Originally posted by howitzer The game of kings ... that's polo. Not sure about how white fits into it, but a simple google reveals that riders must wear white trousers, and umpires and goal judges must also wear white.
Still, I think "wrong tree" and "barking" comes to mind here - I suspect the answer has nothing to do with the first four riddles, and has everything to do with the equations.
H
i suspect the total opposite.....the riddler stated as a clue that no numerics were involved...and this leads me to believe that the equation is fruitless without the riddles, or at least their answers. the thing we need lies somewhere within the actual riddles, i am certain.
Again, moving towards the correct answers for each riddle, I think that you want to be thinking about symmetry in Ox and Xs - in effect there is only one diagonal and two non-diagonal lines (a central one, and one at the edge) - all the rest have the same pattern on different board rotations.
Also, is it possible to win at Ox and Xs at all if your opponent knows the game? Surely the best you can expect is a draw if he knows how to play since there is no guaranteed combination of moves to win - hence the game's continued popularity.
Also, I haven't looking on the original site, only the wizardgroup.net site .. but there is a gammatical error here:
"B) Number of ways of winnings 0s and Xs"
Winnings?? I don't know if that is a true reproduction of the original site though.
Originally posted by howitzer Again, moving towards the correct answers for each riddle, I think that you want to be thinking about symmetry in Ox and Xs - in effect there is only one diagonal and two non-diagonal lines (a central one, and one at the edge) - all the rest have the same pattern on different board rotations.
Also, is it possible to win at Ox and Xs at all if your oppone ...[text shortened]... and Xs"
Winnings?? I don't know if that is a true reproduction of the original site though.
this is a true reproduction. if you read my long post further up this page i mention it. no one knows whether this is there on purpose or not. it's all terribly confusing.
Originally posted by Freddie2004 this is a true reproduction. if you read my long post further up this page i mention it. no one knows whether this is there on purpose or not. it's all terribly confusing.
fred
Well, from the last bit of news, it looks like English is not their first language, or maybe they're a bit sloppy:
9th Nov : We will shortly be working upon a tips section, but for now I will place the tip for 1.48 in here. 1.48 is one of those not feel good riddles, you will be angry when you see the answer. The riddle itself only comes from two lines of the entire riddle, the answer is not numerical
The fact that they say folk are going to be annoyed suggests that the answer has nothing to do with the most obvious bits of the text - the four riddles.
Originally posted by howitzer Well, from the last bit of news, it looks like English is not their first language, or maybe they're a bit sloppy:
[i]9th Nov : We will shortly be working upon a tips section, but for now I will place the tip for 1.48 in here. 1.48 is one of those not feel good riddles, you will be angry when you see the answer. The riddle itself only comes from two lin ...[text shortened]... sts that the answer has nothing to do with the most obvious bits of the text - the four riddles.
surely it just suggests that it is easier than everyone thinks it is. that we are looking harder than we should be. personally i think that we should be going back to basics with the whole thing. that, it appears to me is where the answer lies.
Originally posted by Freddie2004 surely it just suggests that it is easier than everyone thinks it is. that we are looking harder than we should be. personally i think that we should be going back to basics with the whole thing. that, it appears to me is where the answer lies.
fred
I totally agree.
Only problem is that this riddle has stumped people for nearly a year now. I don't think the answer is that logical. 1000's of people have tried to answer it, so surely dumb luck would have prevailed if it was as simple as Owen (riddle designer, aka SittingDuck) makes out.
My bet is still on the U = (CD)+(AB) and U = the answer, being the lines that house the illusive answer =/
Only problem is that this riddle has stumped people for nearly a year now. I don't think the answer is that logical. 1000's of people have tried to answer it, so surely dumb luck would have prevailed if it was as simple as Owen (riddle designer, aka SittingDuck) makes out.
My bet is still on the U = (CD)+(AB) and U = the answer, being the lines that house the illusive answer =/
i had a dream about it last night....i remember solving it...but i can't remember how! those beautiful words "congratulations you have completed 1.48"!
Only problem is that this riddle has stumped people for nearly a year now. I don't think the answer is that logical. 1000's of people have tried to answer it, so surely dumb luck would have prevailed if it was as simple as Owen (riddle designer, aka SittingDuck) makes out.
My bet is still on the U = (CD)+(AB) and U = the answer, being the lines that house the illusive answer =/
i feel that, if the answer does lie in this part of the puzzle it has nothing to do with maths and more to do with correlation between U=(CxD)+(AxB) and the other riddles. this is because Owen earlier mentioned that no other mathmatical riddles would be used until part two of the challenge.
Originally posted by Freddie2004 i feel that, if the answer does lie in this part of the puzzle it has nothing to do with maths and more to do with correlation between U=(CxD)+(AxB) and the other riddles. this is because Owen earlier mentioned that no other mathmatical riddles would be used until part two of the challenge.
fred
...and because over the last year every single number between 0 and 9999 has been tried as an answer 😉
Net Riddle
31 May '05 13:05
Back to Top