c4countdown

And Kai's not even slightly annoying. Kids have to be icky before you can hate them. Ones this clever and moral are just frightening.

Just watched today's game - great standard with some more difficult letters and well done to Kai and every commiseration to Rich - that was agonising. I too shouted out CAFETERIA too. Hope you've got over it Rich - although the fact you're not posting here today makes me wonder...

Matt Morrison wrote:Is it worth a mention that Richard showed his TREACLE to Jeff instead of Kai?
No, probably not.

Just force of habit, nothing more.

I'll sum it up in 2 words - Living Nightmare. Though I have to say Kai was very nice about it at the end. You'd expect most 12-year-olds to be jumping for joy rather than commiserating with their beaten opponent.

Well played Kai and commiserations to Richard as well. There are not many conundrums that look so obviously like one word only to be something different - I too saw cafeteria and thanks to the spoiler in the Guardian article alluded to earlier, when Richard buzzed in I guessed that was going to be his answer.

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Also alt 1st numbers (75-25-10)x8+7 although not within time.

That was my way!

Great game, I was so proud of the boy. Kai wasn't too bad either.

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

I think Lisa and Ranjit are a pair of twats.

Now, can someone please congratulate me for making my point?

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Great game, I was so proud of the boy

What boy? Raccoon Boy?

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

I think Lisa and Ranjit are a pair of twats.

Now, can someone please congratulate me for making my point?

Thanks for that classy reply Mr. Mubeen. I'm not sure why you felt the need to be rude and abusive. Read what I wrote more carefully. I want to see young Riley succeed. I merely made the point that non-countdown people (The Press) may read too much in to not solving the numbers every now and then. Like I said in my original reply, I was impressed by her first test yesterday. As someone who has watched Countdown from day 1 (26 years ago), I want to see the programme survive. Constructive criticism should always be welcome.

Paul Howe wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Just meant in general - surely it makes no sense to feel sorry for people based on their vocabulary, when the whole point of Countdown to a very large extent is a test of that vocabulary.

Interesting point about Countdown being a test of vocabulary, I think the correlation between countdown ability and vocabulary would be positive but weaker than many might expect.

Yeah the correlation might not be so strong comparing players but when you're looking at an individual, there will be a massive correlation between improving one's vocabulary and one's Countdown ability improving alongside - of course evidenced by all the excellent wordsmiths we have as regulars here on the forum who've been on the show recently and (seem to) spend a lot of time maximising their vocab.

Rich Priest wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Is it worth a mention that Richard showed his TREACLE to Jeff instead of Kai?

Just force of habit, nothing more.

Yup, just thought it was worth pointing out as some other threads had been talking about the new 'showing' format - I wondered how much of a point they make to contestants about that change.

Anyway, unlucky sir. Your face whilst having to sit through nearly 30 seconds of agony, with the bitter taste of freshly ground coffee in your mouth, will stay with me forever.

Paul Howe wrote: Interesting point about Countdown being a test of vocabulary, I think the correlation between countdown ability and vocabulary would be positive but weaker than many might expect.

Agreed. Especially because "vocabulary" usually means the set of words you could actually use in a sentence, rather than just knowing that they're present on some semi-arbitrary list of words.

Ranjit wrote: Constructive criticism should always be welcome.

Sure, but supporting stupid comments like 'Rachel is thick' is not welcome. It's twattish.

Joe Denniss wrote:Also, QUOITAL, I think.

Nope.

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

I think you have been reading too much Sun-Tzu, young Ranjit. "People will say" that you should express your own opinion or none at all, rather than hiding behind the facade of what "other people" think. Constructive criticism would be pointing out specific weaknesses and ways to redress them, it doesn't mean attaching a vague compliment to an insult.

If we're protective of her it's because 1) we've worked with her and she's lovely 2) we know the pressures of doing maths in front of the cameras. Can you claim parity on either of these?

Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

James Hurrell and I shouted CAFETERIA immediately in the green room then looked at each other in triumphant delight, but our glory was short lived.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rich Priest wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Is it worth a mention that Richard showed his TREACLE to Jeff instead of Kai?

Just force of habit, nothing more.

Yup, just thought it was worth pointing out as some other threads had been talking about the new 'showing' format - I wondered how much of a point they make to contestants about that change.

I can't recall anything being said to us in the Green Room about showing identical answers to our opponents instead of to Jeff, unless I missed it. I wondered why the people in the first 3 games were doing it, I thought maybe some of them had arranged it between themselves beforehand as a jokey thing, like when Matthew Shore showed his numbers solution to Mark Tournoff in the last CoC. It wasn't until the first advert break when the floor manager had a word with me about it that I was made aware it was the new rule.

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

Your "unfair" is my "excellent". I think the conundrums like this that put a false thought into your head straight away are brilliant and its the mark of a conundrum genius to resist buzzing. I'm still unable to resist them, and when I see the real answer, I'm always impressed, very much like a trick question.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

I think Lisa and Ranjit are a pair of twats.

Now, can someone please congratulate me for making my point?

I think Lisa and Ranjit are both none other than Richard Brittain.

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately.

You could equally well argue that, if it's a crucial conundrum, you'd better be sure it's right before you buzz. Do you risk an extra second or two to think - hang on, CAFETERIA has two As and there's only one in the scramble? Rich didn't and paid the price.

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

I think you mean Rich. Please don't get the two mixed up, for both gentleman's sakes.

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

I buzzed immediately because I knew how quick Kai was at conundrums, then when Jeff told me it was wrong I thought of CAFETIERE because of the similarity and then realised that was it. If Kai had buzzed in first with CAFETERIA I'd like to think I would have got CAFETIERE with 29 secs to myself to do it in. But no, I didn't think it was unfair, after all it's CoC and I should maybe have made doubly sure before pressing.

Tony Priest (aka Richard)

"My mouth only has an entrance, no exit."

Oh yeah? And what do you call your throat? If there was no exit, drinking coffee (or anything else for that matter) would be a very frustrating affair. ;o)

Rich Priest wrote:
I buzzed immediately because I knew how quick Kai was at conundrums, then when Jeff told me it was wrong I thought of CAFETIERE because of the similarity and then realised that was it. If Kai had buzzed in first with CAFETERIA I'd like to think I would have got CAFETIERE with 29 secs to myself to do it in. But no, I didn't think it was unfair, after all it's CoC and I should maybe have made doubly sure before pressing.

Tony Priest (aka Richard)

It's a hard one because it's the CofC as you say and so waiting just a second or two more (to give time to confirm your answer) your opponent could buzz in and win. I'm not sure what I'd do...perhaps that's why it's best that your word power is super awesome so you don't get crucials often/if at all!

Oh, and interestingly, CAFETIERE isn't in my version of Countmax.

Matt Morrison wrote:My mouth only has an entrance, no exit.

Really? So when you vomit, or spit, or exhale for that matter... where does the requisite matter come out?

Kirk Bevins wrote: It's a hard one because it's the CofC as you say and so waiting just a second or two more (to give time to confirm your answer) your opponent could buzz in and win.

That's kinda the point of the game...

I often find myself agreeing with David, but not on conundrum buzzing (one of the hot button issues of the day). How do you tell when one conundrum might be confused with another? Even if you could, recognising the letters rapidly is all part of the skill of conundrumming. At the last CofC most of the conundrums weren't hairtrigger solutions and only 1 of 4 have been solved so far in this one (quite rapidly admittedly) so if you want to take an extra second to verify things it won't necessarily be deadly.

I've had exactly the same thing happen to me (buzzing COAGULANT instead of OCTAGONAL), and put the blame squarely on my conundrumming skills.

Matt Morrison wrote: My mouth only has an entrance, no exit.

Presumably this is why you're constantly talking out of your arse

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:My mouth only has an entrance, no exit.

Really? So when you vomit, or spit, or exhale for that matter... where does the requisite matter come out?

Simple. I don't vomit, spit, or exhale.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:[Now, can someone please congratulate me for making my point?

Yeah, i'll congratulate you and agree with you Junaid. And do it as someone who has been on the show but doesn't know Rachel.

You really can't assume the score you get when sitting in front of TV is the same as you'd get when sitting under the Countdown clock, under the lights, cameras at every angle etc etc.

When you look at some of the press articles recently, it is obvious that there are some gutter hacks around who are dying to see Rachel fall flat on her face. If the girl constantly fails on easy puzzles over a long period of time, then people may have a right to question the appointment, but just because she fails to get a quite-difficult-ish sort of puzzle in her first week, I dont think it is particularly clever to jump straight on the tabloid bandwagon . . . .

Matt Morrison wrote:I don't [...] exhale.

Gosh. I've heard of trapped wind but that's ridiculous.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

I think you have been reading too much Sun-Tzu, young Ranjit. "People will say" that you should express your own opinion or none at all, rather than hiding behind the facade of what "other people" think. Constructive criticism would be pointing out specific weaknesses and ways to redress them, it doesn't mean attaching a vague compliment to an insult.

If we're protective of her it's because 1) we've worked with her and she's lovely 2) we know the pressures of doing maths in front of the cameras. Can you claim parity on either of these?

Are you sure there isn’t a 3rd reason Mr. Reams? I’m only joking. By the way, I’m sure young Ms. Riley can look after herself. She’s managed quite well in life thus far. I doubt that she needs the Octochamp protection squad squirting venom on anyone who dares to criticise or casts doubt. My opinion, like yours, is nothing compared to the viewing figures. If the viewers are not impressed then C4 may end up ditching the show. That’s why it is important to understand how “other people” perceive the new maths genius. I can only apologise for any hurt feelings on what seems to be a personal matter for you and some others on your website.

Matthew Green wrote:I think Lisa and Ranjit are both none other than Richard Brittain.

They most definitely are not me. Give me some credit. There are other people in existence who don't view Countdown as though it is the only thing that matters in life. They include the entire population of the world outside of this forum..

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

Two things wrong with this: I've never heard of CAFETIERE, and I was playing Rich, hence I wouldn't have cared if Tony had won.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Ranjit wrote: Constructive criticism should always be welcome.

Sure, but supporting stupid comments like 'Rachel is thick' is not welcome. It's twattish.

I didn't support the comment. Please read more carefully in future. My support was for Lisa having the guts to post criticism of Ms. Riley on such a hostile forum. Lisa, the poor lady had already been told to "STFU" and denounced as a b*tch by the time I posted my original comment. I personally wouldn't describe someone as thick as I'd probably get a punch in the face. That's why one has to be very careful about hurling insults, even on forums. There is a real world out there. Being called a t*at is not very nice. I think Lisa is due an apology from at least 3 people on this forum (including from you Mr. Mubeen). Ms. Riley is due an apology from Lisa too as it was a bit unfair to call her thick on her 1st week.

Ranjit wrote:I didn't support the comment. Please read more carefully in future. My support was for Lisa having the guts to post criticism of Ms. Riley on such a hostile forum.

You're a fucking mess of hypocrisy aren't you? How can you congratulate Lisa on the one hand for "having the guts to criticise" and then denounce everyone else for it?

The only thing you've got right so far is that Junaid didn't need to be rude and abusive. He didn't need to be because eventually I'd come along and fill that slot. Fuck off.

Oh, and Lisa..... I'm sorry












that you're such a stupid bitch.

Ranjit wrote:I didn't support the comment. Please read more carefully in future. My support was for Lisa having the guts to post criticism of Ms. Riley on such a hostile forum. Lisa, the poor lady had already been told to "STFU" and denounced as a b*tch by the time I posted my original comment. I personally wouldn't describe someone as thick as I'd probably get a punch in the face. That's why one has to be very careful about hurling insults, even on forums. There is a real world out there. Being called a t*at is not very nice. I think Lisa is due an apology from at least 3 people on this forum (including from you Mr. Mubeen). Ms. Riley is due an apology from Lisa too as it was a bit unfair to call her thick on her 1st week.

To be honest I don't hugely disagree with anything you've said, but you insist on presenting it in such a smart-ass patronising way that people are inevitably going to get pissed off, and throw it back at you like Mr Corby. There's only room for one patronising smart-ass on this forum *puffs out chest*. Try expressing yourself in a less annoying way and you'll probably find more sympathy. Or lurk quietly until you figure out how things work around here, that's how our most successful new users (many of whom have already posted in this thread) managed it.

David Williams wrote: Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

That would be me. I buzzed in with it on my imaginary armchair buzzer at the same time as Richard.

Ranjit wrote:

lisa.underwood wrote:omg seriously is this new women on countdown thick or what even i worked out that maths problem and that i saying something! it was simple!

I was a bit disappointed young Riley didn't get it especially as she solved a relatively difficult numbers game yesterday (Wed 14 Jan 08). I was impressed by that. Unlike young Riley, some of us have had the advantage of learning from the "late" great Vorderman over the last 26 hundred years. I'm willing to give Riley a chance but people will talk. They will say things. They will ask, Did the producers compromise brain power for looks? Well done Lisa.Underwood for making your point. Some of my fellow males on this site seem to be fiercely protective of her for some reason. Dream on boys

Does it really make a difference if you've watched "the late" Carol for 10 years rather than 26?

I don't recall Carol Vorderman being a completely infallible mathematical automaton. I found I could beat Carol on the numbers once every week or so, although she'd beat me far more often. Rachel missed one very difficult numbers game which was missed by two octochamps, three if you count me as well. I have yet to beat Rachel at a numbers game.

So there you go. Rachel is a thick airhead who should be fired.

Just watched this game. An excellent game. Well done Kai, and commiserations to Richard. Everything I was going to say about the conundrum has already been said, so I won't repeat it.

Two of the numbers rounds provide an example of my erratic play though. I got the first with no problem, beating both contestants. But unbelievably failed with the third. Just like the contestants, I went for 50 x 17, but made 17 using 9+7+1; how I missed seeing 9+8 completely escapes me.

Yeah she's missed all of one numbers game now. It's a silly post to be honest. And let's also be honest, Carol was very good at her job, and she can't be "replaced" just like that. I'm trying to think of a serious response, but frankly, why bother?

Martin Gardner wrote:Yeah she's missed all of one numbers game now. It's a silly post to be honest. And let's also be honest, Carol was very good at her job, and she can't be "replaced" just like that. I'm trying to think of a serious response, but frankly, why bother?

Well summed up, Martin.

I thought it was more telling in Junaid's game where he did his usual thing of trying to use all the numbers for a bit of fun.
Don't remember the specific circumstances, but it was something like using 9 - 3 - 3 to make 3 rather than just using a 3.
Rachel didn't seem to 'get' him at all and carried on working it out on the board as if he was being serious.

And just to point out, I'm not criticising Rachel there - it's just the most poignant moment I've had of missing Carol since the new season began.
Her on-screen relationship with Junaid was magic.

I'm just glad the conundrum wasn't TEAFIACRE!

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ranjit wrote:I didn't support the comment. Please read more carefully in future. My support was for Lisa having the guts to post criticism of Ms. Riley on such a hostile forum. Lisa, the poor lady had already been told to "STFU" and denounced as a b*tch by the time I posted my original comment. I personally wouldn't describe someone as thick as I'd probably get a punch in the face. That's why one has to be very careful about hurling insults, even on forums. There is a real world out there. Being called a t*at is not very nice. I think Lisa is due an apology from at least 3 people on this forum (including from you Mr. Mubeen). Ms. Riley is due an apology from Lisa too as it was a bit unfair to call her thick on her 1st week.

To be honest I don't hugely disagree with anything you've said, but you insist on presenting it in such a smart-ass patronising way that people are inevitably going to get pissed off, and throw it back at you like Mr Corby. There's only room for one patronising smart-ass on this forum *puffs out chest*. Try expressing yourself in a less annoying way and you'll probably find more sympathy. Or lurk quietly until you figure out how things work around here, that's how our most successful new users (many of whom have already posted in this thread) managed it.

Thanks Charlie. I'll lurk quietly and stop wasting everyone's time.

Matt Morrison wrote:Her on-screen relationship with Junaid was magic.

Agreed. Relationship of the year. But it would never last. She likes one large which Junaid could never satisfy her with

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Her on-screen relationship with Junaid was magic.

Agreed. Relationship of the year. But it would never last. She likes one large which Junaid could never satisfy her with

Best post of the month.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Her on-screen relationship with Junaid was magic.

Agreed. Relationship of the year. But it would never last. She likes one large which Junaid could never satisfy her with

Best post of the month.

Agreed...even if I have just had any manlihood dissed right out of me.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Dinos Sfyris wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Her on-screen relationship with Junaid was magic.

Agreed. Relationship of the year. But it would never last. She likes one large which Junaid could never satisfy her with

Best post of the month.

A "one large" joke as post of the month? This place is going to the dogs.

Charlie Reams wrote:A "one large" joke as post of the month? This place is going to the dogs.

Ooh JEALOUS! I always thought you 4 large types were trying to over-compensate.

Charlie Reams wrote:A "one large" joke as post of the month?

But a good one, you must admit. It has a solid foundation in fact (Carol did frequently allude to one from the top being her favourite selection, while Junaid generally went for the trickier combinations) and therefore somehow contrives not to sound, er, contrived.

Wait, so you would you rather have 1 large or 6 small?

sometimes not having a large one can make it hard to reach your target.

Matt Morrison wrote:sometimes not having a large one can make it hard to reach your target.

But sometimes it's not always best to finish in 30 seconds.

Michael Wallace wrote:Wait, so you would you rather have 1 large or 6 small?

I'd have to practice with both to figure which works best for me.

David Williams wrote:Is it just me, or was the conundrum a bit unfair? In a CoC crucial conundrum you have to press immediately you see something, and I would expect nearly every player of CoC standard to "see" CAFETERIA and buzz immediately. If Tony had been just a little slower, I expect Kai would have buzzed, got it wrong, and Tony would have won. It's a bit like a trick question.

Does anyone claim to have gone straight to CAFETIERE? I certainly didn't.

David

I wasn't a big fan of the conundrum either but not necessarily for the same reason. Paul Howe made the point that it's difficult to know which ones will be confused, but having said that this is quite a clear case where the conundrum setter would know that there is a similar word (unlike COAGULANT/OCTAGONAL where he would have to think about it). But anyway, my main "gripe" with it is that it is quite an obscure word, and I don't like it when conundrums are obscure words. I know they're normally harder for CofC matches, but to me harder should be like OVERSPADE/EAVESDROP, where people know the word but can't find it anyway.

Malcolm James wrote:The most surprising thing about today's show was seeing Richard buzz in on the conundrum, since the Guardian feature a couple of weeks back put in a, doubtless inadvertent, spoiler for this game.

I know. He should have learnt from the spoiler and steered the game away from where fate was trying to take it.

Gavin Chipper wrote:my main "gripe" with [CAFETIERE] is that it is quite an obscure word

I'm genuinely surprised by the fact that several people on this board have either not heard of it or consider it "obscure". (We have three of the bloody things in our kitchen.) Treading into murky waters here perhaps, but I suspect that it would not be considered at all obscure by most moderately affluent, metropolitan people, including the person who set it (presumably Damian).

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:my main "gripe" with [CAFETIERE] is that it is quite an obscure word

I'm genuinely surprised by the fact that several people on this board have either not heard of it or consider it "obscure". (We have three of the bloody things in our kitchen.) Treading into murky waters here perhaps, but I suspect that it would not be considered at all obscure by most moderately affluent, metropolitan people, including the person who set it (presumably Damian).

As I said before, I'm wonderfully familiar with the word and experienced the same genuine surprise, but I'm far from "moderately affluent" (more effluent)... though I did have a friend who worked at Starbucks and used to steal a lot of coffee beans, so that's my story.

I am proud to say that this thread has the most posts of all of the spoiler threads! Get in!

Gavin Chipper wrote:But anyway, my main "gripe" with it is that it is quite an obscure word, and I don't like it when conundrums are obscure words. I know they're normally harder for CofC matches, but to me harder should be like OVERSPADE/EAVESDROP, where people know the word but can't find it anyway.

You're not gonna like much of CoC then Personally I think it's cool, making the game as much a test of word knowledge as anagram solving, although I agree that the best ones are "hard but common" like OVERSPADE. And, err, ISELLKITE

Like most students, I'm intimately familiar with coffee-related paraphernalia. But it's a well-known psychological phenomenon that people overestimate other people's knowledge of things they know, and underestimate their knowledge of things they don't. So it's not surprising that people who knew CAFETIERE were surprised that other people didn't.

I knew the word, but only became acquainted with it a couple of years ago as I don't drink coffee and the moderately affluent urbanites in our family call it a plunger.

I think the vocabulary on the conundrums is generally fine, the last word I can remember being baffled by was the infamous Hansford SF conundrum (I've forgotten it now).