c4countdown

This game was indeed brilliant. I managed to come up in AUSPICES, POLITEST and ANORECTAL, which i was ecstatic about. I find it interesting that the idea of the seeding system is that the number one seed earns the right to the supposedly easiest route to the final, but i think the winner out of tomorrows game would have had a much easier route than kirk has had. Maybe this shows that some contestants can improve lots between their heats and the finals.

Its a shame for Neil that he had to play kirk in the semi's, because judging form his form in his two games, I'd probably say he's been the best finalist behind kirk for this series.

Liam Tiernan wrote:My money's on Hamish to pull another rabbit (or raccoon) out of his hat.

Wait what?

Well played to Neil and Kirk.
Can anybody tell me where doctor Phil lives so I can go watch round his house. I nearly had a heart attack today. That was so awesome a game.
Both players slaughtered me today, my one bit of glory was first numbers:-
100-(8*2)=84
84*(7+4)=924

Terrific game - well done to both players, especially Neil who many (probably including himself) felt might be the underdog. Pity this wasn't the final, really. Can it get any better?

Great game! It's a shame that Rachel broke her arm between the last quarter final and this game, but I'm sure she'll be better tomorrow!

Gavin Chipper wrote:Great game! It's a shame that Rachel broke her arm between the last quarter final and this game, but I'm sure she'll be better tomorrow!

lol wat

I'm glad it was good to watch, but to be honest that was really devastating. I expected to get beaten comfortably, as I said on yesterday's show. But to come so close makes it more difficult to take. I suppose I shouldn't really have any regrets- I did far better than I thought I would do in January when it all started. But all I had to do was push a button and say the word 'Eclampsia' and I'd be in the final, I mean how easy is that?!
In a way, it's very annoying- he had a massive advantage in that he'd seen the scramble before, which is a bit of an unfair advantage. It means he 'learnt' the answer rather than solving it, which is not really what the game is about. But I'm probably a bit biased. Why couldn't Damian have picked a word I knew but Kirk didn't?!
Obviously Kirk is the better player, but he wasn't used to that kind of pressure, which played into my hands a bit. When I pointed out before the final numbers that the conundrum would be crucial whatever happened, he was not happy! But unfortunately for me, my mind games (which were totally unintentional, by the way, I wasn't trying to make Kirk nervous!) didn't quite work.
I know most of you wanted Kirk to win today. You got your wish. But it would've been so nice to be remembered as the person who beat the Kirkulator.
And they also cut out my joke about not solving the conundrum even in 30 minutes, let alone 30 seconds.

Matt Morrison wrote: I'm not sure what I'd have preferred really - a total nonsense conundrum like ECLAMPSIA that suits the contestant's abilities, or something a bit more reasonable that might have produced more of a crucial buzz-off. I wouldn't have got it in 30 days.

I'd definitely prefer this to the alternative. If the conundrum had been Speakeasy, say, Kirk would've buzzed straight away and I'd had so many regrets about losing out just because my reactions were a bit slower. At least this way there was nothing I could do, so I can't really regret it. The only think I'm kicking myself on is the first numbers. It was really a bad miss by us both, and if I'd solved that, and Kirk went behind for the first time, who knows what might've happened...

Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

Neil Zussman wrote:I know most of you wanted Kirk to win today. You got your wish. But it would've been so nice to be remembered as the person who beat the Kirkulator.

Those that have met Kirk did, but for others of us on here you are on a more equal ground, as you are both people who we know a bit on here, and both seem like good guys in your own individual ways. I for one would have been just as happy for you to have won after playing such a magnificent game.

Hopefully you'll get another go in the future, because coming so close and just being beaten on that one small thing makes you a very special case.

Neil Zussman wrote:Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

Keep posting on here, and make sure we never forget you!

Edited to add - Another thing is you probably had a LOT of support among general viewers, as it is in the British psyche to always support the perceived underdog.

Interesting post Neil. I was, for obvious reasons, cheering you on in the green room!

Neil Zussman wrote:Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

They don't? Idiots.






Hello, I'm Kai Laddiman, and I went on Countdown once.

But seriously, Neil, you did amazing mate. The conundrum was slightly harsh on you (I hadn't even heard of it before), but you did brilliantly. If I didn't already know I would've tippped you to go all the way.

Talk about fishing for compliments! Nah i'm only joking Neil, I feel for you - that post of yours had genuine emotion. I see what you mean about the conundrum now - better to have had no chance at all, than to have to always rue your reaction times rather than your pure Countdown ability.

The whole thing was a fantastic effort, I'm damn sure everyone here appreciates how close you came and it was far from being a simple case of "yet another win for Kirk".

You don't need to be remembered for beating Kirk, and you don't need to be remembered for being a losing semi-finalist, you'll be remembered here because you're a quality contestant and a quality guy. Besides, you've got Phil here to constantly swoon over you, so at least you've got that for recognition. And who remembers Richard Pay anyway?

As far as who I wanted to win - I literally had no preference. Kirk's so good that if I didn't know him I'd want him to get beaten every time I see him play (mentality ingrained from being a Liverpool fan watching Man Utd win everything), but I know Kirk would be distraught if he didn't win this series (it didn't take a psychologist to see that in his face as you pushed him today). Of course, you're clearly distraught too. Cheesy as it is, I just watched it as a total neutral, hoping for a good game. And if you want cheesier, how's this: there were no losers, only winners.

Neil Zussman wrote:Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

Neil Zussman wrote:But it would've been so nice to be remembered as the person who beat the Kirkulator.

It's odd that you should mention that, as Kirk doesn't usually have that good a record against #5 seeds who lose in semi-finals.

Kirk Bevins wrote: I'm not quite sure how I managed to see ECLAMPSIA instantly but boy was I happy. I was speechless after and felt tears in my eyes (you can see this on TV just about) but held them back somehow. Emotion city. Awesome game Neil.

I saw the tears quite clearly Kirk but then I have an 'eye definition' TV.

For sheer excitement, one of the best ever Countdown games, as so many series' semi-finals are for some reason.

Well done to Neil for his contribution to this classic.

What a fantastic match!

I've been to see the recordings in Manchester today (to be shown September 14-18th) and all of them were fantastic battles.

Then I came straight back to watch this epic match, which kept me wanting more and MORE and MORE

What brilliance by Kirk on ECLAMPSIA! Hope you do well in the final, Kirk! Commiserations, Neil.

If only that had been the final Pure Countdown Gold!

I for one was supporting you to win Neil, I think I told you on a spoiler earlier this year, that if you met Kirk in the final, to go for the six small tactic ("get him on the six smalls" ) may have worked, may not have, but in the heat of a tense battle it's easy to go down a wrong route as you both did in the first numbers, btw bet that must have been a sickener for both of you and Rachel, seeing how easy it was very understandable though given the tense situation.

You shouldn't feel too bad though Neil, you pushed the great man to the end, and not too sure but haven't losing semi-finalists been invited back for the C of C on the odd occassion, in fact wasn't the last one won by a former semi-finalist? So keep practising.

Congrats on making the final, Kirk, well deserved. No offence to Hamish, as he is a very good contestant, but I shall be supporting Jimmy to make the final as I think he would give you a better match than Hamish, but as stated you can never tell with Hamish, he may pull another few rabbits out of his hat and beat both of you. Really looking forward to the second semi, could be another epic.

Neil Zussman wrote: Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

But they do Neil.
You put up a splendid show, and came across as a very nice fellow.
You`ll be remembered because you were very good.

Neil Zussman wrote: In a way, it's very annoying- he had a massive advantage in that he'd seen the scramble before, which is a bit of an unfair advantage. It means he 'learnt' the answer rather than solving it, which is not really what the game is about. But I'm probably a bit biased.

I object. I'd never seen the scramble before - ever. In fact, it's never come up on Apterous as AMSPECIAL either so not sure where you've got this from. I spotted it "pure".

Even if I had seen the scramble before, this isn't an unfair advantage; this is the idea of practice mate.

Still very impressed by Phil spotting ANORECTAL

I wonder if the letter grouping had been the letters for the conundrum would either player had got it

Jon Corby wrote:Am I the only one that thinks Kirk will piss this? Not to denigrate Neil who is a fantastic player, but Kirk is on another level to practically everyone ...

Glad to be proved a know-nothing chump! Epic match, very well played Neil in pushing Kirk so close, but congrats to Kirk for pulling through with an amazing conundrum spot. I did wonder if Kirk had seen POLITEST but not risked it, as that's what I did watching at home. Got a bit confused that it was maybe one of those words (like LITTLEST) which is used frequently but just not explicitly specified in the dictionary (two syllable adjective) and all that. But it seems not.

As for 'nobody remembers losing semi-finalists' indeed - just hang around here an make 2,000-odd shit posts and generally act the twat. There's probably still a few people who haven't sussed out the 'foe' feature yet, and they'll treasure you forever.

Neil Zussman wrote:In a way, it's very annoying- he had a massive advantage in that he'd seen the scramble before, which is a bit of an unfair advantage. It means he 'learnt' the answer rather than solving it, which is not really what the game is about. But I'm probably a bit biased. Why couldn't Damian have picked a word I knew but Kirk didn't?!

This is just so much shit. First, even if Kirk had seen it before, that's not unfair, any more than seeing POLITEST before is unfair. Practice reaps rewards. Second, Kirk hadn't seen it before, as you could've checked in all of five seconds. Third, Damian deliberately changed the conundrum from one that Kirk had seen shortly before the finals, when he could easily have just let it be. So you lost narrowly to someone much, much better than you, and it could've been a lot worse. There's no way you can feel aggrieved about that.

Jojo Apollo wrote:btw bet that must have been a sickener for both of you and Rachel, seeing how easy it was

Also bollocks. I'm sure I've said this before, but "easy to evaluate" is not remotely the same as "easy to spot", just as you can much more easily confirm that a given 9 is indeed in the selection than spot that 9 in the first place. If you got it sitting from your comfortable position as an armchair hero, congratulations and see you on the show soon, but don't forget to mention all the other rounds in which Kirk/Neil/Rachel beat you.

Jojo Apollo wrote:haven't losing semi-finalists been invited back for the C of C on the odd occassion, in fact wasn't the last one won by a former semi-finalist?

No.

Yipes. Before this turns ungentlemanly, I can't help but ask about this:

Charlie Reams wrote:Damian deliberately changed the conundrum from one that Kirk had seen shortly before the finals, when he could easily have just let it be.

Details? That would appear to be a big effort, especially if similar measures were taken for the other heats. Really? I'm impressed, I think.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:btw bet that must have been a sickener for both of you and Rachel, seeing how easy it was

Also bollocks. I'm sure I've said this before, but "easy to evaluate" is not remotely the same as "easy to spot", just as you can much more easily confirm that a given 9 is indeed in the selection than spot that 9 in the first place. If you got it sitting from your comfortable position as an armchair hero, congratulations and see you on the show soon, but don't forget to mention all the other rounds in which Kirk/Neil/Rachel beat you.

Jojo Apollo wrote:haven't losing semi-finalists been invited back for the C of C on the odd occassion, in fact wasn't the last one won by a former semi-finalist?

No.

First of all, on your first point I did not mean to upset/offend you or anyone. If I did, I apologise sincerely, I meant it would have been sickening (given that all three are so good at the numbers), seeing that there was an easy solution to it that they missed initially, I also stated that it was understandable given the tense situation (meaning in the tv studio, in the heat of battle etc rather than at home as a so called "armchair hero") I guess my gentle ribbing (see wink smiley) didn't go down too well. Kirk/Neil/Rachel have beaten me in numerous numerous rounds and I gladly acknowledge it, I also feel proud when I beat them in the odd round or so at home as an "armchair hero", as they are greats at the game, whereas I am not, it's not like I have been posting/saying/bragging I beat them in that round or that round etc. I never even stated if I got that first numbers solution.

On your second point, as I said I wasn't sure on it. Sorry, I am a bit forgetful, was it a former quarter finalist who won the last C of C?

Again apologies if I have offended anyone.

Chris Thomas wrote:Yipes. Before this turns ungentlemanly, I can't help but ask about this:

Charlie Reams wrote:Damian deliberately changed the conundrum from one that Kirk had seen shortly before the finals, when he could easily have just let it be.

Details? That would appear to be a big effort, especially if similar measures were taken for the other heats. Really? I'm impressed, I think.

NONAGONAL (from the QF) was deliberately chosen as one of the relatively small number of conundrums which were not on Apterous at the time (I hand-filtered them and removed some that I shouldn't have). For either the semi or the final (I forget which), it was originally going to be SAWLAGERS, but after this Damian changed it. Also Damian had bravely announced before the finals that none of them would be solved instantly, and even though he was proved wrong at least twice, it makes any suggestion that the conundrums were somehow favouring Kirk fairly ridiculous.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Again apologies if I have offended anyone.

You didn't, I don't take people being wrong about stuff as a personal insult. I had to respond to a fairly large amount of crap being spouted in this thread, which means I get bored of doing it politely. Talking of which...

Matt Morrison wrote:a total nonsense conundrum like ECLAMPSIA

Err, what?

I've just managed to watch yesterday's show and must congratulate both Kirk and Neil for providing a great spectacle. What a great game, well worthy of a final. Very unlucky Neil to be pipped at the post, but to see Kirk's reactions says it all. I hope Dr Phil took his blood pressure afterwards.

Neil Zussman wrote:I'm glad it was good to watch, but to be honest that was really devastating. I expected to get beaten comfortably, as I said on yesterday's show. But to come so close makes it more difficult to take. I suppose I shouldn't really have any regrets- I did far better than I thought I would do in January when it all started. But all I had to do was push a button and say the word 'Eclampsia' and I'd be in the final, I mean how easy is that?!
In a way, it's very annoying- he had a massive advantage in that he'd seen the scramble before, which is a bit of an unfair advantage. It means he 'learnt' the answer rather than solving it, which is not really what the game is about. But I'm probably a bit biased. Why couldn't Damian have picked a word I knew but Kirk didn't?!
Obviously Kirk is the better player, but he wasn't used to that kind of pressure, which played into my hands a bit. When I pointed out before the final numbers that the conundrum would be crucial whatever happened, he was not happy! But unfortunately for me, my mind games (which were totally unintentional, by the way, I wasn't trying to make Kirk nervous!) didn't quite work.
I know most of you wanted Kirk to win today. You got your wish. But it would've been so nice to be remembered as the person who beat the Kirkulator.
And they also cut out my joke about not solving the conundrum even in 30 minutes, let alone 30 seconds.

Matt Morrison wrote: I'm not sure what I'd have preferred really - a total nonsense conundrum like ECLAMPSIA that suits the contestant's abilities, or something a bit more reasonable that might have produced more of a crucial buzz-off. I wouldn't have got it in 30 days.

I'd definitely prefer this to the alternative. If the conundrum had been Speakeasy, say, Kirk would've buzzed straight away and I'd had so many regrets about losing out just because my reactions were a bit slower. At least this way there was nothing I could do, so I can't really regret it. The only think I'm kicking myself on is the first numbers. It was really a bad miss by us both, and if I'd solved that, and Kirk went behind for the first time, who knows what might've happened...

Nobody ever remembers the losing semi-finalists...

Maybe you'll get your own back on a crucial conundrum at a CO-event. Kirk's rubbish at those

Jon Corby wrote: I did wonder if Kirk had seen POLITEST but not risked it,

No, I never saw it. When Neil said POLITEST I knew it was in as I offer POLITER a lot and so POLITEST must also be fine - was a good spot.

Meant to mention this yesterday but forgot. Did anyone else notice something highly unusual about the conundrum reveal? Here's a screencap to jog your memory. Two halves of a VFSMB to the first person to post the correct answer.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Meant to mention this yesterday but forgot. Did anyone else notice something highly unusual about the conundrum reveal? Here's a screencap to jog your memory. Two halves of a VFSMB to the first person to post the correct answer.

Yes. The bottom bit turned over before the top bit.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Yes. The bottom bit turned over before the top bit.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Meant to mention this yesterday but forgot. Did anyone else notice something highly unusual about the conundrum reveal? Here's a screencap to jog your memory. Two halves of a VFSMB to the first person to post the correct answer.

It's not unusual for the top set of letters to be the same as the bottom!
Although I pressed my armchair buzzer and said SPECIALISM - which was incorrect!

James Robinson wrote: I've been to see the recordings in Manchester today (to be shown September 14-18th) and all of them were fantastic battles.

Weren't they just!

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:It's not unusual for the top set of letters to be the same as the bottom!

Who said it was?

None of the letters in the same place? Did the thing turn round the other way to normal? Dunno.

Only one border around the boxes instead of the usual one each?

Ben Wilson wrote:Only one border around the boxes instead of the usual one each?

You're thinking along the right lines.

Is it that the shot is of the actual board where the conundrum is revealed, and not the template or whatever it is they put on the camera?

There's a metal border around them both now.

Andrew Hulme wrote:Is it that the shot is of the actual board where the conundrum is revealed, and not the template or whatever it is they put on the camera?

Correct! This is what it should have looked like:



but for some reason the mask got left out on this occasion and viewers were treated to a shot of the actual conundrum board.

How prescient of me to divide this VFSMB in two! Half each to Ben and Andrew.

I like the one with the chrome trims better . . . but I suppose that says more about me.

Derek Hazell wrote:I like the one with the chrome trims better . . . but I suppose that says more about me.

What, that you ride round in a pimped out lowrider Caddy with 25" rims?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:I like the one with the chrome trims better . . . but I suppose that says more about me.

What, that you ride round in a pimped out lowrider Caddy with 25" rims?

You bastard. I wanted the 100th post in this thread

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:I like the one with the chrome trims better . . . but I suppose that says more about me.

What, that you ride round in a pimped out lowrider Caddy with 25" rims?

You bastard. I wanted the 100th post in this thread

It would have been shit compared to mine.

Anyway, bit of an odd milestone? I didn't even celebrate my 1000th! Countdown things please Countdown minds I guess...

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote: In a way, it's very annoying- he had a massive advantage in that he'd seen the scramble before, which is a bit of an unfair advantage. It means he 'learnt' the answer rather than solving it, which is not really what the game is about. But I'm probably a bit biased.

I object. I'd never seen the scramble before - ever. In fact, it's never come up on Apterous as AMSPECIAL either so not sure where you've got this from. I spotted it "pure".

Even if I had seen the scramble before, this isn't an unfair advantage; this is the idea of practice mate.

If this is correct, then obviously I apologise totally. I thought when Jeff asked you how you spotted it so quickly (not broadcast) you said something along the lines of 'I was lucky... I'd seen those words before.' But clearly not. Which begs the question, out of curiosity, where had you come across the word before?

However, this:

Charlie Reams wrote:First, even if Kirk had seen it before, that's not unfair, any more than seeing POLITEST before is unfair. Practice reaps rewards. Second, Kirk hadn't seen it before, as you could've checked in all of five seconds. Third, Damian deliberately changed the conundrum from one that Kirk had seen shortly before the finals, when he could easily have just let it be. So you lost narrowly to someone much, much better than you, and it could've been a lot worse. There's no way you can feel aggrieved about that.

...I totally disgree with. Since Kirk has said he hadn't seen the scramble before it's all immaterial, but I'll give you my reasons anyway. There is a difference between seeing a word before and seeing a conundrum scramble before. Kirk practises a lot. He is very good at spotting words, and then knowing which letters can be added to those words to make longer words. And fair play to him. It takes a large amount of skill to spot a long word from a randomly chosen set of letters. It takes significantly less skill to see a phrase you have seen before (i.e. 'Am Special') and remember that it has a one-word anagram. You practise to get good at certain techniques (e.g. stemming), surely you don't practise with the aim of seeing as many collections of 9 letters as possible and simply learning the longest word you can make from them- it's unfeasible. Remembering is less skillful than solving. It's worth pointing out that if the letters amspecial had come up in a normal letters round, I wouldn't have had any problem- when not presented in the context of a conundrum, it takes more skill to spot the nine. Also there's a good chance Kirk would've seen the word half-way through choosing the letters and thus tried to choose the right consonant vowel combination, which would obviously be much more impressive.
I am also quite aware that Kirk is better than me. That means he should automatically win does it, I should be grateful that I even had a chance of beating him before the conundrum? Rubbish! That's the the beauty of competition. It is true that I could've been thrashed. However that's completely irrelevant; there have been rounds when I have beaten Kirk. If those had all miraculously been in this game, he would've been thrashed. Your point is a waste of time.
Obviously I thank Damian for not giving a conundrum that he knew Kirk had seen before, however it is always possible that Kirk had seen those letters before and Damian was not aware of it.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:btw bet that must have been a sickener for both of you and Rachel, seeing how easy it was

Also bollocks. I'm sure I've said this before, but "easy to evaluate" is not remotely the same as "easy to spot", just as you can much more easily confirm that a given 9 is indeed in the selection than spot that 9 in the first place. If you got it sitting from your comfortable position as an armchair hero, congratulations and see you on the show soon, but don't forget to mention all the other rounds in which Kirk/Neil/Rachel beat you.

Since Kirk and I both said at the time we should've got it, I think you're the one who's talking bollocks (on this occassion) Charlie.

Charlie Reams wrote:...it makes any suggestion that the conundrums were somehow favouring Kirk fairly ridiculous.

Nobody made this claim. I wasn't trying to belittle Kirk's achievements, I would think it was unfair if anybody had seen the exact scramble before.

Maybe I haven't expressed myself very well, but then again, maybe I should only post when I'm wide awake and sober.

Dammit. Charlie would have really enjoyed my joke about the chrome rims. Now it's just going to get lost in amongst all the "no, you're talking bollocks".

Neil, I agree with much of what you've said, but not with the notion that seeing a scramble before is lucky.

As an analogy, suppose you prepare for an Integration exam; you learn all the techniques necessary. Moreover you've attempted lots of past papers, many more than any of your fellow peers. Then, in your exam, a really tough question comes up. Except you've seen it before so can churn it out from memory, unlike your peers who are stumped. Surely you would come out saying you've been rewarded for the extra revision you did. Okay, you didn't plan to have seen the question before, but the fact that you spent so much time going through past questions increased the likelihood that you would see a familiar question. No?

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Neil, I agree with much of what you've said, but not with the notion that seeing a scramble before is lucky.

As an analogy, suppose you prepare for an Integration exam; you learn all the techniques necessary. Moreover you've attempted lots of past papers, many more than any of your fellow peers. Then, in your exam, a really tough question comes up. Except you've seen it before so can churn it out from memory, unlike your peers who are stumped. Surely you would come out saying you've been rewarded for the extra revision you did. Okay, you didn't plan to have seen the question before, but the fact that you spent so much time going through past questions increased the likelihood that you would see a familiar question. No?

That's actually a very good point Junaid. I'll try to come up with a good reply when I'm more awake. However, I do hate the fact that exams are essentially a giant memory test rather than a test of learning and applying techniques, because I do feel that there is too much luck involved. So I'll still disagree with you.
In the Countdown context, would you disagree with my claim that remembering is less skillful than solving?

Matt Morrison wrote:Dammit. Charlie would have really enjoyed my joke about the chrome rims. Now it's just going to get lost in amongst all the "no, you're talking bollocks".

Would you like me to use a different word next time?
Nobody needs to read my last post anyway, it's probably mostly bollocks.

Neil Zussman wrote:I thought when Jeff asked you how you spotted it so quickly (not broadcast) you said something along the lines of 'I was lucky... I'd seen those words before.'

It was broadcast and was along the lines of "I was lucky", i.e. I spotted the word. I knew the word in the second semi final but didn't spot it.

As for where I've heard of ECLAMPSIA before, I'm not 100% but I'm sure Julian Fell mentioned it once in an MSN conversation back in 2005ish.

Neil Zussman wrote:In the Countdown context, would you disagree with my claim that remembering is less skillful than solving?

No, but I don't see how it's relevant. The game isn't just a test of pure raw talent. Incidentally, if it was I'd still back Kirk over just about anyone; SUBSPACE alone is testament to his raw spottint ability (if you're still unconvinced just check out his record on speed games). I think it's good that preparation is rewarded; surely your own success is largely down to the hours you put in?

Whichever side you fall on, it's worth remembering that remembering itself is a reflex action. If you 'remember' a word rather than 'solve' it, you're completely powerless in doing so.
And of course to refuse to declare a word because you remembered it rather than solved it would just be suicidal.
If it's literally impossible to remove a particular aspect of a game, then it has to be seen as an indistinguishable part of that game.

That possibly made sense.

Matt Morrison wrote:Dammit. Charlie would have really enjoyed my joke about the chrome rims. Now it's just going to get lost in amongst all the "no, you're talking bollocks".

My friend said that "gonad" was available in Round 12, but I said "you're talking bollocks".

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote:In the Countdown context, would you disagree with my claim that remembering is less skillful than solving?

No, but I don't see how it's relevant. The game isn't just a test of pure raw talent. Incidentally, if it was I'd still back Kirk over just about anyone; SUBSPACE alone is testament to his raw spottint ability (if you're still unconvinced just check out his record on speed games). I think it's good that preparation is rewarded; surely your own success is largely down to the hours you put in?

It's not relevant to this match in particular, I seem to have gone a bit off topic. You are correct in that the game itself is not just a test of pure raw talent. As I said before, you can get amazingly good at certain techniques through constant practise, e.g. if you see an 8 from the first 8 letters, then it's obviously an advantage to know whether it is better to pick a consonant or vowel to make a 9 (preferably a 9 that your opponent may not know). My only issue is with the conundrums- this requires a slightly different skill to the letters rounds, in that you know what the longest word length is. Thus if you have seen the exact sequence of letters before, you clearly have an advantage. And imho, this is an unfair advantage because the idea is to solve the anagram. Although I'm clearly in a very tiny minority on this one. In the letters rounds, it's different because you have the added difficulty of trying to work out how long the longest available word is, if you see what I mean.

Kirk Bevins wrote: As for where I've heard of ECLAMPSIA before, I'm not 100% but I'm sure Julian Fell mentioned it once in an MSN conversation back in 2005ish.

You remembered a word from a conversation you had 4 years ago and have never used since? Are you sure you're not a cyborg?

Neil Zussman wrote: Thus if you have seen the exact sequence of letters before, you clearly have an advantage. And imho, this is an unfair advantage because the idea is to solve the anagram.

That doesn't even make any sense. Who says what "the idea" is? Getting conundrums which you've seen before is a perk of practising hard and having a good memory, which seem like perfectly legitimate things to reward to me, and certainly things which are rewarded in various ways in the other parts of the game.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Neil Zussman wrote: Thus if you have seen the exact sequence of letters before, you clearly have an advantage. And imho, this is an unfair advantage because the idea is to solve the anagram.

That doesn't even make any sense. Who says what "the idea" is? Getting conundrums which you've seen before is a perk of practising hard and having a good memory, which seem like perfectly legitimate things to reward to me, and certainly things which are rewarded in various ways in the other parts of the game.

OK, sure. You could argue that the objective of that round is to buzz in and give the 9 letter word that has been scrambled. In which case it is clearly an advantage to have seen as many different scrambled words as possible. I happen to think that that round is a pure test of anagramming skill, i.e. 'here's a phrase, find it's anagram.' And if you've seen it before, then clearly you are not solving the anagram, you're remembering the answer, which is a different skill. But I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Andrew Hulme wrote:Is it that the shot is of the actual board where the conundrum is revealed, and not the template or whatever it is they put on the camera?

Correct! This is what it should have looked like:



but for some reason the mask got left out on this occasion and viewers were treated to a shot of the actual conundrum board.

How prescient of me to divide this VFSMB in two! Half each to Ben and Andrew.

It's not the first time it's happened during that series. I definitely recall it happening on at least one other episode, I think it was just after the Champion of Champions tournament.