Rounds: Here.
Again, not much to the chat although we do get to see Shaun's improved poker face. It's a little scary, to be honest.
Once more there's some good back-and-forth, but two of Shaun's words are invalid which gives Toby crucial points. Toby needs it, too, because he concedes a lot of ground on the numbers, and was behind by more than the conundrum going into the final numbers round. Shaun erred, I feel, by choosing a difficult numbers option, and Toby was just able to outdo Shaun in it. That brought the match down to the conundrum yet again, with Shaun leading but not safe. Toby held his nerve to spot the answer with five seconds left on the clock, and scrapes through into the finals, 43 to 39.
Another slightly mixed performance from me today, including an invalid declaration in the first round that was quite bizarre in retrospect. I'd correctly judged that it wasn't going to cost me points, at least. I did miss a longer word in another round, but aside from that it was smooth sailing. Just like last night, I solved the conundrum eight seconds in for what ended up being a fairly easy win.
As usual, details after the jump.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Monday, 5 March 2012
Ep 396: [QF3] Kerin White, Daniel Chua (March 5, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Still nothing much to the pre-game chat. I can't decide if the contestants have exhausted their interesting facts about themselves, or if the producers think that it's better to just get straight into the show.
This final is certainly a contrast to the previous two, and ends up being a somewhat low-scoring but close-fought affair. Aside from one good eight-letter word the longest is six, and an early invalid choice by Daniel has him trailing. Kerin simply can't get into the numbers, though, and that gives Daniel just enough leeway to take the lead, helped along by an invalid word from Kerin. Once again it is anyone's match on the conundrum, but tonight it eludes them both; Daniel gets through, 32 to 26.
I was feeling much better about things today. Although I missed a word that I should have seen and was slow at the conundrum yet again, the rest I'm fairly happy with. I'd say this was the result of being better rested, but my sleeping problems of the last few weeks have persisted. Oh, well.
As usual, details after the jump.
Still nothing much to the pre-game chat. I can't decide if the contestants have exhausted their interesting facts about themselves, or if the producers think that it's better to just get straight into the show.
This final is certainly a contrast to the previous two, and ends up being a somewhat low-scoring but close-fought affair. Aside from one good eight-letter word the longest is six, and an early invalid choice by Daniel has him trailing. Kerin simply can't get into the numbers, though, and that gives Daniel just enough leeway to take the lead, helped along by an invalid word from Kerin. Once again it is anyone's match on the conundrum, but tonight it eludes them both; Daniel gets through, 32 to 26.
I was feeling much better about things today. Although I missed a word that I should have seen and was slow at the conundrum yet again, the rest I'm fairly happy with. I'd say this was the result of being better rested, but my sleeping problems of the last few weeks have persisted. Oh, well.
As usual, details after the jump.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Weekly summary: Episodes 391 to 395
So much for my hope of taking momentum into the first week of finals! I've not felt comfortable all week, and some very basic misses throughout, but I seem to have saved the worst for the finals. Or perhaps it is simply that I haven't been able to get away with the lapses, as I have done in previous instances. That's probably a fairer assessment, but I do feel it's been a very substandard performance from me this week.
A lot of tough numbers this week, two of them coming from the otherwise fairly inocuous single large mix. David started on track for a grand slam of full monties, but the mixes didn't cooperate; he still found three, making it an above-average week.
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Me | 57 | 68 | 62 | 53 | 38 |
| Champion | 40 | 32 | 5 | 70 | 56 |
| Challenger | 24 | 20 | 46 | 53 | 37 |
| David + Lily | 85 | 86 | 72 | 82 | 75 |
A lot of tough numbers this week, two of them coming from the otherwise fairly inocuous single large mix. David started on track for a grand slam of full monties, but the mixes didn't cooperate; he still found three, making it an above-average week.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full Monties | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
| Missed Full Monties | 0 | |||||
| Tough Numbers | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| Impossible Numbers | 0 |
Contestants averaging over 30 points a game:
| Total | Games | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norm Do* | 67 | 1 | 67.00 |
| Sam Gaffney* | 450 | 7 | 64.29 |
| Geoff Bailey | 247 | 4 | 61.75 |
| Jimmy Driscoll | 61 | 1 | 61.00 |
| Alan Nash* | 407 | 7 | 58.14 |
| Leanne Cox | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Ryan Sutton | 57 | 1 | 57.00 |
| Kerin White* | 336 | 6 | 56.00 |
| Nick Terry | 217 | 4 | 54.25 |
| Geraldine Yam | 52 | 1 | 52.00 |
| Tim Clay | 51 | 1 | 51.00 |
| Peter Crop | 152 | 3 | 50.67 |
| Daniel Chua* | 300 | 6 | 50.00 |
| Lainie Mercieca | 99 | 2 | 49.50 |
| Toby Baldwin* | 296 | 6 | 49.33 |
| Michael Vnuk | 49 | 1 | 49.00 |
| Susan Pickett | 97 | 2 | 48.50 |
| Colin Shnier | 144 | 3 | 48.00 |
| Matt Williams | 48 | 1 | 48.00 |
| Sebastian Ham | 284 | 6 | 47.33 |
| Alice Wheeler | 189 | 4 | 47.25 |
| Rhonda Jefferson | 141 | 3 | 47.00 |
| Natasha Podesser | 47 | 1 | 47.00 |
| Shaun Ellis* | 280 | 6 | 46.67 |
| Brett Edwards | 139 | 3 | 46.33 |
| Cem Gurkan | 92 | 2 | 46.00 |
| Brian McEvoy | 46 | 1 | 46.00 |
| Michael Nichols | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Karla Treves | 90 | 2 | 45.00 |
| Sandy Clarke | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| James Godfrey | 45 | 1 | 45.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 267 | 6 | 44.50 |
| Trevor Armstrong | 178 | 4 | 44.50 |
| Megan Marks | 133 | 3 | 44.33 |
| Maurie Williams | 176 | 4 | 44.00 |
| Nick Compton | 44 | 1 | 44.00 |
| Christopher Piggott-McKellar | 218 | 5 | 43.60 |
| Mark Arnold | 87 | 2 | 43.50 |
| John Day | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| Kathy Male | 42 | 1 | 42.00 |
| John O'Connor | 125 | 3 | 41.67 |
| Nathan Dixon | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Nick Mann | 41 | 1 | 41.00 |
| Pam Fichtner | 39 | 1 | 39.00 |
| David Bradley | 77 | 2 | 38.50 |
| Alex van der Kooij | 153 | 4 | 38.25 |
| Adrian Lonigro | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Richelle Patrick | 38 | 1 | 38.00 |
| Colin Jones | 111 | 3 | 37.00 |
| Cherie Brody | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Andrew Krein | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Colin Mallard | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Chris Miller | 37 | 1 | 37.00 |
| Ann Vasconcelos | 73 | 2 | 36.50 |
| Ilona Coote | 36 | 1 | 36.00 |
| Angie Pearce | 71 | 2 | 35.50 |
| Katie Richer | 70 | 2 | 35.00 |
| Tiahn Hannaford | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Craig Woodward | 35 | 1 | 35.00 |
| Kane Gross | 34 | 1 | 34.00 |
| Paul Merry | 67 | 2 | 33.50 |
| Linda Bennett | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Duncan Butler | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Mitchell Fly | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Cameron Tyson | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hannah Marshall | 33 | 1 | 33.00 |
| Hiep Do | 98 | 3 | 32.67 |
| Susan Cumming | 32 | 1 | 32.00 |
| Sushma Garudadwajan | 62 | 2 | 31.00 |
| David Armstrong | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
| John Crone | 31 | 1 | 31.00 |
Ep 395: [QF 2] Alan Nash, Roman Turkiewicz (March 2, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
Not much more to today's contestant chat, either, although we learn that Alan would like to go to space.
Roman gets a jump in the first letters round, but thereafter the contestants are matched on the words. Indeed, there's only one non-optimal round on those today, which is great stuff. This game hinges on the numbers, with Alan getting most of that lost ground back with the four large mix, and then some more as Roman's preferred balanced mix turns out not to Roman's advantage. The final numbers round could have narrowed the gap, but some confusion on Roman's part results in an invalid answer. It's still possible for either to win at the conundrum, but Alan sees it at the 24 second mark and advances to the semifinals with a 56 to 37 win.
I... had what felt like the worst game for a long time. Not so much on the score (although I think it matches the least I've scored this series) but because of opportunities missed that I would have normally expected to take. I've been talking about the contestants having final nerves, but I think there's far more evidence for me having those right now. I just edged out Roman by a point, but that was only due to an invalid answer that may even not have been so (see round 8), and was comfortably beaten by Alan. Bother.
As usual, details after the jump.
Not much more to today's contestant chat, either, although we learn that Alan would like to go to space.
Roman gets a jump in the first letters round, but thereafter the contestants are matched on the words. Indeed, there's only one non-optimal round on those today, which is great stuff. This game hinges on the numbers, with Alan getting most of that lost ground back with the four large mix, and then some more as Roman's preferred balanced mix turns out not to Roman's advantage. The final numbers round could have narrowed the gap, but some confusion on Roman's part results in an invalid answer. It's still possible for either to win at the conundrum, but Alan sees it at the 24 second mark and advances to the semifinals with a 56 to 37 win.
I... had what felt like the worst game for a long time. Not so much on the score (although I think it matches the least I've scored this series) but because of opportunities missed that I would have normally expected to take. I've been talking about the contestants having final nerves, but I think there's far more evidence for me having those right now. I just edged out Roman by a point, but that was only due to an invalid answer that may even not have been so (see round 8), and was comfortably beaten by Alan. Bother.
As usual, details after the jump.
Thursday, 1 March 2012
Ep 394: [QF1] Sam Gaffney, Sebastian Ham (March 1, 2012)
Rounds: Here.
The finals are underway at last! But there's something a little odd: Sam is playing Sebastian, rather than Roman. I've checked the scores several times, and there's no doubt that Sebastian should have been in seventh position. That's rather unfortunate for him, and fortunate for Roman who presumably needed a break after his recent games.
The early chat just rehashes some of the things we've learned about the contestants during their earlier episodes.
It's a very close match tonight, with the contestants matched on the letters rounds. Sam gets a lead due to a good result on his favourite four large mix, but the rest offers little scope for advancement. It comes down to the conundrum, and Sam blitzes it for an emphatic win, 70 to 53.
I essentially matched Sebastian throughout, although there were two bad misses that on another day I may well have got. I wasn't remotely close to solving the conundrum within the allotted time, and finished tied with Sebastian. Sam hands me another loss, as somewhat expected. Great game from both contestants!
As usual, details after the jump.
The finals are underway at last! But there's something a little odd: Sam is playing Sebastian, rather than Roman. I've checked the scores several times, and there's no doubt that Sebastian should have been in seventh position. That's rather unfortunate for him, and fortunate for Roman who presumably needed a break after his recent games.
The early chat just rehashes some of the things we've learned about the contestants during their earlier episodes.
It's a very close match tonight, with the contestants matched on the letters rounds. Sam gets a lead due to a good result on his favourite four large mix, but the rest offers little scope for advancement. It comes down to the conundrum, and Sam blitzes it for an emphatic win, 70 to 53.
I essentially matched Sebastian throughout, although there were two bad misses that on another day I may well have got. I wasn't remotely close to solving the conundrum within the allotted time, and finished tied with Sebastian. Sam hands me another loss, as somewhat expected. Great game from both contestants!
As usual, details after the jump.
Finals preview (series 4): Letters, Numbers, Conundrums
Some of the finalists will be better at the letters, and some at the numbers. My feeling is that someone who is reliably better at the letters will beat someone who is reliably better at numbers, but it is a bit more finely balanced than I first thought. In any case, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how the contestants have performed in the various categories, and what their strengths or weaknesses seem to be.
First up, here are the average points scored by contestants in each of the appropriate rounds (not games), assuming no competition. (i.e., solo scores.) Naturally we would expect the letters to have a smoother distribution than the numbers, which would be much smoother than the conundrum. (The conundrum results are particularly unreliable since the other contestant sometimes solved it first.)
This does show some interesting results, in particular the large gap in numbers performance between the top five and the lower three.
How might this translate into results? Consider a game between Sam and Alan. Alan's average letters result is 0.2 better than Sam's, or an average of 1 better over the course of a game. That could mean finding an eight to Sam's seven, and an eight point gain overall. Similarly, the average numbers advantage is 1 to Sam, or 3 over the course of a game; that could translate to 10 vs. 7, or ten points to Sam. And the conundrum results are even, but only one contestant can score.
So the above results could be taken to suggest that a Sam vs. Alan match would have Sam leading by 2 points going into the conundrum, and a tossup as to who actually wins. (And yes, I know this is so far from being statistically valid that it is silly; I'm just playing around, really.)
Of course, as I mentioned in the previous post, solo scores do not take into account how difficult the rounds were (whether in terms of best possible result, or how feasible it was to find it). They also don't reflect well the nature of the scoring, where a single point difference in the letters could mean as much as an eighteen point difference in the scores.
The following doesn't adequately reflect that well on it either, but it's the datapoint that I have. Here are the average points won or lost by each contestant against me. This time it is average per game, rather than per round.
This reflects some larger differences. If we apply the results of this to that matchup between Sam and Alan, then we see about 3 points of difference in the letters, but a massive 16 points in the numbers -- that's a 19 point lead to Sam going into the conundrum, and a safe win even if Alan solves it.
Can we conclude much of anything from this? Not really, particularly as all of us are moving targets, ability-wise, and the game is too short to properly shake out variance. Fortunately tonight we will get some real data.
First up, here are the average points scored by contestants in each of the appropriate rounds (not games), assuming no competition. (i.e., solo scores.) Naturally we would expect the letters to have a smoother distribution than the numbers, which would be much smoother than the conundrum. (The conundrum results are particularly unreliable since the other contestant sometimes solved it first.)
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alan | 6.93 | Sam | 8.33 | Toby | 6.67 | ||
| Sam | 6.73 | Kerin | 8.17 | Roman | 6.00 | ||
| Kerin | 6.60 | Daniel | 7.39 | Sam | 5.00 | ||
| Toby | 6.43 | Alan | 7.33 | Alan | 5.00 | ||
| Roman | 6.08 | Sebastian | 7.20 | Kerin | 5.00 | ||
| Shaun | 6.05 | Roman | 5.60 | Sebastian | 4.00 | ||
| Daniel | 5.70 | Toby | 5.11 | Daniel | 3.33 | ||
| Sebastian | 5.48 | Shaun | 5.00 | Shaun | 2.50 | ||
This does show some interesting results, in particular the large gap in numbers performance between the top five and the lower three.
How might this translate into results? Consider a game between Sam and Alan. Alan's average letters result is 0.2 better than Sam's, or an average of 1 better over the course of a game. That could mean finding an eight to Sam's seven, and an eight point gain overall. Similarly, the average numbers advantage is 1 to Sam, or 3 over the course of a game; that could translate to 10 vs. 7, or ten points to Sam. And the conundrum results are even, but only one contestant can score.
So the above results could be taken to suggest that a Sam vs. Alan match would have Sam leading by 2 points going into the conundrum, and a tossup as to who actually wins. (And yes, I know this is so far from being statistically valid that it is silly; I'm just playing around, really.)
Of course, as I mentioned in the previous post, solo scores do not take into account how difficult the rounds were (whether in terms of best possible result, or how feasible it was to find it). They also don't reflect well the nature of the scoring, where a single point difference in the letters could mean as much as an eighteen point difference in the scores.
The following doesn't adequately reflect that well on it either, but it's the datapoint that I have. Here are the average points won or lost by each contestant against me. This time it is average per game, rather than per round.
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam | -1.83 | Sam | +0.83 | Alan | +1.67 | ||
| Alan | -4.67 | Kerin | -11.17 | Sam | 0.00 | ||
| Shaun | -10.25 | Daniel | -13.33 | Kerin | -1.67 | ||
| Kerin | -14.17 | Sebastian | -14.20 | Shaun | -2.50 | ||
| Toby | -15.33 | Roman | -14.83 | Roman | -4.00 | ||
| Roman | -18.80 | Alan | -15.17 | Sebastian | -6.00 | ||
| Daniel | -23.00 | Shaun | -15.50 | Toby | -6.67 | ||
| Sebastian | -25.20 | Toby | -21.00 | Daniel | -8.33 | ||
This reflects some larger differences. If we apply the results of this to that matchup between Sam and Alan, then we see about 3 points of difference in the letters, but a massive 16 points in the numbers -- that's a 19 point lead to Sam going into the conundrum, and a safe win even if Alan solves it.
Can we conclude much of anything from this? Not really, particularly as all of us are moving targets, ability-wise, and the game is too short to properly shake out variance. Fortunately tonight we will get some real data.
Finals preview (series 4): Rating the finalists
Now that the eight finalists are known -- although it came down to the very last game! -- I thought that I would review their performance and make some predictions about likely results in the finals. Very little should be read into this, since the game has high variability and the contestants are likely to have changed in ability in the meanwhile; I know that when I was told I might make it to the finals I put in some more practice, for instance. That was around the time that I started this blog, I think, and my consistency has certainly changed since then.
Note: Shaun Ellis's first two games were played last series, and I do not have a record of them. I could probably work something out, but it seemed simpler just to omit them from consideration. Also, Sam Gaffney's fourth game needed a second conundrum round during actual play. However, I am treating that game as stopping after the first conundrum in order to make the comparisons match up more sensibly.
To start with, here are the solo totals for each contestant, ordered by their average score per game. The solo total is what they would have scored for all their rounds if there were no opponent.
This shows a quite clear stratification, with the top three very close to each other, then the next four clustered further down, and then another gap to Shaun. I also find it interesting how consistent Daniel was, with only an eight point gap between his lowest and highest scores.
Of course, these figures don't tell us that much; the rounds in one game may have been much easier than the rounds in another. Below is the same table with my solo scores added for comparison; this time the table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score. i.e., how close they were to my performance on the same games.
(It might be more objective to compare against the combined performance of David and Lily, but that makes judging the conundrums tricky; more importantly, they are too good. Suppose the contestant matches David with a seven-letter word. If the only one was GUANACO, then that's a fantastic result; if there were a couple including MAGPIES then it's a good result; and if there were many including TEARING then it is an average result. Loosely speaking, David is equally likely to find any of those, while I will be more towards the good end of the spectrum. Or so I would like to believe.)
On this basis there is further separation. If we make the unrealistic assumption that my performance is a suitable baseline of comparison, then the top three are the same but Sam has a much clearer lead over Kerin and Alan than the solo scores alone would suggest; Shaun's standing has improved greatly -- my average score was the lowest in his games -- but is still well behind the top three; and Roman has moved up a little also.
(As a curiosity, I note that my solo scores during Daniel's run were almost smoother than his -- his opponent in the last game solved the conundrum too quickly, otherwise there might have been just a three point gap between lowest and highest -- as I erroneously thought was the case at first, due to not checking that game well enough.)
Of course, solo scores do not reflect the scoring of the game, and in particular the cost of finding a weak answer when a better one was relatively easy to find. Finding RATING instead of TEARING might only show up as a single point loss, instead of the seven point loss that it should be in practice. So in an attempt to take this into consideration, here are the head-to-head results (as recorded in this blog) between each finalist and myself. (Note: There are some slight differences between numbers here and those posted, due to ignoring the other contestant in those games.)
This table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score; I also show the average per-game difference between their scores and mine. Positive values would reflect that the difference favours them; negative values indicate a corresponding advantage to me.
On this metric the differences are massive. (Of course, it is of very dubious validity, but we'll see where it takes us anyway.) It's no surprise that Sam stays way on top, but the gap between him and Alan has stretched out greatly, as has that between Alan and Kerin. Shaun ends up pretty well separated from the remaining four, who are all very close to each other.
Based on this data, the first three quarter-finals should go with the higher-ranked seeds, but the fourth one has Shaun facing Toby. Toby is the higher seed (his total of 296 beating Shaun's total of 280), but Shaun's head-to-head percentage against me was much larger. Will this reflect what actually occurs? I guess we'll have to see!
Update: Commenter Victor suggested that the contestants be rated by their percentage of "maximums" -- times that they achieved the best possible results from the round. I have some doubts about this as a useful measure, as does commenter Mark, but here's a table anyway:
Note: Shaun Ellis's first two games were played last series, and I do not have a record of them. I could probably work something out, but it seemed simpler just to omit them from consideration. Also, Sam Gaffney's fourth game needed a second conundrum round during actual play. However, I am treating that game as stopping after the first conundrum in order to make the comparisons match up more sensibly.
To start with, here are the solo totals for each contestant, ordered by their average score per game. The solo total is what they would have scored for all their rounds if there were no opponent.
| Total | Average | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 67 | 64 | 64 | 55 | 382 | 63.67 |
| Kerin White | 68 | 63 | 59 | 63 | 71 | 51 | 375 | 62.50 |
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 59 | 54 | 55 | 69 | 370 | 61.67 |
| Toby Baldwin | 65 | 48 | 60 | 48 | 54 | 50 | 325 | 54.17 |
| Daniel Chua | 51 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 324 | 54.00 |
| Roman Turkiewicz | 68 | 55 | 57 | 52 | 34 | 266 | 53.20 | |
| Sebastian Ham | 49 | 55 | 65 | 40 | 56 | 265 | 53.00 | |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 59 | 45 | 44 | 191 | 47.75 | ||
This shows a quite clear stratification, with the top three very close to each other, then the next four clustered further down, and then another gap to Shaun. I also find it interesting how consistent Daniel was, with only an eight point gap between his lowest and highest scores.
Of course, these figures don't tell us that much; the rounds in one game may have been much easier than the rounds in another. Below is the same table with my solo scores added for comparison; this time the table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score. i.e., how close they were to my performance on the same games.
(It might be more objective to compare against the combined performance of David and Lily, but that makes judging the conundrums tricky; more importantly, they are too good. Suppose the contestant matches David with a seven-letter word. If the only one was GUANACO, then that's a fantastic result; if there were a couple including MAGPIES then it's a good result; and if there were many including TEARING then it is an average result. Loosely speaking, David is equally likely to find any of those, while I will be more towards the good end of the spectrum. Or so I would like to believe.)
| Total | Average | % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 51 | 81 | 67 | 64 | 64 | 55 | 382 | 63.67 | 97.45% |
| Me | 63 | 57 | 68 | 77 | 64 | 61 | 390 | 65.00 | |
| Kerin White | 68 | 63 | 59 | 63 | 71 | 51 | 375 | 62.50 | 91.91% |
| Me | 75 | 59 | 65 | 65 | 77 | 67 | 408 | 68.00 | |
| Alan Nash | 60 | 73 | 59 | 54 | 55 | 69 | 370 | 61.67 | 89.16% |
| Me | 87 | 60 | 61 | 77 | 64 | 66 | 415 | 69.17 | |
| Shaun Ellis | 43 | 59 | 45 | 44 | 191 | 47.75 | 77.96% | ||
| Me | 53 | 66 | 58 | 68 | 245 | 61.25 | |||
| Roman Turkiewicz | 68 | 55 | 57 | 52 | 34 | 266 | 53.20 | 77.78% | |
| Me | 76 | 73 | 57 | 68 | 68 | 342 | 68.40 | ||
| Toby Baldwin | 65 | 48 | 60 | 48 | 54 | 50 | 325 | 54.17 | 74.88% |
| Me | 75 | 83 | 72 | 63 | 69 | 72 | 434 | 72.33 | |
| Daniel Chua | 51 | 59 | 56 | 53 | 53 | 52 | 324 | 54.00 | 72.81% |
| Me | 77 | 76 | 74 | 76 | 76 | 66 | 445 | 74.17 | |
| Sebastian Ham | 49 | 55 | 65 | 40 | 56 | 265 | 53.00 | 71.24% | |
| Me | 68 | 74 | 85 | 69 | 76 | 372 | 74.40 | ||
On this basis there is further separation. If we make the unrealistic assumption that my performance is a suitable baseline of comparison, then the top three are the same but Sam has a much clearer lead over Kerin and Alan than the solo scores alone would suggest; Shaun's standing has improved greatly -- my average score was the lowest in his games -- but is still well behind the top three; and Roman has moved up a little also.
(As a curiosity, I note that my solo scores during Daniel's run were almost smoother than his -- his opponent in the last game solved the conundrum too quickly, otherwise there might have been just a three point gap between lowest and highest -- as I erroneously thought was the case at first, due to not checking that game well enough.)
Of course, solo scores do not reflect the scoring of the game, and in particular the cost of finding a weak answer when a better one was relatively easy to find. Finding RATING instead of TEARING might only show up as a single point loss, instead of the seven point loss that it should be in practice. So in an attempt to take this into consideration, here are the head-to-head results (as recorded in this blog) between each finalist and myself. (Note: There are some slight differences between numbers here and those posted, due to ignoring the other contestant in those games.)
This table is sorted by the contestant's total score as a percentage of my total score; I also show the average per-game difference between their scores and mine. Positive values would reflect that the difference favours them; negative values indicate a corresponding advantage to me.
| Total | Avg Δ | % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Gaffney | 38 | 81 | 57 | 52 | 64 | 43 | 335 | -1.00 | 98.24% |
| Me | 63 | 41 | 51 | 77 | 54 | 55 | 341 | ||
| Alan Nash | 46 | 59 | 45 | 34 | 43 | 57 | 284 | -18.17 | 72.26% |
| Me | 87 | 60 | 55 | 67 | 64 | 60 | 393 | ||
| Kerin White | 38 | 37 | 35 | 49 | 35 | 39 | 233 | -27.00 | 58.99% |
| Me | 75 | 59 | 52 | 65 | 77 | 67 | 395 | ||
| Shaun Ellis | 33 | 35 | 33 | 13 | 114 | -28.25 | 50.22% | ||
| Me | 48 | 59 | 52 | 68 | 227 | ||||
| Roman Turkiewicz | 30 | 21 | 40 | 32 | 11 | 134 | -41.60 | 39.18% | |
| Me | 76 | 73 | 57 | 68 | 68 | 342 | |||
| Sebastian Ham | 14 | 43 | 23 | 27 | 38 | 145 | -45.40 | 38.98% | |
| Me | 68 | 74 | 85 | 69 | 76 | 372 | |||
| Toby Baldwin | 23 | 21 | 33 | 31 | 36 | 14 | 158 | -43.00 | 37.98% |
| Me | 75 | 83 | 72 | 51 | 63 | 72 | 416 | ||
| Daniel Chua | 10 | 28 | 45 | 42 | 7 | 32 | 164 | -44.67 | 37.96% |
| Me | 77 | 69 | 68 | 76 | 76 | 66 | 432 | ||
On this metric the differences are massive. (Of course, it is of very dubious validity, but we'll see where it takes us anyway.) It's no surprise that Sam stays way on top, but the gap between him and Alan has stretched out greatly, as has that between Alan and Kerin. Shaun ends up pretty well separated from the remaining four, who are all very close to each other.
Based on this data, the first three quarter-finals should go with the higher-ranked seeds, but the fourth one has Shaun facing Toby. Toby is the higher seed (his total of 296 beating Shaun's total of 280), but Shaun's head-to-head percentage against me was much larger. Will this reflect what actually occurs? I guess we'll have to see!
Update: Commenter Victor suggested that the contestants be rated by their percentage of "maximums" -- times that they achieved the best possible results from the round. I have some doubts about this as a useful measure, as does commenter Mark, but here's a table anyway:
| Letters | Numbers | Conundrum | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam | 10 | 12 | 3 | 4.17 |
| Kerin | 11 | 9 | 3 | 3.83 |
| Alan | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3.17 |
| Daniel | 7 | 10 | 2 | 3.17 |
| Toby | 9 | 4 | 4 | 2.83 |
| Sebastian | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2.60 |
| Shaun | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2.00 |
| Roman | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1.60 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)