Has apterous killed Countdown?

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:59 pm

D Eadie wrote:Oh, and doing a quick calculation, there may be around 7 or 8 apterous players coming up in Series 61, and perhaps a few who will join after having recorded. We have around 110 contestants per series, so keeping things in perspective is pretty important here.

It might be interesting to speculate how many quarter-finalists will be apterous players (six or seven?) and how many of the shows will they feature in (more than fifty?). Thanks for your views, and it's good to see you're so positive.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:06 am

Incomprehensible as it may seem to many on this forum, just because a contestant is aware of Apterous it doesn't automatically follow that he/she will choose to use it to any extent. This certainly applied to at least two of the gang on my recording day (Jackie Baker and myself), so including Innis, awareness of Apterous that day was at least 50%.

Matthew Green · Post by **Matthew Green** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:46 am

Its also possible that some people might not care too much if they win or lose and would feel they have better things to do than practise. In fact, I would guess a large percentage of contestants would be happy to avoid being beaten by a 9 year old savant and anything else would be a bonus. Certainly the case for me.

Rob Thomas · Post by **Rob Thomas** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:35 am

Good thread this one Matthew.

I would say there is an increased likelihood of some of the top Apterous people becoming bored of Countdown because they'll:

a) whup most contestants most weeks from their armchair
b) see coming a mile off the kind of words that the good contestants get

However for me, the other million plus whatever it is watching and the other hundreds / thousands on Apterous who don't baulk at the predictability of SOUTANE and (yawn) LARIATS, Countdown is still 45 minutes of quality entertainment as Damian suggested.

Also, looking at the numbers Damian gave us (0.5% - 1% Apt), I second his comment about keeping things in perspective.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:40 am

Clive Brooker wrote:Incomprehensible as it may seem to many on this forum, just because a contestant is aware of Apterous it doesn't automatically follow that he/she will choose to use it to any extent. This certainly applied to at least two of the gang on my recording day (Jackie Baker and myself), so including Innis, awareness of Apterous that day was at least 50%.

The question is whether someone in your position, knowing of apterous and the increasing probability that you will meet someone you have no chance against, will decide not to apply at all.

Mark Harrison · Post by **Mark Harrison** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:42 pm

I can't find the post now to quote it, but I agree with the person who said that it doesn't really change anything. The top players have always invested time in practice aids, word lists, stemming charts and the like. It's the fact that it has now become much more accessible and fun that is the 'problem' in many people's eyes - but as Damian says, as technology advances, people improve.

If people don't like it because the majority of players are now better than them, that's a pride thing and is completely their problem as far as I'm concerned.

D Eadie · Post by **D Eadie** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:25 pm

David Williams wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Incomprehensible as it may seem to many on this forum, just because a contestant is aware of Apterous it doesn't automatically follow that he/she will choose to use it to any extent. This certainly applied to at least two of the gang on my recording day (Jackie Baker and myself), so including Innis, awareness of Apterous that day was at least 50%.
The question is whether someone in your position, knowing of apterous and the increasing probability that you will meet someone you have no chance against, will decide not to apply at all.

We've had around 600 applicants in the last 2 months. Jeffrey Hansford never used Apterous, he bought the electronic game. People like Julian Fell read the dictionary. Apterous to me is just a fancy extention of those really. You get out of things what you put in, and if that means sitting in front of a PC playing weirdos like Corby and Jono all week, then so be it.

David Roe · Post by **David Roe** » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:00 pm

It's perfectly possible for someone who's never even heard of Apterous to play Countdown every day of the week, if they want serious practice. Twice, if they watch the repeat. They'll get hoplites, tangelo, and even gentoo (if they're old enough) with all the apteroids.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:45 pm

David Roe wrote:It's perfectly possible for someone who's never even heard of Apterous to play Countdown every day of the week, if they want serious practice. Twice, if they watch the repeat. They'll get hoplites, tangelo, and even gentoo (if they're old enough) with all the apteroids.

And a lot of those players who would've been very good anyway will now find apterous and be included in the invading horde.

I think this issue has been seriously overblown (a new Corby standard player every other week? I'd back Jon against everyone except Kirk in series 60 and Kirk was awesome and well capable of threatening 900 points even pre-apterous). Obviously there'll a glut with Innis, Chris and Andrew coming up, but I don't see an endless stream of superplayers waiting in the apterous pipeline, and I don't think the distribution of the abilities of the top players has shifted greatly, or even perceptibly from the viewpoint of a casual viewer.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:58 pm

Paul Howe wrote:
David Roe wrote:It's perfectly possible for someone who's never even heard of Apterous to play Countdown every day of the week, if they want serious practice. Twice, if they watch the repeat. They'll get hoplites, tangelo, and even gentoo (if they're old enough) with all the apteroids.
And a lot of those players who would've been very good anyway will now find apterous and be included in the invading horde.

I think this issue has been seriously overblown (a new Corby standard player every other week? I'd back Jon against everyone except Kirk in series 60 and Kirk was awesome and well capable of threatening 900 points even pre-apterous). Obviously there'll a glut with Innis, Chris and Andrew coming up, but I don't see an endless stream of superplayers waiting in the apterous pipeline, and I don't think the distribution of the abilities of the top players has shifted greatly, or even perceptibly from the viewpoint of a casual viewer.

Yes, it certainly remains to be seen that there will be a steady stream of Aperoids applying each series. Maybe we've had a burst now and then there'll be a lull. Maybe, maybe not.

I think what would be boring would be if there was an equivalent online game for Deal Or No Deal. People would practise for hours and by the time they got on the show they would all have a system that works and easily be able to pick the box with the smallest amount left in each time and it would get boring. You might get the odd "flair player" who picks any old box apart from the £250,000 and leaves that till the end. But if he does make a mistake it could prove costly.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:46 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think what would be boring would be if there was an equivalent online game for Deal Or No Deal. People would practise for hours and by the time they got on the show they would all have a system that works and easily be able to pick the box with the smallest amount left in each time and it would get boring. You might get the odd "flair player" who picks any old box apart from the £250,000 and leaves that till the end. But if he does make a mistake it could prove costly.

Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:14 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:
Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?

No - sounds sensible to me.

Junaid Mubeen · Post by **Junaid Mubeen** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:17 pm

Right, I think I got confused. I thought Gavin was suggesting that practising DOND would allow one to eliminate the luck element. Reading it again, I realise he was saying it would be awful if this was possible. My bad.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:20 pm

What's especially bad is that not only are there loads of DOND applets on the internet, they've also released board games, handheld electronic games, Nintendo Wii and DS games (games plural) and even, somehow, a gamebook based on that god-awful show.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:21 pm

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Right, I think I got confused. I thought Gavin was suggesting that practising DOND would allow one to eliminate the luck element. Reading it again, I realise he was saying it would be awful if this was possible. My bad.

I think he was taking the piss mate, which is nothing like Gevin.

sarah white · Post by **sarah white** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:37 pm

I quite like DOND (mainly for the mystics and the superstitious, either crashing badly or chickening out of their 'definite knowledge' - never fails to tickle me!) and i must say, you could watch it a thousand times, and not get a system that could provide you with the big dollar! Agree with you Junaid.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:40 pm

I recall someone cracking the 'random' number generator algorithm in the early days of DOND, can't remember the details though.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:47 pm

I won the £20 jacker on a DOND machine in a pub once, so fuck you all. PM me for tips.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:04 am

Ben Hunter wrote:I recall someone cracking the 'random' number generator algorithm in the early days of DOND, can't remember the details though.

Yeah, basically they used to use Microsoft Excel's not-so-random random function and there was a pattern in the first 80 or so shows, but it wasn't exploited to its fullest. After that it was done totally differently.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:38 am

Ben Wilson wrote:What's especially bad is that not only are there loads of DOND applets on the internet, they've also released board games, handheld electronic games, Nintendo Wii and DS games (games plural) and even, somehow, a gamebook based on that god-awful show.

Yeah, my kids have the DS game, and it is just utterly pointless. The pub quiz machine works very well though.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:53 am

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, my kids have the DS game, and it is just utterly pointless. The pub quiz machine works very well though.

Are they any good at it? (the pub quiz machine, I mean)

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:57 am

Michael Wallace wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, my kids have the DS game, and it is just utterly pointless. The pub quiz machine works very well though.
Are they any good at it? (the pub quiz machine, I mean)

They never play either version.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:46 pm

I was just thinking the other day that when Julian Fell came along, he was completely unheard of and he shocked a lot of people with the level he took the game to. Nowadays, when someone of his standard comes along, you normally know about it in advance. You're unlikely to get anywhere near that good without a lot of training, and someone who does a lot of training is unlikely to ignore what Apterous has to offer. So I don't really see someone else coming out of the blue like Julian Fell again. And I think that could be a shame. People could easily just not use their real names on Apterous of course.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:18 pm

I don't think the above is true. Mark Tournoff knows Apterous exists, as does Paul Gallen, and both don't use it to practice on. Granted that they've both appeared on Countdown now and Paul studies using different methods for Scrabble but I still think there will be a few people who are very good from studying word lists or from scrabble or from studying the dictionary, without venturing online or onto apterous. Ed Rossiter isn't an apterite for instance.

Alec Rivers · Post by **Alec Rivers** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:14 pm

I know I'm a noob but I'd like to chuck my tuppence-worth in, if that's okay.

I would describe myself currently as a casual apterite and casual viewer of CD. I can well imagine, however, that the keener apterite / CD buff is likely to focus solely on actual gameplay and apterous's possible effects thereon, whereas I feel there is much more to the show which is being overlooked here.

The topic asks whether apterous might threaten CD's survival. Yet when you consider that many viewers enjoy the show simply as a pleasant and intelligent form of family entertainment, without worrying too much about how well they themselves can do in the rounds, then you might conclude that the answer to this question is probably 'no'. Someone who watches the show to take their mind off their arthritis for 45 minutes isn't going to worry if the score is 77-62 or 118-62. Just a thought.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:29 pm

Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think the above is true. Mark Tournoff knows Apterous exists, as does Paul Gallen, and both don't use it to practice on. Granted that they've both appeared on Countdown now and Paul studies using different methods for Scrabble but I still think there will be a few people who are very good from studying word lists or from scrabble or from studying the dictionary, without venturing online or onto apterous. Ed Rossiter isn't an apterite for instance.

I imagine Tournoff and Gallen would have used it if it had been around in their day. And no offence to Ed Rossiter but he wasn't in the 900+ league. I just find it hard to imagine someone unheard of will ever come along and hit 900. It's always likely to be someone that we're already expecting it from. But I'd love to be proved wrong - if only to find out what it's like.

.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:47 am

Alec Rivers wrote:I know I'm a noob but I'd like to chuck my tuppence-worth in, if that's okay.

I would describe myself currently as a casual apterite and casual viewer of CD. I can well imagine, however, that the keener apterite / CD buff is likely to focus solely on actual gameplay and apterous's possible effects thereon, whereas I feel there is much more to the show which is being overlooked here.

The topic asks whether apterous might threaten CD's survival. Yet when you consider that many viewers enjoy the show simply as a pleasant and intelligent form of family entertainment, without worrying too much about how well they themselves can do in the rounds, then you might conclude that the answer to this question is probably 'no'. Someone who watches the show to take their mind off their arthritis for 45 minutes isn't going to worry if the score is 77-62 or 118-62. Just a thought.

When I did my Countdown game, Des L said to me that the viewers liked to 'connect' with a player. So, I agree with you Alec. It's essentially a parlour game and that, I'm sure is the context in which the majority of viewers enjoy it and if the player is chatty and pleasant, all the better. Your post reminded me of my thoughts when I was catching up on the thread all about Deal or No Deal. As a fan of DOND, I realised just how many C4Cers are missing the point. The programme isn't about tearing through boxes to get to the one on the table to see what's in it. It takes 45 minutes because it's about building up your own emotional connection with the people, both the day's player and those due to be on soon and it also plays on the human interest in 'fate' and 'luck'. Different to Countdown obviously, but all part of the concept that it isn't just the mechanics of the game that make for a good tv game/quiz show.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:03 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:I was just thinking the other day that when Julian Fell came along, he was completely unheard of and he shocked a lot of people with the level he took the game to..

'A lot' of people being who, exactly? I expect the average Countdown viewer has no idea that this little community exsists and knows nothing of the opportunity to 'practise' in any other way than playing Countdown via the telly or DVD/boardgames. I certainly never thought there was anything more to an octochamp than just someone who had an enquiring mind, an interest in language and a quick maths brain. I didn't ponder on it much, really. And the 'shocked' element must have been a very tiny percentage of viewers.

Clive Brooker · Post by **Clive Brooker** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:00 am

Well, I must be in that very tiny minority. In 2002 I was a very average viewer and was totally astounded by what Julian could do. Mike Brown posted a note on his site just before Julian started, warning people not to miss next week because the game was going to be moved to a new level (apologies to Mike for a very rough paraphrase).

Craig Beevers · Post by **Craig Beevers** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:29 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't think the above is true. Mark Tournoff knows Apterous exists, as does Paul Gallen, and both don't use it to practice on. Granted that they've both appeared on Countdown now and Paul studies using different methods for Scrabble but I still think there will be a few people who are very good from studying word lists or from scrabble or from studying the dictionary, without venturing online or onto apterous. Ed Rossiter isn't an apterite for instance.
I imagine Tournoff and Gallen would have used it if it had been around in their day. And no offence to Ed Rossiter but he wasn't in the 900+ league. I just find it hard to imagine someone unheard of will ever come along and hit 900. It's always likely to be someone that we're already expecting it from. But I'd love to be proved wrong - if only to find out what it's like. .

Depends on the individual really. Someone like David Acton was pretty much unheard of when he did extremely well on Countdown and in Scrabble.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:52 am

Craig Beevers wrote:Depends on the individual really. Someone like David Acton was pretty much unheard of when he did extremely well on Countdown and in Scrabble.

But David Acton might have been on Apterous had it existed. Even if not, while his performance on Countdown was very good, by today's standards his scores would not be considered uber-excellent. I think he scored 486 in 8 games which is worth about 800 today. Even with a following wind on the selections, we're not talking the 900+ range. My point is that there will always be very good players coming from nowhere, but I doubt we'll see people approaching 900.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:54 am

Clive Brooker wrote:Well, I must be in that very tiny minority. In 2002 I was a very average viewer and was totally astounded by what Julian could do. Mike Brown posted a note on his site just before Julian started, warning people not to miss next week because the game was going to be moved to a new level (apologies to Mike for a very rough paraphrase).

Exactly. I don't think it required being part of "this little community" to have seen that Julian Fell was leagues above most other players at the time. Any semi-regular viewer would have seen that.

Sue Sanders · Post by **Sue Sanders** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:00 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Well, I must be in that very tiny minority. In 2002 I was a very average viewer and was totally astounded by what Julian could do. Mike Brown posted a note on his site just before Julian started, warning people not to miss next week because the game was going to be moved to a new level (apologies to Mike for a very rough paraphrase).
Exactly. I don't think it required being part of "this little community" to have seen that Julian Fell was leagues above most other players at the time. Any semi-regular viewer would have seen that.

Sorry - I didn't express myself very well. I guess what I'm trying to say - like Alec did - it's a telly parlour game. People turn it on, watch, play along or not, contestants come and go and sometimes a really good one comes along. But I don't think many rank and file viewers think of that person as 'an unknown' or are 'shocked' by it.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:32 am

Sue Sanders wrote: But I don't think many rank and file viewers think of that person as 'an unknown' or are 'shocked' by it.

Well obviously, because if a viewer doesn't follow apterous then any player is as unknown as any other. But I'm pretty sure anyone paying in half attention would realise that Julian was exceptional, even if they wouldn't realise how exceptional.

Stewart Holden · Post by **Stewart Holden** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:11 pm

To go back to the original question...

Over the 40-ish years that Scrabble has been played competitively there have been numerous developments that have changed the game in the same kind way Apterous has recently changed the Countdown scene.

When the National Scrabble Championships was first run in 1971 it was 17 years before players would even have access to a single, definitive word source listing what was allowed and what wasn't. Back then, adjudications were done by officials looking in the dictionary and making rather arbitrary decisions on plurals, derivatives, etc. based on how they felt about such things; it was widely known that a word could be allowed by one adjudicator and disallowed by another at the same event. In 1988 we finally got Chambers "Official Scrabble Words" which ended this palaver, but it wasn't available in electronic form and programs such as Lexpert and Zyzzyva were a long way off. Most word lists were compiled by sifting through the dictionary by hand, or published in magazines such as Onwords and treasured like gold dust. Computer opponents came along which knew the entire word list, but it wasn't until the mid-1990s that the full list became available in electronic, searchable format.

Throughout all of the above, whenever a new development came along that raised the standard of play for those prepared to put in the effort, there were different people who complained that the game had been killed off or was at least facing imminent death. Guess what?

Similarly, the practice of 'tile tracking' (keeping a record of the tiles played) increased the skill level of the game dramatically when it was first allowed in the 1980s; a player could now make better strategic decisions throughout the game and the endgame suddenly became the complex and challenging element of Scrabble that many players love. But of course there were those who said it was going to ruin the game and make it less enjoyable 'for everyone else', meaning it would die out eventually due to lack of interest. They were wrong too.

When programs like Maven and Quackle became available, players were suddenly able to play through past games and learn from their own mistakes with 'outside assistance' from a computer that knew every word and could analyse (or 'simulate') any given position. I remember people complaining that those who didn't have those programs would be at a disadvantage... yes, but what are you going to do? Standards will always improve, so you can either put in the effort or be left behind. I won a series of Countdown back in 2004 but I can already say that I wouldn't fancy my chances against most of today's top players who have honed their Oxford-based word knowledge and maths skills to levels that I have simply never had.

All I'm really saying is that change is inevitable, as are the people predicting that each one will cause the end of the world. Apterous has raised the bar, and other things will come along in future that will raise that bar even further (I can already tell you what one of them will be, but I'll keep that to myself for now). The days of a non-studier winning a series of Countdown are already long gone and the overall standard of play will continue to rise as more people from each series make use of the tools available to them. I think that's great

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:18 pm

Stewart Holden wrote:Apterous has raised the bar, and other things will come along in future that will raise that bar even further (I can already tell you what one of them will be, but I'll keep that to myself for now).

Ear pieces?

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:07 pm

Robots.

Niall Seymour · Post by **Niall Seymour** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:54 pm

I wouldn’t say apterous has killed Countdown for potential top players, because if they hadn’t applied for such a competitive series I think the likes of Jackie, Bob and Ed would all have had a realistic crack at being Series Champion.

I think what people take for granted is that being good at Countdown is a talent and I don’t think apterous alone can turn a rubbish player into a Countdown super power. This might be a crap analogy but say an 8 year old who has the potential ability to be a league one footballer, if they spend hours every day practicing all kinds of football skills and getting themselves into top physical shape they may one day be a good Championship/below average Premiership player but I don’t think that they could ever become a top player because they don’t have the potential ability.

All the recent top players (Kirk, Chris, Andrew, Charlie, Kai etc) were clearly competent players before apterous came along. With all respect to Jimmy who is a much better player than I will ever be, he has improved his game dramatically with apterous, but he is still not at the same level as the afore mentioned despite playing a shit load of games.

I play on apterous a fair amount so know a lot about the ratings. I would hazard a guess that if Jackie, Bob or Ed were on apterous they would be rated around 1200 with their natural ability and with practice could jump to the 1400+ mark. I haven’t seen many players recently jump from say 1100-1200 to say 1400, despite them playing a lot of games.

However it could be said that apterous has killed Countdown for the average man on the street who just wants to go on to have a realistic chance of winning a teapot as despite having a large vocabulary and a good anagramming ability they could get undone by a naturally fairly poor player; who due to playing a couple of hundred games of apterous knows words such as ORATION, ROMAINE, LIGATE etc that occur commonly on Countdown but not in everyday English.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:31 pm

What happens if you compare the top players who used Apterous to improve their skills before going on against those that didn't? Kirk Bevins, Chris Davies, Innis Carson and Andrew Hulme are arguably the best four in the former category. Then compare them against Julian Fell, Paul Gallen, Conor Travers and Craig Beevers. Which group of four would you back?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:41 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:What happens if you compare the top players who used Apterous to improve their skills before going on against those that didn't? Kirk Bevins, Chris Davies, Innis Carson and Andrew Hulme are arguably the best four in the former category. Then compare them against Julian Fell, Paul Gallen, Conor Travers and Craig Beevers. Which group of four would you back?

Honestly not sure, but it's a somewhat unfair comparison given that there were 58 series before apterous and only 3 since.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:34 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:What happens if you compare the top players who used Apterous to improve their skills before going on against those that didn't? Kirk Bevins, Chris Davies, Innis Carson and Andrew Hulme are arguably the best four in the former category. Then compare them against Julian Fell, Paul Gallen, Conor Travers and Craig Beevers. Which group of four would you back?

Kirk was pretty awesome prior to apterous, and would likely have

a) won his series
b) chalked up a huge octo score, and
c) be part of your second group of players

even without the apto-polishing.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:41 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:What happens if you compare the top players who used Apterous to improve their skills before going on against those that didn't? Kirk Bevins, Chris Davies, Innis Carson and Andrew Hulme are arguably the best four in the former category. Then compare them against Julian Fell, Paul Gallen, Conor Travers and Craig Beevers. Which group of four would you back?
Honestly not sure, but it's a somewhat unfair comparison given that there were 58 series before apterous and only 3 since.

I suppose, but they have still all been relatively recently anyway. It was just something I thought of so decided to post it.

Paul Howe wrote:Kirk was pretty awesome prior to apterous, and would likely have

a) won his series
b) chalked up a huge octo score, and
c) be part of your second group of players

Yeah, I don't really know how good he was, but I often heard stories of him never quite managing to win anything (like CO events, online events or whatever), but wasn't sure if this was down to him not being as good as he he now, bad luck or being Kirk the bottler. I did consider putting you in as an Apto-great but wasn't sure how much Apterous made a difference in your case either, and since your appearance was before Apterous I would have had to change the premise. But maybe you could just consider people who came onto the scene after Apterous came out, or at least people who became good afterwards (which would exclude Kirk) but not that much thought went into it.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:50 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: Yeah, I don't really know how good he was, but I often heard stories of him never quite managing to win anything (like CO events

He still hasn't

(for a couple of weeks, at least). Go back and look at some of the games from the dawn of apterous and you'll see he was pretty useful.

Gavin Chipper wrote:
I did consider putting you in as an Apto-great but wasn't sure how much Apterous made a difference in your case either

I wouldn't class myself as a great at anything, but reckon the skills I have mostly pre-date apterous.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:44 pm

Paul Howe wrote:
I wouldn't class myself as a great at anything, but reckon the skills I have mostly pre-date apterous.

Modest as ever. You are a great of the game. End of.

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:55 pm

Paul Howe wrote:Kirk was pretty awesome prior to apterous, and would likely have

a) won his series
b) chalked up a huge octo score, and
c) be part of your second group of players

If it wasn't for Richard Pay...

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:06 pm

Kai Laddiman wrote:
If it wasn't for Richard Pay...

Haha I wasn't that good when I went on the show. After my chance was gone, the only thing left to win was COLIN. I didn't put too much effort in, to be honest, but still enjoyed Countdown and tried learning obscure words for COLIN events. It was then that I started getting quite good but I still was nowhere near the standard I wanted to be. Even when I applied again, I didn't think I was ready to win a series but Charlie told me I was so I believed him. Luckily he was right.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:55 am

Countdown of the future... (excuse my general uselessness with computers / image cropping; if you have the time, expertise and inclination to improve this aesthetically, please do).

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=wkgv1l&s=7

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:33 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:if you have the time, expertise and inclination to improve this aesthetically, please do

I've given it a go http://www.skyleraltland.biz/Baby%20Gen ... k%2014.jpg