Two Player Game Shows

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:44 pm

Whilst watching the show today, I suggested to the room (there were other people in it, you understand, I just couldn't be bothered to list names of people you don't know) the idea of a game show which would be made up of rounds from lots of different game shows. We then tried to think of other shows which, like Countdown, feature only two contestants. We failed. So I thought I'd put it to you, fellow forumites. What shows were/are there which featured only two contestants battling it out?

(Whilst I appreciate I could use the Internet and do this myself, I thought it could be an interesting topic anyway, so nobody shouting at the back about how lazy I am, plz.)

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:59 pm

Brainteaser was basically 1 on 1 within each round, although overall there were 4 of them, so it would work for your purposes.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:00 am

Also, whilst we had it in the UK, Concentration was a 1-on-1 game show.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:03 am

Catchphrase!

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:13 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:Catchphrase!

Aha, I knew there'd be obvious ones. I'd completely forgotten about the existence of Concentration, though.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:19 am

Michael Wallace wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Catchphrase!
Aha, I knew there'd be obvious ones. I'd completely forgotten about the existence of Concentration, though.

It was a brilliant gameshow and should come back on

.

Also focusing on the old game shows 4 Square was one as well

, also there was Winner Takes All too

and although there were 4 players per game, TV Scrabble was played 1-on-1 too

Actually I've just thought of a more recent one, Brainbox Challenge on BBC2 was a 1-on-1 also

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:24 am

4 Square has reminded me of Celebrity Squares, which probably counts (even though you need another 9 people).

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:01 am

Blockbusters was 1-on-2 but kind of works.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:41 pm

Anyone remember Connections? http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.p ... ns_%281%29

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:24 am

Beat the Teacher was pretty much the best noughts and crosses variant, I think.

Gary Male · Post by **Gary Male** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:05 am

Oh, and Beat the Star with Vernon Kay for one of ITV's current shows. Duel with Nick Hancock was pretty good but that probably won't come back. And it was a rolling format so may not count. Who could forget Grand Slam? Apart from most people in this thread.

It's a good job there's no Countdown connections there otherwise it could be seen as a shocking miss.

Are you an Egghead? perhaps, or does that fail on the basis of needing 5 NPCs?

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:48 am

Gary Male wrote:Oh, and Beat the Star with Vernon Kay for one of ITV's current shows. Duel with Nick Hancock was pretty good but that probably won't come back. And it was a rolling format so may not count. Who could forget Grand Slam? Apart from most people in this thread. It's a good job there's no Countdown connections there otherwise it could be seen as a shocking miss.

Are you an Egghead? perhaps, or does that fail on the basis of needing 5 NPCs?

Duel was indeed brilliant, but yeah, like with many great game shows, it probably won't come back. Grand Slam was also awesome and that too should definitely come back.

I think there has also been a few gaming programmes where there have been 1-on-1 challenges.

Les Butterworth · Post by **Les Butterworth** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:28 am

Joseph Bolas wrote:Also, whilst we had it in the UK, Concentration was a 1-on-1 game show.

Concentration was a great game show it was available as a box game in 1959 as I recieved one for christmas it sticks in my mind as I took it to school and unfortunately dropped it into a puddle which reduced some of the cards showing the articles you had to match to a soggy mess think I even shed a tear.

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:23 pm

Ben Wilson wrote:Blockbusters was 1-on-2 but kind of works.

Oh I loved Blockbusters. I remember when I was a teen there was a young student on called Andy. I had to record it as he was gorgeous!

Liza Tarbuck did it a few years back and it was still good. They should bring it back.

And Catchphrase was good gentle teatime fodder. I especially liked that innocent top hat clip which looked rude. Still hysterical.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:24 pm

Lesley Jeavons wrote:
Ben Wilson wrote:Blockbusters was 1-on-2 but kind of works.
Oh I loved Blockbusters. I remember when I was a teen there was a young student on called Andy. I had to record it as he was gorgeous!
Liza Tarbuck did it a few years back and it was still good. They should bring it back.

And Catchphrase was good gentle teatime fodder. I especially liked that innocent top hat clip which looked rude. Still hysterical.

You probably know this already but the first ever episode of Blockbusters can be found on YouTube. I never liked Liza Tarbuck myself so that kinda ruined Blockbusters for me.

If only the internet and YouTube were invented in 1982. I wonder if someone would've put up every single episode of Countdown on it

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:37 pm

Believe it or not, something you all would call, "The Blankety Blank Celebrity Squares Hour" was done 25 years ago here in America. It only lasted 1 year.

In fact, I had a dream last night that I was actually watching this as a one-time special when I was in England. At the end, when I watched the credits roll I noticed that it was created by the Countdown crew!

Isn't that ironic?

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:Duel was indeed brilliant, but yeah, like with many great game shows, it probably won't come back. Grand Slam was also awesome and that too should definitely come back.

I think there has also been a few gaming programmes where there have been 1-on-1 challenges.

I'm a bit surprised, as I hated both of these. GrandSlam was an awful idea, for one game show contestants really achieve national fame like athletes or musicians. Even ones that do, they get forgotten quite quickly because there aren't enough high profile game shows for them to do. And secondly the format was absolutely pants. They'd probably come up with the list of contestants before they'd decided what format to use, which is wrong. I found it quite boring, I'd rather watch TWL or Eggheads.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Oh and Golden Balls is one of the UK's worst ever shows.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:39 pm

We had Grand Slam here in America (on the US equivalent of Challenge tv, GSN,) and it failed. It only lasted a year.

And Martin, you must prefer to watch The Weakest Link over Golden Balls!

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:49 pm

Martin Gardner wrote:
Joseph Bolas wrote:Duel was indeed brilliant, but yeah, like with many great game shows, it probably won't come back. Grand Slam was also awesome and that too should definitely come back.

I think there has also been a few gaming programmes where there have been 1-on-1 challenges.
I'm a bit surprised, as I hated both of these. GrandSlam was an awful idea, for one game show contestants really achieve national fame like athletes or musicians. Even ones that do, they get forgotten quite quickly because there aren't enough high profile game shows for them to do. And secondly the format was absolutely pants. They'd probably come up with the list of contestants before they'd decided what format to use, which is wrong. I found it quite boring, I'd rather watch TWL or Eggheads.

I found it to be quite good. I liked the numbers and words/letter rounds

and the idea of accumulating time each round by answering questions as quick as possible, to stop your clock counting down first, added to the excitement.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:55 pm

Completing math problems is something we don't often see on US game shows!

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:21 am

Martin Gardner wrote:
Joseph Bolas wrote:Duel was indeed brilliant, but yeah, like with many great game shows, it probably won't come back. Grand Slam was also awesome and that too should definitely come back.

I think there has also been a few gaming programmes where there have been 1-on-1 challenges.
I'm a bit surprised, as I hated both of these. GrandSlam was an awful idea, for one game show contestants really achieve national fame like athletes or musicians. Even ones that do, they get forgotten quite quickly because there aren't enough high profile game shows for them to do. And secondly the format was absolutely pants. They'd probably come up with the list of contestants before they'd decided what format to use, which is wrong. I found it quite boring, I'd rather watch TWL or Eggheads.

I liked Grand Slam, it was fun to play along with, and quite compelling when the game was close. Unfortunately there were lots of games where the winner was obvious long before the end, and the "strategic" element with the switches was a bit ham fisted. A few tweaks to the format and it would've been fantastic. And I don't think it was ever predicated on the contestants being famous, just really good at what they do.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:16 am

Paul Howe wrote:And I don't think it was ever predicated on the contestants being famous, just really good at what they do.

Actually they were. The competition was for people who were previous gameshow winners. According to Wikipedia the contestants were:

Dee Voce, Geoff Owen, Olav Bjortomt, David Edwards, Mark Labbett, Clive Spate, Melanie Beaumont, Peter Lee, Gavin Fuller, David Stainer, Graham Nash, Michael Penrice, Michelle Hogan, Laura Richardson, Said Khan and Duncan Bickley.

You can actually find a clip of the UK Final on YouTube, and you also find all of the US Grand Slam competition on YouTube too.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:21 am

Was "Chain Letters" 1-on-1 action?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:28 am

Jon Corby wrote:Was "Chain Letters" 1-on-1 action?

I haven't read it thoroughly, but the UKGameshows site for it would suggest there were >2 (in my *very* vague memory (I would have been at most 8) I thought there were three contestants on that show, but I can only just remember the show at all).

Although that's reminded me of another one - what was that crossword game show? Was that one on one? Or possibly there was a team of two?

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:38 am

Jon Corby wrote:Was "Chain Letters" 1-on-1 action?

Chain Letters was 3 contestants.

Michael Wallace wrote:Although that's reminded me of another one - what was that crossword game show? Was that one on one? Or possibly there was a team of two?

That was Cross Wits I believe and that was two teams of two, although it was normally 1 contestant and 1 celebrity. Also The Pyramid Game by Donny Osmond, was a two teams of two consisting of 1 contestant and 1 celebrity.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:41 am

Joseph Bolas wrote:Chain Letters was 3 contestants.

Haha, I like how what I missed was, in fact, the first word. Epic.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:29 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:
Paul Howe wrote:And I don't think it was ever predicated on the contestants being famous, just really good at what they do.
Actually they were. The competition was for people who were previous gameshow winners.

Yes, I know. Maybe it's just me but I take game show winner and famous to mean different things.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:46 pm

Paul Howe wrote:Yes, I know. Maybe it's just me but I take game show winner and famous to mean different things.

I wouldn't know, but surely there is a little bit of fame to be had, from becoming a champion on a game show.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:02 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote: I wouldn't know, but surely there is a little bit of fame to be had, from becoming a champion on a game show.

Perhaps. If you read Martin's original post he implied the show was somehow crap because the contestants weren't famous in the same way as, well, people who are actually famous.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:40 pm

Paul Howe wrote:
Joseph Bolas wrote: I wouldn't know, but surely there is a little bit of fame to be had, from becoming a champion on a game show.
Perhaps. If you read Martin's original post he implied the show was somehow crap because the contestants weren't famous in the same way as, well, people who are actually famous.

Well, I thought the format was crap and I don't think the fact that they're all champions of other game shows is a big pull for the viewers at home, I personally hadn't heard of most of them. Didn't they used to show it on a Friday as well? That's probably the worst day of the week they could pick.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:40 pm

I found Grand Slam pretty awful. It was supposed to be some sort of champion of champions thing to find the ultimate quiz winner. But all the quizzes/gameshows they'd won on were different so it was a fairly meaningless concept. Like pitting Roger Federer and Tiger Woods against each other in some silly game that's a bit like tennis and a bit like golf. It would be a joke. "silly" is a good word to describe the programme because I just couldn't take the format remotely seriously.

Dan Vanniasingham · Post by **Dan Vanniasingham** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:35 pm

Apologies if some of these have been suggested already:

Crosswits was 2 v 2, could work
Wipeout's second round was fun,
Mallet's Mallet from Whackaday! - Bleurgh! etc
The "playing catch-up" round from Going For Gold
Weakest Link heads-up
Blankety Blank was 1 v 1, but involved a load of other morons too

Bah - there must be more, and some actual shows too rather than rounds from them.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am

Even though there were two couples, up until the final round, it was a 1-on-1, from each couple in All Clued Up.

Now that they should bring back too

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:32 am

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Bah - there must be more, and some actual shows too rather than rounds from them.

That's the thing - I thought there'd be more actual game shows that fit the description too.

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:29 pm

I think this counts but in The People Versus, one contestant would be asked questions that were set by the public, so each question was a 1-on-1 situation. If the contestant got the question right, they moved on to the next person's question and if they got it wrong, the person who set the question got some money for it.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:31 pm

Joseph Bolas wrote:I think this counts but in The People Versus, one contestant would be asked questions that were set by the public, so each question was a 1-on-1 situation. If the contestant got the question right, they moved on to the next person's question and if they got it wrong, the person who set the question got some money for it.

I think we're getting pretty tenuous here

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:44 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Joseph Bolas wrote:I think this counts but in The People Versus, one contestant would be asked questions that were set by the public, so each question was a 1-on-1 situation. If the contestant got the question right, they moved on to the next person's question and if they got it wrong, the person who set the question got some money for it.
I think we're getting pretty tenuous here

It might be a bit, but like you and Dan have said, there should be more shows.

Lesley Jeavons · Post by **Lesley Jeavons** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:49 pm

The Sandwich Quiz segment on 73 (later named 7T3), kids ITV prog from the 80s, was one on one. 73 was fabulous - the only ITV kids show that even compared to the BBC's Swap Shop, Saturday Superstore etc!

Joseph Bolas · Post by **Joseph Bolas** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:06 pm

Can't Cook, Won't Cook was a cookery gameshow that was 1-on-1.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:15 pm

15-to-1 and 1 vs 100 are two other obivous 1-on-1 gameshows that spring to mind.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:05 pm

Jon Corby wrote:15-to-1 and 1 vs 100 are two other obivous 1-on-1 gameshows that spring to mind.

Hate to shit on your fireworks Jon, but I just did half an hour or so of research - 15-to-1 involved 15 contestants, and 1 vs 100 involved over 50 contestants!!!
Please can you check these things more closely before you post?

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:01 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:15-to-1 and 1 vs 100 are two other obivous 1-on-1 gameshows that spring to mind.
Hate to shit on your fireworks Jon, but I just did half an hour or so of research - 15-to-1 involved 15 contestants, and 1 vs 100 involved over 50 contestants!!!
Please can you check these things more closely before you post?

Really? I found all that out in just 20 minutes.

Chris Corby · Post by **Chris Corby** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:10 pm

Jon, sometimes you can be so stupid I fell like disinheriting you

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:26 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:15-to-1 and 1 vs 100 are two other obivous 1-on-1 gameshows that spring to mind.
Hate to shit on your fireworks Jon, but I just did half an hour or so of research - 15-to-1 involved 15 contestants, and 1 vs 100 involved over 50 contestants!!!
Please can you check these things more closely before you post?

Sometimes it gets very tough around here to know exactly who is taking the piss out of whom...

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:35 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: Like pitting Roger Federer and Tiger Woods against each other in some silly game that's a bit like tennis and a bit like golf.

That would be awesome!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:39 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: Like pitting Roger Federer and Tiger Woods against each other in some silly game that's a bit like tennis and a bit like golf.
That would be awesome!

Has there been a discussion of International King of Sports yet? What a show.

EDIT: It would even be a working 1-on-1 format show, so is on topic too

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:38 pm

I was thinking about The Kids Are Alright which wasn't that good. The concept is not terrible - get some adults against some really "intelligent" kids, a bit like Kai Laddiman, that have GCSEs at 12 or whatever. There are I think 4 contestants and more than 4 kids, but the actual rounds involve just one contestant from each team (adults and kids). What really impressed me was the mental agility rounds. The kids were so good, it was unbelievable. I'd count myself as pretty mentally agile (or just mental, I dunno) but those kids were way ahead of me.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:49 pm

I've seen that show. It has John Barrowman in it and he is one of the few game show hosts in Britain with an American accent!

Does anyone know if it has been renewed for another series?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:43 pm

Jason Larsen wrote:I've seen that show. It has John Barrowman in it and he is one of the few game show hosts in Britain with an American accent!

Does anyone know if it has been renewed for another series?

I hope not - when I did catch it I found it pretty nauseating (although I suppose I'm not allowed to complain now I don't have a TV licence).

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:23 am

Michael, did you really give it up?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:57 am

Yes Jason. It costs around £140 a year (over $200), and I can watch most programmes online after they're shown on TV (and as it is I only really regularly watch Countdown). Paying for the licence would only afford me the right to watch things as they're shown on TV, and I just don't consider it worth it.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:36 am

Channel 4 On Demand must be your friend then, Michael!

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:49 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Jason Larsen wrote:I've seen that show. It has John Barrowman in it and he is one of the few game show hosts in Britain with an American accent!

Does anyone know if it has been renewed for another series?
I hope not - when I did catch it I found it pretty nauseating (although I suppose I'm not allowed to complain now I don't have a TV licence).

I thought the idea of having all these "really smart" kids was a good one, but the format left a lot to be desired. The general knowledge questions were pretty easy, I think a lot of kids that age could do alright on those questions. If they'd have come up with a better format, it would have been really good. Maybe some logic puzzles, memory puzzles or even games that involve physical activity. I think that would make it a lot better.

Jason Larsen · Post by **Jason Larsen** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:56 pm

Martin, what do you think of John Barrowman as a person?