c4countdown

Firstly, appologies if this has ever been discussed before... can't be arsed looking back over 11 pages for now...

How beneficial do people find 30 seconds for coming up with an answer?

With numbers games, I usually have the answer within ten seconds if straightforward, and it takes me well over 30 if it's a tricky one. Similarly with letters, whatever first jumps out at me tends to stick with me and I come up with nothing more in seconds 10-30. Also a conundrum will either present itself to me without even trying, or I don't get it.

What do other people think? Do you tend to get your best answer almost immediately? What would mind specialists say? Could this initial good answer be because our brain works more effectively in the first few seconds of being presented with a situation? Could it be a bit like in an exam when you're urged to, if in doubt, 'go with your first answer' as often pondering leaves time for doubt and error...

What I'm saying is, if we were to play an imaginary game of 'quick fire Countdown' we'd probably all score similarly than if we were given the whole 30 seconds. Agreed or not? Discuss.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Firstly, appologies if this has ever been discussed before... can't be arsed looking back over 11 pages for now...

How beneficial do people find 30 seconds for coming up with an answer?

With numbers games, I usually have the answer within ten seconds if straightforward, and it takes me well over 30 if it's a tricky one. Similarly with letters, whatever first jumps out at me tends to stick with me and I come up with nothing more in seconds 10-30. Also a conundrum will either present itself to me without even trying, or I don't get it.

What do other people think? Do you tend to get your best answer almost immediately? What would mind specialists say? Could this initial good answer be because our brain works more effectively in the first few seconds of being presented with a situation? Could it be a bit like in an exam when you're urged to, if in doubt, 'go with your first answer' as often pondering leaves time for doubt and error...

What I'm saying is, if we were to play an imaginary game of 'quick fire Countdown' we'd probably all score similarly than if we were given the whole 30 seconds. Agreed or not? Discuss.

Disagreed. Although my apterous 10 second games (or even 5 second games) are much better than average, they don't compare to my 30 second games. I might spot URINATES instantly but know that I can use the spare N for a nine and sometimes it takes me about 15 seconds to remember what it is - SATURNINE.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:What I'm saying is, if we were to play an imaginary game of 'quick fire Countdown' we'd probably all score similarly than if we were given the whole 30 seconds. Agreed or not? Discuss.

All the evidence from not-so-imaginary apterous games is that people play much worse with 10 second rounds, and anything less than that is just stupidly bad. But some people are affected less than others (eg Conor doesn't seem to suffer much at all) and you might be one of those. If you think you might be then it's easy enough to find out.

From apterous I play a bit worse at 10 secs than 30, but not too much. Things go downhill rapidly once I get to 5 secs though.

I play much worse at 3 second rounds (obviously) but can still get a respectable score:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=10677

Kirk Bevins wrote:I play much worse at 3 second rounds (obviously) but can still get a respectable score:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=10677

WOMEN, BODICE, CAVE, RAPING.

You make me sick

Jon Corby wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I play much worse at 3 second rounds (obviously) but can still get a respectable score:

http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=10677

WOMEN, BODICE, CAVE, RAPING.

You make me sick

Jealous?

At risk of stating the obvious, 30 seconds gives 3 times as long to work at it. The exam analogy isn't really relevant, as there's relatively little possibility of doubt in Countdown - you've either got a solution or you haven't, and if you haven't, the extra time to find one can only be useful.

Numbers - you have time to try two or three approaches to the solution instead of just 1 approach.
Letters - having found the straightforward 6, you have 20 seconds left to aim higher. And also you have longer to consider the various prefixes or suffixes - eg. un-, under-, de-, -ed, re-, -er all appear in the same set of letters and you can't look at all that lot in 10 seconds.

I usually see words developing as the letters are put up on the board and, if there's an obvious 7 or 8, I've very often got it by the time the clock starts. However, when that doesn't happen and I have to start from scratch with the clock, it can take a lot longer. In an apterous game yesterday I was looking at PARADES as my best shot until about 27 secs, then suddenly realised I could also use the I to make PARADISE which I entered just in time.

What I often find is that a common prefix or suffix such as -ING, -IEST or -LESS leaps out at me straight away and I spend about 20 secs trying to use that before giving up and having to start again - which is harder when you're consciously trying to ignore that prospect.

No. I often spot things late. 30 seconds is good.

I genuinely think I play slightly better in 10-second games. The pressure seems to bring words out of me.

Im still pretty crap at both types though...

I'm a total retard. 45 seconds please!

Not compared with me, Dinos. I'd rather have 45 minutes.

I think with the letters, it takes them more than 30 seconds to put the letters up anyway. The problem with 10 second rounds in Apterous duels is that the computer takes about 3 seconds to pick 9 letters, and that isn't long. Usually if I pick 8 letters on Apterous and they're good letters, I've already come up with some possible nines before I even pick the letter, so if that letter comes, I can get an instant nine. Quite often with nines I can spot them in about 2 seconds like I would a conundrum, but you also have to write the words down an Apterous, if it were just a question of spotting the words, 10 seconds is fine by me. For numbers, I'm quite weak but the easy ones can be solved in about 5 seconds, and the hard ones I can't get them at all, so I couldn't do the numbers in 10 seconds, but the letters is fine by me.

I'm a suffix player, looking for stuff to put in front of -ING and -TION, this usually takes up about 15 seconds, though sometimes I'll spot a word straight away. These are usually the cooler words, like FISTULAR

I think as people have said, Apterous is quite an artificial situation. A 10-second round on that makes a lot more difference (unless the person picks quite slowly which they normally don't) than a 10-second round would in the television game, where you can sit and work out words while the letters are going up.

In the numbers game, you don't have the same situation as the target is revealed at the end, but even then with Apterous you have to fiddle around declaring your target within the time if it's not spot on and that takes the same absolute time, so a higher proportion of time, in shorter rounds.

So with both numbers and letters, shortening the time in Apterous would make more difference than in "real life".

Lesley, first may I say that you never introduced yourself to us? Please feel free to introduce yourself!

About your question, the subject of this thread is what makes the game so engaging... or at least I think so!

Jason Larsen wrote:Lesley, first may I say that you never introduced yourself to us? Please feel free to introduce yourself!

Sorry Jason, but I think you will find that Lesley has introduced herself and a rather big introduction as well if I do say so myself . Infact it was Lesley's first post on the forum.

Jason Larsen wrote:Lesley, first may I say that you never introduced yourself to us? Please feel free to introduce yourself!

You're obsessed with people introducing themselves in the introduction thread!

Sorry, Joseph!

What if they raise the thinking time to one minute next year?

Jason Larsen wrote:Sorry, Joseph!

What if they raise the thinking time to one minute next year?

I'd shoot myself.

Kirk!

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think as people have said, Apterous is quite an artificial situation.

Unlike studio conditions, which are ubiquitous in nature.

Well, Charlie, we like it!

Thanks for all your thoughts, and giving me an insight in to how your brains work (as if I'm not getting an idea by reading your posts! ). I'm glad it works differently for us all, which makes us all so unique and interesting.

And I'm glad my first go at starting a new thread didn't go down like a lead balloon.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:Lesley, first may I say that you never introduced yourself to us? Please feel free to introduce yourself!

Sorry Jason, but I think you will find that Lesley has introduced herself and a rather big introduction as well if I do say so myself . Infact it was Lesley's first post on the forum.

Yes, I went there first, just by chance, phew. As after seeing you lot maul a newbie, dare they post elsewhere first (even if accidental ), I'm flippin' glad I did!

Finally, as I've not ventured into the Apterous world at all, thanks for not whipping my ass for not knowing that you're all already partaking in quickies.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Yes, I went there first, just by chance, phew. As after seeing you lot maul a newbie, dare they post elsewhere first (even if accidental ), I'm flippin' glad I did!

Jason (no-one else) just has this thing where if someone hasn't introduced themselves, he will call them on it but you should feel free to post wherever you want to first

Oh, I thought they were referred to as 'trolls' or something?

WOW! My family think I'm a Countdown freak just because I watch it every day and record it too just in case someone comes to the door or the phone rings and I might miss a few seconds. But you lot are scary!!

Re: Apterous, I know if I'm playing a bot and the first 8 letters spell out STRAINER, then I'm probably going to spend at least a minute working out what nines I can get with a vowel or consonant. There's no rule against this although I think I'd consider it unethical against a human opponent, it's hard to feel guilty when you're playing a computer! I think maybe 10 seconds to choose the last letter on Apterous would be sufficient - I know when playing Hypercountdown you can just choose 11 letters then spend a minute looking at 11 (of a possible 12) letters and then choose the last one at that point - this should be dealt with.

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Oh, I thought they were referred to as 'trolls' or something?

No, posting without introducing yourself first doesn't make you a troll. Posting without introducing yourself and posting in a clearly inappropriate forum and spending the whole of your first post pretending to complain about things that have never actually happened on the show - that makes you a troll.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think as people have said, Apterous is quite an artificial situation.

Unlike studio conditions, which are ubiquitous in nature.

It is the "natural" setting for Countdown.

Martin Gardner wrote:Re: Apterous, I know if I'm playing a bot and the first 8 letters spell out STRAINER, then I'm probably going to spend at least a minute working out what nines I can get with a vowel or consonant. There's no rule against this although I think I'd consider it unethical against a human opponent, it's hard to feel guilty when you're playing a computer! I think maybe 10 seconds to choose the last letter on Apterous would be sufficient - I know when playing Hypercountdown you can just choose 11 letters then spend a minute looking at 11 (of a possible 12) letters and then choose the last one at that point - this should be dealt with.

Possibly. I'm going to the Apterous forum tp ost something. See you there.

I think I do better relative to others at ten seconds, but worse marginally than at 30s. I'll have to trawl my results and see.