c4countdown

Phil Reynolds wrote:men drooling over glimpses of his naked chest

I hope you're not confusing 'noticing' with 'drooling'...

Phil Reynolds wrote:accused

He's just jealous, and has been so ever since we bunked up together in Leeds.

Another great performance from Kirk. I've just seen that C4 have got racing on from Tuesday onward next week so we are going to have to wait another week to see if he becomes an Octochamp (is there any doubt?)

BTW the 3rd numbers is possible.

Also - I was pleased to see the mock brow wipe (which I will now associate with Charlie after his rather liberal use of it during his shows) make a comeback.

Great game today once more, on course for 960 at the moment, it shows just how impressive Julian's record is that he still needs to average over 111 to break it.

I really thought Kirk might get it when the first 8 letters of the penultimate letters came out, considering his luck in previous rounds I thought it had to be an N or an M or a P for a fourth nine but it wasn't to be.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Four games in, and we've already had women wanting to have Kirk's babies, men drooling over glimpses of his naked chest and Charlie seduced by his sexy wink. Is Kirk setting yet another record - the most sexually stimulating contestant ever?

Incidentally, this reminds me: Kirk accused me in aptochat a couple of weeks ago of saying on this board that I (a) fancy Charlie but (b) don't fancy him. I have absolutely no recollection of saying any such thing and can find no evidence for having done so, though I'm happy to be proved wrong. In any case, I would like to say here and now, for the record, that at least one of those statements is untrue.

I would also like to say, for the record, that I was simply expressing my admiration for my hero, by saying that I'd be honoured to help pass such amazing genes to the next generation.
Don't worry, Kirk, you won't have some obsessive stalker at the next Co event, well not me, anyway!

Martin Gardner wrote:What an unbelievable game. I think it's a bit shitty to go for four large when your opponent is on for a massive score like that. I'm also really surprised he didn't get the conundrum. At first I thought it was LUNDERING until I realised I only needed to move one letter to make it right.

Incredible drama, maybe Kirk will get another shot at the record, but he'll be lucky to have a game with a max that big again.

I thought LUNDERING^ too but that was rubbish. After a while I had moved on from the -ING ending and started searching for something else. The prefix UNDERL- was hard to spot in my opinion.

I was also annoyed he went 4 large in that last game as I knew I was on for 143 and second highest score ever. I bottled the conundrum anyway. I told him afterwards that I can't believe he went 4 large when I was on for 2nd best ever and he said it hadn't even crossed his mind that I was on for a massive score. Whether this is true or not, I'm not sure, but fair enough.

So far I've been beaten on 1 numbers game (grr), 1 letters game and 1 conundrum. Can it stay symmetrical?

Michael Wallace wrote:I think people may forget that to most contestants, the idea of records and massive scores and whatever don't really cross their mind. I was in the "oh my god what a bastard" camp until CF started looking at me funny - now I've thought about it I think it's a fairly reasonable thing to do.

Great game Kirk - when that R popped out in the first round I was already excited (well, I was excited just before it popped out too - it is entirely possible I went a bit Deal or No Deal and started shouting "R! R! R!").

Man, I am *so* cool.

Yeah he didn't realise, and I agree with Paul, he played the game with great humour and dignity, given the quality of the opposition. Plus, even with the extra three points that takes him to 133, or 143 if he gets the conundrum. Both of those are less than 146.

I think for most people in a losing situation, the phrase "damage limitation" will crop up slightly more often than "I must do my best to help my opponent achieve a record score and secure my place in the record books as the bloke he beat..." . Perhaps.
Anyway, damn impressive stuff yet again Kirk, 3 well spotted 9s under studio pressure!
By the way, as this thread is called Spoilers, is it the right place to put my solution to the last numbers game?

Tim.

Martin Gardner wrote:
Yeah he didn't realise, and I agree with Paul, he played the game with great humour and dignity, given the quality of the opposition. Plus, even with the extra three points that takes him to 133, or 143 if he gets the conundrum. Both of those are less than 146.

They are all ifs. Had he missed BEHOVE, I'd have got my 5 points for EMOTE and scored 148. Grrr.

Tim wrote:I think for most people in a losing situation, the phrase "damage limitation" will crop up slightly more often than "I must do my best to help my opponent achieve a record score and secure my place in the record books as the bloke he beat..." . Perhaps.
Anyway, damn impressive stuff yet again Kirk, 3 well spotted 9s under studio pressure!
By the way, as this thread is called Spoilers, is it the right place to put my solution to the last numbers game?

Tim.

Speaking from experience, after I lost to Tom in the c of c I was asked if, when 23 behind going into round 14, I'd chosen 1/5 to help him get a larger score. I replied in all honesty that I didn't give a shit about his score as I was more concerned with bulking up my own pretty hefty losing score.

Back OT: Kirk has now cost me several metaphorical pairs of underpants with his record-breaking ways. Here's hoping the big one (the 924) falls on the 17th!

Awesome is the only word i can think of. And thats only a 7 which seems inadequate.

Tim wrote:as this thread is called Spoilers, is it the right place to put my solution to the last numbers game?

You're bang on Tim, impress us! (would give it a go myself but I forgot to wrote them down and just declared 817 like Kirk)

I reckon that unless you frequent places like this you would not necessarily be aware of record scores, second-best records and so on. I mean it's only since I started reading this board a couple of weeks ago that I knew anything much of the history of Countdown beyond faint memories of things like Julian somebody-or-other being phenomenally good.

So I can well believe Peter Bennett wasn't thinking about Kirk's possible final score. Maybe he just likes 4-large numbers games? As others have said, he's entitled to his choice. And he did contribute quite a bit to a memorable game. They should have given him the points for that declaration of ten

There's a real buzz on this site this week.
Will he or won't he beat the points record for an individual game or for a run of games?
Of course some will already be sworn to secrecy and know the answer whilst the rest of us will have to wait until after the b****y racing!
Why can't Channel 4 screen Countdown at a later time on race days?
I mostly use Channel 4 catchup in the evenings so a different time slot wouldn't make any difference to me.
I sure do miss it when there is a break in transmissions so will have to revisit some previous programmes on Catch up to get my daily fix!

Matt Morrison wrote: You're bang on Tim, impress us! (would give it a go myself but I forgot to wrote them down and just declared 817 like Kirk)

Spoiler space Spoiler space Spoiler space bloody hell, this is like old times!!

(25+9)*100/50 = 68
75*10 = 750
Add 'em!

Timmmaaah!!!

Congrats again Kirk on another massive score!

What I'm loving best about it all though is that, regardless almost of what's going on in the games, you are blatantly just having the time of your life. Lovely.

Poetry in motion. Brilliant.

Jon Corby wrote:Congrats again Kirk on another massive score!

What I'm loving best about it all though is that, regardless almost of what's going on in the games, you are blatantly just having the time of your life. Lovely.

I was having the time of my life. It was the best thing ever sitting in the chair, looking at the audience and meeting all the Countdown stars. Absolutely awesome - loved every minute of it.

Ben Hunter wrote:"Next up on channel 4, the Kirkulator takes on a TV quiz master, in Countdown."

I like how they even mention him in the idents. I've a feeling this is going to be an awesome game.

Is this true? Did I actually get a mention before the 3:25 airing? Wow.

All I heard was "after a game like yesterday, can we flummox the banker yet again?". At least I think he said "banker". Pretty sure he was talking about Deal Or No Deal, though.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:"Next up on channel 4, the Kirkulator takes on a TV quiz master, in Countdown."

I like how they even mention him in the idents. I've a feeling this is going to be an awesome game.

Is this true? Did I actually get a mention before the 3:25 airing? Wow.

The voiceover guy said exactly that, word for word, right after the daytime film was over (before the adverts started). Channel 4 must be assuming that the average Countdown fan at home is getting excited about and looking forward to seeing this Kirk chap who's pretty damn good at Countdown.

Martin Gardner wrote:No I'd choose one or two large there. If he's 19 behind then obviously he's gotta try and win, but he's nearly 100 behind! The only immediate example I can think of, is in professional baseball if a pitcher's got a perfect game going in the late innings, you don't try and bunt for a hit, you try and get a clean hit. I remember there was a little bit of controversy a few years ago when a player bunted for a hit and made it, but the score was onl 2-0 and clearly you've got to try and win in that situation. But if it's 12-0 I think you've got to give the guy a fighting chance.

I suspect this is not a very useful example, given the popularity of the sport in this country. Jason, if you're reading this, what are the Mariners like this year?

But what about a similar analogy from American Football, Martin? A few years back Michael Strahan needed one sack to break the NFL sacks record, and Brett Favre basically lay down in the last minute of the last game to let him get it. How much of a record would Kirk have if it had depended on the opponent giving up trying to win, and just working on making it easy for Kirk?

David Roe wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:No I'd choose one or two large there. If he's 19 behind then obviously he's gotta try and win, but he's nearly 100 behind! The only immediate example I can think of, is in professional baseball if a pitcher's got a perfect game going in the late innings, you don't try and bunt for a hit, you try and get a clean hit. I remember there was a little bit of controversy a few years ago when a player bunted for a hit and made it, but the score was onl 2-0 and clearly you've got to try and win in that situation. But if it's 12-0 I think you've got to give the guy a fighting chance.

I suspect this is not a very useful example, given the popularity of the sport in this country. Jason, if you're reading this, what are the Mariners like this year?

But what about a similar analogy from American Football, Martin? A few years back Michael Strahan needed one sack to break the NFL sacks record, and Brett Favre basically lay down in the last minute of the last game to let him get it. How much of a record would Kirk have if it had depended on the opponent giving up trying to win, and just working on making it easy for Kirk?

Well I suppose in baseball it's a pretty bad idea, because the game doesn't end until somebody wins. No matter how far behind you are, you can always win. But obviously if you're 85 behind at Countdown with two rounds left, you can't win! Again, it would be ridiculous not to try and get the numbers or the conundrum, but I wouldn't pick four large or six small there just because it's pointless. A bit like if I'm playing Scrabble and near the end of the game I'm getting thrashed, or the opposite, there's no real reason to challenge an opponent's word unless it's a massive score. If anything I'm glad if my opponent puts 25 because that's going to use up some letters and get us closer to the end of the game.

Oh, and nobody's said this because it's of little importance, but did you all notice the challenger asking for "consonance" all the way through the game? You'd think someone who'd been on 8 quiz shows including 15-to-1 would be able to pronounce a nine-letter word.

Martin Gardner wrote:...obviously if you're 85 behind at Countdown with two rounds left, you can't win! Again, it would be ridiculous not to try and get the numbers or the conundrum, but I wouldn't pick four large or six small there just because it's pointless...

But surely the "one strike and you're out" scenario changes things completely. It's your one chance in the spotlight (most contestants lose their first game), so if I were the challenger and clearly had little chance of winning by round 10, I might well decide to have a crack at both six small and four large to try and show what I can do.

Martin Gardner wrote:Oh, and nobody's said this because it's of little importance, but did you all notice the challenger asking for "consonance" all the way through the game? You'd think someone who'd been on 8 quiz shows including 15-to-1 would be able to pronounce a nine-letter word.

It's of no importance at all.

Martin Gardner wrote:Oh, and nobody's said this because it's of little importance, but did you all notice the challenger asking for "consonance" all the way through the game? You'd think someone who'd been on 8 quiz shows including 15-to-1 would be able to pronounce a nine-letter word.

Hmmm... just watched round 2 again and Peter quite distinctly pronounced the word as "consonant" each of the three times he said it.

Yes - "uncreate" is an odd one, meaning [according to Chambers Dictionary] to 'deprive of existence';whereas "uncreated" means 'not (yet) created' or (according to Milton) 'not produced by creation' - which, of course, means everything if you spell Creation with a big C.

John Bosley wrote:Yes - "uncreate" is an odd one, meaning [according to Chambers Dictionary] to 'deprive of existence';whereas "uncreated" means 'not (yet) created' or (according to Milton) 'not produced by creation' - which, of course, means everything if you spell Creation with a big C.

I have no issue with "uncreated" as an adjective, only with the verb "uncreate". It's analogous to the fact that you can say "the food is uncooked", but you can't "uncook" something.

David Roe wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Oh, and nobody's said this because it's of little importance, but did you all notice the challenger asking for "consonance" all the way through the game? You'd think someone who'd been on 8 quiz shows including 15-to-1 would be able to pronounce a nine-letter word.

It's of no importance at all.

I wouldn't agree with that.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

John Bosley wrote:Yes - "uncreate" is an odd one, meaning [according to Chambers Dictionary] to 'deprive of existence';whereas "uncreated" means 'not (yet) created' or (according to Milton) 'not produced by creation' - which, of course, means everything if you spell Creation with a big C.

I have no issue with "uncreated" as an adjective, only with the verb "uncreate". It's analogous to the fact that you can say "the food is uncooked", but you can't "uncook" something.

I seem to think I've looked this up before, and it basically means to 'destroy, kill, unmake'. So it's a euphemism.

Clive Brooker wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:...obviously if you're 85 behind at Countdown with two rounds left, you can't win! Again, it would be ridiculous not to try and get the numbers or the conundrum, but I wouldn't pick four large or six small there just because it's pointless...

But surely the "one strike and you're out" scenario changes things completely. It's your one chance in the spotlight (most contestants lose their first game), so if I were the challenger and clearly had little chance of winning by round 10, I might well decide to have a crack at both six small and four large to try and show what I can do.

I'm not saying he was wrong, I'm saying I personally wouldn't do it. And as pointed out, he didn't realise what was happening.

Tracey Lilly wrote: Of course some will already be sworn to secrecy and know the answer whilst the rest of us will have to wait until after the b****y racing!

Srsly?

That sucks harder than a monumental cock-up at the Large Hadron Collider

Martin Gardner wrote:Oh, and nobody's said this because it's of little importance, but did you all notice the challenger asking for "consonance" all the way through the game? You'd think someone who'd been on 8 quiz shows including 15-to-1 would be able to pronounce a nine-letter word.

Nah. I just noticed the great grace and good humour he demonstrated on-screen. It can't be much fun being lexicographically happy-slapped by Kirk with a million people (including your family and friends) watching.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?

Although I didn't spot it, I did know the word, and as far as I know it means to force something out of existence, to undo its creation, i.e. annihilate, make extinct.

Hmm. Sounds dodgy to me - to destroy something isn't usually the reverse of the act of creating it. That's like having "unbirth" as a synonym for death. I'm not doubting that it's in the dictionary, just unconvinced that it deserves a place there

And then of course these stupid non-words come back to bite you on the bum.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?

[...]

And then of course these stupid non-words come back to bite you on the bum.

Heh. It did cross my mind that Charlie had deliberately set that up.

Paul Hammond wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?

[...]

And then of course these stupid non-words come back to bite you on the bum.

Heh. It did cross my mind that Charlie had deliberately set that up.

There have been a few nice coincidences like that but I don't have the power to set things up without writing quite a lot of new code.

Another great game by Kirk but it's interesting how the nines can hide how well a player does over the course of the whole game. Using the nine for nine method, Kirk's score would be just 103 and Julian's 146 would be 110, both nowhere near the top of the record list. I think Tom Hargreaves has the record for this. He scored 131 with a nine, so 122 without the bonus.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:That's like having "unbirth" as a synonym for death. I'm not doubting that it's in the dictionary, just unconvinced that it deserves a place there (especially when a word in common use like "courters" is excluded).

At first glance I would agree with you, but really this illustrates why dictionaries used to be really shit before the advent of statistical linguistics. Every one of us has a distorted view of which words are common because we've read such a tiny fraction of all the text that's out there to read (and in any case are inately weak at estimating relative probabilities.) To illustrate this is in a totally rigorous way, I'll point out that COURTER returns 268K Google hits, whereas UNCREATE has 307K, with comparable results for the various inflections. So I think they got this one right.

Is FLID in these days?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Another great game by Kirk but it's interesting how the nines can hide how well a player does over the course of the whole game. Using the nine for nine method, Kirk's score would be just 103 and Julian's 146 would be 110, both nowhere near the top of the record list. I think Tom Hargreaves has the record for this. He scored 131 with a nine, so 122 without the bonus.

But UNCREATES, REEDLINGS and PREDATION are more obscure than some nines so I think I deserved a 9 point bonus. Now leave me alone.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Another great game by Kirk but it's interesting how the nines can hide how well a player does over the course of the whole game. Using the nine for nine method, Kirk's score would be just 103 and Julian's 146 would be 110, both nowhere near the top of the record list. I think Tom Hargreaves has the record for this. He scored 131 with a nine, so 122 without the bonus.

I don't think you've really solved any problems here. With your method maxes can still differ a lot between games, its just that the game containing 9s no longer necessarily has the highest max. What someone scores is dependent on a lot of factors: difficulty of available maxes, quality of opponent, strategic play (not choosing to risk words if it's not necessary or going out on a limb if you need to get back into the game, etc). As a result it's impossible to judge quality of play using a single statistic and there is necessarily a subjective element involved.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT COMING UP:













KIRK IS FUCKING AWESOME

Paul Howe wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Another great game by Kirk but it's interesting how the nines can hide how well a player does over the course of the whole game. Using the nine for nine method, Kirk's score would be just 103 and Julian's 146 would be 110, both nowhere near the top of the record list. I think Tom Hargreaves has the record for this. He scored 131 with a nine, so 122 without the bonus.

I don't think you've really solved any problems here. With your method maxes can still differ a lot between games, its just that the game containing 9s no longer necessarily has the highest max. What someone scores is dependent on a lot of factors: difficulty of available maxes, quality of opponent, strategic play (not choosing to risk words if it's not necessary or going out on a limb if you need to get back into the game, etc). As a result it's impossible to judge quality of play using a single statistic and there is necessarily a subjective element involved.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT COMING UP:

KIRK IS FUCKING AWESOME

Not usually good etiquette to quote a whole post like this just to say 'me too' but 'I agree with all of that!'

Paul Howe wrote:I don't think you've really solved any problems here. With your method maxes can still differ a lot between games, its just that the game containing 9s no longer necessarily has the highest max. What someone scores is dependent on a lot of factors: difficulty of available maxes, quality of opponent, strategic play (not choosing to risk words if it's not necessary or going out on a limb if you need to get back into the game, etc). As a result it's impossible to judge quality of play using a single statistic and there is necessarily a subjective element involved.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT COMING UP:













KIRK IS FUCKING AWESOME

In case it was misinterpreted, this wasn't meant as a dig at Kirk who is an all-time great at the game. I also quite agree that score (whether under my system or the normal system) isn't always the best indicator of quality of game. Kirk's max game was "only" 126, or 117 under the 9 for 9 system, neither of them records. And Paul Gallen's score in the CofC final was "only" which was also right up there in terms of greatest games ever.

However, people do still like to look at high scores for a bit of fun. And because the distortion of the score caused by the 9-point bonus, people have occasionally talked about the highest score with x nines so that they can have a proper comparison. So I think the one problem I have solved is to make this talk redundant. There is no need to segregate games in such a manner.

Edit - Also normal score, score with 9 points for 9s, number of maxes out of 15 etc. are all different "lenses" for viewing a game from different perspectives and can all provide their own insight.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:I don't think you've really solved any problems here. With your method maxes can still differ a lot between games, its just that the game containing 9s no longer necessarily has the highest max. What someone scores is dependent on a lot of factors: difficulty of available maxes, quality of opponent, strategic play (not choosing to risk words if it's not necessary or going out on a limb if you need to get back into the game, etc). As a result it's impossible to judge quality of play using a single statistic and there is necessarily a subjective element involved.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT COMING UP:













KIRK IS FUCKING AWESOME

In case it was misinterpreted, this wasn't meant as a dig at Kirk who is an all-time great at the game. I also quite agree that score (whether under my system or the normal system) isn't always the best indicator of quality of game. Kirk's max game was "only" 126, or 117 under the 9 for 9 system, neither of them records. And Paul Gallen's score in the CofC final was "only" which was also right up there in terms of greatest games ever.

However, people do still like to look at high scores for a bit of fun. And because the distortion of the score caused by the 9-point bonus, people have occasionally talked about the highest score with x nines so that they can have a proper comparison. So I think the one problem I have solved is to make this talk redundant. There is no need to segregate games in such a manner.

Another way to make this talk redundant is to stop harping on about it. Man Utd would rather beat Chelsea 1-0 in the Champions League final than Hinckley Town 42-0 in the third round of the F.A. Cup, but that wouldn't stop the 42-0 being a record just because it was a far easier game. You'd just be replacing "how many 9s in the game" with "how many points were available" which solves absolutely nothing and takes away from the spectacle of the game.

In short, what Paul said.

KIRK IS FUCKING AWESOME stop having a go at him.