Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.
Thought I'd get it in early as it's the last prelim of the series, year and Stelling era.
I wonder if this will go out with a bang. Well, we know who the contestants are, so I'm sure it's a yes without even seeing the show.
Phyllis Styles is our champion of 6 shows, so a win today, means she'll have to wait another 33 days to become an octochamp, as the next preliminary isn't until the start of Series 66 on January 9 next year
The final challenger of 2011 is one of our own, a newbie in c4c and recap terms, it's Jack Worsley.
James Robinson wrote:Phyllis Styles is our champion of 6 shows, so a win today, means she'll have to wait another 33 days to become an octochamp, as the next preliminary isn't until the start of Series 66 on January 9 next year
Is it straight into regular prelims at the start of the series, then?
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
Very well done, Jack! Jack was on fire, though has never been quite so hot against me on apterous (he is 2-1 down) compared to Phyl (who is 1-0 up). Good luck Jack for the rest of your run (assuming it isn't filmed already)!
Thank you all for the generous words. I certainly never imagined a margin so big after seeing Phyllis's first two games as I wouldn't have won by much. She probably got a bit demoralised after I pulled away and had I not spotted ADIPOSE at the last second in round 1, it could have been a different. It was a shame to see Phyllis go out like this because she was a great champion and a much better player than her score suggested. She was a great sport though and afterwards said that I would definitely become an octochamp. No pressure then!
Overall I was definitely happy with my performance but disappointed not to get the conundrum and also to miss a couple of words with OVER in them.
Jeff also pronounced my name wrong, it should be Wers-ley, not Wars-ley. Shocking since he actually got it right when he spoke to me just before the start.
In one of those interesting fun facts, Phyllis, as the last champion to lose, finishes as the number 9 ranked contestant of the series. Has that ever happened before where someone literally finished that close to being in the finals (without actually making it)?
Phyllis was playing for a place in the Series 66 finals. It's quite likely that one or more of the finalists in Series 66 will end up with inferior records. Should Phyllis therefore still be in the running for Series 66, and currently No.1 seed?
I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where people have failed to qualify in one series with a record that would have qualified for the finals in the next, but the difference here is that Phyllis was already out of contention for the current series when she started her run. I think something similar would have happened if Julia Wilkinson had lost her seventh game at the end of Series 47.
Clive Brooker wrote:Phyllis was playing for a place in the Series 66 finals. It's quite likely that one or more of the finalists in Series 66 will end up with inferior records. Should Phyllis therefore still be in the running for Series 66, and currently No.1 seed?
.... Phyllis was already out of contention for the current series when she started her run.
That is a very good point. Wonder if Damian & Co have spotted that? She ought to ask the question at least and establish now where she stands. My guess is that they'll say it's the luck of the draw i.e. just bad luck there were so many octochamps and near-octochamps in the series who'd filmed ahead of her. It's not a reasonable argument in my view but taking that line would save them trying to explain it to future contestants and the audience in 6 months time.
I don't think it is really. I mean, had Phyllis done her run earlier in this series, it wouldn't have been good enough then either. There's a big difference between that and not getting the opportunity to finish your run. So I think it's fair that she dips out. The timing meant she was never going to get in this series' finals either way, but that's just the luck of it - sometimes you'll have a long wait to see if you'll make it, other times you'll have better knowledge of what you need to do.
If her run starts one game earlier, she has time to finish her run with either 7 or 8 wins, and if that's good enough she qualifies.
If her run starts one game later, six wins makes her the carryover champion, and if that's good enough she qualifies for the Series 66 finals.
We have a situation which sits awkwardly between the two. I think it's a unique case - I've gone back as far Series 42 when the rules were different (you could choose whether to go forward to the next series). Plenty of others have started a run when unable to qualify in the series about to end, but the position has always resolved itself, as might well happen this time. I would say that due to the particular circumstances, Phyllis is effectively a participant in Series 66, not 65, and that the fairest thing to do is carry her 6 wins and N points forward to the next series.
Clive Brooker wrote:I would say that due to the particular circumstances, Phyllis is effectively a participant in Series 66, not 65, and that the fairest thing to do is carry her 6 wins and N points forward to the next series.
I do understand your view, but you're making her a very special case because of the timing of when she played - there could potentially have been other people who outscored Phyllis in this series, but similarly didn't make the finals. How can you make the case that she is deserving of a finals place when they're not, when both runs were contained entirely within the series' preliminaries, just because she started on that particular day? It doesn't make any sense.
Matt Morrison wrote:You both make good points. It's very easy to see it both ways.
No, Clive's sounds convincing and it took me a while to think on it, but is wrong IMO, providing you accept that the series have to cut-off in some way, and that the fairest thing to do is let the reigning champ continue in the new series. Which, of course, seems sensible.
Everybody competing in this series had to score n wins/n points to qualify for the finals. We know what that figure is come the end of the series, and hence we knew what it was when Phyllis played, but it was equally as true for her as it was for Andy, Bob and Charlie earlier in the series, they just didn't know it then. The fact that there weren't enough games left when she started is always going to be true of some contestants, but if they lose within the series then it's tough shit - in exactly the same way it was for anyone else losing on that score (or even greater, as I said earlier) earlier on.
Presumably there have been occasions where someone playing in the last week of the series has had the option to deliberately lose and guarantee a finals spot, rather than risk the next series being a really hard one. I wonder if anyone's considered it,.
Matt Morrison wrote:You both make good points. It's very easy to see it both ways.
The fact that there weren't enough games left when she started is always going to be true of some contestants, but if they lose within the series then it's tough shit - in exactly the same way it was for anyone else losing on that score (or even greater, as I said earlier) earlier on.
In every series there will come a point in the last few days of the preliminaries when, if the challenger wins, they will be unable to qualify for the finals. In that case from that day on they should be regarded as attempting to qualify for the next series' finals, as should anyone they subsequently play.
It happens that in series 65 that day came quite early, and not only that, Phyllis did very well. Suppose she had lost to Syed on Tuesday, and he lost to Jack on Wednesday. In my view AT THIS STAGE Phyllis and Syed would be 1 and 2 seed for series 66, though by the time we are at the business end of that series Syed would long be out of it and Phyllis's 5 wins would almost certainly have been swallowed up too. As it is her score MIGHT be good enough for a low seeding in that series.
Phyllis's final score, whatever it turned out to be, could only ever count towards qualification for series 66, so surely it should be measured against all the other scores that will count for that series seedings.
Keith Bennett wrote:In every series there will come a point in the last few days of the preliminaries when, if the challenger wins, they will be unable to qualify for the finals. In that case from that day on they should be regarded as attempting to qualify for the next series' finals, as should anyone they subsequently play.
But all you're doing is shifting the series cut-off from a sensible, clear, fixed date to some slightly variable date, usually 8 days previous. Why? What's the point? Why should somebody else who filmed a week earlier and (theoretically) outscored Phyllis not qualify for a series finals, but she should?*
*this basically comes down to "the luck of which series you are in".
Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably there have been occasions where someone playing in the last week of the series has had the option to deliberately lose and guarantee a finals spot, rather than risk the next series being a really hard one. I wonder if anyone's considered it,.
I remember Chris Kirby in Series 60 seeming destined to find himself in this enviable position, but sadly he lost. I'm sure it was discussed at the time.
(I wrote the next bit before seeing Keith and Jon's last posts)
OK Jon, this is why I still believe my argument. There is a point in every series when new challengers are unable to qualify for the finals (withdrawals excepted). It's unusual for it to be 7 games from the end, and it can't be any earlier than that. That looks like a good cut-off point; from that point onwards, all new challengers are participants in the next series. However, to qualify for the finals of their series, as well as having to finish in the top 8 according to points and wins they also have to win a minimum number of games (7 in Phyllis's case). How is it logical to require a small group of players to win a minimum number of games (not determined in any way by the strength of the opposition) before they can be eligible for the finals of any series?
Jon Corby wrote:*this basically comes down to "the luck of which series you are in".
Keith and I are both arguing that Phyllis was not in this series.
Yes. And you're wrong - she was. She only goes into the next series by being champion when the series ends.
There always has to be a cut-off. Of course, if they made no mention during the prelims of what series we were currently in, they could have their cut-off date (as they do know), then jiggle the schedule afterwards to ensure the series cut-offs we see tie up with what you think they should be. Then you'd be happy, and I'd be none the wiser. Although you'd probably then start noticing that the last few people up to your new cut-off couldn't have qualified...
Clive Brooker wrote:How is it logical to require a small group of players to win a minimum number of games (not determined in any way by the strength of the opposition) before they can be eligible for the finals of any series?
But that minimum number of games is the same for everybody else in that series - it's just that the information isn't necessarily known at that time you play. Towards the end of the series, people can know exactly how many wins/points they need to score in order to secure qualification, whereas others won't know this earlier on - it's completely down to the luck of when you film in the series.
The number of wins/points required is completely down to the luck of which series you happen to fall into.
Jon C, as you say "... all you're doing is shifting the series cut-off from a sensible, clear, fixed date to some slightly variable date, usually 8 days previous"
That's true, and I agree that seeking to do this certainly makes it harder to understand for the audience, for which reason I don't think it will happen.
But for me it still boils down to the fact that from the day she started Phyllis could ONLY qualify for the series 66 finals; it seems wrong that to do so she would HAVE to have won at least 7 games if later on others qualify by only winning 6, and with fewer points than she racked up. I'm sure we'll revisit this should that happen. But maybe they will carry her points forward - we'll see.
Keith Bennett wrote:But for me it still boils down to the fact that from the day she started Phyllis could ONLY qualify for the series 66 finals; it seems wrong that to do so she would HAVE to have won at least 7 games if later on others qualify by only winning 6, and with fewer points than she racked up. I'm sure we'll revisit this should that happen. But maybe they will carry her points forward - we'll see.
Not sure what difference it makes that Phyllis could only qualify for S66. Phyllis is undoubtedly a talented player, easily with the potential to win eight, but it's the luck of the draw. She's not the first strong player to run into someone like Jack in the heats - see Dave Dyer who came up against Ed McCullagh in his third (?) game.
As Jon said, even if Phyllis had won her six games earlier in the series it wouldn't have changed anything. It seems rather arbitrary to put someone in the finals of a series they played no preliminaries in, especially as it would give contestants at the end of a series an unfair advantage over the rest. If you're given a recording date that's six or seven shows before the finals, you'd be thinking "excellent, so if this series isn't chock full of octochamps I might qualify for this one, but if it is, and I only win five or six, I also get a chance at the next series". Why should someone near the end of the series qualify for a quarter-final place when someone in the middle of the same series who got the same number of wins and points (or even greater) doesn't?
Keith Bennett wrote:But for me it still boils down to the fact that from the day she started Phyllis could ONLY qualify for the series 66 finals; it seems wrong that to do so she would HAVE to have won at least 7 games if later on others qualify by only winning 6, and with fewer points than she racked up. I'm sure we'll revisit this should that happen. But maybe they will carry her points forward - we'll see.
But that's always going to be the case when you have series cut-offs - somebody will qualify whereas had they filmed six months later or previous (i.e. in a different series), they would not have done (or vice-versa). I don't see why Phyllis should get carried forward when her run was entirely contained within the series 65 prelims, while others who performed equally well (or even better) don't.
It's an interesting point that this was her situation due to the time she filmed, but nothing more than that. She had the same chance to qualify as everybody else who filmed in that series, it's no fairer or unfairer on her that she failed to acquire enough wins/points to do so than it is for anyone else who filmed earlier.
It does suck for Phyllis, a good player and good company. It was made worse by the fact that she seemed really quite upset by it off camera - she was thinking about 8, as would anybody with 6 in the hole, and she not only lost but lost heavily. Alas, there really is no way to change it, nor should there be. It was just one of the unpleasant realities of the set-up.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Also, would it not have been worse for Phyllis to have won 6 early in the series, probably (and entirely justifiably) assume she'd done enough to make it back, then have to watch the rest of the series unfurl as she slides down the leaderboard, painfully just missing out. That's what Matt Croy, a quality player and guy, had to do. And that's surely got to be worse. It sucks for anybody to win that many and not make it back - unfortunately, though, it's just something we're stuck with. It cannot and need not change.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Michael Wallace wrote:Presumably there have been occasions where someone playing in the last week of the series has had the option to deliberately lose and guarantee a finals spot, rather than risk the next series being a really hard one. I wonder if anyone's considered it,.
My suggestion there might seem a bit over-the-top, but if you're going to have this cut-off thing at all that Clive and Keith have suggested at all, I think it makes sense to say anyone who starts with less than 8 games to go is only eligible for the next series. I think if you look at the current seeds and do it on the fly, it makes things a lot messier. I could some up with some scenarios but I can't be bothered.
