone has a better idea, or thinks only 2 of these players should be allowed to remain (as was my original idea, but how?) then let me know soonish. I know it's not perfect and I'm sorry to lose that get excluded, but as I say, if my dreams of making this bad boy much improved next season, with automated game listings and stuff, then hopefully the seasons will start rolling around A LOT quicker.

I think if anything maybe only the series winner should be excluded for the next one but then back after that. Although I'd probably just let everyone be able to participate in series 2.

Ryan Taylor wrote:I think if anything maybe only the series winner should be excluded for the next one but then back after that. Although I'd probably just let everyone be able to participate in series 2.

I think I'm sticking this time round, but thanks for the input Ryan.

I chatted with Charlie about it for a while. Let's face it, if I just excluded Innis for a season every other season would be Innis winning it, and each one in between would be one of a small handful of other names winning it. I want, and I'm sure the majority of normal apterous players would agree, something a bit more varied than that, a bit less predictable. Charlie even thought it should be all finalists excluded for a couple of seasons, but I came up with the idea of excluding the finalists for different lengths so that it would end up not going round in cycles.

I think it should be 14 years before anyone who has taken part can re-enter, unless they had a word incorrectly disallowed.

The final will be around 10pm tonight.

Who will be the champ?

Innis "The Edinburgh Exterminator" Carson or James "The Mirfield Missile" Robinson.

Let's face it, if I just excluded Innis for a season every other season would be Innis winning it, and each one in between would be one of a small handful of other names winning it.

So far I've had 3 games that went to crucials and I could very easily have lost any of them, it's silly to just 'assume' I would win every future series I took part in (especially since I haven't even won this one). Surely it would cheapen the victory for any future winners if they'd been denied the chance to beat several other players, under the assumption that those other players would inevitably beat them? I think the format's pretty volatile as it is, so we should see varying finals line-ups and winners without having to exclude people.

Innis Carson wrote:

Let's face it, if I just excluded Innis for a season every other season would be Innis winning it, and each one in between would be one of a small handful of other names winning it.

So far I've had 3 games that went to crucials and I could very easily have lost any of them, it's silly to just 'assume' I would win every future series I took part in (especially since I haven't even won this one). Surely it would cheapen the victory for any future winners if they'd been denied the chance to beat several other players, under the assumption that those other players would inevitably beat them? I think the format's pretty volatile as it is, so we should see varying finals line-ups and winners without having to exclude people.

This was pretty much my thinking and I'd like to think that on my day I can beat anyone and this is the same for lots and lots of players which would mean that the winners would be different everytime. After all, it is just a bit of fun and it seems a bit harsh to exclude people from the fun.

I don't think all the recent series winners of Countdown have enjoyed particularly cheapened victories without having to face you, Chris, Kirk, Julian, etc. every series!
Even if all the finalists were excluded (which isn't happening) there's still enough talent to provide 4 excellent players and 4 very-above-average players for the finals, which is generally about what an average series of Countdown gets too.

Cheers for the opinion though. Still looking forward to everyone else chipping in. I'm not going to exclude people if everyone thinks it's a shit idea, though for obvious reasons if it's only the excludable finalists who speak up against it, then that doesn't sway me at all.

I agree with Matt. Don't think of it as banning. Have a CoC every few series and meanwhile give other people a chance to win. For the record I would've excluded all the finalists, including me, so I'm arguing against interest here.

Amazing Series. Haven't had enough time to recap everything!

Even if you're going to ban (exclude, "rest") the series winner on the basis that you want a variety of different series winners, that's no reason to ban the defeated finalist or semi-finalists because they haven't won anything. If you're that sure that Innis is going to win whenever he's in it*, people could start throwing their quarter or semi matches (they won't in real ife, but run with this) because they'd be thinking "I'm going to lose anyway as Innis is playing, so there's no point in getting myself banned - I might as well lose now and get to play in the next series, which won't have Innis in!"

*This isn't a guarantee - I'm just playing along with this assumption.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Even if you're going to ban (exclude, "rest") the series winner on the basis that you want a variety of different series winners, that's no reason to ban the defeated finalist or semi-finalists because they haven't won anything. If you're that sure that Innis is going to win whenever he's in it*, people could start throwing their quarter or semi matches (they won't in real ife, but run with this) because they'd be thinking "I'm going to lose anyway as Innis is playing, so there's no point in getting myself banned - I might as well lose now and get to play in the next series, which won't have Innis in!"

*This isn't a guarantee - I'm just playing along with this assumption.

Yeah, but if there's an aptososcoc it'd possibly divert some of this, people would want to perform well, Innis or no Innis, to stand a better chance of qualifying for it.

It's happening now. In R2 as I write this.

The final has now happened:

http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=468301

It was an incredibly tense game, we were both pretty nervous (I certainly was anyway) and it probably shows. I thought I might have been able to push ahead after R9, but James struck back straight away with a great 6 small solve under pressure, and after that neither of us could escape each other and a crucial was pretty much inevitable, and in this case I was fractionally faster than him.

Unlucky James, it was a great game and you played very well. It's surely only a matter of time before you get that elusive tournament victory.

Cheers Matt for running this so well, I always thought the series simulation was a really fun idea, and it was great to see it finally put into reality.

Yeah, it was very good and definitely super intense. Not too surprising for a final, in fairness.

I thought my mind was just going to collapse after missing MAJORED in round 2 (was hoping JEREMIAD would come up), but then leading with NOMINATE immediately after put me in good spirits, but that simple numbers miss definitely put the brakes on again.

And after Innis spotted KAGOULS, I definitely thought it was the end, but then the 6 small came to my rescue, and when I led with FLITTED, I thought, "Hello, is it really possible?", but then Innis' EARBASH was a brill spot (wouldn't have seen it even with 60 seconds , although I was sure there was better than 6), then after I thought I cocked up the numbers, I was relieved that Innis only got 900 too, but I knew that the conundrum would probably have put me at a disadvantage, being against the lightning fast Innis, and my theory was well founded.

So, that's 3 final losses in less than 5 months now, all to crucials too But, Innis was a well deserved winner, so I have qualms about losing to him.

Dear oh dear, but never mind, it was a thrilling series to be involved in, and I'm definitely proud to have reached the final, so not too disappointed really.

Thank you very much for the tourney, Matt. It was very well done and fun to be involved with.

I thought that was a brilliant game. Lead was taken nice and early in round 2 and changed a further FOUR times, and a crucial to finish. Fantastic.

Sexy game. Well played both!