c4countdown

You're not likely to have competitive QFs if you eliminate a fair few potentially decent/good players by pitting them against super players. Which is what has happened earlier this series.

What I was saying was you'd have the super player types and the potentially decent/good players (say on average about a dozen a series, just to give you an idea). You keep the super players apart from the potentially decent/good players in the heats, and of course you keep the 900+ super players apart from each other. But you don't keep the potentially decent/good players apart from each other. It's a case of letting the super players doing their thing and the rest just fight out it in a random draw, some will play each other with the weaker one eliminated, some will turn out not to be that good and lose to a mediocre opponent, some will excel and string a few wins together. You'll also by chance have runs of games where there are no potentially decent/good players on. In a typical series the super player(s) will get through, you'll have a few decent players who worked their way through and you'll maybe have the odd mediocre player who had things go their way.

There's not the contrivance (which has probably been complained about in previous series) because the lineups are essentially random EXCEPT for when the super players are on.

I'm with you now but then you'd have to argue who classes as a super player or a good player. Was Ed Rossiter a super player? What's the definition unless you give them an octochamp run in their audition and they have to score more than like 870 raw?

Pretty liberal interpretation of 'one-sided' in this thread considering we're talking about three people who can definitely win. Three-sided, maybe?

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm with you now but then you'd have to argue who classes as a super player or a good player. Was Ed Rossiter a super player? What's the definition unless you give them an octochamp run in their audition and they have to score more than like 870 raw?

Ed Rossiter wasn't. The 'super players' are pretty obvious, particularly these days. They're the sorts of players who'd be notching 900 point octochamp runs or close to it.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'm with you now but then you'd have to argue who classes as a super player or a good player. Was Ed Rossiter a super player? What's the definition unless you give them an octochamp run in their audition and they have to score more than like 870 raw?

Ed Rossiter wasn't. The 'super players' are pretty obvious, particularly these days. They're the sorts of players who'd be notching 900 point octochamp runs or close to it.

Craig, at the auditions we give the contestants 6 letters games, 2 numbers games and 3 'end of session' conundrums. As you know, the whole thing takes 30 minutes or so once the waffle is out of the way. How are we supposed to categorise each player based on the above? The audition test changes very regularly, some rounds are not what they seem. I used give the selection DEGHNROUY, and those who spotted GREYHOUND for 9 were far greater in number than those who spotted HYDROGEN for 8, yet the HYDROGEN spot, in my eyes, was better and indicated a top-quality player. There are not enough rounds at an audition for use to anaylse the potential of a contestant down to the very last molecule and we wouldn't want to do this anyway. It's a TV show as opposed to a scientific experiment.

When you say the quarter-finals will be one-sided, that's your view. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but if they are, then that surely means the semi-finals and final won't be. Maybe we'll think about penalising Innis, Andrew and Chris, start them off on minus 20 pts, just for being as good as they are.

Genuinely lost on what you are expecting us to do and what it is you think will make it better.

Craig Beevers wrote:Err no. The players who are the next step down from Innis/Hulme/Davies shouldn't be lined up to play those three in the heats. Simples.

I corrected the last word

With a fairly short audition, it could well be that Ed Rossiter and Ross Editor (or whatever they're called) didn't particularly stand out. Do you (Craig) think that they should have been kept apart from the big three anyway based on Scrabble form?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Ed Rossiter and Ross Editor

A-lol

Gavin Chipper wrote:With a fairly short audition, it could well be that Ed Rossiter and Ross Editor (or whatever they're called) didn't particularly stand out. Do you (Craig) think that they should have been kept apart from the big three anyway based on Scrabble form?

Ross Mackenzie

Takes about 10 seconds to figure out those two were both relatively good Scrabblers (rated around 170). I don't see how it is that difficult to identify their potential - even without that information it should be obvious they're good anagrammers. With others it is more difficult because they're more erratic, but that's why you would try and identify a decent number of them so you have a few make the lower seeds and produce competitive QFs.

In other news, despite my competence at chequers, I was not seeded at this year's World Chess Championship.

Charlie Reams wrote:In other news, despite my competence at chequers, I was not seeded at this year's World Chess Championship.

You weren't found eligible for the the draught.

Clive Brooker wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Gavin, I seem to remember that ages ago you posted an alternative method for organising a Countdown series, in which good players wouldn't be sunk for ever simply through being allocated an unfortunate slot. IIRC the scheme also retained the concept of an Octochamp, but there my memory ends.

Personally I hate the existing system, and suspect that for many people it is a strong disincentive to applying.

If it's the idea I think you are talking about, it took a lot of games to get through the contestants. Was it this? I'm not sure what I think of it now though. You can't get enough players on the show with it.

Yes, thank you, that's the one. I thought that recalling it here might stir things up a bit, but it didn't really work.

As a much simpler idea, for a long time I hoped to see a series set aside for unlucky losers. I suspect that such a series would, by some margin, be the strongest ever in terms of depth of ability.

Just a dream.

I think a series full of first time losers would be a bit tedious, but a 16 or 32 player knockout tournement inbetween series would be cool. I don't see why people who got thrashed the first time because they generally wern't very good should get another go but I would like to see people that generally would have won a few shows had they not come up against a super power. Phil Makepeace and the guy Charlie played in his final game spring to mind.

Douglas Wilson wrote: and the guy Charlie played in his final game spring to mind.

Junaid Mubeen? Or Steven Briers? Yeah they should both get another go.

Douglas Wilson wrote:I think a series full of first time losers would be a bit tedious, but a 16 or 32 player knockout tournement inbetween series would be cool. I don't see why people who got thrashed the first time because they generally wern't very good should get another go but I would like to see people that generally would have won a few shows had they not come up against a super power.

What I envisaged was that an open invitation would be made to past players who fell early and are still interested in the show to take part in a qualifying competition (perhaps something like the exam-style auditions which I believe were used a few years ago). The best would qualify for the special series, which as suggested above could be organised on CofC lines. I fully accept that this will never happen, but if it did I think the standard would be extremely high.

I didn't intend to reignite a "who deserves another chance" debate!

Interesting thread this! I've heard that the standard this series has been higher than ever before with Kirk's score being beaten and a load of highly rated apterous players on the show. Perhaps when all the high-very high scoring apterous players have appeared things might return to normal. Reading from another thread also, I don't think apterous has killed the show at all, I think its a great tool for people who want to practice hard or play for fun and brain train - wouldn't knock it for a second.

True to say that the standard is stunning. I played someone called Chris Davies the other day who when I asked, told me he was a recent Octochamp who told me he scored 892. From the letters A B C E G I L O R, I got what I thought was a fairly respectable 8 and that might even beat him until he got 1 better and to do that is incredible. Needless to say there was only 1 winner from that game. I've played Kirk also a few times and though I might beat him in 1 round, nearly every time he's over 20 points up on me by round 15.

Also from other threads skimmed through earlier this year I found out some contestants got a second bite at the cherry which to me seemed fair enough, afer what, 4000 odd shows I'm guessing, are there actually a shortage of contestants?

In regards to non-apterous players not wanting to go on because of the standard these days, I would understand but would think the overall friendliness and the experience of it would compensate for that 10 times over.

Tom Hargreaves wrote:Interesting thread this!

Interesting post this!

A beautifully written post. It's a shame you are not able to post more often.

Craig Beevers wrote:
Ross Mackenzie

Takes about 10 seconds to figure out those two were both relatively good Scrabblers (rated around 170). I don't see how it is that difficult to identify their potential - even without that information it should be obvious they're good anagrammers. With others it is more difficult because they're more erratic, but that's why you would try and identify a decent number of them so you have a few make the lower seeds and produce competitive QFs.

So i was right, you're pissed off that your fellow Scrabble buddies didn't do as well as they would have hoped, so it then becomes a fault of the producer. I understand you want..."competitive QF's"........there was a very competitive C of C waiting for you last year.

Oh and we do have very competitive QF's for this series, that's of course if you exclude the one-sidedness of all the Octochamps who'll be playing.

Anyone remember Martin Gardner, who used to post frequently? IIRC he only appeared on the show as a reserve because he lived in Leeds at the times, and he ended up an octochamp. Against that, there must be any number of people who scored well in auditions, but who didn't perform well in the studio.

Therefore, once you get past the likes of Andrew, Chris and Innis, seeding becomes such an inexact science as to be a waste of time.

Malcolm James wrote:Anyone remember Martin Gardner, who used to post frequently? IIRC he only appeared on the show as a reserve because he lived in Leeds at the times, and he ended up an octochamp. Against that, there must be any number of people who scored well in auditions, but who didn't perform well in the studio.

Therefore, once you get past the likes of Andrew, Chris and Innis, seeding becomes such an inexact science as to be a waste of time.

Yup, but what a great waste of time.

Having flicked through all of this, I still have no idea whether the ABSP will encourage or discourage players from auditioning for Countdown. In fact I hadn't even realised the voice of Scrabble had changed from Holden to Beevers part way through.

I also have no idea what Damian thinks is the best playing order for contestants. Random, arranged, somewhere in between - a bit like the letter selections.

Wake me up when another Scrabble player is on.

David Williams wrote:Having flicked through all of this, I still have no idea whether the ABSP will encourage or discourage players from auditioning for Countdown. In fact I hadn't even realised the voice of Scrabble had changed from Holden to Beevers part way through.

I also have no idea what Damian thinks is the best playing order for contestants. Random, arranged, somewhere in between - a bit like the letter selections.

Wake me up when another Scrabble player is on.

I've spoken to a couple of world-class players who've mentioned they may apply next year- Beevers-level players no less so it could be interesting to see how they get on, apterous or no apterous.

There may be more going on if Damo relaxes his rules on reapplications from under-18s who lost their first show.

Ben Wilson wrote:

David Williams wrote:Having flicked through all of this, I still have no idea whether the ABSP will encourage or discourage players from auditioning for Countdown. In fact I hadn't even realised the voice of Scrabble had changed from Holden to Beevers part way through.

I also have no idea what Damian thinks is the best playing order for contestants. Random, arranged, somewhere in between - a bit like the letter selections.

Wake me up when another Scrabble player is on.

I've spoken to a couple of world-class players who've mentioned they may apply next year- Beevers-level players no less so it could be interesting to see how they get on, apterous or no apterous.

There may be more going on if Damo relaxes his rules on reapplications from under-18s who lost their first show.

You mean like with Ross Mckenzie, who played in Series 39 . Ssshhhh.
I take it you're referring to wonderkid Mckay?

D Eadie wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:

David Williams wrote:Having flicked through all of this, I still have no idea whether the ABSP will encourage or discourage players from auditioning for Countdown. In fact I hadn't even realised the voice of Scrabble had changed from Holden to Beevers part way through.

I also have no idea what Damian thinks is the best playing order for contestants. Random, arranged, somewhere in between - a bit like the letter selections.

Wake me up when another Scrabble player is on.

I've spoken to a couple of world-class players who've mentioned they may apply next year- Beevers-level players no less so it could be interesting to see how they get on, apterous or no apterous.

There may be more going on if Damo relaxes his rules on reapplications from under-18s who lost their first show.

You mean like with Ross Mckenzie, who played in Series 39 . Ssshhhh.
I take it you're referring to wonderkid Mckay?

Wonderkids Mackay AND Shin.

Ben Wilson wrote:[
Wonderkids Mackay AND Shin.

They'd need to apply first, Ben - then we'd take it from there really.