Riddler - Solutions to Castles Puzzle: castle-solutions-2.csv
Data license: CC Attribution 4.0 License · Data source: fivethirtyeight/data on GitHub · About: simonw/fivethirtyeight-datasette
902 rows
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Link | rowid ▼ | Castle 1 | Castle 2 | Castle 3 | Castle 4 | Castle 5 | Castle 6 | Castle 7 | Castle 8 | Castle 9 | Castle 10 | Why did you choose your troop deployment? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
101 | 101 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 8 | 26 | 8 | Just tried to figure out where I would have put my troops as a level 0 strategy and then one-uped all the other castles while sacrificing one of them. |
102 | 102 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 17 | 12 | 28 | 7 | 7 | 7 | Increasing all biggish castles slightly from last winner except 8. Trying to end amounts in a 2 or 7; seems less common than 0/5 or 1/6. |
103 | 103 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | Intuitiveness |
104 | 104 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 6 | 23 | 22 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Given the previous troop deployment, this is the optimal strategy. Assuming your readers don't learn, this wins about 90% of battles. But it may be worse if they do in fact read and learn |
105 | 105 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 12 | 22 | 2 | 33 | 6 | 8 | https://pastebin.com/LSXrjJJV |
106 | 106 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 18 | 6 | 11 | 13 | Let Castle 8 go.... Keep something on the lower numbers and not go overboard on 9 and 10! |
107 | 107 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 5 | 15 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 32 | not enough time to submit too. |
108 | 108 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 33 | Avi Mahajan |
109 | 109 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 19 | 13 | I assume the bulk of players aren't going to change their strategy. I then select levels that seem to be just to the right of a large area of the curve. |
110 | 110 | 6 | 4 | 13 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 5 | 11 | 15 | 10 | This troop deployment was quasi-random with a slight bias towards low-value castles and a bigger bias towards high-value castles, mostly ignoring medium-value castles, since those will probably be hotly contested. |
111 | 111 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 3 | 7 | 20 | 7 | 11 | Totally random distribution |
112 | 112 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 24 | 4 | 6 | 6 | You only need 28 points to win, so I know that 1-7 equals 28 and I went for it. |
113 | 113 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 27 | 19 | 10 | 16 | geddylee1717@yahoo.com |
114 | 114 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 19 | 25 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 17 | https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/master/Riddler%20Battle%20Royale.ipynb |
115 | 115 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 17 | 27 | 3 | 12 | 11 | win a decent amount of 9 and 10 because everyone will lowball them based on the data, forfeit 8 and try to win 4-7 at a decent clip |
116 | 116 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 20 | 23 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 12 | 14 | Ideally, I will win castles 10, 9, 8, and 1, giving me 27 points. Especially for 10 and 9, a majority of people put less than 10, and those who put more usually put 20 or more troops there. To defend against someone gaining the 9 or the 8, I have put many troops on the 4 and 5 castles to gain 9 points back. In addition, I have scattered a few troops on the rest of the towers in the hopes that some people put no (or very few) troops there. |
117 | 117 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 25 | Need 28 points to win the battle. So I go aggressive on small numbers (1-4) and super aggressive on 8 and 10. 1+2+3+4+8+10 = 28. Left 5 each for 5-7 and 9 for in case of a steal. |
118 | 118 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | I first redistributed to beat the original distribution, but assumed everyone else would do that. So I redistributed again to beat that distribution. |
119 | 119 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 18 | 13 | 3 | 34 | 6 | 6 | Going for close wins and major losses. Hoping to win 7-9 and 3&4. Will lose to opponents who used more than placeholders anywhere, but hopefully get lots of wins in the two groups that can help reach 28. |
120 | 120 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 4 | 25 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 23 | I programmed a solver in Python to find optimal solutions for a given field by evaluating all nearest neighbors, then stepping in the best direction until no step improves the strategy, i.e. gives it a better win-loss% for the given field. In the case of 10 castles, there are 81 nearest neighbors, which can be found by adding a single troop to one castle while subtracting one from another. This strategy finds locally optimal solutions (not better than any neighbor), but by re-starting the solver from different random entries, one can be relatively certain (~95%) of having found the global optima after around 100 random starts. I used this to find all locally optimal solutions greater than the 90th-percentile entry in the original field. Since some of those entries are very close to each other (but greater than one step obviously), I filtered those for only the top solutions more than 5 steps apart to avoid repeating similar strategies. This left me with 365 locally optimal entries, which I combined with the top 10% of entries from round 1 for a theoretical round 2 field. My submission is the globally optimal solution for this "round 2" field. Fingers crossed! |
121 | 121 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 30 | 31 | 13 | 6 | Based on how many folks de-emphasized going after Castles 9 and 10 last time, I figure there's a minor market inefficiency there, and increased my deployments. Others no doubt noticed the same thing, so I didn't go overboard; might be enough to steal them in a few showdowns, but without putting all my eggs in those baskets. As before, the majority of my efforts go towards Castles 7 and 8, with an additional over-deployment for Castle 4. The rest are essentially punted (I gave myself a chance to steal or split on 5 and 6, just in case). Generally speaking, I feel like this gives me a chance to steal either 9 or 10 in some battles, with 7 and 8 going to me in almost all. Making sure I can take #4 is all I need to reach 28 points if I do manage to catch 3 of the top 4. It'll come down how others adjust to the realization that 9 and 10 are ripe for the pickin's based on last time around, and if they choose to put even more of their resources into the top 2 castles. If they do, then I could be in trouble. |
122 | 122 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 5 | 19 | 10 | 13 | I chose numbers that were slightly larger than the key clusters shown in the prior results. I generally bumped my troops up one or two from those clusters (anticipating that others might use this same strategy). |
123 | 123 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 13 | 12 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 17 | Science! And maths! With data! And computers! |
124 | 124 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 23 | Looked for holes and inflections in prior troop deployment data. Decided to commit at least a couple to almost all castles (except 1), to pick up cheap points, if opponent goes 0 on some. |
125 | 125 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 10 | i counted up by perfect squares, then down to 7, then used the rest. nothing brilliant bro. |
126 | 126 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 31 | It's a simple all or nothing assault. The goal is to directly seize the 28 points needed to win. The 10, 9, 8, and 1 castles do just this. Contesting any other fortress distracts from this goal. The strategy is designed to overwhelm balanced assaults on the various castles. |
127 | 127 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 31 | The total number of points is 55, so a player needs more than 27.5 points to win. From there, I decided to minimize the number of castles that must be conquered (although that strategy runs contrary to what the previous winner did) in order to maximize the number of troops that can be sent to each one. Using the previous contest's distribution, I (not very rigorously) determined that I would only send 7 troops to Castle 1. The resulting occurrence of sending 31 troops to each remaining castle was a happy accident (although, I wanted to divide them up as evenly as possible; if I lose one castle, I almost definitely lose, so in a sense they should all be weighted equally. However, the opponent might choose to send troops based more strictly on the proportion of points that each castle offers, in which case I would have to re-evaluate my divisions). |
128 | 128 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 31 | Win all my castles with troops. |
129 | 129 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 31 | Win the fewest number of castles needed by loading them up with troops. |
130 | 130 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 22 | 3 | 32 | 4 | 6 | This has the best record against the original batch, plus a smaller batch that all have the best record against all the aforementioned deployments, plus a smaller batch that all have the best record against all the aforementioned deployments, etc. |
131 | 131 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 31 | This approach aims to win with castles 10, 6, 5, 4, and 3. I'm hoping people will either avoid castle 10 or try to win it cheaply, and give less support to castles 3-6. |
132 | 132 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 6 | 6 | Above 50% on previous plans |
133 | 133 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 14 | 15 | Simple, balanced strategy, trying to beat players who attack the middle hard and sacrifice too much at the top and bottom. |
134 | 134 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 14 | 11 | Because you asked me to. |
135 | 135 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 5 | 21 | 2 | 27 | 5 | DAW: Too many people cared about 8 last time. I'm aiming at a 9-7-5-4-3 combo most of the time, with some hedged soldiers at 10 and 6. |
136 | 136 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 16 | 16 | Higher point castles get more guys. Go a few over the even 10's because that was the pattern last time |
137 | 137 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 32 | 22 | 12 | I banged my head on the keyboard until something added up to 100 |
138 | 138 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 32 | 8 | 32 | 8 | Modify from one of the best sample |
139 | 139 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 8 | 6 | Trying to get the mid scores + probably 1 of the higher ones |
140 | 140 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 13 | 5 | 22 | Compared to previous winning distribution graph |
141 | 141 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Angery reacts only. Shoutout to UC Berkeley memes for edgey teens! |
142 | 142 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 15 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 11 | Just kind of threw some troops at it, no big crazy strategy |
143 | 143 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 11 | I avoided placing troops on multiples of 5 and aimed to create a strong 9,8,7,4 core to get the 28 points to win. I left troops in 10 and 5 to try and cover up any losses in the main core. |
144 | 144 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 32 | This is sparta |
145 | 145 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 32 | Only need a few victories. |
146 | 146 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 28 | 10 | 31 | 9 | Trying to break the 'top 3/4 castles' approach while claiming some cheap ones down the order |
147 | 147 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 18 | 16 | 3 | 31 | 6 | 5 | Simulated annealing using total wins against prior entries as objective function |
148 | 148 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 27 | 2 | 5 | 7 | I just did a "natural selection" process on random walks beginning with randomly chosen top-50 (in terms of wins) strategies and taking smallish (1-3 troops shifted at a time) steps. I also did a few more walks of the winning-est strategy from the first competition. This one does the best among those (including the newly generated 'good' models) |
149 | 149 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 11 | 16 | 2 | 27 | 4 | 21 | 5 | I thought it might perform well? |
150 | 150 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 18 | 18 | Created a strategy to beat Round 1 Median values, then assumed that would be most popular selection this Round and chose strategy to beat that. |
151 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 4 | 15 | 1 | 15 | 20 | At 55 total possible points, my goal was to get to >27.5. I chose the 3/4/5/7/9-point castles as my route, and allotted enough points to each that I could reasonably expect to win most matchups. Then it was about maximizing the scenarios where I didn't win those five. Castles #1 and 2 are only useful if I win two of my "unlikely to win" castles. For example, winning both would make up for losing 3, or winning 1 and 6 would make up for losing 7. So I abandoned them and put a few extra in 6, thinking that winning this one would make up for losing either 3, 4 or 5. Without doing more complicated math, I'm assuming my odds of winning castle #6 with 4 points are greater than winning any two castle with only 1 or 2 points in them, which is why I left castles #1 and 2 with 0 points. I ended up putting more than initially expected into castle #10, but it's a useful safety net against losing any of the castles below it in VPs, or even combinations of two like 7/3 or 5/4. I should probably re-jigger the safe, "base 10-ish" totals on most of my castles, which at 15 and 20 for many seem liable to be slightly outbid by savvy 538 puzzlers. But I'm at work and this is already a long paragraph. Cheers! |
152 | 152 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 18 | 7 | 21 | 11 | 21 | 6 | My strategy is to tie for half the castles 25% of the time and tie the other half 75% of the time therefore hoping for a 100% win. |
153 | 153 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 23 | 20 | Deliberate near-sacrifice of castles 8 and 7 as those were the most hotly-contested from last time around allows a significant number to be sent to Castle 10 and 9 without jeopardising strength at Castles 1-6. Setting a minimum number of 3 per castle covers off matchups where 0 are sent to those locations (which made up a significant number of deployments last time around) |
154 | 154 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 16 | 24 | 16 | Kind of randomly. I figure people will go for the middle. Doubt I'll win but I'll contribute to the curve! |
155 | 155 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 26 | I put just 1 troop each at Castle 7, 8, and 9 so that I'd win against any zeroes, but otherwise ignore the castles that had the most troops deployed last time. Then, I tried to use the data to deploy my resources so as to beat as large of a population as possible (around 80%) from the previous data set. |
156 | 156 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 11 | 8 | Random |
157 | 157 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 3 | 17 | 19 | 10 | 12 | The previous winner was onto something, so I took a mathematical average of that strategy and two default deployments that were either proportional to the pointed awarded or any even spread of 10 per castle. Then I tweaked the result by drawing from deployments that were unlikely to win anyway and adding to deployments that were likely to be close calls. Finally, I compared the result to all three strategies that I mentioned above. When it proved to be victorious each time, I figured that was good enough and submitted! |
158 | 158 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 15 | 25 | 28 | 6 | 6 | 6 | To be slightly more (and then some) from what the previous winner had on the bigger castles and forfeit some of the smaller castles. |
159 | 159 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 16 | 21 | 23 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | Looked at which placements provided the best marginal value relative to the strategies submitted last time. |
160 | 160 | 5 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | Whim |
161 | 161 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 25 | 36 | 8 | 8 | I took the first round of 538 data and then added 29000 additional random data sets. Then ran 2000 random sets through a round robin the the with the 30,000 sets, including the first set of data, looking for the top 10 finishers. Then I picked the one of the top ten I liked the best trying to take into account the adjustments the other players would do. |
162 | 162 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 26 | 8 | 12 | 11 | Just tried to imagine how people would recalibrate their strategies after seeing the results of Round One, and optimized my strategy to beat that. |
163 | 163 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 13 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 20 | I want to win any battles where my opponent declared zero. I want to find a likely way to achieve a majority of points. If I lose a big battle, I still want a chance at winning the other big battles if my opponent had overloaded a certain castle. |
164 | 164 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 11 | 5 | 22 | 25 | 7 | No time for strategy |
165 | 165 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 18 | 10 | 25 | 1 | 15 | 17 | Don't know |
166 | 166 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 20 | 2 | 32 | 8 | 7 | I think enough people will use the winning strategy from last time as a focal point and I'd like to defeat that at the more valuable castles. |
167 | 167 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 8 | 2 | 32 | 22 | 8 | Generated many random inputs that would mimic what other users would choose, merged them with the last round's data set, and ran all possible permutations to find the most frequent winner. Code and writeup on GitHub here: https://github.com/mattdodge/538-riddler-nation |
168 | 168 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 16 | 15 | 3 | 33 | 5 | 5 | My boyfriend said to. |
169 | 169 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 22 | 26 | 2 | 6 | 6 | Found the best strategy against the previous data set, then completed multiple iterations of improvement assuming the new data set will include similar strategies. |
170 | 170 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Expected value for each position based off of previous allocations, +1 to beat the human nature of choosing base 10 units. |
171 | 171 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 23 | 4 | 26 | 4 | 6 | best of many random tries against previous deployment data |
172 | 172 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 7 | 12 | 7 | To win, obviously. |
173 | 173 | 0 | 11 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 4 | 21 | 4 | 4 | 26 | I want to slightly beat my opponent on the ones I win, and lose by a lot on the ones I lose. What's more, I want to create a targeted approach rather than casting a wide net and hoping for the best. The 'easiest' way to get to 28 is with 4 numbers... which is why I chose to do it with 5 instead, to be less popular. My target points were 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10, summing to 28. I imagine a fair amount of people will submit a 10, 10, 10, ... 10 strategy, so I want to make sure my targeting beats that, which means all of my targeted numbers must get at least 11 troops. I also want my strategy to win against 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, which means that I need at least 21 troops for castles 7 and 10. Finally, I don't want to simply ignore the castles I don't want, especially the higher ones, so I want to distribute at least 4 insurance troops to any castle on the higher end of the spectrum (I'm guessing that most people will choose 3 as their baseline). I can ignore the 1 castle altogether as it's not part of my path to victory. |
174 | 174 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 18 | 7 | 7 | 28 | 12 | Through a thorough selection process bounded by the restriction that I needed to pick all of the number in under a minute. |
175 | 175 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 15 | 3 | 33 | 21 | 10 | Way too much data analysis (Clustering, gradient descent, etc) optimizing over previous submissions and some other objective functions. |
176 | 176 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 6 | This is basically Brett Seymour's strategy with a bit more focus on the top 3 castles. |
177 | 177 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 17 | 17 | I tried to guess, how the average Player would react to the new Intel. For instance: it turns out, that 10 sodiers would (surprisingly) be enough to almost always win No10. So I invested a Little bit more than 10 soldiers on No10. etc. |
178 | 178 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 26 | People choose round numbers. Many give up on 9 and 10 |
179 | 179 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 26 | 26 | Trying to take castle's 9 and 10 and steal any lowly guarded other castles. |
180 | 180 | 0 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 2 | 33 | 3 | 6 | 7 and 8 are the battlegrounds. By focusing on only one of them, you can greatly strengthen your middle game. Completely abandon castle 1 to try and sneak castle 10 from some low bidders (also the reason you need to win castle 8 and not castle 7). |
181 | 181 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 19 | 10 | 10 | 10 | Based on people responding to the results last time, I expect people will send more soldiers to castles 9 and 10 and fewer to castle 8. I sent 10 to each of these castles, which is the total number of soldiers divided by the number of castles. I sent the soldiers to the remaining castles in a linearly increasing fashion. I would note that if I lose castles 8-10 I would still win if I win all of the remaining castles. |
182 | 182 | 6 | 14 | 6 | 16 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 14 | 6 | 14 | Winner from last time basically followed the prevailing trend: low deployments on either extreme, substantial deployments in the middle. My strategy beats that one by collecting the "even" castles. I still putting a token effort into the odds so I'm not assuming automatic zeroes anywhere. I split mostly evenly so every set of 11 points has 20 soldiers (10 and 1 have 20 soldiers, 5 and 6 have 20 soldiers) while still trying to favor the middle run (the only 16's I placed were in the middle). I hope this split will grant me the extremes values of 10, 8, 2, 1 more often than not, while putting up a fight for the middle runs. I will lose if someone tries to sweep 10, 9, 8, but since that strategy loses to last Winner I think most people will shy from it. And the majority of people seem to avoid high values on 10 and 9 last time anyway. |
183 | 183 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 19 | 23 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | The aim here is to think precisely one move ahead everybody else. It is not enough to come up with a strategy which beats the previous winners because everybody will try to do that, but also to come up with a strategy which beats a strategy which beats the previous winners. Hence I have increased the number of troops on 9 and 10 to 6, to beat anybody who places 4 or 5 troops. I have also anticipated a shift to focusing on the lower-numbered castles, by putting 3 more troops on them than a proportionate strategy would do. |
184 | 184 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 21 | 21 | 22 | I chose to count on other people going for the lower values and hedging my bets in the few large count ones I would need to win, plus a couple troops at each castle to beat anyone who chooses to put none or just one at places. |
185 | 185 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 21 | 23 | 6 | 6 | 6 | Because I wanted to win. Also, a modified deployment of #3s strategy from the last round, as |
186 | 186 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 27 | 4 | I chose castles worth 30 points to focus on, since I need 28 points or more to win. I assigned 4 soldiers each to the castles I'm willing to sacrifice, since the distribution from last time indicates that 4 soldiers is enough to give me a good chance of winning if my opponent also chose to sacrifice the same castle. For each of the remaining castles I sampled a Gaussian distribution with mean value proportional to the square of the number of points the castle is worth. |
187 | 187 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 8 | 6 | 36 | 6 | 6 | jamesclowes@hotmail.co.uk |
188 | 188 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 5 | 20 | 5 | Try to win 9, but give up 8 and 10 |
189 | 189 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 22 | 3 | 3 | 32 | 4 | try to get castle (2+3+4+5+6+9 [=29>27.5]) with some effort on 7+8+10 |
190 | 190 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 11 | 22 | 2 | 32 | 2 | 7 | This beats 1250 of the previous 1387 matches :) |
191 | 191 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 1 | 16 | 14 | don't fight for 8 |
192 | 192 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 34 | 25 | 15 | Technically, this could perform well if the opponent goes for the middle. I genuinely have no idea if this will work, but if it does, that'll be pretty cool. |
193 | 193 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 34 | designed a plan that would beat the last winner hoping that lots of people would mindlessly copy him |
194 | 194 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 13 | 23 | 3 | 32 | 5 | 5 | Historical performance^2 * Performance against those who optimized against that. |
195 | 195 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | Based on the previous battles, an average deployment of 10 per castle would have won the game handily. I'm unlikely to be the only person to notice this, so I figured I can win an average of half of the castles. If those are 5 of the main castles I send troops to (or I could get lucky on castle 2 & 3 with the extras), I'm sitting perfect. |
196 | 196 | 15 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 25 | You only need 28 points to win, so I tried to focus on getting specific castles and not bothering to protect other castles. |
197 | 197 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 23 | 33 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | There will be more contests in castle 7 and 8 after last round's winner used this strategy - I decided to give up those castles and focus on either sides - Castle 4, 5, 6 as well as 9 and 10. Numbers that are 2 or 3 mod 5 are chosen because of player tendency to pick numbers divisible by 5 or are 1 mod 5 in the last battle; we could see a rise of 2 mod 5 picks here. |
198 | 198 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 23 | 33 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | Correction to previous submit - I think I put 8 soldiers in castle 3 rather than 7, which was intended. |
199 | 199 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 21 | 16 | Ignoring castles 1, 2, and 5 will not lose me very much. However, it's best to leave them with some defenses. I prioritize 6, 8, 9, and 10, since those alone give me 33, more than enough for a majority, and I can still lose one of those and get lucky elsewhere and settle for a slight victory. |
200 | 200 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 30 | Something of an "all eggs in one basket" strategy. Looking at how players split up their troops last time round, I invested enough troops to more-or-less guarantee winning the 10, 6, 5, 4 and 3 castles which give me 28 points, a bare majority of the 55 (I only need to win by one point!) Then I've distributed the left-over soldiers to try and pick up the odd nine-point castle (which oddly enough doesn't seem that keenly fought over), which in conjunction with taking the one or two-pointer means I don't need to win the ten-pointer. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE TABLE "riddler-castles/castle-solutions-2" ( "Castle 1" INTEGER, "Castle 2" INTEGER, "Castle 3" INTEGER, "Castle 4" INTEGER, "Castle 5" INTEGER, "Castle 6" INTEGER, "Castle 7" INTEGER, "Castle 8" INTEGER, "Castle 9" INTEGER, "Castle 10" INTEGER, "Why did you choose your troop deployment?" TEXT );