All discussion relevant to Countdown that is not too spoilerific. New members: come here first to introduce yourself. We don't bite, or at least rarely.
David O'Donnell wrote:The only thing that detracted from what was an immensely enjoyable experience was the prospect of my shows being torn to shreds by you lot on this forum - thankfully though, you were more than charitable.
I'm not even trying to suggest a reason, I'm just saying looking at only the 15-round series, the highest ranked Octochamps tend to beat the lower ranked ones, hence the reason that the #1 seed won the first six series, and eight out of twelve in total. It doesn't invalidate anything you've said, I'm just pointing out a trend.
Edit: in fact doing a quick count, since Series 46 when a lower ranked Octochamp has played a higher ranked one, the higher ranked one has won 30 games out of 39, which is about 77%.
Martin
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
Damian E wrote:Yeah, but plenty of series have had more than one 800 octochamp, so therefore plenty of 800 octochamps have not won the series. You can argue it both ways.
The point is that there is a positive correlation between high scores and skill. We can argue about how strong the correlation is, but it is undoubtedly there.
I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
Well Damian seems to respond by disagreeing with the obvious point. Obviously you're not an exception - you can't luck your way all the way to 880.
David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
Actually I was just making a totally pedantic about the phrase "hence the reason why", which is triply redundant. But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.
Not sure what i agree with or don't agree with Gev, all i know is that this thread, this topic, this whole concept of searching for the name of THE best ever Countdown player, it won't keep this forum open and alive, it won't have people logging on in anticipation of what's been said next, it won't even enlighten or amuse. I'd rather read something different, original, amusing, vulgar, whatever - but i can't be the only one who thinks the whole thing is completely and utterly boring and adds nothing. It's worn out, tedious, exhausted, overdone, repetitive and bland.
I'm partly to blame for responding and keeping it alive, but i think there's nothing more i can add. Apart from citing this thread as a contributory factor into my untimely death.
David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
I wasn't trying to make the point, I was trying to show how bleeding obvious it is.
Charlie Reams wrote:But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.
I find it interesting that you would say this, given your website with all the ranking lists based on total scores and percentage of highest possible score etc.
Charlie Reams wrote:But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.
I find it interesting that you would say this, given your website with all the ranking lists based on total scores and percentage of highest possible score etc.
Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.
David O'Donnell wrote:Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.
Not a contradiction as such, but if I wasn't interested in the meaning behind scores, I certainly wouldn't have a list of percentage of maximum scores on my website.
David O'Donnell wrote:Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.
Not a contradiction as such, but if I wasn't interested in the meaning behind scores, I certainly wouldn't have a list of percentage of maximum scores on my website.
Okay, let me clarify. The existence of a correlation is so obvious that not it's interesting (see entropy). The details of that correlation are interesting to me. This list coincides almost exactly with my personal opinions of the people on it. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you on anything really.
In the 80's, when i was a kid, the ZX81 or Sinclair Spectrum were the tools of the day - and there was no internet - so while it may have been possible for someone to sit there and create a program to do all the hard work for them, its not comparible to typing 'countdown' into google and letting the world of words and numbers land at your feet.
In terms of research, practice and skill development, the people of today have it a million times easier than those of the 1980's.
I'm sure you've said yourself that you don't study word lists etc. that most of the other top players on here seem to do, and you don't do too badly.
A lot of people have said on this thread that current players have reached a higher standard than those in the past because of being able to use computer aids and study the word lists that computers churn out. But I think I've heard you say that you don't do this sort of studying yourself but you have reached a similar level.
Charlie Reams wrote:Now you just need a few thousand more data points and you might actually have an argument.
No, because my previous argument was that the lack of computer-assisted techniques etc need not be a definite stop to reaching such a high level. I only need one data point.
Fair point. Still very puzzled though. I'd take a guess that the average age of members of this forum is well under 30yrs old, so doesn't a long-winded debate about choosing the best from the last 25.5 years seem a little absurd?
Perhaps its just me.
I can't remember many names. But I do remember Craig and Connor, Paul and o course Mark Tounroff, Maybe the fat that you remember them is ian indication of how good they were?
However your comment about the average age on this forum being less than 30 seems to ignore the fact that the programme has been around or a LONG time, has a wide demographic from schoolchildren to pensioners, and that some 'oldies' are very happy with the internet and forums
Sally Haynes wrote:However your comment about the average age on this forum being less than 30 seems to ignore the fact that the programme has been around or a LONG time, has a wide demographic from schoolchildren to pensioners, and that some 'oldies' are very happy with the internet and forums
I don't think it ignores that. While we welcome everyone to this forum, the fact is that most Internet users (and hence most of our members) are under 30. The average age of general Countdown viewers is, as you say, probably much higher.
Damian E wrote:I like to think that, when taking everything into account, finding the best ever is utterly absurd.
It doesn't matter, its not able to be proven, its conjecture and its totally tedious.
We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
Don't agree with you at all Martin. A lot of what Damian says is said with his tongue firmly in his cheek, and he likes a good wind up and a good piss-take. He is series producer of Countdown and we are lucky to have his contributions and the forum would be the poorer if he did not contribute as frequently as he does. He has shot me down quite a few times now but I just come back for more. The Jeff Stelling appointment is a masterstroke and this will soon be apparent to all doubters................
Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
What if I don't like your face?
If you don't like Charlie's face then you're clearly not as gay as you claim to be.
Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
What if I don't like your face?
If you don't like Charlie's face then you're clearly not as gay as you claim to be.
Oh that's just an elaborate ruse to claim disability benefits.
Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
But I think you are brushing aside the fact that it certainly does apply in this case. This thread is not offensive - that was just an analogy. Damian just seems to find it annoying and so can't resist posting inane comments, which seem pointless.
Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
Don't agree with you at all Martin. A lot of what Damian says is said with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
I always thought that as well, but that's not what people tell me.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
Fair point. Still very puzzled though. I'd take a guess that the average age of members of this forum is well under 30yrs old, so doesn't a long-winded debate about choosing the best from the last 25.5 years seem a little absurd?
Sally (old enough to be Connors grandmother!)
Wow, when the ages of Sally and me are taken into consideration, the average age of the remaining members must be about 13. Actually, my Mum and Dad are both 84, and they lurk on here. If I get them to join.....
Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
Scotty wrote:There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
Scotty wrote:There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
I think Junaid and Charlie were brilliant today and showed the spirit of Countdown at its best. But they missed a 9 - xxxxxxxxx - it's in our dictionary anyway. (Actually my wife got it! )
Last edited by John Bosley on Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
)
