c4countdown

Brilliant game today and congratulations Chris. I was really gunning for Ed and thought he'd make 8 games, but he did disappoint me with his attitude when he lost hope of winning. Sad that he was such a poor loser, but maybe it was nerves. Come on, Ed, you did get the teapot! Loved the 20-second Rubic's performance too, Chris!

Jimmy Gough wrote:Wow, I don't think I've ever seen somebody so pissed off at losing before

Lee Simmonds springs to mind. As does John Terry.

Matthew Green wrote:

Jimmy Gough wrote:Wow, I don't think I've ever seen somebody so pissed off at losing before

Lee Simmonds springs to mind. As does John Terry.

It's got to be Mark Coleman.

Matt Morrison wrote:It's got to be Mark Coleman.

Whoa, what series was he in? (and man, Countdown backstage has changed quite a bit)

Well done Chris. Remind me never to play you on Apterous. By the way, is it just me, or is everyone having trouble logging in to Apterous?

Joyce Phillips wrote:Well done Chris. Remind me never to play you on Apterous. By the way, is it just me, or is everyone having trouble logging in to Apterous?

You're not alone, Joyce. I don't anyone's been on it for the last 24 hours or so.

Charlie needs to return from Italy ASAP

Btw, if you're reading this Chris, 2 things:

1. Well done on winning today.

and

2. We need to play on Apterous someday, where I'll probably get my butt kicked.

Thanks for the info James. As for playing Chris, I thought I would improve by playing top-ranked players, but all I learned was how c*** I am.

I don't think we should spoil Charlie's holiday, but...

I don't get all this stuff about Ed being a sore loser... He played very well, and was understandably upset afterwards?...

Also, I only saw the latter two thirds of this show, but in those I beat Chris... it felt weird... I would never manage that on apterous.

Chris, did you know the word PREMORBID before this show?

Ben Hunter wrote:Chris, did you know the word PREMORBID before this show?

Nope.

Also, Chris looks nothing like his avatar. Scandalous.

Ben Hunter wrote:Chris, did you know the word PREMORBID before this show?

I even had MORBID before getting BROMIDE. I'd not heard of it either. Odd that when the challenger needed (realistically) to beat Chris on this round that he said "stick with 6" after knowing Chris had a 6. Surely risking the 7 was worth it? Also had Ed gone for TAKEABLE and not TAKABLE things may have been different.

An exciting game with two top players but I felt uncomfortable seeing how pissed off Ed was. I'd be pissed off if I lost too but he clearly lost to a quality player - FORAMINA showed that and perhaps he could have looked a little more gracious.

I'd have been bricking it seeing Ed rack up 3 wins as everyone surely hopes to play 65 year old Ada Begg from Coventry on their first show.

Shame you were so nervous, Chris as you clearly didn't demonstrate your devastating best.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I even had MORBID before getting BROMIDE. I'd not heard of it either. Odd that when the challenger needed (realistically) to beat Chris on this round that he said "stick with 6" after knowing Chris had a 6. Surely risking the 7 was worth it?

Yeah, I noticed that. I can only figure he was convinced his dodgy 7 was just ridiculously dodgy. Plus he'd matched Chris for the first two number rounds, so maybe thought he had a chance.

Michael Wallace wrote:Plus he'd matched Chris for the first two number rounds, so maybe thought he had a chance.

Matching him (if Chris got it spot on) would mean he'd lost

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:Plus he'd matched Chris for the first two number rounds, so maybe thought he had a chance.

Matching him (if Chris got it spot on) would mean he'd lost

...well yes, but my point was that he might think "well he hasn't shown himself to be better than me on the numbers, maybe I'll get lucky with a tricky selection that he won't manage".

Michael Wallace wrote: ...well yes, but my point was that he might think "well he hasn't shown himself to be better than me on the numbers, maybe I'll get lucky with a tricky selection that he won't manage".

But he didn't match Chris. Chris did a lovely solution for 660 and Ed didn't.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: ...well yes, but my point was that he might think "well he hasn't shown himself to be better than me on the numbers, maybe I'll get lucky with a tricky selection that he won't manage".

But he didn't match Chris. Chris did a lovely solution for 660 and Ed didn't.

Ah yes, good point (why didn't you say that in the first place? :p).

Michael Wallace wrote: Ah yes, good point (why didn't you say that in the first place? :p).

a) I'd only just noticed that and b) matching him meant he lost was the point of my first post hence carrying that one forward.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Ada Begg

A-lol at you choosing that name - the example name used on tests to demonstrate the use of the filling-in-boxes routine.

I prefer 'literally lol' or 'lol literally' to this a-lol nonsense, as it then leaves it as llol or loll, and could easily be a typo and just adds confusion.

Anyway, well done Chris! That Rubik's cube solve was the highlight, even if the video was blatantly sped up loads (you can actually see his hair growing if you look carefully).

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Ada Begg

A-lol at you choosing that name - the example name used on tests to demonstrate the use of the filling-in-boxes routine.

Well done. I wondered if anyone would notice that.

Jon Corby wrote:That Rubik's cube solve was the highlight, even if the video was blatantly sped up loads (you can actually see his hair growing if you look carefully).

Are you sure it was speeded up? I have looked at the recording online a couple of times now and the changing background lighting does not appear sped up at all.

Peter Staveley wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That Rubik's cube solve was the highlight, even if the video was blatantly sped up loads (you can actually see his hair growing if you look carefully).

Are you sure it was speeded up? I have looked at the recording online a couple of times now and the changing background lighting does not appear sped up at all.

Yes. There's even a cut as well actually I've just noticed - Chris's glass of water moves slightly and goes from being nearly full to less than half-full.

Kieran Child wrote:I don't get all this stuff about Ed being a sore loser... He played very well, and was understandably upset afterwards?...

I think I was the only person to use the phrase "bad loser" in this thread, and I meant it as sarcastic exaggeration. I can empaphize with Eds disappointment, as there were a few rounds where he could have done better. What you have to remember, is that he was not aware of Chris's potential at the time, and as there were a couple of rounds where chris was beatable, he might have genuinely felt like he should have won.

Jon Corby wrote:

Peter Staveley wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That Rubik's cube solve was the highlight, even if the video was blatantly sped up loads (you can actually see his hair growing if you look carefully).

Are you sure it was speeded up? I have looked at the recording online a couple of times now and the changing background lighting does not appear sped up at all.

Yes. There's even a cut as well actually I've just noticed - Chris's glass of water moves slightly and goes from being nearly full to less than half-full.

Sorry to go on about this but are we taking about the same section of hte programme? I am using the C4 online version. The Rubik cube section lasts from 34:21 to 34:42. I have looked at the glass and it does not move and its contents do not visably change (this includes me putting a couple of markers on the screen in order to detect the cut). Jeff times the feat as "20 seconds". If Jeff was using real time then he would say a longer time. If he knew that they were going to speed it up then we would not have mentioned the time for fear of guessing the amount of speed up wrong.

So could you tells at what time the water moves?

Thanks

Peter Staveley wrote:Sorry to go on about this but are we taking about the same section of hte programme? I am using the C4 online version. The Rubik cube section lasts from 34:21 to 34:42. I have looked at the glass and it does not move and its contents do not visably change (this includes me putting a couple of markers on the screen in order to detect the cut).

How big are the markers you're using? Jon was exaggerating when he said it goes from nearly full to less than half-full, but there's definitely a change between at 34:31. Try using thinner markers, I used my own eye lashes and they worked great.

Jeff times the feat as "20 seconds". If Jeff was using real time then he would say a longer time. If he knew that they were going to speed it up then we would not have mentioned the time for fear of guessing the amount of speed up wrong.

They used 20 seconds because it's easy to divide the frame rate of the recorded film by a multiple of ten. I suspected '20' was a conveniently round number from the off, but didn't really think why until I checked on here.

I had two takes when I solved the cube. The first time, I realised halfway through the solve that I was going to take too long and asked for another shot (which got a big laugh from everyone). My average solve time with that particular cube was almost exactly 20 seconds.

Chris Davies wrote:I had two takes when I solved the cube. The first time, I realised halfway through the solve that I was going to take too long and asked for another shot (which got a big laugh from everyone). My average solve time with that particular cube was almost exactly 20 seconds.

This is why the water level in the glass goes down, they spliced the highlights from the two takes together.

Ben Hunter wrote:

Chris Davies wrote:I had two takes when I solved the cube. The first time, I realised halfway through the solve that I was going to take too long and asked for another shot (which got a big laugh from everyone). My average solve time with that particular cube was almost exactly 20 seconds.

This is why the water level in the glass goes down, they spliced the highlights from the two takes together.

Unless Chris took a drink whilst solving the cube, just really quick so it's barely noticeable.

Jimmy Gough wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:

Chris Davies wrote:I had two takes when I solved the cube. The first time, I realised halfway through the solve that I was going to take too long and asked for another shot (which got a big laugh from everyone). My average solve time with that particular cube was almost exactly 20 seconds.

This is why the water level in the glass goes down, they spliced the highlights from the two takes together.

Unless Chris took a drink whilst solving the cube, just really quick so it's barely noticeable.

Has anyone tried playing it in slow motion?

Sorry they're being mean to you Peter, they're winding you up.

Kai Laddiman wrote:Sorry they're being mean to you Peter, they're winding you up.

Thanks Kai, I shall remember that when Jon next pontificates.

Also, it changes from a regular 3x3 Rubik Cube into a bust of Baz Bamigboye crafted from what looks like chickpeas and royal jelly, for just a couple of frames.

Oh wait, Kai's ruined it

Excellent debut Chris, although I'm sure you'll do better once you've had a chance to settle in. I allowed myself a small gloat for getting GOLEMS in round 1, which may not have been a max but still beat everyone in the studio; and an even smaller one for realising what you meant when you said "for-a-meaner".

Andy Wilson wrote:Ta Ben. Would be much obliged if someone would post the final result in a bit. Telly-less and my initial foray into the world of torrents has yielded nothing but the reality that mac os x 10.4 doesn't seem to run torrent programmes. Anyway... back to the spoilers...

Ever tried this, Andy?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/countdown/4od

HTH

(edited: just read this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2640 Hope the proxy works for you, Andy)

Congratulations Chris! Recently watched your wonderful debut!
I'm not surprised that Ed was gutted, he's a really great player, but you were better.