Co:Vid 5 Recaps

[JackHurst]

Today was the Co:Vid 5 - The 5th in a series of online Countdown webcam tournaments. We had an amazing 11 participants, and a total of 37 games were played. There were three rounds of Swiss pairs (with apterous prune making up the 12th player) followed by a grand final between the top two players. The games were 9 rounders with a Supernundrum instead of a Conundrum at the end. The GF was a 15 rounders with a Supernundrum instead of a Conundrum at the end.

Participants
Rob Foster (Twice beaten finalist)
Conor Travers (Co:Vid 3 and Co:Vid 4 Champion)
Jack Hurst
Callum Todd (Co:Vid 2 Champion)
Luke Johnson Davies*
James Rowan*
Tom Carey
James Haughton
Josh Hurst
Zubair Patel
Bradley Horrocks

*New player

Notable absentees
Dan McColm (Co:Vid 1 Champion)
Frank Mulvey

Results


Details of individual games below

Final
The final was between Rob and Conor as number 1 and 2 players respectively. The recording of the final is available on Youtube and it's well worth a watch.

In case you just want to know the result:
Rob beat Conor 135 - 119. It was a great game, with the difference between the two players being Rob spotting a 9 from AEIIFRLTS and an 8 from OOIIEBDRT, neither of which Conor got. Conor had the final word though by solving an extremely tricky Leeds United theme Supernundrum.

If you post a spoiler for the final please hide it so others can have the chance to watch the Youtube video if they wish.


Special thanks to everybody who participated for being great players and really self sufficient in terms of organising and hosting your own games. Thanks to the three new players we had today for coming along and taking part (and doing really well). Commiserations to Bradley who got the 3rd highest points score but came 11th! That just shows how crazy the quality is in these.

[JackHurst]

Round 1

Table 1
James R 52 - 61 Luke
Luke 57 - 62 Jack
Jack 52 - 66 James R

Table 2
Bradley 74 - 84 Tom
Tom 63 - 43 Zubair
Zubair 56 - 66 Bradley

Table 3
James H 39 - 86 Rob
Rob 64 - 81 Conor
Conor 87 - 77 James H

Table 4
Josh 49 - 51 Callum
Callum 68 - 0 Prune
Prune 0 - 81 Josh

Round 2

Table 1
Tom 42 - 56 Callum
Callum 72 - 62 Conor
Conor 87 - 53 Tom

Table 2
Bradley 47 - 65 James R
James R 53 - 56 Rob
Rob 65 - 54 Bradley

Table 3
Luke 63 - 52 Zubair
Zubair 45 - 44 Josh
Josh 45 - 53 Luke

Table 4
James H 61 - 0 Prune
Prune 0 - 73 Jack
Jack 51 - 55 James H

Round 3

Table 1
Rob 79 - 59 Luke
Luke 84 - 74 Callum
Callum 60 - 70 Rob

Table 2
Jack 87 - 78 Bradley
Bradley 75 -*85 Conor
Conor 59 - 64 Jack

Table 3
James H 48 - 52 Josh
Josh 40 - 65 Tom
Tom 46 - 53 James H

Table 4
Zubair 70 - 0 Prune
Prune 0 - 76 James R
James R 61 - 37 Zubair

[Gavin Chipper]

Why is this secret until after the event? What are the entry criteria? This seems like a CO-event equivalent of the sanctum.

[JackHurst]

Gevin's Facebook friends on Facebook:

We are delighted to share with you our wonderful wedding photos.

Gevin's reply:

Why is this secret until after the event? What are the entry criteria? This seems like a wedding equivalent of the sanctum.

[Gavin Chipper]

It seems a bit weird having a whole series of quite big Countdown events that are invitation only. And then expect us to watch the final!

[JackHurst]

It seems a bit weird having a whole series of quite big Countdown events that are invitation only. And then expect us to watch the final!

Results for the final are now in the top post, with hidden colour to prevent spoilers for those wanting to watch the final.

Of the handful of people who were not involved but have seen/heard about this, you are the only person I know of to react negatively.

I started this whole thing because I wanted to get back into playing competitive Countdown with people who I was good friends with and that I knew would be very high quality opponents. After the first iteration, we invited a few more people who fit the bill and then we reached a group size that was perfect for these events and we stopped seeking new players. As with most hobbies and recreational activities you can have open and private events/groups and I see no issues with that.

At my old work there was an "Open" badminton club and a "Invitation only" badminton club. The difference between the two was that:
- In the open club if you were any good, you would rarely get a competitive game it it would be no fun
- The open club was run by a small number of regulars and then had lots of drop in/out players and it made it quite a lot of work to organise for little reward.
- Everybody in the invite only club chipped in here and there and was a lot more organized and reliable. Because there were fewer participants and they were all a lot more committed it made the whole thing easier to run and you also built up good rapport with the other players.

I think that's exactly what's happened here. Sucks that we can't have the best of both worlds, but it is what it is I'm afraid!


There has still the excellently well constructed ZoomDown series which was openly accepting applications (before they closed them due to high demand), and if you feel like you are missing out, you could always try to organise an online Co:Event yourself! I'd be happy to help and give tips, but be warned, if you make it a free for all it will be a lot more work to organise.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sure - when you posted about the first event there were about four of you and I didn't really think anything of it, and I suppose I was just a bit surprised about this larger event and that there had been five of them. (I might be wrong but I don't think I'd seen more than about two mentioned on here previously.) But:

The thing about the open championship though - if there weren't two separate clubs and it was all open, then those in the open would still get competitive matches, even it wouldn't be all of their matches. It's the existence of the invitation only club that makes the open one worse. So I suppose I'd question whether it's necessary to have 100% really good players or just some good players among a wider range of skills. Plus in a free for all, it doesn't need to be more work to organise. You just cap entries at the level you're happy with organising and say it's first come first served.

[JackHurst]

I'm just trying to have some fun with my mates and share the results with fellow countdown fans because I thought they would find it interesting. Can't you just let people do things their own way without complaining and telling them to do it differently?

[Fiona T]

I enjoyed it Jack - thanks for sharing. Always enjoy seeing the highest quality games.

Personally, I find new words are more likely to stick from a game I'm watching and engaged with, so all good stuff!

[Gavin Chipper]

People are free to do what they want. People are free to have whatever opinions they want. My last post was moving in a more conciliatory direction anyway.

[Fiona T]

IMO it would be a shame if Jack is deterred from posting future videos because of negative feedback.

[Gavin Chipper]

When it comes down to it, I posted what I did thinking that Jack would not care in the slightest, and I was surprised he got defensive about it and that this became a thing at all.

[Matt Morrison]

I probably won't, but if I ever do host a Co event - and I probably won't - then I will definitely start it at number 3 or something just to freak Gevin out. Going to go the full hog and make up results for the first two events in which 50 people took part.