# Nikoli Hurdles Results

We now wrap up Nikoli Hurdles.

After solving 8 puzzles, I asked “how many 2s did you see?”
After running the entire 800m course, you would see 17 occurrences of the number 2. Throughout the 29 days, I received (guess what) 17 correct entries!

This is the list of players who are correct, in order of their submission times:
1. Serkan Yurekli
3. Ivan Koswara
4. Term Ital
6. Jack Bross
7. Alan O Donnell
8. Eva Myers
9. Alan Lemm
10. Maja Gribajcevic
11. Joshua Zucker
12. Scott Handelman
13. Branko Ceranic
14. Neil Zussman
15. Thomas Powell
16. Sanda Reic Tomas
17. Maja Cvenic

Instead of randomly generating a winner, I got the competitors to play Rock Paper Scissors. The order of submissions will determine their seeded spot in a standard knockout tournament. You can read all about seeded single-elimination tournaments here. Special thanks to Challonge.com for this great interface.

I thank all competitors for such a prompt reply. Some interesting statistics:
Paper was the most common selection at 44.71%, followed by Scissors at 35.29% and Rock was least chosen at 25.88%
Although seeding doesn’t reflect anything but placements in the brackets, 3 of the final 4 were from the top 4 seeds!
More bizarre, the final two were the top two seeds!

Competitors, take a deep breath, here are the results:

Congratulations to Prasanna Seshadri of India!
Prasanna will have the 2013 Nikoli Penpa delivered straight to his door.
And with that, Nikoli Hurdles comes to a close.

Thank you everyone that took part. Even if you didn’t submit, thank you for your interest. Full solutions and notes about the competition will follow during the next couple of weeks. I will take that time planning for the next event which I hope will receive the same warm reception that Nikoli Hurdles did.

Here are the eight puzzles for those who didn’t get to see them.

## 7 responses

1. Whee eliminated in first game. But I’m not that hoping for a win in random finals round though.

Great puzzles overall. They are indeed roughly in increasing order of difficulty. Thanks for the contest 🙂

2. I felt that if I conduct some random draw and simply announce the winner, it can be a little suspicious. Whereas something like this (and other methods I’ll be experimenting with in the future) is a bit more transparent – even though it may not be 100% random.

3. Like I said in the mail, me winning a game involving luck is unheard of. History has been made! 😛

4. I just realized that I’m “the missing top 4” in the semifinals. 😛

Also what happens if all ten hands are exhausted but the winner hasn’t been determined?

• I would’ve either repeat the cycle or ask for more hands. But more likely to repeat the cycle.