Wednesday 9 April 2008, Series 58, Episode 67

[Adam Porter]

Countdown recap for Wednesday 9th April 2008.

C1: Champion Matthew Coates (3 wins.)
C2: Challenger David Sandbach.
DC: Susie Dent and Dr Phil Hammond.
CV: Carol Vorderman.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: N L A D N E E S K
R02: D T S I O U W T O
R03: T S A O L N E M G
R04: S N Y F U O A N I
R05: 100, 8, 6, 1, 8, 10. Target: 916.
TTT: RAISEFAR - "When they go down, more of us go up"
R06: E A Q T G O S R E
R07: D R A U R T I V U
R08: X D C I E I L P M
R09: L M E A C T E C A
R10: 75, 7, 5, 2, 8, 5. Target: 164.
TTT: UNDERSET - "They've never been taken out to dinner"
R11: L R S E I E N R U
R12: Z T B I E O H M G
R13: H R E O P T A N S
R14: 100, 5, 5, 1, 4, 3. Target: 926.
R15: C H O P S C H O T (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


Round 1: N L A D N E E S K
C1: sandle
C2: SNEAKED (7)
OT: KENNELS (7)
Score: 0–7 (max 7)

Round 2: D T S I O U W T O
C1: TWIST (5)
C2: ODIOUS (6)
DC: OUTWITS (7)
Score: 0–13 (max 14)

Round 3: T S A O L N E M G
C1: MONTAGES (8)
C2: MAGNETS (7)
DC: MEGATONS (8) MAGNETOS (8)
OT: TANGELOS (8)
Score: 8–13 (max 22)

Round 4: S N Y F U O A N I
C1: FUSION (6)
C2: FUNNY (5)
DC: ANIONS (6)
Score: 14–13 (max 28)

Round 5: 100, 8, 6, 1, 8, 10. Target: 916.
C1: 916.As C2 (10)
C2: 916.((8+1)x100)+10+6 (10)
Score: 24–23 (max 38)

Teatime teaser: RAISEFAR -> AIRFARES

Round 6: E A Q T G O S R E
C1: STORAGE (7)
C2: GOATEES (7)
DC: ORGEATS (7)
Score: 31–30 (max 45)

Round 7: D R A U R T I V U
C1: - (0)
C2: DART (4)
DC: AUDIT (5) DAVIT (5)
Score: 31–34 (max 50)

Round 8: X D C I E I L P M
C1: LIMPED (6)
C2: IMPLIED (7)
Score: 31–41 (max 57)

Round 9: L M E A C T E C A
C1: METAL (5)
C2: METAL (5)
DC: MALATE (6)
OT: MALEATE (7)
Score: 36–46 (max 64)

Round 10: 75, 7, 5, 2, 8, 5. Target: 164.
C1: 164.(75+7)x2 (10)
C2: 164.(2x75)+(8+7)-(5/5) (10)
Score: 46–56 (max 74)

Teatime teaser: UNDERSET -> DENTURES

Round 11: L R S E I E N R U
C1: LEISURE (7)
C2: RELINES (7)
DC: REINSURE (8)
Score: 53–63 (max 82)

Round 12: Z T B I E O H M G
C1: ZOMBIE (6)
C2: ZOMBIE (6)
DC: BOTHIE (6)
Score: 59–69 (max 88)

Round 13: H R E O P T A N S
C1: PANTHERS (8)
C2: OPERANTS (8)
DC: PHAETONS (8) STANHOPE (8)
Score: 67–77 (max 96)

Round 14: 100, 5, 5, 1, 4, 3. Target: 926.
C1: 926.As C2 (10)
C2: 926.((5+4)x(100+3))-1 (10)
Score: 77–87 (max 106)

Round 15: C H O P S C H O T
C1 buzzes on 1 second to say HOPSCOTCH which is correct.
Score: 87–87 (max 116)

Second conundrum: N E W T G I R L S
C1 buzzes on 3 seconds to say STREWLING which is not correct.
C2 buzzes on 20 seconds to say WRESTLING which is correct.
Score: 87-97 (max 126)


Further summaries are at:
http://www.thecountdowncorral.com/cd/se ... ?series=58

[Joseph Bolas]

For me, this has been one of the most tensest games of the series to watch so far. When Matthew got HOPSCOTCH, I got that feeling that Matthew was going get the 2nd conundrum to come from behind to win.

[Charlie Reams]

As I believe Mr Coulthurst has pointed out before, the maximum should be 116, since there's no way a contestant could actually have scored 126.

[Jon Corby]

As I believe Mr Coulthurst has pointed out before, the maximum should be 116, since there's no way a contestant could actually have scored 126.

Should David's score for % calculations actually be 87 then?

[Charlie Reams]

As I believe Mr Coulthurst has pointed out before, the maximum should be 116, since there's no way a contestant could actually have scored 126.

Should David's score for % calculations actually be 87 then?

Humm, I never really resolved this. In a sense it would be more accurate to say he scored 77/116 (66%) because the second conundrum is not part of the main game. But then the winner and loser have the same percentage score, which seems wrong. I don't have any brilliant ideas to resolve this problem.

[Jason Larsen]

Oh, my!

Did this game ever give me a cardiac, or what?

David deserved to win that game.

[Jon O'Neill]

Oh, my!

Did this game ever give me a cardiac, or what?

David deserved to win that game.

Oh jeeze mate, you had a cardiac? Are you okay??

[Jason Larsen]

Jon, I'm kidding.

But, I'm telling you, David Sandbach beat the terrific Matthew Coates in a tie-breaking conundrum?

Unbelievable!

[Jon O'Neill]

Oh, that's good.

It was a great game alright!

[Jason Larsen]

I'm just amazed, knowing we don't have game shows like that around here.

[DaveC]

I'm just amazed, knowing we don't have game shows like that around here.

It requires intellect. American TV companies seem to think anything that requires intellect wouldn't be suitable for a US audience, so I've been told. Though "The Big Bang Theory" has apparently done quite well, so with a bit of luck onwards and forwards.

----

I stand by my previous remark (all credit Charlie Reams on correct spelling of my surname, a rarity indeed) that the maximum is the maximum possible regardless of any additional conundrums since there are no circumstances where a score beyond that achieveable after a first conundrum can come about.

So far as goes doing statistical stuff on scores, as with the game of this thread I'd say things should be calculated based on the final scores.. the person did score X out of a possible Y during the course of the game, etc, etc. For maximums scored I'd go for calculating them out of a possible 16. Otherwise is it a maximum when someone gets one out of the possible 2 conundrums as in this case.

Effectively a person could get the maximum possible score having missed a numbers round (2 players max all the way except one misses a numbers the other gets, one gets R15 squaring the score, they then get a second conundrum thus achieving the maximum score, even though they failed to score in one previous round), a missed first conundrum creates a similar scenario.

It's a bit of a mute point how useful stats are anyway. We all know how a pretty solid performance can be dumped into the 40 points department by a phenomenal one. Missing two very obscure nines renders a score far below the maximum, etc, etc.

Though in the grand scheme of things it matters little of course.

DC

[Charlie Reams]

I stand by my previous remark (all credit Charlie Reams on correct spelling of my surname, a rarity indeed) that the maximum is the maximum possible regardless of any additional conundrums since there are no circumstances where a score beyond that achieveable after a first conundrum can come about.

Cheers, although I just remembered that you asked me not to put your surname on here. Oops. Hopefully your students will find your name equally difficult to spell.

So far as goes doing statistical stuff on scores, as with the game of this thread I'd say things should be calculated based on the final scores.. the person did score X out of a possible Y during the course of the game, etc, etc. For maximums scored I'd go for calculating them out of a possible 16. Otherwise is it a maximum when someone gets one out of the possible 2 conundrums as in this case.

Effectively a person could get the maximum possible score having missed a numbers round (2 players max all the way except one misses a numbers the other gets, one gets R15 squaring the score, they then get a second conundrum thus achieving the maximum score, even though they failed to score in one previous round), a missed first conundrum creates a similar scenario.

[/quote]

Yep, you talk sense sir. The best thing is to keep both maxima, then use the true maximum (out of 15 rounds) for general statistical stuff, and raw maximum (out of 15 rounds or more) for contestant percentages. I will do this on the Corral some time when I'm really really bored.

[Jason Larsen]

Jeopardy is this country has lasted almost as long as Countdown has in the UK.