Only just seen this, thanks - pretty interesting. (I don't really have anything to add right now, but didn't want to seem like I'd just ignored it.)Graeme Cole wrote:An answer to my earlier question
Ask Graeme?
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Ask Graeme?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:25 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Bit of a narcissistic Ask Graeme post this, it came up when we were chatting after CoRea.
I'm aware I'm the third lowest total scoring octochamp ever, I was wondering if I have any other rather negative accolades.
For starters, in my first game I had my first two words disallowed (caribous and goldies, caribous was particularly daft as I'd obviously seen 'caribou' and my opponent declared 6 first!), has anyone won eight after having their first two words disallowed? I had 'goatiest' disallowed later in that game as well, anyone else had three disallowed words in their first game of an octorun?
I lost the next round as well and went 19-0 down, remember thinking 'well that's it, I've totally screwed it up, gonna lose', has anyone come back from such a large deficit in their first game to win eight?
I also went comfortably behind in several of my other games - 21 points behind in my 3rd, 2 points behind in 4th, 14 points behind in my 6th (against Dan McColm - probably wouldn't be coming back from that one now), 7 points behind in my 7th and 7 points behind in my 8th! One way to look at that would be that I was a total of seventy points behind during the eight games, can any other octochamp beat that? Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight? Ironically (sort of), the one game I did lose against Andy McGurn I was never behind at any stage, until the tie-break conundrum after an 89-89 draw.
I've got another question, which has probably already been asked - has an anagram of COUNTDOWN ever come up in a letters selection (I know they've used it twice in conundrums) and did the contestants spot it?
I'm aware I'm the third lowest total scoring octochamp ever, I was wondering if I have any other rather negative accolades.
For starters, in my first game I had my first two words disallowed (caribous and goldies, caribous was particularly daft as I'd obviously seen 'caribou' and my opponent declared 6 first!), has anyone won eight after having their first two words disallowed? I had 'goatiest' disallowed later in that game as well, anyone else had three disallowed words in their first game of an octorun?
I lost the next round as well and went 19-0 down, remember thinking 'well that's it, I've totally screwed it up, gonna lose', has anyone come back from such a large deficit in their first game to win eight?
I also went comfortably behind in several of my other games - 21 points behind in my 3rd, 2 points behind in 4th, 14 points behind in my 6th (against Dan McColm - probably wouldn't be coming back from that one now), 7 points behind in my 7th and 7 points behind in my 8th! One way to look at that would be that I was a total of seventy points behind during the eight games, can any other octochamp beat that? Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight? Ironically (sort of), the one game I did lose against Andy McGurn I was never behind at any stage, until the tie-break conundrum after an 89-89 draw.
I've got another question, which has probably already been asked - has an anagram of COUNTDOWN ever come up in a letters selection (I know they've used it twice in conundrums) and did the contestants spot it?
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: Ask Graeme?
Nope, but almost happened once (currently listed on the 'Did you know...' section of the wiki).Ned Pendleton wrote:I've got another question, which has probably already been asked - has an anagram of COUNTDOWN ever come up in a letters selection (I know they've used it twice in conundrums) and did the contestants spot it?
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Eight octochamps had their first word disallowed (nine if you count Andy Platt, but the database only counts games up to 2013-03-01). They were Sanjay Mazumder, Stuart Solomons, Richard Pay, Stewart Holden, Mark Tournoff, Paul Howe, Ned Pendleton and Tom Barnes. You're the only octochamp to have their first two words disallowed.Ned Pendleton wrote:Bit of a narcissistic Ask Graeme post this, it came up when we were chatting after CoRea.
I'm aware I'm the third lowest total scoring octochamp ever, I was wondering if I have any other rather negative accolades.
For starters, in my first game I had my first two words disallowed (caribous and goldies, caribous was particularly daft as I'd obviously seen 'caribou' and my opponent declared 6 first!), has anyone won eight after having their first two words disallowed? I had 'goatiest' disallowed later in that game as well, anyone else had three disallowed words in their first game of an octorun?
The largest deficit overcome by someone in their first game who went on to become an octochamp was by Steven Moir against Rita Willmott. After round 7 he was 27 points behind, but he ended up winning by a single point.Ned Pendleton wrote:I lost the next round as well and went 19-0 down, remember thinking 'well that's it, I've totally screwed it up, gonna lose', has anyone come back from such a large deficit in their first game to win eight?
Your 19-0 was the second largest.
If for all octochamps you sum their highest deficits for all of their heat games (if a player was never behind in a game, it's 0), the player with the highest is Richard Pay, with a highest deficit sum of 74. This included his seventh game which he won after being 40 points behind. This remains the largest ever overturned margin in a single game.Ned Pendleton wrote:I also went comfortably behind in several of my other games - 21 points behind in my 3rd, 2 points behind in 4th, 14 points behind in my 6th (against Dan McColm - probably wouldn't be coming back from that one now), 7 points behind in my 7th and 7 points behind in my 8th! One way to look at that would be that I was a total of seventy points behind during the eight games, can any other octochamp beat that? Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight? Ironically (sort of), the one game I did lose against Andy McGurn I was never behind at any stage, until the tie-break conundrum after an 89-89 draw.
Your octorun deficit sum of 70 is the second highest.
Eleven octochamps were never behind in any game in their heats: Dag Griffiths, David Ballheimer, Chris Wills, Julian Fell, John Brackstone, Richard Heald, Conor Travers, Kirk Bevins, Innis Carson, Adam Gillard and Edward McCullagh.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Nope, you're unique with that.Ned Pendleton wrote:Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:25 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
What's the second most games an octochamp's been behind in?Graeme Cole wrote:Nope, you're unique with that.Ned Pendleton wrote:Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight?
Great stuff Graeme!
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
11 octochamps fell behind in five of their eight games, most recently Liam Shaw and Rose Boyle.Ned Pendleton wrote:What's the second most games an octochamp's been behind in?Graeme Cole wrote:Nope, you're unique with that.Ned Pendleton wrote:Or has any octochamp been behind in six out of their eight?
Great stuff Graeme!
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Hi,
I know it's only very early days for the new format, but do you have any idea about the average available max compared to the average available max in the old format? I imagine the new format has a slightly higher mean and a smaller standard deviation than the old format.
Cheers
I know it's only very early days for the new format, but do you have any idea about the average available max compared to the average available max in the old format? I imagine the new format has a slightly higher mean and a smaller standard deviation than the old format.
Cheers
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
This has been covered elsewhere; I'll have a look mate!
- Thomas Carey
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
- Location: North-West of Bradford
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
Using apterous figures, I've worked out that the new format is worth exactly 2.2389769436420136454774211027368 more points per game, which is 17.911815549136109163819368821894 points per octorun.Josh Hurst wrote:Hi,
I know it's only very early days for the new format, but do you have any idea about the average available max compared to the average available max in the old format? I imagine the new format has a slightly higher mean and a smaller standard deviation than the old format.
Cheers
Actually it might be slightly more, since apterites like to go for those 4 large or 6 small picks pretty often.
cheers maus
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
We can work it out from:Josh Hurst wrote:Hi,
I know it's only very early days for the new format, but do you have any idea about the average available max compared to the average available max in the old format? I imagine the new format has a slightly higher mean and a smaller standard deviation than the old format.
Cheers
I don't know which average we should look at, but if we go for ODE3, then under the old system it would be 11*7.8368 + 3*9.8723 +10 = 125.8217. For the new system, it's 10*7.8368 + 4*9.8723 +10 = 127.8572. I realise that that's hopelessly too many significant figures, but there it is. I guessed somewhere that the new system would be worth between 2 and 3 points a game but it seems to be almost exactly 2 looking at this. (Thomas Carey said that based on Apterous figures it's 2.2389769436420136454774211027368 per game). The difference is just the difference between one letters game and one numbers game of course, so you don't need the rest of the calculations for that. And with all the average figures that Graeme's given, it's about 2.Graeme Cole wrote:Average maximum points available is 7.7783 for letters, 9.8723 for numbers. However, some of the maxes for earlier games might be wrong as they use the ODE2r rather than the COD. If we just look at 15 rounders, the average maximum in a letters round is 7.9277. If we look only at 15 rounders since the start of 2011 (the introduction of the ODE3) it's 7.8368.Adam Gillard wrote:Graeme, what is the average maximum available for a letters round and for a numbers round? Just wondering how much difference on average the proposed format change will make (I'm guessing about 2-3 points).
Edit - Ooh, beaten by Thomas.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Average and round it at 2.125 then?
Equates to exactly 17 per octorun!
Equates to exactly 17 per octorun!
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Of course, the difference in maxes and the difference in what people get aren't necessarily the same.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
A top player ges around 90%, so a top octochamp, would be 90% of the 17 points better off, more acurately!
>15
>15
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Graeme.
How many different conundrum words have there been; furthermore, how many conundrum-able words exist?
How many different conundrum words have there been; furthermore, how many conundrum-able words exist?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
How many numbers maxes have all the octochamps/xicounts had?
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
(Spoilers if you haven't been watching the last week or two, hopefully everybody is up to date!)
I was looking back over the old Octochamp stats from all previous series just now and seeing where I and The Typhoon fit in to the grand scheme of things.
One I just worked out and is interesting, is that me and Giles had the exact same "9 statistics", which i will make look pretty here:
AP: AGONISTIC / MUSHAIRAS / QUEENIEST / GRAPEVINE / CRENULATE / ARRESTING / ISOBUTANE / SUSTAINED / Total: 6 out of 8
GH: INFLATERS / DOMINATES / KILOTONNE / PORTIERES / UNTHREADS / EMBARGOED / ADAPTIONS / NURSEMAID / Total: 6 out of 8
WD to Giles for 3rd place on the all time max list (edited, I counted 94 maxes first time):
1. Edward McCullagh, 95
2. Julian Fell, 94
3. Giles Hutchings, 93
4 Jack Hurst, 91
5=. Craig Beevers, 89
5=. Jonathan Rawlinson, 89
7. Andy Platt, 88
8. Stewart Holden, 86
9. Kirk Bevins, 85
10. Chris Davies, 84
I was looking back over the old Octochamp stats from all previous series just now and seeing where I and The Typhoon fit in to the grand scheme of things.
One I just worked out and is interesting, is that me and Giles had the exact same "9 statistics", which i will make look pretty here:
AP: AGONISTIC / MUSHAIRAS / QUEENIEST / GRAPEVINE / CRENULATE / ARRESTING / ISOBUTANE / SUSTAINED / Total: 6 out of 8
GH: INFLATERS / DOMINATES / KILOTONNE / PORTIERES / UNTHREADS / EMBARGOED / ADAPTIONS / NURSEMAID / Total: 6 out of 8
WD to Giles for 3rd place on the all time max list (edited, I counted 94 maxes first time):
1. Edward McCullagh, 95
2. Julian Fell, 94
3. Giles Hutchings, 93
4 Jack Hurst, 91
5=. Craig Beevers, 89
5=. Jonathan Rawlinson, 89
7. Andy Platt, 88
8. Stewart Holden, 86
9. Kirk Bevins, 85
10. Chris Davies, 84
Last edited by Andy Platt on Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Ask Graeme?
*where The Typhoon and me (pretty sure it's accusative not nominative)Andy Platt wrote:and seeing where I and The Typhoon fit in to the grand scheme of things
I'm curious about a few things. First of all, I calculated my maxes after recording and I'm pretty sure I got 93, so can someone/Andy recheck that please? Oh yeah and I chickened ASSENTED in one round, and if Rachel had put the M the right way round, I'm pretty sure I would have seen the nine.
Also, I had 1L many times in my run and 2 of them were impossible to reach exactly. How rare is that?
Further, I got the same number of conundrums right as Jack (Hurst) and the same number of nines. Was my score larger than his just because of more favourable letters (and of course the format change)?
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
Subject surely as we are doing the fitting in? Please don't try to correct someone with a degree in languagesGiles wrote:*where The Typhoon and me (pretty sure it's accusative not nominative)Andy Platt wrote:and seeing where I and The Typhoon fit in to the grand scheme of things
In the words of Rachel Riley, I'll have to have another look. This you're blatantly correct about! Edit: you were right, I think it was R15 of G8 that I missedGiles wrote:I calculated my maxes after recording and I'm pretty sure I got 93, so can someone/Andy recheck that please?
Last edited by Andy Platt on Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Graeme, could you please post a table off all old 15 octochamps' estimated totals in the new 15 using the following formula:
(average points scored per numbers round - average points scored per letters round) x 8, + original total, then rounded to the nearest whole number?
How much the new format changes someone's projected score depends on how good they are at letters and numbers. I'm interested to see how many people would have a lower projected score in the new format (I think there will be a few but mostly at the lower end of the octochamp totals). Could you also include a column which compares each octochamp's position in the table to the old 15? For example, if the sixth highest scoring octochamp in the old 15 has the fourth highest projected new 15 total, there could be a column which reads "+2" or something like that. Cheers
(average points scored per numbers round - average points scored per letters round) x 8, + original total, then rounded to the nearest whole number?
How much the new format changes someone's projected score depends on how good they are at letters and numbers. I'm interested to see how many people would have a lower projected score in the new format (I think there will be a few but mostly at the lower end of the octochamp totals). Could you also include a column which compares each octochamp's position in the table to the old 15? For example, if the sixth highest scoring octochamp in the old 15 has the fourth highest projected new 15 total, there could be a column which reads "+2" or something like that. Cheers
- Brian Moore
- Devotee
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:11 pm
- Location: Exeter
Re: Ask Graeme?
Andy Platt wrote:Subject surely as we are doing the fitting in? Please don't try to correct someone with a degree in languagesGiles wrote:*where The Typhoon and me (pretty sure it's accusative not nominative)Andy Platt wrote:and seeing where I and The Typhoon fit in to the grand scheme of things
Am I allowed to point out that you're the subject in that sentence too? Sorry, I've only got a degree or two in music.Andy Platt wrote:One I just worked out and is interesting, is that me and Giles had the exact same "9 statistics", which i will make look pretty here
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
Haha shit. I got ownedBrian Moore wrote:Am I allowed to point out that you're the subject in that sentence too? Sorry, I've only got a degree or two in music.Andy Platt wrote:One I just worked out and is interesting, is that me and Giles had the exact same "9 statistics", which i will make look pretty here
Anyway, back on topic..
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Andy, if you'd played all of your games in the old 15, your projected total would be 892, so you'd actually be slightly better off, which surprised me. If they'd all been in the new 15, it would have been 886.
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
Lol, interesting as I prefer numbers, but seen as though I found letters rounds easier in the studio than at home and of course numbers harder than at home then this isn't a massive surprise. I guess I had some pretty fiendish 1L and 2L, as well as Sam going 3L... Carl, Bob and myself going 4L... Alex and Josh taking one 6S round each (although they turned out easy actually). I guess I'm trying to say that I don't think my run was really the best archetypal example for format comparison.Jack Worsley wrote:Andy, if you'd played all of your games in the old 15, your projected total would be 892, so you'd actually be slightly better off, which surprised me. If they'd all been in the new 15, it would have been 886.
One thing I've been looking at as well is conundrum difficulties, as a couple of people have mentioned that I got a few toughies, particularly when compared to Giles's (hopefully I don't sound like I'm complaining about it though - even if Giles solved 0/8 he'd still have managed #1 seed, so it objectively makes shit all difference to the seedings). One interesting thing was that SANITIZED, Giles's 2nd conundrum, isn't listed as a conundrum on apterous (although clearly the conundrum list hasn't been updated to include SANITIZED since it's anagrammatical cousin SATINIZED was removed. Ticket time?)
Here are mine and Giles's conundrums by apterous difficulty rating if anyone wanted to compare:
AP: 7 1 9 6 10 5 3 7
GH: 3 X 2 4 3 6 1 6
Graeme, is there any way that you can link together the conundrum difficulty ratings from the apterous website and those from contestant's runs?
Might be pretty interesting. But not so interesting that I or anyone else would do it manually, of course Also not totally objective as conundrums can be made easier or harder by their scrambles so we couldn't provide a rock solid piece of information about which contestant had the easiest and hardest conundrums.
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Jack 'only' got 6 conundrums actually, whereas you got 7. This plus the format change is more than enough to account for the difference.Giles wrote:Further, I got the same number of conundrums right as Jack (Hurst) and the same number of nines. Was my score larger than his just because of more favourable letters (and of course the format change)?
Re: Ask Graeme?
How come http://www.apterous.org/cdb/octochamps.php says 7 cons solved for Jack? Surely that's wrong then?Innis Carson wrote:Jack 'only' got 6 conundrums actually, whereas you got 7. This plus the format change is more than enough to account for the difference.Giles wrote:Further, I got the same number of conundrums right as Jack (Hurst) and the same number of nines. Was my score larger than his just because of more favourable letters (and of course the format change)?
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yes it is wrong, look at games 2 and 8 of Jack's octorun. His 'nines' entry is wrong too (should be 6 of 7) - I'm guessing these stats were input manually and subject to human error.
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: Ask Graeme?
I kept getting conundrums that were brand new for ODE3 (FLUSHABLE, JOBSEEKER, FANCYWORK, maybe some others). I presume that was the case throughout Series 64, or at least the early part of it, and may be applicable further back for other dictionary migrations.Andy Platt wrote:One thing I've been looking at as well is conundrum difficulties [...] SANITIZED, Giles's 2nd conundrum, isn't listed as a conundrum on apterous
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Ask Graeme?
Apologies if I'm asking too many questions, and sincere thanks for answering my earlier ones, but...
What is the most frequent max score for a 15-round game, and would it be possible to make a graph featuring number of games vs. max score?
What is the most frequent max score for a 15-round game, and would it be possible to make a graph featuring number of games vs. max score?
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.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
There have been 3,555 unique solutions in 6,192 conundrum rounds for which we know the answer.Dave Preece wrote:Graeme.
How many different conundrum words have there been; furthermore, how many conundrum-able words exist?
Not sure how many conundrummable words exist. A conundrummable word is any nine-letter word without any valid anagrams and which isn't a regular plural. Additionally, it seems they don't use third person singular verbs (e.g. SPECTATES) either. That said, nine-letter words with only one anagram can be used, if the anagram is used as the scramble (e.g. POLYTHENE -> TELEPHONY).
I believe the apterous conundrum list is about 10,000 conundrums, and that guess is probably going to be about right. The apterous conundrum list doesn't have words which have valid anagrams though.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I make it this:Jack Worsley wrote:Graeme, could you please post a table off all old 15 octochamps' estimated totals in the new 15 using the following formula:
(average points scored per numbers round - average points scored per letters round) x 8, + original total, then rounded to the nearest whole number?
How much the new format changes someone's projected score depends on how good they are at letters and numbers. I'm interested to see how many people would have a lower projected score in the new format (I think there will be a few but mostly at the lower end of the octochamp totals). Could you also include a column which compares each octochamp's position in the table to the old 15? For example, if the sixth highest scoring octochamp in the old 15 has the fourth highest projected new 15 total, there could be a column which reads "+2" or something like that. Cheers
Code: Select all
OLD NEW RANK
TOTAL TOTAL +/- +/-
1. Jack Hurst 946 963 +17 +0
2. Andrew Hulme 930 943 +13 +0
3. Kirk Bevins 925 940 +15 +0
4. Julian Fell 924 930 +6 +0
5. Craig Beevers 907 928 +21 +0
6. Adam Gillard 903 921 +18 +0
7. Eoin Monaghan 898 919 +21 +0
7. Edward McCullagh 896 919 +23 +1
9. Conor Travers 890 905 +15 +1
10. Chris Davies 892 900 +8 -1
11. David O'Donnell 880 899 +19 +0
12. Chris Wills 875 893 +18 +0
13. Chris Cummins 858 884 +26 +2
14. Stewart Holden 870 874 +4 -1
15. Jon Corby 856 873 +17 +1
16. Innis Carson 861 871 +10 -2
17. Tom Hargreaves 850 868 +18 +0
18. Jonathan Rawlinson 850 867 +17 -1
19. Steven Briers 843 866 +23 +2
20. Paul Gallen 846 863 +17 +0
21. Matthew Shore 850 855 +5 -4
22. Mark Deeks 824 850 +26 +5
22. Jack Welsby 831 850 +19 +3
24. Marcus Hares 834 849 +15 +0
24. James Hurrell 838 849 +11 -1
26. Jack Worsley 818 848 +30 +6
27. Daniel Pati 840 843 +3 -5
28. Richard Brittain 820 840 +20 +2
29. Grace Page 829 838 +9 -3
30. Paul Howe 815 837 +22 +5
31. Scott Gillies 810 835 +25 +8
32. John Brackstone 822 833 +11 -4
32. Graeme Cole 813 833 +20 +4
34. Charlie Reams 820 831 +11 -4
34. Tom Barnes 822 831 +9 -6
34. Jon O'Neill 804 831 +27 +9
37. George Greenhough 817 827 +10 -3
38. Mark Tournoff 809 825 +16 +2
39. Lee Hartley 811 824 +13 -2
40. Stuart Earl 807 823 +16 +2
41. Martin Bishop 809 822 +13 -1
42. Oliver Garner 802 820 +18 +2
43. Junaid Mubeen 790 817 +27 +7
44. Ryan Taylor 792 816 +24 +5
45. Jeffrey Hansford 818 813 -5 -13
46. John Hunt 788 811 +23 +5
47. John Mayhew 811 810 -1 -10
48. Richard Heald 795 808 +13 -1
49. Peter Lee 801 805 +4 -4
49. Stuart Solomons 796 805 +9 -3
51. Paul James 794 799 +5 -3
52. Cate Henderson 782 798 +16 +1
53. Tom Rowell 774 796 +22 +5
54. John Davies 766 794 +28 +10
55. Keith Maynard 785 793 +8 -3
56. Jimmy Gough 782 791 +9 -3
57. Rupert Stokoe 776 788 +12 +0
57. Aaron Webber 773 788 +15 +2
59. David Barnard 771 787 +16 +2
60. Jim Bentley 756 783 +27 +10
60. Mike Pullin 756 783 +27 +10
60. Kevin Thurlow 769 783 +14 +2
63. Wendy Roe 781 782 +1 -8
64. Tim Reypert 773 778 +5 -5
65. Neil Zussman 768 776 +8 -2
65. Shane Roberts 766 776 +10 -1
67. Steven Moir 763 775 +12 +0
68. Danny Hamilton 761 773 +12 +0
69. John Gray 757 772 +15 +0
70. Michael Macdonald-Cooper 780 771 -9 -14
71. Sweyn Kirkness 765 770 +5 -5
72. Kai Laddiman 756 765 +9 -2
73. Paul Keane 744 762 +18 +5
73. Michael Bowden 739 762 +23 +8
75. David Edwards 737 760 +23 +8
75. Gary Male 750 760 +10 -2
77. Stu Horsey 732 759 +27 +9
77. Nik Von Uexkull 749 759 +10 -3
79. Richard Pay 732 758 +26 +7
80. Martin Gardner 746 757 +11 -5
81. Brian Selway 746 756 +10 -6
81. James Roberts 736 756 +20 +4
83. Nick Wainwright 726 754 +28 +5
84. Heather Styles 737 753 +16 -1
85. Jonathan Coles 746 752 +6 -10
86. Jean Webby 738 751 +13 -4
86. Ross Allatt 741 751 +10 -6
88. Julia Wilkinson 744 737 -7 -10
89. David Von Geyer 724 734 +10 +0
90. Amey Deshpande 718 729 +11 +0
91. James Doohan 702 728 +26 +7
92. Liam Shaw 708 723 +15 +1
93. Tony Warren 712 721 +9 -1
93. Jayne Wisniewski 705 721 +16 +3
93. Brenda Jolley 718 721 +3 -3
96. Carl Williams 708 720 +12 -3
97. Rose Boyle 701 717 +16 +3
98. David Thirlwall 704 714 +10 -1
99. Andy McGurn 702 712 +10 -1
100. Judith Young 707 709 +2 -5
101. Dave Taylor 691 707 +16 +1
102. Chris Marshall 682 704 +22 +3
103. Tia Corkish 697 702 +5 -2
104. Suzi Purcell 686 695 +9 -1
105. Jeffrey Burgin 685 691 +6 -1
106. Steve Wood 675 688 +13 +0
107. Ned Pendleton 664 684 +20 +1
108. Joe Zubaidi 665 672 +7 -1
109. Chris McHenry 643 654 +11 +0
110. Danny Pledger 635 650 +15 +0
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
15 round octochamps (counting heats only):Gavin Chipper wrote:How many numbers maxes have all the octochamps/xicounts had?
Code: Select all
NUMBERS MAXES
1. Jack Worsley 23
1. Jack Hurst 23
3. Edward McCullagh 22
3. Chris Cummins 22
5. Jim Bentley 21
5. Steven Briers 21
5. Mark Deeks 21
5. Eoin Monaghan 21
5. Jon O'Neill 21
10. John Davies 20
10. Graeme Cole 20
10. Paul Howe 20
10. Adam Gillard 20
10. Chris Wills 20
10. Craig Beevers 20
10. Kirk Bevins 20
10. Andrew Hulme 20
10. Nick Wainwright 20
10. Stu Horsey 20
10. Junaid Mubeen 20
21. Conor Travers 19
21. Paul Gallen 19
21. David Barnard 19
21. Ryan Taylor 19
21. Scott Gillies 19
21. Richard Brittain 19
21. David O'Donnell 19
21. Jack Welsby 19
21. John Hunt 19
21. Julian Fell 19
31. Richard Pay 18
31. John Brackstone 18
31. Martin Bishop 18
31. Jimmy Gough 18
31. Tom Rowell 18
31. Marcus Hares 18
37. Charlie Reams 17
37. James Hurrell 17
37. Cate Henderson 17
37. James Doohan 17
37. Mike Pullin 17
37. Michael Bowden 17
37. Oliver Garner 17
37. Jon Corby 17
37. James Roberts 17
37. Jonathan Rawlinson 17
47. Grace Page 16
47. Gary Male 16
47. Andy McGurn 16
47. Keith Maynard 16
47. Rose Boyle 16
47. Martin Gardner 16
47. David Edwards 16
47. Jayne Wisniewski 16
47. Innis Carson 16
47. Kevin Thurlow 16
47. Dave Taylor 16
47. Rupert Stokoe 16
59. Tom Hargreaves 15
59. Steven Moir 15
59. Carl Williams 15
59. Daniel Pati 15
59. John Mayhew 15
59. Amey Deshpande 15
59. Chris Marshall 15
59. George Greenhough 15
59. Aaron Webber 15
59. Stuart Solomons 15
59. Mark Tournoff 15
59. Richard Heald 15
59. Liam Shaw 15
59. Tom Barnes 15
59. Stuart Earl 15
74. Lee Hartley 14
74. Jeffrey Burgin 14
74. John Gray 14
74. Shane Roberts 14
74. Heather Styles 14
74. Paul Keane 14
74. Chris Davies 14
74. Stewart Holden 14
82. Sweyn Kirkness 13
82. David Von Geyer 13
82. Tony Warren 13
82. Jonathan Coles 13
82. Paul James 13
82. Nik Von Uexkull 13
82. Joe Zubaidi 13
82. Neil Zussman 13
82. Ross Allatt 13
82. Jean Webby 13
92. Ned Pendleton 12
92. Danny Pledger 12
92. David Thirlwall 12
92. Matthew Shore 12
92. Danny Hamilton 12
92. Kai Laddiman 12
92. Peter Lee 12
92. Jeffrey Hansford 12
92. Tim Reypert 12
101. Tia Corkish 11
101. Wendy Roe 11
101. Chris McHenry 11
104. Brenda Jolley 10
104. Suzi Purcell 10
104. Steve Wood 10
104. Julia Wilkinson 10
108. Brian Selway 9
109. Michael Macdonald-Cooper 8
109. Judith Young 8
Code: Select all
NUMBERS MAXES
1. Jack Hurst 32
2. Edward McCullagh 30
2. Chris Cummins 30
4. Jack Worsley 29
4. Chris Wills 29
6. Junaid Mubeen 28
6. Craig Beevers 28
8. Kirk Bevins 27
8. Graeme Cole 27
10. Julian Fell 25
10. Nick Wainwright 25
10. John Davies 25
10. Oliver Garner 25
14. Richard Brittain 24
15. David O'Donnell 23
15. Conor Travers 23
17. Chris Davies 22
18. Mark Tournoff 21
19. Paul James 20
19. Stewart Holden 20
21. John Mayhew 19
Re: Ask Graeme?
As a matter of interest, do you know why the restriction on plurals is there?Graeme Cole wrote:A conundrummable word is any nine-letter word without any valid anagrams and which isn't a regular plural.
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Thanks, Graeme!
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
This is a good question, wonder if Mr Countdown Team can shed some light on it?Guy Barry wrote:As a matter of interest, do you know why the restriction on plurals is there?Graeme Cole wrote:A conundrummable word is any nine-letter word without any valid anagrams and which isn't a regular plural.
It actually wasn't always the case either, as some early series used plurals as their conundrums.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Thanks for doing that. Is the data available for 9 rounders?Graeme Cole wrote:15 round octochamps (counting heats only):Gavin Chipper wrote:How many numbers maxes have all the octochamps/xicounts had?15-round series champions (counting heats, quarter-final, semi-final and final):Code: Select all
NUMBERS MAXES 1. Jack Worsley 23 1. Jack Hurst 23 3. Edward McCullagh 22 3. Chris Cummins 22 5. Jim Bentley 21 5. Steven Briers 21 5. Mark Deeks 21 5. Eoin Monaghan 21 5. Jon O'Neill 21 10. John Davies 20 10. Graeme Cole 20 10. Paul Howe 20 10. Adam Gillard 20 10. Chris Wills 20 10. Craig Beevers 20 10. Kirk Bevins 20 10. Andrew Hulme 20 10. Nick Wainwright 20 10. Stu Horsey 20 10. Junaid Mubeen 20 21. Conor Travers 19 21. Paul Gallen 19 21. David Barnard 19 21. Ryan Taylor 19 21. Scott Gillies 19 21. Richard Brittain 19 21. David O'Donnell 19 21. Jack Welsby 19 21. John Hunt 19 21. Julian Fell 19 31. Richard Pay 18 31. John Brackstone 18 31. Martin Bishop 18 31. Jimmy Gough 18 31. Tom Rowell 18 31. Marcus Hares 18 37. Charlie Reams 17 37. James Hurrell 17 37. Cate Henderson 17 37. James Doohan 17 37. Mike Pullin 17 37. Michael Bowden 17 37. Oliver Garner 17 37. Jon Corby 17 37. James Roberts 17 37. Jonathan Rawlinson 17 47. Grace Page 16 47. Gary Male 16 47. Andy McGurn 16 47. Keith Maynard 16 47. Rose Boyle 16 47. Martin Gardner 16 47. David Edwards 16 47. Jayne Wisniewski 16 47. Innis Carson 16 47. Kevin Thurlow 16 47. Dave Taylor 16 47. Rupert Stokoe 16 59. Tom Hargreaves 15 59. Steven Moir 15 59. Carl Williams 15 59. Daniel Pati 15 59. John Mayhew 15 59. Amey Deshpande 15 59. Chris Marshall 15 59. George Greenhough 15 59. Aaron Webber 15 59. Stuart Solomons 15 59. Mark Tournoff 15 59. Richard Heald 15 59. Liam Shaw 15 59. Tom Barnes 15 59. Stuart Earl 15 74. Lee Hartley 14 74. Jeffrey Burgin 14 74. John Gray 14 74. Shane Roberts 14 74. Heather Styles 14 74. Paul Keane 14 74. Chris Davies 14 74. Stewart Holden 14 82. Sweyn Kirkness 13 82. David Von Geyer 13 82. Tony Warren 13 82. Jonathan Coles 13 82. Paul James 13 82. Nik Von Uexkull 13 82. Joe Zubaidi 13 82. Neil Zussman 13 82. Ross Allatt 13 82. Jean Webby 13 92. Ned Pendleton 12 92. Danny Pledger 12 92. David Thirlwall 12 92. Matthew Shore 12 92. Danny Hamilton 12 92. Kai Laddiman 12 92. Peter Lee 12 92. Jeffrey Hansford 12 92. Tim Reypert 12 101. Tia Corkish 11 101. Wendy Roe 11 101. Chris McHenry 11 104. Brenda Jolley 10 104. Suzi Purcell 10 104. Steve Wood 10 104. Julia Wilkinson 10 108. Brian Selway 9 109. Michael Macdonald-Cooper 8 109. Judith Young 8
A numbers max is where a player got the most points available.Code: Select all
NUMBERS MAXES 1. Jack Hurst 32 2. Edward McCullagh 30 2. Chris Cummins 30 4. Jack Worsley 29 4. Chris Wills 29 6. Junaid Mubeen 28 6. Craig Beevers 28 8. Kirk Bevins 27 8. Graeme Cole 27 10. Julian Fell 25 10. Nick Wainwright 25 10. John Davies 25 10. Oliver Garner 25 14. Richard Brittain 24 15. David O'Donnell 23 15. Conor Travers 23 17. Chris Davies 22 18. Mark Tournoff 21 19. Paul James 20 19. Stewart Holden 20 21. John Mayhew 19
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
How come mine and Giles stats aren't loading yet in those tables, does the whole series have to be completed first?
For the record, mine was 21/28 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 18) and Giles's was 26/32 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 19.5), and that's if we include the two rounds whereby Giles was 2 away but 1 away was possible. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone's been doing, right?
For the record, mine was 21/28 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 18) and Giles's was 26/32 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 19.5), and that's if we include the two rounds whereby Giles was 2 away but 1 away was possible. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone's been doing, right?
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yeah, I think it's a database thing unfortunately. 2 away when 1 away is possible isn't a true max, but we have to go with what the database can provide.Andy Platt wrote:How come mine and Giles stats aren't loading yet in those tables, does the whole series have to be completed first?
For the record, mine was 21/28 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 18) and Giles's was 26/32 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 19.5), and that's if we include the two rounds whereby Giles was 2 away but 1 away was possible. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone's been doing, right?
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
It is, mostly. Gaps in the data for early series make it a bit fiddly though, as do octoruns of more than eight games due to draws, so I've ordered it by percentage. The "numbers rounds" column is the number of numbers rounds the contestant played that the database knows the max for. Clive Freedman is excluded entirely because his whole octorun is missing.Gavin Chipper wrote:Thanks for doing that. Is the data available for 9 rounders?
9-round octochamps, counting preliminaries only:
Code: Select all
NUMBERS NUMBERS
MAXES ROUNDS %
1. Richard Campbell 15 16 93.75
2. Don Reid 14 16 87.50
3. Sharon Bridge 12 14 85.71
4. Melvin Hetherington 13 16 81.25
4. Suzanne Miles 13 16 81.25
6. Graham Nash 12 16 75.00
6. James Martin 12 16 75.00
7. Tim Morrissey 13 18 72.22
8. Stephen Deakin 10 14 71.43
9. Allan Saldanha 11 16 68.75
9. Anthony Jenkin 11 16 68.75
9. David Acton 11 16 68.75
9. David Williams 11 16 68.75
9. Dick Green 11 16 68.75
9. Gareth Williams 11 16 68.75
9. Kevin McMahon 11 16 68.75
9. Lucy Roberts 11 16 68.75
9. Margaret Foster 11 16 68.75
9. Scott Mearns 11 16 68.75
9. Simon Cooper 11 16 68.75
9. Terry Knowles 11 16 68.75
21. Mark Nyman 10 15 66.67
22. Chris Waddington 10 16 62.50
22. Derek Coombs 10 16 62.50
22. Harvey Freeman 10 16 62.50
22. John Hadfield 10 16 62.50
22. Norman Christian 10 16 62.50
27. Bhavin Manek 9 16 56.25
27. David Ballheimer 9 16 56.25
27. Kate Ogilvie 9 16 56.25
27. Lawrence Pearse 9 16 56.25
27. Maria Boyes 9 16 56.25
27. Nic Brown 9 16 56.25
27. Ray McPhie 9 16 56.25
27. Sanjay Mazumder 9 16 56.25
27. Satbir Gupta 9 16 56.25
27. William Bradford 9 16 56.25
37. Lew Schwarz 11 20 55.00
38. Dag Griffiths 8 16 50.00
38. James Sinclair 8 16 50.00
38. Lindsay Denyer 7 14 50.00
38. Michael Calder 8 16 50.00
38. Natascha Kearsey 8 16 50.00
38. Peter Hutchings 8 16 50.00
38. Richard Evans 8 16 50.00
38. Steve Williams 8 16 50.00
46. Jon Marsh 8 18 44.44
46. Jonathan Anstey 8 18 44.44
48. John Wallace 7 16 43.75
48. Phil Jordan 7 16 43.75
48. Terence O'Farrell 7 16 43.75
51. Darryl Francis 6 16 37.50
52. Glynn Leaney 5 16 31.25
53. David Trace 4 16 25.00
Code: Select all
NUMBERS NUMBERS
MAXES ROUNDS %
1. Don Reid 20 24 83.33
2. David Acton 18 24 75.00
3. Chris Waddington 17 24 70.83
3. Graham Nash 17 24 70.83
5. Harvey Freeman 15 22 68.18
6. Dick Green 16 24 66.67
6. Scott Mearns 16 24 66.67
8. Gareth Williams 15 24 62.50
8. Nic Brown 15 24 62.50
10. Lawrence Pearse 14 24 58.33
10. Ray McPhie 14 24 58.33
12. Kate Ogilvie 12 24 50.00
12. Michael Calder 12 24 50.00
14. Darryl Francis 9 24 37.50
15. David Trace 8 24 33.33
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Yes, the database is just a MySQL thing on my desktop computer, it doesn't get updated automatically. Updating it with new games is a pain in the backside, with more manual intervention needed than you might think. "This John Gardner chap, is he the same John Gardner who was on in 1987? Yes? Don't give him a new player ID then." When I initially extracted all the games from that XML dump of the wiki last year, it distinguished players with the same name by looking at the links to the contestants on the series page and examining the URL they pointed to. For example, the Chris Davies on this page and the Chris Davies on this page have links that point to two different URLs, so they're two different people. On the other hand, the Edward McCullagh on this page and the Ed McCullagh on this page are links that point to the same page, so they're the same person even though the names are different. For a more extreme example, the Saladin Khoshnaw on this page and the Karl Kurdistan on this page are actually the same person, and the database knows this.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I think it's a database thing unfortunately. 2 away when 1 away is possible isn't a true max, but we have to go with what the database can provide.Andy Platt wrote:How come mine and Giles stats aren't loading yet in those tables, does the whole series have to be completed first?
For the record, mine was 21/28 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 18) and Giles's was 26/32 (translated equivalent out of 24 = 19.5), and that's if we include the two rounds whereby Giles was 2 away but 1 away was possible. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone's been doing, right?
Even this isn't foolproof, though. The database persists in its belief that Dinos Sfyris and Konstadinos Sfyris are two different people, presumably because some links somewhere on the wiki aren't set up as I expected.
All of this means I don't update it frequently. Currently the database doesn't have any games in it after 1st March 2013, the end of the 30th birthday championship.
Maybe one day there could be some system whereby the recap writer asks "is this a new person or someone who's played before" for each contestant, and it can update the database automatically. Currently, the real Countdown database does have a link on the recap writer which allows the recapper to add the game to the database, but it only stores summary-level information rather than round-level information.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Ask Graeme?
Do you have your own extraction method, or do you still welcome my input? If you want to extend the database now to the end of the 15 round mk1 era, that might be good.Graeme Cole wrote:Yes, the database is just a MySQL thing on my desktop computer, it doesn't get updated automatically. Currently the database doesn't have any games in it after 1st March 2013, the end of the 30th birthday championship.
As I implied a few weeks ago, I also have the crossword tools difficulty rating for each numbers game. From the same source I could also produce the most smallest number of numbers required to solve each game (someone asked a question about this) and perhaps a few other things. These create scope for pulling out a few more "interesting" analyses, and you're welcome to have them if you want.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Ask Graeme?
No match for much of Graeme's analysis, but I finally got around to adding the new format to CDB's "best/worst available octoruns" page, with an interesting outcome!
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I made my own extraction method for the XML file, but the way the game information is laid out is completely different in XML compared to the HTML file that's served up when you visit the wiki.Clive Brooker wrote:Do you have your own extraction method, or do you still welcome my input? If you want to extend the database now to the end of the 15 round mk1 era, that might be good.Graeme Cole wrote:Yes, the database is just a MySQL thing on my desktop computer, it doesn't get updated automatically. Currently the database doesn't have any games in it after 1st March 2013, the end of the 30th birthday championship.
As I implied a few weeks ago, I also have the crossword tools difficulty rating for each numbers game. From the same source I could also produce the most smallest number of numbers required to solve each game (someone asked a question about this) and perhaps a few other things. These create scope for pulling out a few more "interesting" analyses, and you're welcome to have them if you want.
A game in the XML file is expressed in wikitext, which you can see if you try to edit the page. It looks like this:
Code: Select all
==Rounds==
{{Rounds-start|Jack Hurst|Conor Travers}}
{{R-letters |1 |CGNEAIHPT|CHEATING |CHEATING |NIGHTCAP, PATCHING, PEACHING, TEACHING*| 8|8 | 8}}
{{R-letters |2 |LMGOEISRU|MOUSIER |MISRULE |GLORIES*, LOURIES*, LOUSIER, LURGIES*, MORGUES, REGULOS*| 15|15 | 15}}
{{R-letters |3 |YTPOIANLS|SOAPILY |PONYTAILS| | 15|33 | 33}}
{{R-letters |4 |DRSEIATEN|RESINATED|DETAINERS|DENTARIES* | 33|51 | 51}}
{{R-numbers |5 | 50|75|100|25|9|9| 483
|484|sol1=9 × 50 + 25 + 9
|484|sol2=9 × 50 + 25 + 9
|rr=483|solrr=(100 × 9 + 75 − 9) ÷ (50 ÷ 25)
|40|58|61}}
{{R-TTT |ICECLASH|These large cups have a religious connection.|CHALICES}}
{{R-letters |6 |LMZIEONAR|NORMALIZE|NORMALIZE| | 58|76 | 79}}
{{R-letters |7 |GTSIEOFAI|FIESTA |AGEIST |EGOIST, FOGIES, SOFTIE*, STOGIE*| 64|82 | 85}}
{{R-letters |8 |LHREOICTD|CHORTLED |CHLORITE |CHLORIDE*, CLOTHIER*, ELDRITCH*| 72|90 | 93}}
{{R-letters |9 |VNWEAECSD|VENDACES |VENDACES | | 80|98 |101}}
{{R-numbers |10| 50|8|6|7|7|10| 616
|616|sol1=(7 × 10 + 7) × 8
|616|sol2=(50 + 6) × (7 ÷ 7 + 10)
|90|108|111}}
{{R-TTT |HITSACES|Tell Charlie off about his neckwear, perhaps?|CHASTISE}}
{{R-letters |11|BKMSIUIEO|IMBUES |IMBUES |BIKIES*, BIOMES*, KOMBIS*, SMOKIE*| 96|114|117}}
{{R-letters |12|RGDUAOXUA|GUARD |AGORA |AUGUR*, GOURA*, GOURD*|101|119|122}}
{{R-letters |13|BDSMEAEOP|SOAPED |POMADES | |101|126|129}}
{{R-numbers |14| 100|10|6|8|7|10| 945
|945|sol1=(100 − 6) × 10 + 8 + 7 − 10
|945|sol2=(100 − 6) × 10 + 8 + 7 − 10
|111|136|139}}
{{R-conundrum|15|HEVALIANT|c2time=0.75|c2sol=LEVIATHAN|111|146|149}}
{{Rounds-end}}
The data you sent me for series 67 and the championship saved me a lot of work, thanks for that. The only fiddly stuff left was sorting out which players were new players and which were existing players.
- Andy Platt
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1091
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:00 pm
- Location: Wirral
Re: Ask Graeme?
FIX!Charlie Reams wrote:No match for much of Graeme's analysis, but I finally got around to adding the new format to CDB's "best/worst available octoruns" page, with an interesting outcome!
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 621
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:50 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Can you please add the missing Edward McCullagh o the octochamps page?Charlie Reams wrote:No match for much of Graeme's analysis, but I finally got around to adding the new format to CDB's "best/worst available octoruns" page, with an interesting outcome!
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
I think the most interesting thing about that is that it would appear that Helen Grayson had literally the worst run of rounds ever in the 9-round era - quite interesting considering I think she had the best max rate of anyone in her heat run. She still managed to be number one seed by outscoring octochamp Darryl Francis with just seven games herself.Charlie Reams wrote:No match for much of Graeme's analysis, but I finally got around to adding the new format to CDB's "best/worst available octoruns" page, with an interesting outcome!
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
I think if you look that EVERY octochamp from Series 64 onwards is missingDave Preece wrote:Can you please add the missing Edward McCullagh to the octochamps page?Charlie Reams wrote:No match for much of Graeme's analysis, but I finally got around to adding the new format to CDB's "best/worst available octoruns" page, with an interesting outcome!
-
- Series 66 Champion
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:32 pm
- Location: Blackpool
Re: Ask Graeme?
Has anyone ever won a 15-rounder without maxing a single round? Also, what's the lowest combined number of maxes by the contestants in a 15-rounder?
I've noticed that Giles completed his octochamp run without having a word disallowed! Has anyone else done this in the 15-round era?
I've noticed that Giles completed his octochamp run without having a word disallowed! Has anyone else done this in the 15-round era?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:46 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Unless you count the HEDARIM incident, Kirk never had any letters round declaration disallowed in his prelims.Jack Worsley wrote:Has anyone ever won a 15-rounder without maxing a single round? Also, what's the lowest combined number of maxes by the contestants in a 15-rounder?
I've noticed that Giles completed his octochamp run without having a word disallowed! Has anyone else done this in the 15-round era?
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Julian Fell never had a word disallowed all the way up until his CoC quarter-final, where it would cost him dearly.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:46 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
With Eileen going strong, unless it's been asked before: who have been the oldest and youngest ever octochamps?
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
Youngest is Allan Saldanha, not even in double figures when he was an octo all those years ago.James Roper wrote:With Eileen going strong, unless it's been asked before: who have been the oldest and youngest ever octochamps?
Oldest, not sure, but probably someone like George Greenhough or Grace Page in Series 48 must be serious contenders.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
This came up recently. Urban myth. He was 10.James Robinson wrote:Youngest is Allan Saldanha, not even in double figures when he was an octo all those years ago.James Roper wrote:With Eileen going strong, unless it's been asked before: who have been the oldest and youngest ever octochamps?
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
CDB says that John Hunt was 69, so he must be a likely candidate for oldest.
-
- Series 62 Champion
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:13 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
Which octochamp had the toughest 8 opponents, in terms of combined maxes scored /120 ?
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:34 pm
Re: Ask Graeme?
More of a trivia question than a stats question...
What is it that makes me unique amongst all Countdown contestants?
What is it that makes me unique amongst all Countdown contestants?
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Ask Graeme?
We know that (notwithstanding Nick's remarks) several games are recorded in a day.
Eileen didn't seem to be her usual self yesterday - would that have been at the end of a long day for her?
Is there any evidence on how other multiple winners have fared at the end of a whole day recording?
Eileen didn't seem to be her usual self yesterday - would that have been at the end of a long day for her?
Is there any evidence on how other multiple winners have fared at the end of a whole day recording?
- James Robinson
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 10580
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:38 pm
- Location: Mirfield, West Yorkshire
Re: Ask Graeme?
Well no, because the end of the day was Wednesday's show, so it was only the 2nd game of the day was yesterday's show, and she seemed pretty competent on Thursday's show, but maybe it's just all those shows that have started to take their toll............Peter Mabey wrote:We know that (notwithstanding Nick's remarks) several games are recorded in a day.
Eileen didn't seem to be her usual self yesterday - would that have been at the end of a long day for her?
Is there any evidence on how other multiple winners have fared at the end of a whole day recording?