c4countdown

Countdown recap for Friday 13th June 2008

SECOND QUARTER FINAL GAME

C1: In the champions chair : Peter Davies (No. 7 seed. 6 wins, 642 points)

C2: In the challengers chair : Michael MacDonald-Cooper (No. 2 seed. 8 wins, 780 points)

DC: Susie Dent and Alastair Stewart
CV: Carol Vorderman
OT: Other words or solutions.
DC: Appearing in numbers rounds is my solution.
GS: Generated solution (numbers round)

R01: N G P O A I N T S
R02: A E L Y M T R A E
R03: S C A I E B S P L
R04: O E A D L R E T S
R05: 100 6 2 9 1 10. Target: 550.
TTT: FLOGNEIL - "Back to front milk from start to finish"
R06: O E N R D X O E H
R07: J C L U E O S S R
R08: E W B O T R E O T
R09: K N H I O U L R E
R10: 25 50 75 100 1 1. Target: 454.
TTT: VINEGATE - "A 'no' to the undeveloped photo"
R11: S S R A E N G V A
R12: O U E D M N T A R
R13: M G T I O I N Q D
R14: 25 100 50 75 3 6. Target: 144.
R15: U G L Y L I N D A (conundrum)

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

R01: N G P O A I N T S
C1: POIGNANT (8)
C2: PANTING
OT: AGONIST, ANOINTS, ATONING, NATIONS, ONANIST, PANNIST, PASTING, POSTING, SAPONIN, SOAPING, SPONGIN, STONING, STOPING, TIGNONS
Score: 8-0 (max 8)


R02: A E L Y M T R A E
C1: RELATE (6)
C2: MERELY (6)
OT: MALEATE (KS, 7), AERATE, ARMLET, EATERY, ELYTRA, LYRATE, MALATE, MEETLY, MELTER, MERELY, MYRTLE, REALTY, RELATE, TAMALE, TAMELY, TEAMER, TERMLY
Score: 14-6 (max 15)


R03: S C A I E B S P L
C1: SPECIALS (8)
C2: SPECIALS (8)
DC: SCABIES
OT: PASSIBLE (8), ABSCISE, ABSEILS, PALSIES, SPLICES
Score: 22-14 (max 23)


R04: O E A D L R E T S
C1: RELATED
C2: TREADLES (8)
DC: DESOLATE (8), LODESTAR (8)
OT: LEOTARDS (8), DELATORS (8), OLEASTER (8), 27 sevens.
Score: 22-22 (max 31)


R05: 100 6 2 9 1 10. Target: 550
C1: 550. ( 100 / 2 + 6 - 1 ) * 10 ( 10 )
C2: -X-. nothing declared.
DC: 550. ( 100 + 10 ) * ( 6 - 1 ) ( 10 ) seems like the easiest way.
RF: It's possible using any 5 of the 6 available numbers.
Score: 32-22 (max 41)


FLOGNEIL -> LIFELONG


R06: O E N R D X O E H
C1: HORNED (6)
C2: HORNED (6)
OT: HONOREE (7)*, DEHORN, HOONED, OXHERD, REDONE
NOT: honored (X) but it's good in SOWPODS
Score: 38-28 (max 48)

* An HONOREE is a person who is honoured. honored with no "u" is a U.S. spelling only. But you can't have HONOuREE with the "U". It's only specified without the "U"... SOWPODS without the "U" only also.


R07: J C L U E O S S R
C1: COURSES (7)
C2: SCOURS
DC: CLOSURES (8)
OT: SCLEROUS (8), CLOSERS, COLURES, COURSES, CRESOLS, LOUSERS, SOURCES, SUCROSE
Score: 45-28 (max 56)


R08: E W B O T R E O T
C1: WETTER
C2: BEETROOT (8)
OT: BETTER, BETTOR, BOOTEE, REBOOT, TOOTER, no sevens.
Score: 45-36 (max 64)


R09: K N H I O U L R E
C1: HEROIN
C2: HUNKIER (7)
OT: UNHOLIER (8), HOKIER, HOLIER, HONKER, HUNKER, LINKER, LOURIE, LUNKER, NEROLI, UNLIKE
Score: 45-43 (max 72)


R10: 25 50 75 100 1 1. Target: 454
C1: 452. ( 100 + 50 ) * ( 75 / 25 ) + 1 + 1 ( 7 )
C2: 450. not explained
CV: 454. ( 100 + 1 ) * ( 75 / 25 + 1 ) + 50
CB: 454. ( 100 + 50 + 1 ) * ( 75 / 25 ) + 1
Score: 52-43 (max 82)


VINEGATE -> NEGATIVE


R11: S S R A E N G V A
C1: RAVAGES (7)
C2: GRAVEN
DC: SAVAGES (7)
OT: SANGARS (7), SERANGS (7), 24 sixes.
Score: 59-43 (max 89)


R12: O U E D M N T A R
C1: AMOUNTED (8)
C2: AMOUNTED (8)
DC: UNDREAMT (8)
OT: DEMOUNT, DORMANT, DURAMEN, ENAMOUR, MANURED, MATURED, MAUNDER, MORDANT, MORDENT, MOUNTED, MOUNTER, MOURNED, NATURED, NEUROMA, REMOUNT, ROADMEN, RONDEAU, ROTUNDA, UNARMED, UNRATED, UNTAMED
Score: 67-51 (max 97)


R13: M G T I O I N Q D
C1: DOTING (6)
C2: DOTING (6)
DC: TIMING (6), DIGIT
OT: INDIGO (JC, 6), DOMING (6), TIDING (6)
Score: 73-57 (max 103)


R14: 25 100 50 75 3 6. Target: 144
C1: 144. 100 + 50 - 6 (10)
C2: 144. 100 + 50 - 6 (10)
DC: 144. ( 75 - 3 ) * ( 100 / 50 )
Score: 83-67 (max 113)

R15: CONUNDRUM

:::: U G L Y L I N D A

..

..

C2 buzzes in on 16 seconds and declares.....


LANGUIDLY, the correct answer..


Final Score: 83-77 (max 123)

-------------------------------

Further summaries are at:
http://www.sooreams.com/cd/series.asp?series=58

DaveC wrote: R10: 25 50 75 100. Target: 454
C1: 452. ( 100 + 50 ) * ( 75 / 25 ) + 1 + 1 ( 7 )
C2: 450. not eplained
CV: 454. ( 100 + 1 ) * ( 75 / 25 + 1 ) + 50
CB: 454. ( 100 + 50 + 1 ) * ( 75 / 25 ) + 1
Score: 52-43 (max 82)

Tough selection!

Charlie Reams wrote:Tough selection!

Yup even with the two 1's included. haha.

Sometimes when I spot the odd mistake in a review I tend to send the person a quick E-mail so they can correct it without it's ever being there entering public domain. Seems nicer that way... just a thought.

Good job Dave O'D's infallible I don't know his E-mail address... which is unfortunate as our man gets more interesting with every intro.

I've been adding little further explorations of words and stems, sowpods related remarks and a new format for when to put the number of points scored after solutions (only for maximums or those that score points) so I've no idea whether these things are liked or not.. presumably nobody much cares one way or the other. almost inclined not to myself.

Dave C.

DaveC wrote:Sometimes when I spot the odd mistake in a review I tend to send the person a quick E-mail so they can correct it without it's ever being there entering public domain. Seems nicer that way... just a thought.

My solution to this problem was to write a tool that makes such errors difficult or impossible. For reasons unknown, most of the recapping Old Guard decline to use it, which is fine but makes me unsympathetic when obvious mistakes creep in.

I've been adding little further explorations of words and stems, sowpods related remarks and a new format for when to put the number of points scored after solutions (only for maximums or those that score points) so I've no idea whether these things are liked or not.

Not sure if this was actually an invitation for feedback, but anyway here is some:

• I like stuff about stems and definitions, because it's a good way to learn words and often quite interesting in a wider sense.
• The current Scrabble wordlist is usually referred to as CSW (Collins Scrabble Wordlist), to distinguish it from older versions and because the name SOWPODS no longer makes much etymological sense. WordBiz still calls it SOWPODS, presumably because the program's author is too lazy to update it.
• I find long lists of "other" words visually distracting; when it's a flat round with lots of DC equallers then there might be some value in listing all of them, but huge sets of suboptimal words seem unnecessary. Perhaps other people read them, I'd be interested to hear.

I really only care about the maximums, sub-optimal words don't interest me.

Martin

Charlie Reams wrote:Not sure if this was actually an invitation for feedback

It was, what people like or don't like is useful. No point wasting time adding stuff nobody wants. That's why the stats thing disappeared.

I'm not actually a Scrabble player but I do think it's relevant when a disallowed word is good for Scrabble players. I found a SOWPODS anagrammer here..
http://www.wordseeker.net/ anyone found a Collins Scrabble Wordlist one?

So far as the suboptimal ones, perhaps just the ones that use unusual letter combinations or obscure ones is the way to go about it. I did wonder about that. That has been the approach at some point in the past.

DC

I like nice looking suboptimal words. Like INDIGO. Pretty word, makes me feel happy inside.

Just a quick plug for Charlie's recap writer, I've only used it a couple of times for online games but it's dead easy to use and speeds the whole process up nicely.

Also,

Martin Gardner wrote:I really only care about the maximums, sub-optimal words don't interest me.

Martin

A "suboptimal" word in a given selection might be a maximum on another day, so I'm all for including unusual non-maxima. Plus some words are just cool and interesting in their own right.

DaveC wrote:So far as the suboptimal ones, perhaps just the ones that use unusual letter combinations or obscure ones is the way to go about it. I did wonder about that. That has been the approach at some point in the past.

That seems reasonable.

Yeah I agree with what Paul H and Dave have said; I don't think there can be hard and fast rules about which "suboptimal" (good term!) words to include for every round, but definitely disagree with Martin's stance of "maximums and nothing else". I mean for example, for last Wednesday's game HONOREE was listed in the recap, even though BOREHOLE was the maximum for that round; I hadn't seen HONOREE then, so if the recapper hadn't listed it, I wouldn't have seen it when it came up as the maximum in one of Friday's rounds.

Similarly, there may be rounds when DC get a nine and only mention that, whereas both contestants only had sixes; if there are sevens and eights available in that round, it would be nice to show them.

Personally I think it's better to mark the length of every word listed Dave, although it's not the end of the world if you don't; I'm a bit dubious about the value of saying whether words are allowed in Scrabble, because this isn't Scrabble, it's Countdown... then again, I know lots of 'crossover' players will find that useful...

Julian wrote:Personally I think it's better to mark the length of every word listed Dave, although it's not the end of the world if you don't; I'm a bit dubious about the value of saying whether words are allowed in Scrabble, because this isn't Scrabble, it's Countdown... then again, I know lots of 'crossover' players will find that useful...

Hiyo.

As you have probably worked out the rule of "show the points scored where points are scored" i.e. not putting the length of words that contestants didn't score with is that it makes it immediately obvious what was scored and where. That's the principle.

The idea of just including the word length (except for contestant choices that scored) where it is the maximum is to indicate at a glance the maximum for that round. Also it means I can fit more words on the line without it scrolling onto the next... which looks untidy in my view.

I'm just experimenting really.

DC