Spoilers for Thu 05/03/2009

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:10 pm

Kirk has already smashed numerous Countdown records this week: most maxes in a game (15/15), highest ever challenger score (127) and most shirt buttons left undone (lots). Can he smash the big 146 today?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:14 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:and most shirt buttons left undone (lots).

I'm glad it wasn't just me who noticed that.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:33 pm

I think he wants us to call him Kirkules.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:24 pm

"Next up on channel 4, the Kirkulator takes on a TV quiz master, in Countdown."

I like how they even mention him in the idents. I've a feeling this is going to be an awesome game.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:28 pm

i already want him to smash the old man to bits

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:29 pm

come on kirk thats an easy 9

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:30 pm

The old man looks awesome, leave him be.

Nice letters, you could tell straight away there was a nine in there.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:31 pm

alas looks like the 36-0 after 2 rounds is off.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:32 pm

BEHOVE, excellent spot by the challenger.

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:34 pm

No DILDOS for Kirk then.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:35 pm

Kirk strikes back with DALASIS! What a game...

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:35 pm

is that the first letters game he has been beaten in?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:36 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:The old man looks awesome, leave him be.
Nice letters, you could tell straight away there was a nine in there.

My thoughts entirely. I went for PREDATION myself, but with utter trepidation compared to Kirk's confidence. Ha!
Kirk's sending a lot of gazes and nods the audience's way, I'm guessing Charlie saw Kirk's first five games at least?

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:38 pm

tomrowell wrote:is that the first letters game he has been beaten in?

Yep. Think the old guy heard you...

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:44 pm

yes, i will take full responsibility for kirk being beaten there. i will make sure im nicer to the challenger tomorrow

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:45 pm

Another nine is on! Will Kirk get it...

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:46 pm

Ten! This game rules.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:46 pm

he is on for a massive score now

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:47 pm

Oh God, another nine on the cards. Please get it...

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:48 pm

and another!

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:48 pm

this has to be the record. insane.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:49 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:this has to be the record. insane.

Four nines is the record, but this is still fucking top drawer.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:50 pm

has anyone ever got a century before the 2nd break?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:51 pm

Ben Hunter wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:this has to be the record. insane.
Four nines is the record, but this is still fucking top drawer.

Yeah, realised that. Was thinking of the 146! Though certainly equalling four nines isn't out of the question by a long way either.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:52 pm

Did the 4 nines record and the 146 come hand-in-hand?

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:52 pm

Matt: yep.

tomrowell wrote:has anyone ever got a century before the 2nd break?

Checked Julian Fell's 146, and he had 94 before the break. Kirk has every chance of getting the record here.

Matt Coates · Post by **Matt Coates** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:53 pm

damn, that behove has cost Kirk the highest score, he needs at least another 9 to break the record

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:53 pm

Shitty numbers, hope Kirk can get it.

EDIT: oh, it was easier than I thought, lol.

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:54 pm

well he should be getting that record then

Ben Wilson · Post by **Ben Wilson** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:55 pm

tomrowell wrote:has anyone ever got a century before the 2nd break?

No. Chalk another record to the Bevatron.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:56 pm

Needs the letters to play ball, he'll need another 9 on the letters to beat it or 8-8-8 to equal. C'mon Kirky!

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:00 pm

First 8, coming up.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:02 pm

these look tough, can't see better than OPACITY myself.

EDIT: feared as much. Here's hoping for a 9 next round...

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:05 pm

what did i tell you about him! picking 4 big ones to spoil his score!

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:06 pm

Wonder why quizmaster stung him with 4 large? Tom, you were right!

tomrowell · Post by **tomrowell** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:07 pm

its a good job he wasn't on for the record..........

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:09 pm

He's bottled it

Seriously though that was quality stuff, and I'm pleased for Peter to get the conundrum once the record was gone as he seems like a top bloke.

It was quite agonising in the AIRDATES round as it looked as if the 9 would be there, but slowly deflated as I couldn't spot it and was praying for Kirk to see something I'd missed.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:16 pm

Well done once again, Kirk. Didn't quite make the 147, but you're easily on target for the 925. What's more, your opponent today was the image of one of my old schoolteachers. If I hadn't calculated that he'd now be well over 100, I'd have been convinced it'd been him.

Great play, Kirk. I look forward to what's still in store for us.

Jojo Apollo · Post by **Jojo Apollo** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:16 pm

Very well played Kirk, shame about not getting the record score. But tomorrow is another day as they say.

ps. I get the feeling you want to lay one on Dr Phil at some point for trying to wind you up

AnnieHall · Post by **AnnieHall** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:20 pm

What a brilliant player Kirk is!
I feel sorry for his opponents!
Pleased to say I did get the conundrum straight away!

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:22 pm

tomrowell wrote:what did i tell you about him! picking 4 big ones to spoil his score!

Exactly what I thought. Arsehole!

Still, Kirk didn't get the conundrum, so the nos round didn't make huge difference.

130 total, and yet another record broken of over a century before the second break. Awesome, Kirky!

JackHurst · Post by **JackHurst** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:32 pm

What a shame that he missed the conumdrum, still would have been the second highest of all time if my sources are right.

There were at least 17 extra points that he could have picked up throughout the show, still an outstanding performance.

It was also nice to see him mentioning apterous, i wonder if they will let him refer to it by its name tomorrow.

Allan Harmer · Post by **Allan Harmer** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:32 pm

Awesome once again Kirk.

It's great to watch a master a work!

Let's hopefully see a few more records go on the way.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:42 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Ben Hunter wrote:and most shirt buttons left undone (lots).
I'm glad it wasn't just me who noticed that.

No, it wasn't just you.

Matt Coates · Post by **Matt Coates** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:47 pm

Kirk needs to average 111 in his next 4 games to beat the 924 record

and he has already averaged 120 in the first 4 games.

c'mon Kirky

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:55 pm

How would you use UNCREATES?

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:00 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?

Although I didn't spot it, I did know the word, and as far as I know it means to force something out of existence, to undo its creation, i.e. annihilate, make extinct.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:08 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?
Although I didn't spot it, I did know the word, and as far as I know it means to force something out of existence, to undo its creation, i.e. annihilate, make extinct.

Hmm. Sounds dodgy to me - to destroy something isn't usually the reverse of the act of creating it. That's like having "unbirth" as a synonym for death. I'm not doubting that it's in the dictionary, just unconvinced that it deserves a place there (especially when a word in common use like "courters" is excluded).

In the round where Kirk got AIRDATES, I was expecting Peter to spot DISASTER which (from his perspective) would have been fairly apt.

Matt Morrison · Post by **Matt Morrison** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:11 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
Phil Reynolds wrote:How would you use UNCREATES?
Although I didn't spot it, I did know the word, and as far as I know it means to force something out of existence, to undo its creation, i.e. annihilate, make extinct.
Hmm. Sounds dodgy to me - to destroy something isn't usually the reverse of the act of creating it. That's like having "unbirth" as a synonym for death. I'm not doubting that it's in the dictionary, just unconvinced that it deserves a place there (especially when a word in common use like "courters" is excluded).

Totally with you, I agree (and even Kirk mentioned) that it's a horribly constructed word.
I think it's less to destroy, more to obliterate to extinction. You could uncreate a species by wiping it out, but I don't think you could uncreate your neighbour's shed.
I also went for COURTERS yesterday. Bloody dictionaries, eh?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:17 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:That's like having "unbirth" as a synonym for death. I'm not doubting that it's in the dictionary, just unconvinced that it deserves a place there (especially when a word in common use like "courters" is excluded).

At first glance I would agree with you, but really this illustrates why dictionaries used to be really shit before the advent of statistical linguistics. Every one of us has a distorted view of which words are common because we've read such a tiny fraction of all the text that's out there to read (and in any case are inately weak at estimating relative probabilities.) To illustrate this is in a totally rigorous way, I'll point out that COURTER returns 268K Google hits, whereas UNCREATE has 307K, with comparable results for the various inflections. So I think they got this one right.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:27 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:COURTER returns 268K Google hits, whereas UNCREATE has 307K, with comparable results for the various inflections.

Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts can't you?

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:27 pm

What an unbelievable game. I think it's a bit shitty to go for four large when your opponent is on for a massive score like that. I'm also really surprised he didn't get the conundrum. At first I thought it was LUNDERING until I realised I only needed to move one letter to make it right.

Incredible drama, maybe Kirk will get another shot at the record, but he'll be lucky to have a game with a max that big again.

Ben Hunter · Post by **Ben Hunter** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:37 pm

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:COURTER returns 268K Google hits, whereas UNCREATE has 307K, with comparable results for the various inflections.
Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts can't you?

I'm not interested in facts, I find they tend to cloud my judgement.

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:38 pm

Rachel Riley on today's show wrote:Dunno about fighting, but I'm definitely fit.

IAWTP

Jimmy Gough · Post by **Jimmy Gough** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:43 pm

Julie T wrote:
tomrowell wrote:what did i tell you about him! picking 4 big ones to spoil his score!
Exactly what I thought. Arsehole!

Yeah, I mean how dare he choose what numbers to pick to try and reduce his defecit? Wanker.

Julie T · Post by **Julie T** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:45 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Julie T wrote:
tomrowell wrote:what did i tell you about him! picking 4 big ones to spoil his score!
Exactly what I thought. Arsehole!
Yeah, I mean how dare he choose what numbers to pick to try and reduce his defecit? Wanker.

But the only thing that matters is our Kirky!

Martin Gardner · Post by **Martin Gardner** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm

Jimmy Gough wrote:
Julie T wrote:
tomrowell wrote:what did i tell you about him! picking 4 big ones to spoil his score!
Exactly what I thought. Arsehole!
Yeah, I mean how dare he choose what numbers to pick to try and reduce his defecit? Wanker.

No I'd choose one or two large there. If he's 19 behind then obviously he's gotta try and win, but he's nearly 100 behind! The only immediate example I can think of, is in professional baseball if a pitcher's got a perfect game going in the late innings, you don't try and bunt for a hit, you try and get a clean hit. I remember there was a little bit of controversy a few years ago when a player bunted for a hit and made it, but the score was onl 2-0 and clearly you've got to try and win in that situation. But if it's 12-0 I think you've got to give the guy a fighting chance.

I suspect this is not a very useful example, given the popularity of the sport in this country. Jason, if you're reading this, what are the Mariners like this year?

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:54 pm

I think people may forget that to most contestants, the idea of records and massive scores and whatever don't really cross their mind. I was in the "oh my god what a bastard" camp until CF started looking at me funny - now I've thought about it I think it's a fairly reasonable thing to do.

Great game Kirk - when that R popped out in the first round I was already excited (well, I was excited just before it popped out too - it is entirely possible I went a bit Deal or No Deal and started shouting "R! R! R!").

Man, I am *so* cool.

Paul Howe · Post by **Paul Howe** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:05 pm

Jeez, leave Peter alone. He's allowed to pick what he wants, and I thought he played the game in a great spirit considering the clobbering he was taking.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:07 pm

Four games in, and we've already had women wanting to have Kirk's babies, men drooling over glimpses of his naked chest and Charlie seduced by his sexy wink. Is Kirk setting yet another record - the most sexually stimulating contestant ever?

Incidentally, this reminds me: Kirk accused me in aptochat a couple of weeks ago of saying on this board that I (a) fancy Charlie but (b) don't fancy him. I have absolutely no recollection of saying any such thing and can find no evidence for having done so, though I'm happy to be proved wrong. In any case, I would like to say here and now, for the record, that at least one of those statements is untrue.