c4countdown

New month, same challenger can George make it 3 out of 3.

If anyone sees James Robinson please call 0500 700 700

Alternative 1st numbers solution (75-5) x 8 +(5x2) = 570

I like both these guys. George is a colourful and memorable guy and Anthony (sp?) just looks fucking excited about everything he does, brilliant to see.

Matt Morrison wrote:I like both these guys. George is a colourful and memorable guy and Anthony (sp?) just looks fucking excited about everything he does, brilliant to see.

IAWTP

Nice to see a Scrabbler win for a change.

Craig Beevers wrote:Nice to see a Scrabbler win for a change.

Oh right, thought he came up with some nice words but didn't realise he was a scrabbler. High up in the ratings or not?

It's amazing as so often you cry out for a final letter and out it comes. Round 3 I wanted a last T for TOMBSTONE and out it popped and I actually shouted out loud. How sad. In round 7 I wanted a final C for CHAMELIS and out it popped (beater) and then in round 9 I wanted a final E for SEPARATES and out that popped too.

Another beater with EIDOLON in round 6. The champ could have scored 7 for DEGASES (instead of GASSED) in round 12 but it wouldn't have made much difference. He could have also extended MINUTED in round 4 to MINUETED.

I think NIPPLED was there in one of the rounds

He's rated 150. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's high or not.

Craig Beevers wrote:He's rated 150. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that's high or not.

For further information, he's rated 191th of roughly 1000 rated players in the UK.

Kirk Bevins wrote:... out it popped ... and out it popped ... and out that popped too. ... and I actually shouted out loud.

I get that, too.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Nice to see a Scrabbler win for a change.

Round 3 I wanted a last T for TOMBSTONE and out it popped and I actually shouted out loud. How sad.

I thought "ooh maybe TOMBSTONE" after the 6th letter came out. And then if by magic, out popped the M, S and the T - was like )

And ARBITER as a DC-equaller in Round 2.

PEOPLED as a DC beater rd 6.

*hand up*
Just watched it and erm... what... what would have happened, had a contestant buzzed in with 'pulverise'?

Kieran Child wrote:*hand up*
Just watched it and erm... what... what would have happened, had a contestant buzzed in with 'pulverise'?

The same as what happened a while back, can't remember the game, where the contestant buzzed in and read the anagram. I still think it's quite dodgy grounds.

Darren Carter wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:*hand up*
Just watched it and erm... what... what would have happened, had a contestant buzzed in with 'pulverise'?

The same as what happened a while back, can't remember the game, where the contestant buzzed in and read the anagram. I still think it's quite dodgy grounds.

GERANIUMS and later LONGSHIPS, although the latter attracted less comment at the time.

Round 1 - RUSTLING
Round 6 - NIPPLED (already mentioned by Marc (which DC also got))
Round 8 - FASHED & FAKIES (more DC rubouts)

Darren Carter wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:*hand up*
Just watched it and erm... what... what would have happened, had a contestant buzzed in with 'pulverise'?

The same as what happened a while back, can't remember the game, where the contestant buzzed in and read the anagram. I still think it's quite dodgy grounds.

Nothing dodgy about it at all. Everyone knows that the conundrum is mixed up to begin with, and not merely an exercise in reading out what is already on the screen.

^ Not really much of an argument that. The letters rounds aren't an excersize in reading out what's on screen, but if a word comes up, then the contestants are still allowed to say it. The aim is to find the longest word from a collection of letters, and in the collection P,U,L,V,E,R,I,S,E there is a 9 letter word 'pulverise'.
It's a shame about this conundrum, after MINIPOLOS was brill.

Kieran Child wrote:^ Not really much of an argument that. The letters rounds aren't an excersize in reading out what's on screen, but if a word comes up, then the contestants are still allowed to say it.

The conundrum isn't the letters round. Also, wrong thread.

I must say I thought the TTT clue to ESCAPEES (S, K, Ps) was brilliant!

Kieran Child wrote:excersize

I feel this may undermine the seriousness with which anyone can take your argument.

And yet when James Robinson picked Sue up on her spelling, he was labelled an annoying fool

Kieran Child wrote:And yet when James Robinson picked Sue up on her spelling, he was labelled an annoying fool

And it would've tainted her intellectual point too, had she been making one. Difference is, she's just having a laugh rather than claiming to be an authority on everything in the entire universe.

ok

Kieran Child wrote:The aim is to find the longest word from a collection of letters

Not in the conundrum round it isn't.

Leaving aside the distraction of Kieran rabbiting on about the previous day's conundrum in the wrong thread, I'm surprised no one has commented on today's slightly risque scramble.

Kieran Child wrote:^ Not really much of an argument that. The letters rounds aren't an excersize in reading out what's on screen, but if a word comes up, then the contestants are still allowed to say it. The aim is to find the longest word from a collection of letters, and in the collection P,U,L,V,E,R,I,S,E there is a 9 letter word 'pulverise'.
It's a shame about this conundrum, after MINIPOLOS was brill.

My take on it is this. Let's say that neither contestant spotted the answer and it was thrown to the studio audience.

One man out of 100 people puts his hand up and says 'PULVERISE'. Do you think the other 99 people present would a) give that chap a huge round of applause, or b) snigger, guffaw and laugh out loud?

I don't see the problem with it really. It's all about challenging the mind and although this sort of conundrum doesn't come up too often, i think it's a bit of a change when it does and it also allows us to use those 9-letter words that have 2 possible answers.

Not had any real feedback on it so far, but i'd be very surprised if people genuinely felt they should get 10pts by saying 'pulverise'. Am happy to put it to a poll if there are genuine concerns and if enough people disagree with me i'll stop doing them that way.

D Eadie wrote: Not had any real feedback on it so far, but i'd be very surprised if people genuinely felt they should get 10pts by saying 'pulverise'. Am happy to put it to a poll if there are genuine concerns and if enough people disagree with me i'll stop doing them that way.

I think it's like the plural conundrum thing - it's obviously fine to set them, as long as people know in advance that it's a possibility. Maybe you could mention it in the rules you send people, then no one could conceivably complain.

D Eadie wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:^ Not really much of an argument that. The letters rounds aren't an excersize in reading out what's on screen, but if a word comes up, then the contestants are still allowed to say it. The aim is to find the longest word from a collection of letters, and in the collection P,U,L,V,E,R,I,S,E there is a 9 letter word 'pulverise'.
It's a shame about this conundrum, after MINIPOLOS was brill.

My take on it is this. Let's say that neither contestant spotted the answer and it was thrown to the studio audience.

One man out of 100 people puts his hand up and says 'PULVERISE'. Do you think the other 99 people present would a) give that chap a huge round of applause, or b) snigger, guffaw and laugh out loud?

I don't see the problem with it really. It's all about challenging the mind and although this sort of conundrum doesn't come up too often, i think it's a bit of a change when it does and it also allows us to use those 9-letter words that have 2 possible answers.

Not had any real feedback on it so far, but i'd be very surprised if people genuinely felt they should get 10pts by saying 'pulverise'.

My take on it is this.

The chap in the audience has the full 30 seconds + more to actually realise that PULVERISE is spelt out for him. The contestants are racing against each other, possibly to win the game. If, for example, I see a couple of Z's, an M and some N's, I'm probably gonna buzz in and guess MEZZANINE without bothering to check that all the letters are actually there, because it's very likely to be right. If it's not, fair dos, that's the risk I took (see Priesty with cafeteria - sorry Richard!) The point being people don't necessarily 'read the conundrum', as much as look for combinations of letters together to help them solve it (in the first instance). And as they're trying to solve it quickly, it just feels like a bit of a "trick question".

Charlie Reams wrote:I think it's like the plural conundrum thing - it's obviously fine to set them, as long as people know in advance that it's a possibility. Maybe you could mention it in the rules you send people, then no one could conceivably complain.

That's an interesting one too - is it actually in the contestant guidelines that regular +S plurals aren't used as conundrums? I didn't know it when I filmed, and it's actually a massive advantage knowing that when you see an S in the conundrum it's not gonna be a plural.

Will add this info into the guidelines, so people know that the conundrum will never end in S to make a plural word and also that whatever comes out in the mixed-up version will never be the answer, although i do find the latter pretty ridiculous.

Jon, i take your point about not reading the letters and just diving in, but that's partly down to the style of play for the individual. Innis prob would have spotted all 8 during his run, but jumped in and made a hash of about 6 of them. Surely the onus is on the player to be sure before buzzing and if not, then expect to pay the consequences?

Anyway, i'll not do these anymore i think, no real need, its not as if there aren't enough words to use that only have one answer.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kieran Child wrote:And yet when James Robinson picked Sue up on her spelling, he was labelled an annoying fool

And it would've tainted her intellectual point too, had she been making one. Difference is, she's just having a laugh rather than claiming to be an authority on everything in the entire universe.

Kieran Child six months ago wrote:I'M NEW!
Pity my lack of knowledge but be jealous of my youthful naivity.

Did something happen to our Kieran in the last 6 months?
Oh yes, he became a regular at C4C.

D Eadie wrote:Jon, i take your point about not reading the letters and just diving in, but that's partly down to the style of play for the individual. Innis prob would have spotted all 8 during his run, but jumped in and made a hash of about 6 of them. Surely the onus is on the player to be sure before buzzing and if not, then expect to pay the consequences?

Sure - and when I said above "I'd buzz in and guess..." I was just playing devil's avocado, because I'd never ever actually do that myself in front of the cameras, I'd always be doubly sure so I didn't make a tit of myself. It just, to me, seems slightly harsh to make the contestant double-check themselves in a situation they probably didn't need to think they had to cater for, and hadn't been told to. I fully agree that the logical thought process says "don't just buzz in with what it actually says", but then if you're racing against the clock, you don't necessarily allow yourself time to thoroughly think it through. If you actually realise that a word has been revealed as the conundrum, I'd imagine a lot of ordinary Joe's first thoughts would be "whoops! they've revealed the answer instead of the scramble by mistake!" and I guess then there'd be a pause, followed by "...oh, wait. Why is the clock still going? Has no-one else noticed? Is this correct? Is there another word?" It just seems an unnecessary complication to chuck in. UItimately of course though: meh.

Jon Corby wrote:see Priesty with cafeteria - sorry Richard!

I'm not offended.I guess at least I seem to have left a lasting impression.

I suppose the other thing to be wary of with double conundrums is that a contestant might simply know the dual-anagram and not need to do any "solving". If I were to see the scramble ARCHSTORE then it might take me a few seconds to work it out, but if I was given ORCHESTRA then CARTHORSE would be a sub-second "spot". This probably doesn't matter so much for heat conundrums but in the finals you might expect top players to be more aware of these words.

In the old days Richard Whiteley would introduce the conundrum by describing it as a 9-letter word all jumbled up (or something similar), so it was quite clear that the answer would be different from the string of letters displayed.

I must have been watching Countdown too long! It's plainly obvious the answer isn't what's initially on the board.

Maybe I take too much for granted.

D Eadie wrote:Innis prob would have spotted all 8 during his run, but jumped in and made a hash of about 6 of them.

The standard of Countdowners these days must be pretty high if Innis getting six of his conundrums in 1 second or under is considered making a hash of them. Just goes to show, Apterous really is killing Countdown .

(You meant Jimmy, right? )

Simon Myers wrote:I suppose the other thing to be wary of with double conundrums is that a contestant might simply know the dual-anagram and not need to do any "solving". If I were to see the scramble ARCHSTORE then it might take me a few seconds to work it out, but if I was given ORCHESTRA then CARTHORSE would be a sub-second "spot". This probably doesn't matter so much for heat conundrums but in the finals you might expect top players to be more aware of these words.

Good point, however isn't this the beauty of practice? Innis had LETISSIER come up as one of his conundrums and I actually predicted that LETISSIER would be one of his conundrums as the guy was sat in Dictionary Corner. I would be waiting to buzz with STERILISE. This isn't cheating - it's coming prepared. If you've learnt that CARTHORSE=ORCHESTRA, in my opinion you're not cheating - you are helping yourself solve these double conundrums quicker.

D Eadie wrote: Anyway, i'll not do these anymore i think, no real need, its not as if there aren't enough words to use that only have one answer.

I think the double conundrums are good. I think a few people will think "wow, PULVERISE has an anagram" or such like. It's educational and I certainly learnt from it.

I also agree with Charlie's point that you should change the stuff contestants get sent to include the non-plural-S-ending conundrums and then perhaps add on the end the point regarding these. "Obviously if the conundrum scramble is itself a word, such as PULVERISE, then the answer will not be PULVERISE. In this case the answer is REPULSIVE." I think a lot of people will read it and go "haha people actually buzz with the original word?!" but this kind of sentence stops those one or two people complaining if they lose on a crucial due to a word of this nature.

In short, keep these doubles in - it's good to see (and creates discussion)!

Well, I'm glad something worthwhile came out of what until Simon's post seemed to me like a really silly thing to be bothering to talk about. It's like arguing that if a footballer puts the ball in his own net it should be counted as a goal for their team.

Up until i considered Simon's point i too was thinking that i'd see it as a pity that double conundrums would be forsaken due to this thread, but now i've changed my mind. Take a look from my side, that relates to your (edit, Kirk's) hoping for the last letter point. When i'm hoping for a letter for a certain word that doesn't come out, i always find it more difficult to get that word out of my head and start from scratch. Therefore, similarly, i often find conundrums on the show a little more difficult than getting chat teasers/9s/apterous conundrums which are just jumbled up. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, the wittiness of the conundrum scrambles is a part of the show I'd hate to see taken away (the conundrums on Carol and Des's last episode immediately spring to mind). Not that i'm anti stemming and i'm sure this point must have been made many times here already, but for me the enjoyment comes from rearranging the letters and i simply wouldn't enjoy the slog of learning stems, although if the odd one happens to stick in my head from missing something in a game where another letter would have given me a bigger word, i won't complain.

Although I do admire the work people like yourself put into the game Kirk, surely an advantage on 11 random letters rounds is enough! The fact that you were able to predict a conundrum coming up i think adds weight to my argument although i have to say, that is mightily impressive. You big fuppin nerd.

Andy Wilson wrote: but for me the enjoyment comes from rearranging the letters and i simply wouldn't enjoy the slog of learning stems,

No-one says you have to learn stems. Once you learn a new word, e.g. OSTRACOD and then you see a selection of letters say in aptochat, TDCROASO, you can get OSTRACOD instantly. You don't need to do DOCTORS+A or whatever. This takes some kind of anagramming ability and you can just "see" the word. The only time I physically rearrange letters is if a conundrum has an ending such as -MENT and I block those 4 letters out. There must come a point where you don't see a selection like TDCROASO and go, CRO...nope, err TAR... nope err.... but just see the 8. Not sure if this was your point but the quoted part of your paragraph above seems to imply what I've described.

Ben Hunter wrote:

D Eadie wrote:Innis prob would have spotted all 8 during his run, but jumped in and made a hash of about 6 of them.

The standard of Countdowners these days must be pretty high if Innis getting six of his conundrums in 1 second or under is considered making a hash of them. Just goes to show, Apterous really is killing Countdown .

(You meant Jimmy, right? )

Sorry yeah, i meant Jimmy. Doh. Very interesting debate though all this. I think we'll definitely add some info into the guidelines about the conundrums.

Oh, i typed a reply to you the other day Kirk, but the board was acting funny. Eh, yeah, my point was a bit silly anyway in hindsight. Hard work deserves a reward. Thanks for the insight. Regarding the MENT endings, does this approach often put you off, or are you almost always correct in assuming it ends in MENT?

Andy Wilson wrote: Regarding the MENT endings, does this approach often put you off, or are you almost always correct in assuming it ends in MENT?

It doesn't put me off, it gives me something to focus on. If I can't make a sensible prefix I'll move on to perhaps -MEN or whatever.

Ok, well, i suppose i meant let you down... how often are you correct in assuming it's MENT, say, out of ten, if you were aware?

Andy Wilson wrote:Ok, well, i suppose i meant let you down... how often are you correct in assuming it's MENT, say, out of ten, if you were aware?

The naive approach is 17.6% successful if you consider all apterous conundrums (39 of 221 conundrums that contain M, E, N, T end in -MENT). Of course Kirk's intuition may be more successful than that. For more information see here.