A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
I was trying to set a new record time by buzzing in straight away, but that only gives you 2 seconds to solve the conundrum, and we all know how good I am at those... Also I think the bots of old were a lot less random in the time it took them to get the conundrum, so that probably explains the 4.5s.Kai Laddiman wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=1895
Every conundrum was got by Apterous on 4.5 secs. Strange. And Charlie got minced!
God Ben, Ollie's only 14!Ben Hunter wrote:My personal record for number of genital words in one game is two: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=9669
Exactly - it's about time he knew what a vagina was.Kai Laddiman wrote:God Ben, Ollie's only 14!Ben Hunter wrote:My personal record for number of genital words in one game is two: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=9669
Aye, there's the rub.Dinos Sfyris wrote:Haha FROTTAGE in round 1
After I finished my run on the TV I was in the audience for the next game and FROTTAGE appeared in the very first round. I was so annoyed that I never got to say itDinos Sfyris wrote:Haha FROTTAGE in round 1
Oliver Garner wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=10440
Guess which six letter word i was thinking of before i saw sucked
I don't have a clue. Can you give us a hint?Oliver Garner wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=10440
Guess which six letter word i was thinking of before i saw sucked
I have seen easier than that. For example, target 101, when 100 and 1 are both in the selection.
And still Prune manages to find a way to screw it up.Howard Somerset wrote:I have seen easier than that. For example, target 101, when 100 and 1 are both in the selection.
Sometimes the bots miss easy numbers, but then they get a very hard numbers and it is bafflingBen Wilson wrote:And still Prune manages to find a way to screw it up.Howard Somerset wrote:I have seen easier than that. For example, target 101, when 100 and 1 are both in the selection.
I tell you what is very strange - why don't you ever play humans? That way it's not as baffling. I'm baffled.Joseph Bolas wrote: Sometimes the bots miss easy numbers, but then they get a very hard numbers and it is baffling
He always leaves the room when you beat him.Oliver Garner wrote:In a speed 9 against chris maudsley, i took him to a crucial conundrum with me 1 point down, with about one second left i did a random guess only to realise what it was halfway through my guess. fortunately chris had left the room and it didnt count. but we did replay the conundrum but neither player got it
Phil Reynolds wrote:Aye, there's the rub.Dinos Sfyris wrote:Haha FROTTAGE in round 1
Yeah, I'm not a fan of playing against him. I have been doing extensive conundrum practice this weekend as that is one of my weaknesses and he kept challenging me to a numbers shootout - I didn't want one of those as I don't need numbers practice (if he'd checked game browser, it was quite evident I was doing loads of conundrums) yet he still kept challenging me till I gave in, accepted, beat him, and the challenges stopped. Phew.Ben Hunter wrote:He always leaves the room when you beat him.Oliver Garner wrote:In a speed 9 against chris maudsley, i took him to a crucial conundrum with me 1 point down, with about one second left i did a random guess only to realise what it was halfway through my guess. fortunately chris had left the room and it didnt count. but we did replay the conundrum but neither player got it
He wasn't even losing though and he still quitKirk Bevins wrote:Yeah, I'm not a fan of playing against him. I have been doing extensive conundrum practice this weekend as that is one of my weaknesses and he kept challenging me to a numbers shootout - I didn't want one of those as I don't need numbers practice (if he'd checked game browser, it was quite evident I was doing loads of conundrums) yet he still kept challenging me till I gave in, accepted, beat him, and the challenges stopped. Phew.Ben Hunter wrote:He always leaves the room when you beat him.Oliver Garner wrote:In a speed 9 against chris maudsley, i took him to a crucial conundrum with me 1 point down, with about one second left i did a random guess only to realise what it was halfway through my guess. fortunately chris had left the room and it didnt count. but we did replay the conundrum but neither player got it
But if it was a crucial conundrum and you buzzed, he probably feared the worst.Oliver Garner wrote:He wasn't even losing though and he still quit
You spelt it wrong.
No. I got the points. I spelt it right.Kai Laddiman wrote:You spelt it wrong.
After Kirk said this about me, then I suppose in his eyes (at least), this would be classed as a "Strange Game"Kirk Bevins wrote:I tell you what is very strange - why don't you ever play humans? That way it's not as baffling. I'm baffled.
Excellent. Yes, it is very strange.Joseph Bolas wrote:After Kirk said this about me, then I suppose in his eyes (at least), this would be classed as a "Strange Game"Kirk Bevins wrote:I tell you what is very strange - why don't you ever play humans? That way it's not as baffling. I'm baffled.
These are both Goatdown games, so these records can definitely be beatenKai Laddiman wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=9035
Seven 9's?! And PETITION + S...
Edit: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=9213
Eight 9's?! And REQUITAL + S...
).OXALIC does indeed only appear with OXALIC ACID and is therefore classed as a compound word (excuse the slight chemical pun). Chris Wills had MISTLE disallowed but it occurs as part of MISTLE THRUSH. It's part of the rules as you'd never use the word OXALIC without ACID attached to it --- apparently.Phil Reynolds wrote:In round 1 of this game:
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=11974
I noted OXTAIL, then OXALIC. When it came time to declare, I figured the ODE (with its bizarre ideas about hyphenation) might not like OXTAIL, so I went for OXALIC as the 'safe' option - and it was disallowed. Anyone any idea why? Is it that it doesn't have an entry to itself, only appearing as part of the term 'oxalic acid'? If so, that seems a somewhat harsh rule. It's still a word.
Even so, it's still a word. But it might be to "ensure equality" with words that are the second part of compound words, and would be disallowed as you wouldn't be able to find them without looking them up by the first part. I'm not sure if there are any of these though.Kirk Bevins wrote:OXALIC does indeed only appear with OXALIC ACID and is therefore classed as a compound word (excuse the slight chemical pun). Chris Wills had MISTLE disallowed but it occurs as part of MISTLE THRUSH. It's part of the rules as you'd never use the word OXALIC without ACID attached to it --- apparently.Phil Reynolds wrote:In round 1 of this game:
http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=11974
I noted OXTAIL, then OXALIC. When it came time to declare, I figured the ODE (with its bizarre ideas about hyphenation) might not like OXTAIL, so I went for OXALIC as the 'safe' option - and it was disallowed. Anyone any idea why? Is it that it doesn't have an entry to itself, only appearing as part of the term 'oxalic acid'? If so, that seems a somewhat harsh rule. It's still a word.
Yeah, that's the reason for the rule in Scrabble and I believe the Countdown rule was drawn from there, although in Scrabble the rule has been loosened somewhat.Gavin Chipper wrote:Even so, it's still a word. But it might be to "ensure equality" with words that are the second part of compound words, and would be disallowed as you wouldn't be able to find them without looking them up by the first part. I'm not sure if there are any of these though.
I did a Carol-beater in a hyper Duel once too (4th round of this game)Joseph Bolas wrote:I had to therefore give up and quite surprisingly "Carol" could only get 2 away with 9900 (but not 1 away, like I had done, with 9901).
Yep, Carol only gets 5 seconds to think which is not much in Hyper, but I couldn't allow Hyper numbers games to crunch the server for everyone else, so occasionally she'll miss something.Joseph Bolas wrote: I had to therefore give up and quite surprisingly "Carol" could only get 2 away with 9900 (but not 1 away, like I had done, with 9901).
Even in normal games? So it might be possible for a game to have a max of 110 but you've scored say 113 as you got the numbers spot on and Carol thought 1 away was the closest you could get?Charlie Reams wrote:Yep, Carol only gets 5 seconds to think which is not much in Hyper, but I couldn't allow Hyper numbers games to crunch the server for everyone else, so occasionally she'll miss something.Joseph Bolas wrote: I had to therefore give up and quite surprisingly "Carol" could only get 2 away with 9900 (but not 1 away, like I had done, with 9901).
She solves most normal numbers games in around 0.2 seconds so it's very unlikely that she would miss anything. But admittedly it's not impossible, and the calculated max should really include Carol beaters, which currently it doesn't.Kirk Bevins wrote:Even in normal games? So it might be possible for a game to have a max of 110 but you've scored say 113 as you got the numbers spot on and Carol thought 1 away was the closest you could get?
OK - thanks for clearing that up mate.Charlie Reams wrote:She solves most normal numbers games in around 0.2 seconds so it's very unlikely that she would miss anything. But admittedly it's not impossible, and the calculated max should really include Carol beaters, which currently it doesn't.Kirk Bevins wrote:Even in normal games? So it might be possible for a game to have a max of 110 but you've scored say 113 as you got the numbers spot on and Carol thought 1 away was the closest you could get?
Thank you for explaining thatCharlie Reams wrote:Yep, Carol only gets 5 seconds to think which is not much in Hyper, but I couldn't allow Hyper numbers games to crunch the server for everyone else, so occasionally she'll miss something.Joseph Bolas wrote: I had to therefore give up and quite surprisingly "Carol" could only get 2 away with 9900 (but not 1 away, like I had done, with 9901).
. I beat Carol yay me In Hyper, that might well be the reason. In Standard it's very unlikely to be Carol; it might either be the network or server being generally a bit slow, or (if you're playing a bot) it might be the bot thinking about its solution, which takes a bit longer than Carol does.Joseph Bolas wrote:Thank you for explaining that
So does that explain then, when sometimes you end a numbers round early and theres a pause before the solution box comes up, it's because Carol is thinking then of a solution for the numbers (incase you misdeclare/give up)?
That's nothing. Once he/she/it declared a word that was both real and in the selection. I think for Prune that's probably rarer!Kai Laddiman wrote:I remember one game where Prune declared a word that was neither a real word nor was it in the selection
Yeah, OCARINAS + T. Wow, OLO-whatever for the conundrum - quality spot Jim.Innis Carson wrote:http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=16343
Round 6 is clearly divine intervention.