c4countdown

Is there a prize for the winner of this?

JackHurst wrote:Is there a prize for the winner of this?

Well, the winner of the Supreme Championship in 1996 got a trip to Paris to see a recording of Des chiffres et des lettres and a nice glass trophy.

So, it might be something on a similar line............

James Robinson wrote:

JackHurst wrote:Is there a prize for the winner of this?

Well, the winner of the Supreme Championship in 1996 got a trip to Paris to see a recording of Des chiffres et des lettres and a nice glass trophy.

So, it might be something on a similar line............

If that's the case, I might just lose my first game.

Hello all, could do with some help from the apterous regulars for some stats I'm trying to put together for the 30th anniversary tournament. In particular, I'm trying to get hold of as many apto-ranks for the players as I can: so far I've got 26 of the 41, but there are 15 who I either can't find at all, or who have only played a handful of games. I know, however, that quite a lot of people play under pseudonyms, or I may have just missed them for some other reason, so if anyone can help out with the following list that would be great.

Obviously, if you know one of these people plays under a pseudonym, check with them before you post their details here :p (if people are super keen to protect their anonymity, you can always PM me - I have no interest in names, just what their ranks are).

So, the names I'm missing ranks for are:

Chris Hawkins
Jill Bright
Chris Wills
David Williams
Christine Hunt
Sandie Simonis
Paul Keane
Dave Hoskisson
John Ashmore
Nicki Sellars
Wayne Kelly
Nick Wainwright
David Webb
Jackie Mcleod
Barry Grossman

I appreciate many of these will have never set foot on apterous, but any help whittling down this list would be great. Thanks in advance and all that.

Nick W is currently ranked 76th (I'm presuming he doesn't care that much about his anonymity since he hasn't changed his picture). I'm not aware of any of the others having apterous accounts, apart from Sandie Simonis who as you probably saw has only played one Pro Ranks-eligible game.

Cheers, every little helps

Wayne K has played a small number of games, but again probably not enough to trouble the ranking system.

Righto, I ran some numbers and have put together a thing that estimates the probability of each player winning the tournament (based on apto-ranks for apterous players, and some jiggery-pokery for non-apterous players). For those interested in the methodology, I've whipped up a short blog post about it here. If you just want to know the results there's a summary here, along with a page on apterous Charlie put together that lets you play around with everyone's ratings to see how things change.

(With thanks to Graeme for his stats pages, and Charlie for his bad ass-computer skillz).

teamwork dreamwork guyz

Like. Many thanks for taking the time to put that together, Michael.

Graeme Cole wrote:Like. Many thanks for taking the time to put that together, Michael.

No problem, thanks for your work on the player stats, made things a lot easier

I just realised the is no Jeffrey Hansford in this list. Devastated.

WARNING: THIS LINK CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I am updating a blog post after every game in this: http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html. If I'm cruel to anyone, then don't feel offended, as I didn't mean to be! It is written primarily for people that know nothing about Countdown, though.

WARNING: THIS LINK CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Updated with today's game. Great game but this is a tad harsh, and I'm not that much of a cad!

http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html

Rhys Benjamin wrote:WARNING: THIS LINK CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Updated with today's game. Great game but this is a tad harsh, and I'm not that much of a cad!

http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html

"Cue an idiotic scene when trying to pick the numbers"?

Bit uncalled for, particularly after highlighting attention to your blog. Probably keep those thoughts to yourself. FWIW it raised a smile with me.

So which month are we predicting for Thatcher to finally cop it? I'm thinking around mid-September.

WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.

Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162

James Robinson wrote:

This should read: " ".

James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.

Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162

Oh yeah - and the players' scores are also in this new format.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.

Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162

Oh yeah - and the players' scores are also in this new format.

Crikey, so the old "calculator style" heritage is being to bed then after next week.

Bit of a shame to see it go, personally.

This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.

Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.

Didn't know that - pretty interesting! I actually think they're an improvement.

James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.

Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162

There's stuff in the background?

Jon Corby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:WOW, Amazing pic thanks to Mark Foster's Twitter feed.

Look behind Rachel and Mark, CECIL (or should it now be CECIS) has been given a MEGA-MAKEOVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/MarkFosterSwim/stat ... 0919772162

There's stuff in the background?

Don't forget to look at Rachel too, she's hot in that photo.

I hated them for about 2 minutes, then I quite liked them.
Typical British traditionalism kicking in a couple of minutes before logic and reason then.

I fear that older contestants might complain though. Then again there were a fair few in the audience and I didn't hear any of them say anything negative about it

Andy Platt wrote:I hated them for about 2 minutes, then I quite liked them.
Typical British traditionalism kicking in a couple of minutes before logic and reason then.

This. The previous day Innis described them to me as "cartoony", and so I feared the worst and thought they might have used pink Comic Sans on a lime green background. But it's just the same font, style and colour as the letter and number cards. It's been done well, and I got used to it very quickly.

WARNING: SPOILERS IN THE LINK.

Updated with today's game. POTENTIAL SPOILERS: It just seems tense reading it back. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html

Rhys Benjamin wrote:WARNING: SPOILERS IN THE LINK.

Updated with today's game. POTENTIAL SPOILERS: It just seems tense reading it back. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... -boom.html

Do you not realise some of the stuff you say is offensive?

And a lot of it is really dumb. "Mark tried to psychologically beat Jack with POOING", "when you then have BOXGATE disallowed, it's not good news," "Nick makes the mistake of trying to out-psych Mark," "He asks for several "continents". Why do we even bother?"........these are dumb things you're saying, Rhys.

Dumb? Probably more on the satirical side.

Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!

Rhys - if you don't know what 'satirical' means, don't use it.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!

It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.

(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)

^ This right here. This is the guy.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Rhys - if you don't know what 'satirical' means, don't use it.

Yes, I know what satirical means. Yes, I do use it.

If you think you're being satirical in your blog, then you clearly don't. So don't.

OK, satirical was a bit of an exaggeration... but one shouldn't try to be offensive.

Look, you're a know-it-all kid who thinks he can write better than everyone else, and I was that once too. So I know what's going on here. But just know that in the case of something like this, where you're trying to make others look bad when they did nothing to deserve it, all you're doing is making yourself look bad. Consider whether you really want that.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Innis Carson wrote:This wasn't done out of choice - during rehearsals they found that the old 7-segment displays that used to display the scores and numbers targets didn't work properly in the new Mediacity studios, so they had to improvise with monitors. They're not too bad-looking really, I'm sure everyone will get used to them quickly.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Because they're in a particular studio, a certain display won't work? Three doors down and it's fine - this isn't mobile phone reception we're talking about!

It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.

(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)

Yeah, Damian said it was something to do with connectors. Basically, they can't plug them in.

Graeme Cole wrote: It probably comes down to something tiny but essential. If I had to guess, I'd plump for this: those old displays that they must have used for about 10 years probably have RS-232 serial port connectors, and the trendy, shiny new MeDiaCiTYuK doesn't have a single computer in it that's old enough to have a serial port.

(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)

Actually, it's completely right ! 100%.

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

Can you make it so the the latest game always goes to the top? It's a pain having to scroll through all of them every time a new game happens.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.

Only just found out this was happening! Best of luck to everyone competing, so good to see something like this finally went ahead. I'm sorry I couldn't be a part of it. My money's on innis to take it down, the ultimate countdown beast imo

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.

And HEPARIN.

And since the link doesn't change, I really think we've got the idea now that you are going to update it after each episode.

Thomas Carey wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

Can you make it so the the latest game always goes to the top? It's a pain having to scroll through all of them every time a new game happens.

I'm afraid I can't do that.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Rhys Benjamin wrote:SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER. Today's game. http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... -boom.html?

You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.

I know, it was supposed to be an annoying pun.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:You've spelt RIGOROUS wrong.

I know, it was supposed to be an annoying pun.

LOLSATIRE

Jon Corby wrote: LOLSATIRE

LITERALS for eight?

The blog isn't completely up to date yet, but it now features the Jackie McLeod/Barry Grossman game.

Countdown Team wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:(I don't know the actual reason. This is probably completely wrong.)

Actually, it's completely right ! 100%.

Out of interest, is CECIL simply wired up to a new display, or is it a new random number generator altogether? It's probably too early to draw any meaningful statistical significance (Raccoon Boy?) but of the 12 games so far this week, 6 have been in the 300s, with 5 in the upper half (315,356,379,381,381,396). COUNTDOWN ROCKED BY 'FIX' SCANDAL?

I make it about a 1% chance that six of twelve picks will be in the same set of a hundred.

So therefore, Daily Mail reporter, there is a 99% chance that Countdown is fixed.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Daily Mirror

Fixed that for you.


Prelims now done. Don't forget to +1! http://rhysbenjamin.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... l?spref=tw

This maybe belongs in a viewing figures thread, or even in the coincidences one.

I didn't tell anyone other than family that I was on last week. And in that week the only person who has mentioned seeing me is someone who was recording it every day because their husband knows Dave Hoskisson, but didn't know when he was on. I've been to a chess club with about forty people there who all know me at least by sight, I've spoken to a dozen or so people at a football match who each know other people who know me, I've been on a walk with a dozen people who know me very well. Add that to other friends who I'd have expected to get in touch if they'd seen me, and you're probably talking of a hundred people of mainly similar age and disposition to me, plus their immediate families. And not one of them saw Countdown last Thursday.

David Williams wrote:This maybe belongs in a viewing figures thread, or even in the coincidences one.

I didn't tell anyone other than family that I was on last week. And in that week the only person who has mentioned seeing me is someone who was recording it every day because their husband knows Dave Hoskisson, but didn't know when he was on. I've been to a chess club with about forty people there who all know me at least by sight, I've spoken to a dozen or so people at a football match who each know other people who know me, I've been on a walk with a dozen people who know me very well. Add that to other friends who I'd have expected to get in touch if they'd seen me, and you're probably talking of a hundred people of mainly similar age and disposition to me, plus their immediate families. And not one of them saw Countdown last Thursday.

The trouble with any sort of viewing figures analysis is that it's tough to isolate the positive or negative effect of this tournament from the impact of the show being moved to 2.40pm. Is this data (easily) available?

Conor wrote:

David Williams wrote:This maybe belongs in a viewing figures thread, or even in the coincidences one.

I didn't tell anyone other than family that I was on last week. And in that week the only person who has mentioned seeing me is someone who was recording it every day because their husband knows Dave Hoskisson, but didn't know when he was on. I've been to a chess club with about forty people there who all know me at least by sight, I've spoken to a dozen or so people at a football match who each know other people who know me, I've been on a walk with a dozen people who know me very well. Add that to other friends who I'd have expected to get in touch if they'd seen me, and you're probably talking of a hundred people of mainly similar age and disposition to me, plus their immediate families. And not one of them saw Countdown last Thursday.

The trouble with any sort of viewing figures analysis is that it's tough to isolate the positive or negative effect of this tournament from the impact of the show being moved to 2.40pm. Is this data (easily) available?

I'd be very surprised if David's experience is due to the fact that this is a champions' series. In fact, quite a few of the games have been at a fairly "normal" standard anyway (albeit the higher end of normal), and it's only as we move through the tournament that this will change.

Here's a copy of the draw, which was made on October 8th, at 11.00am, by a randomizer at random.org

There were originally 2 column of numbers, the first column is the order the names came out, the 2nd, which is obliterated by a marker pen, was the order they went in. The marker pen was purely to make the document easier to work with on the day. The line under David O'Donnell was for the first 23 being given byes.

Marcus Hares was replaced by Adam Gillard and Robert Richland by Darryl Francis.

Cool! Good to see. Ed.

Conor and I should be on my friends radio show tomorrow at 11 am, talking about out participation in this tournament (no spoilers!), and all things countdown.

If any of you are interested:
http://www.camfm.co.uk/index.php?option ... age&id=256

Just to point out the stream found in the link above has been updated for today's show.

Very good first 40 minutes. But what was the point of the end other than just mocking someone who doesn't deserve it? You surely can't claim it was in any way an appreciative gesture when even the host himself says "we'll play it then apologise afterwards". That's a dick move, gents.

who was the contestant that cheated?