Tuesday 1st February 2011 (Series 64, Prelim 17)

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:42 pm

I have a massive headache from playing Crash Bandicoot Warped all day. As such today's recap will be brief, very brief.

Countdown recap for Tuesday 1 February 2011.

C1: Champion Dave Dyer (1 win, 89 points.)
C2: Challenger Thom Archer.
DC: Susie Dent and Gregg Wallace.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: S X E O R T A M E
R02: E I A R N V H E D
R03: Q A O P L N I W S
R04: R T O U G D E I S
R05: 25, 1, 10, 4, 10, 5. Target: 818.
TTT: TOMGRINS - "Norman blazes off after a terrific performance"
R06: O E L V O T C S E
R07: R Z C A I O F S A
R08: R N S P E I E T N
R09: S R A E M L U C L
R10: 50, 75, 6, 9, 8, 7. Target: 935.
TTT: REDWHITE - "Red or white it's still extremely dry"
R11: W J K A E A Y R N
R12: D I E T G D O B I
R13: D P T U A E G M O
R14: 25, 75, 7, 8, 10, 1. Target: 999.
R15: R E C A P G A S P (conundrum)

And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

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

Dave Dyer impressed yesterday on his debut. Can he continue that way?

Thom Archer a music technology student at Leeds Metropolitan faces Dave. He has 3 wishes in life, solve world hunger, world peace and win a teapot. Hmmm...

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: S X E O R T A M E

C1: MAESTRO (7)
C2: MOATS (5)
DC: REMOTES (7) STEAMER (7)
OT: EMOTERS (7) METEORS (7) EXTREMA (7) ROSEATE (7) TEAMERS (7)
Score: 7–0 (max 7)

Maxed.

Round 2: E I A R N V H E D

C1: HEAVIER (7)
C2: DRIVEN (6)
DC: RAVINED (7) REINVADE (8)
Score: 14–0 (max 15)

Beaters.

Round 3: Q A O P L N I W S

C1: PLAINS (6)
C2: plows
DC: inlaws
OT: LOWANS (6) NOPALS (6) PIANOS (6) SPINAL (6) POWANS (6)
Score: 20–0 (max 21)

Americanness.

Round 4: R T O U G D E I S

C1: OUTRIDES (8)
C2: STORED (6)
OT: OUTSIDER (8) STODGIER (8)
Score: 28–0 (max 29)

Bagel!

Round 5: 25, 1, 10, 4, 10, 5. Target: 818.

C1: 815. (4*25-10)*(10-1)+5 (7)
C2: 825.
OT: 819. (10*5-10-1)*(25-4) (7)
Score: 35–0 (max 36)

Impossible.

DC Guest Time: Gregg talks about food.

Teatime teaser: TOMGRINS -> STORMING

Round 6: O E L V O T C S E

C1: COOLEST (7)
C2: CLOVES (6)
DC: OCELOTS (7)
Score: 42–0 (max 43)

Anagrams.

Round 7: R Z C A I O F S A

C1: FRACAS (6)
C2: -
DC: SCARF (5) FIASCO (6)
OT: FACIAS (6) FASCIA (6) SAFARI (6) SCORIA (6)
Score: 48–0 (max 49)

Sixes.

Round 8: R N S P E I E T N

C1: PRESENT (7)
C2: respin
DC: SPINNERET (18)
Score: 55–0 (max 67)

Niner.

Round 9: S R A E M L U C L

C1: CALLERS (7)
C2: MUSCLE (6)
DC: CELLARS (7) MULLERS (7)
OT: ALLURES (7) LAURELS (7) RECALLS (7) SCLERAL (7) CULLERS (7) SCULLER (7) MACULES (7) MALLEUS (7) MARCELS (7) RECUSAL (7) SECULAR (7) SMALLER (7)
Score: 62–0 (max 74)

Flattie.

Origin's of Words Susie talks about MUSSEL.

Round 10: 50, 75, 6, 9, 8, 7. Target: 935.

C1: 934. (6+7)*75-50+9 (7)
C2: -
RR: 935. (50+75-7)*8-9 (10)
Score: 69–0 (max 84)

Toughie.

Teatime teaser: REDWHITE -> WITHERED

Round 11: W J K A E A Y R N

C1: WANKER (6)
C2: AWAKEN (6)
DC: YAWNER (6)
OT: AWEARY (6)
Score: 75–6 (max 90)

Bleeped.

Round 12: D I E T G D O B I

C1: BIGOTED (7)
C2: BIGOTED (7)
Score: 82–13 (max 97)

Standout.

Round 13: D P T U A E G M O

C1: OUTAGE (6)
C2: UPDATE (6)
OT: DOTAGE (6) MOATED (6) POMADE (6) POTAGE (6) POUTED (6) TAMPED (6)
Score: 88–19 (max 103)

Boring.

Round 14: 25, 75, 7, 8, 10, 1. Target: 999.

C1: 999. (75+25)*10-1 (10)
C2: 999. (75+25)*10-1 (10)
Score: 98–29 (max 113)

Emergency.

Round 15: R E C A P G A S P

C1 buzzes on 5 seconds to say SCRAPPAGE which is correct.
Final Score: 108–29 (max 123)

Personal?

Dave finishes with 12 maxes. Thom finishes without a teapot.

Tarrah!

Further summaries are at:
http://www.apterous.org/cdb/series.php?series=64

Martyn Simpson · Post by **Martyn Simpson** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:02 pm

Not sure how you managed to make a one word summary of each round as humorous as you did, but that's probably the most enjoyable recap I've read for ages!

Joseph Krol · Post by **Joseph Krol** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:05 pm

In round four I presume STODGIER has been removed?

James Hall · Post by **James Hall** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:07 pm

R4: Stodgier?

Graeme Cole · Post by **Graeme Cole** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:47 pm

Joseph Krol wrote:In round four I presume STODGIER has been removed?

Nope, it's still in. And in any case, I think the recap writer still uses ODE2r. Not sure why the word hasn't shown up in this one.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:39 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Joseph Krol wrote:In round four I presume STODGIER has been removed?
Nope, it's still in. And in any case, I think the recap writer still uses ODE2r. Not sure why the word hasn't shown up in this one.

That would be me not pressing the right button! Now I can't use the "Darren!" comment. Harrumph.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:52 am

Ryan Taylor wrote:Round 15: R E C A P G A S P

C1 buzzes on 5 seconds to say SCRAPPAGE which is correct.
Final Score: 108–29 (max 123)

Personal?

Not necessarily at you, though....

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:03 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:Dave finishes with 12 maxes.

It was 11 really though. I don't count the first numbers as a max. Other than that, great recap!

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:08 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Dave finishes with 12 maxes.
It was 11 really though. I don't count the first numbers as a max. Other than that, great recap!

If it was on apterous it would be bold. I use the Apteorus Scale of Maxes to adjudicate such a thing.

Jordan F · Post by **Jordan F** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:14 pm

Something I don't think people have noticed but might be worth adding to the recap (if I'm wrong, let me know), but Dave is actually an Apterite.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Dave finishes with 12 maxes.
It was 11 really though. I don't count the first numbers as a max. Other than that, great recap!
If it was on apterous it would be bold. I use the Apteorus Scale of Maxes to adjudicate such a thing.

Round 19. Pwned.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:[ur=http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=286768l]Round 19[/url]. Pwned.

Quoted so you can't escape the irony of doing yourself. Here's your to-the-round link, by the way: http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=2 ... 8#r4062788.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:41 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:[ur=http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=286768l]Round 19[/url]. Pwned.
Quoted so you can't escape the irony of doing yourself. Here's your to-the-round link, by the way: http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=2 ... 8#r4062788.

Don't know what you're talking about.

Red hides the lack of boldness though.

This is getting sadder post by post.

This is like a Ralph Gillions post.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:55 pm

Bold aside, getting 7 points on a round when the maximum you can score is 7 is clearly a 'max'. Your objective is to score as many points as possible, not get as close to the target as you can.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:03 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:Bold aside, getting 7 points on a round when the maximum you can score is 7 is clearly a 'max'. Your objective is to score as many points as possible, not get as close to the target as you can.

I suppose, but since the objective is to score as many points as possible, why do we distinguish between a 10-max score of 100 and a 7-max score of 100? I tend to think of a max as scoring-system independent. It wouldn't be a max under some other systems, whereas under winners only scoring (on Apterous), you'd get maxes all over the place that aren't what I'd call maxes.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:20 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:Bold aside, getting 7 points on a round when the maximum you can score is 7 is clearly a 'max'. Your objective is to score as many points as possible, not get as close to the target as you can.
I suppose, but since the objective is to score as many points as possible, why do we distinguish between a 10-max score of 100 and a 7-max score of 100? I tend to think of a max as scoring-system independent. It wouldn't be a max under some other systems, whereas under winners only scoring (on Apterous), you'd get maxes all over the place that aren't what I'd call maxes.

I suppose another question is whether it would be called a max if the opponent had beaten it, which is a lot less clear cut to me.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:56 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:Bold aside, getting 7 points on a round when the maximum you can score is 7 is clearly a 'max'. Your objective is to score as many points as possible, not get as close to the target as you can.
I suppose, but since the objective is to score as many points as possible, why do we distinguish between a 10-max score of 100 and a 7-max score of 100? I tend to think of a max as scoring-system independent. It wouldn't be a max under some other systems, whereas under winners only scoring (on Apterous), you'd get maxes all over the place that aren't what I'd call maxes.
I suppose another question is whether it would be called a max if the opponent had beaten it, which is a lot less clear cut to me.

I was going to mention that because apart from the conundrum where you are in direct competition with your opponent, a max should be independent of what they do.

Ralph Gillions · Post by **Ralph Gillions** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:01 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:This is like a Ralph Gillions post.

Naah! Mine are better than this. You just don't understand them.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:39 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: I was going to mention that because apart from the conundrum where you are in direct competition with your opponent, a max should be independent of what they do.

I know this has been discussed before but I'm now pretty much of the opinion that "max" ought to mean maximal points rather than unbeatable. That way you don't have to grant an exception for the conundrum; it seems ridiculous to need an exception when you only have three things to generalize about. True enough it wouldn't be a max in other scoring systems, but max is already relative to scoring system (e.g. we might have a Scrabble scoring system at some point). I think it's inconsistent in apterous (the in-game table uses bold in some places where the website table doesn't, or vice versa) so I'd like to fix that.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:54 pm

Guys, guys you're taking the shine off my recap.

Michael Wallace wrote:Bold aside, getting 7 points on a round when the maximum you can score is 7 is clearly a 'max'. Your objective is to score as many points as possible, not get as close to the target as you can.

Best post EVER.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:12 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:Guys, guys you're taking the shine off my recap.

We're drawing attention to it. Everyone will be like "Hey, this recap has got a lot of replies. It must be the best ever!"

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:15 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ryan Taylor wrote:Guys, guys you're taking the shine off my recap.
We're drawing attention to it. Everyone will be like "Hey, this recap has got a lot of replies. It must be the best ever!"

Good point. My Monday one didn't get this much attention and it had a long 'witty' anagram of Ian FItzpatrick in it which took like a good 2 minutes to think of.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:27 pm

Think this might have come up before, but where is VERENDAH listed in the dictionary? Is it one of those strange plurals listed under a word that begins with a different letter or something similar?? Also - nice conundrum scramble!!

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:40 am

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: I was going to mention that because apart from the conundrum where you are in direct competition with your opponent, a max should be independent of what they do.
I know this has been discussed before but I'm now pretty much of the opinion that "max" ought to mean maximal points rather than unbeatable. That way you don't have to grant an exception for the conundrum; it seems ridiculous to need an exception when you only have three things to generalize about. True enough it wouldn't be a max in other scoring systems, but max is already relative to scoring system (e.g. we might have a Scrabble scoring system at some point). I think it's inconsistent in apterous (the in-game table uses bold in some places where the website table doesn't, or vice versa) so I'd like to fix that.

But you're trading the purity of the numbers maxes for a little extra consistency. Just because there's no satisfactory way to deal with conundrums doesn't mean we have to compromise on everybody's favourite round, the numbers.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:21 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: I was going to mention that because apart from the conundrum where you are in direct competition with your opponent, a max should be independent of what they do.
I know this has been discussed before but I'm now pretty much of the opinion that "max" ought to mean maximal points rather than unbeatable. That way you don't have to grant an exception for the conundrum; it seems ridiculous to need an exception when you only have three things to generalize about. True enough it wouldn't be a max in other scoring systems, but max is already relative to scoring system (e.g. we might have a Scrabble scoring system at some point). I think it's inconsistent in apterous (the in-game table uses bold in some places where the website table doesn't, or vice versa) so I'd like to fix that.
But you're trading the purity of the numbers maxes for a little extra consistency. Just because there's no satisfactory way to deal with conundrums doesn't mean we have to compromise on everybody's favourite round, the numbers.

Exactly. Anyway, we can bring back the consistency by instead of saying "unbeatable" you just say "optimal solution". That way it includes the conundrums and the proper numbers maxes.

Adam Gillard · Post by **Adam Gillard** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:38 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:instead of saying "unbeatable" you just say "optimal solution". That way it includes the conundrums and the proper numbers maxes.

"Optimal solution" in numbers rounds would have to get as close as possible to the target in as few steps as possible. E.g. 100 1 2 3 4 5 - > 105; 100+5 is optimal; 100+3+2 and 100+4+1 are not.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:07 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:instead of saying "unbeatable" you just say "optimal solution". That way it includes the conundrums and the proper numbers maxes.
"Optimal solution" in numbers rounds would have to get as close as possible to the target in as few steps as possible. E.g. 100 1 2 3 4 5 - > 105; 100+5 is optimal; 100+3+2 and 100+4+1 are not.

Not really. That's just an aesthetic thing. Solutions aren't judged on that.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: But you're trading the purity of the numbers maxes for a little extra consistency. Just because there's no satisfactory way to deal with conundrums doesn't mean we have to compromise on everybody's favourite round, the numbers.
Exactly. Anyway, we can bring back the consistency by instead of saying "unbeatable" you just say "optimal solution". That way it includes the conundrums and the proper numbers maxes.

Not really, as the optimal solution for the conundrum would be to buzz in after 0.0000etc.1 seconds, so you'd never get a max for that. Perhaps max % stats should just exclude conundrums..

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:12 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Not really, as the optimal solution for the conundrum would be to buzz in after 0.0000etc.1 seconds, so you'd never get a max for that. Perhaps max % stats should just exclude conundrums..

We should ask Damian to just drop the conundrum from the show. Problem solved.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:59 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:Not really, as the optimal solution for the conundrum would be to buzz in after 0.0000etc.1 seconds, so you'd never get a max for that. Perhaps max % stats should just exclude conundrums..

You're meant to be on my side!

But no, the solution is the same whenever you get the conundrum. The time isn't part of the solution.

Jon O'Neill · Post by **Jon O'Neill** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:16 pm

I guess I define a max as an unbeatable performance in a round.

Gavin Chipper · Post by **Gavin Chipper** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:33 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote:I guess I define a max as an unbeatable performance in a round.

So there's no max games when there's a conundrum?

But anyway, I think we agree that the state of the conundrum shouldn't be relevant in determining what counts as a max numbers game. Playing with semantics to make it so that a conundrum solve is or isn't optimal is irrelevant to numbers games.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:41 pm

I think there should be a new bot, who will always get a 'traditional' max game, but you only get the max if your word, numbers solution method, or conundrum solve time match his. He could be called Max, and always pick the least spotted of the max words.

Rhys Benjamin · Post by **Rhys Benjamin** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:23 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:I think there should be a new bot, who will always get a 'traditional' max game, but you only get the max if your word, numbers solution method, or conundrum solve time match his. He could be called Max, and always pick the least spotted of the max words.

It's called Rex.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:24 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Michael Wallace wrote:I think there should be a new bot, who will always get a 'traditional' max game, but you only get the max if your word, numbers solution method, or conundrum solve time match his. He could be called Max, and always pick the least spotted of the max words.
It's called Rex.

No, Max would be better.

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:02 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: I was going to mention that because apart from the conundrum where you are in direct competition with your opponent, a max should be independent of what they do.
I know this has been discussed before but I'm now pretty much of the opinion that "max" ought to mean maximal points rather than unbeatable.

Pretty much agree with that. Maybe we need to discriminate between a 'max' game and a 'perfect' game. Although, hang on a minute, we're back to the conundrum problem...

Mike Brown · Post by **Mike Brown** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:43 pm

Incredible number of views for this recap. Obviously the key is to make your comments as short as possible.

Ryan Taylor · Post by **Ryan Taylor** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:15 pm

Mike Brown wrote:Incredible number of views for this recap. Obviously the key is to make your comments as short as possible.

Or put something a little bit controversial to get whiney bitches to grumble over. I'm going to do it more often!

Matthew Tassier · Post by **Matthew Tassier** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:27 am

Ryan Taylor wrote:
Round 12: D I E T G D O B I

C1: BIGOTED (7)
C2: BIGOTED (7)
Score: 82–13 (max 97)

Standout.

The first letter in round 12 was actually an O not a D, meaning BOOGIED renders BIGOTED slightly less Standout.

James Robinson · Post by **James Robinson** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:53 pm

Ryan Taylor wrote:Round 9: S R A E M L U C L

C1: CALLERS (7)
C2: MUSCLE (6)
DC: CELLARS (7) MULLERS (7) MAULERS (7)
OT: ALLURES (7) LAURELS (7) RECALLS (7) SCLERAL (7) CULLERS (7) SCULLER (7) MACULES (7) MALLEUS (7) MARCELS (7) RECUSAL (7) SECULAR (7) SMALLER (7)
Score: 62–0 (max 74)

Taken me 24 days to double-check it, but MAULERS wasn't said. Susie said MULLERS twice.