c4countdown

Following my game with Scott Gillies on Saturday, many people have voiced their opinions regarding people being on the verge of achieving a max game.

In case you aren't aware, Scott had scored 103/103 after 14 rounds, and I was over 10 points behind, so had no chance of winning, so Scott would have got a max game, if he'd answered the conundrum correctly.

I, however, buzzed in on 5.9 seconds with the correct answer, denying Scott his max game.

Some people have said it was unsportsmanlike, but I personally think that you should play to the game, and if you have the right answer, you should declare it.

To add another side to it, I was on 130/130 in a Speedgoat with Dinos yesterday after 14 rounds, and he asked me what I thought in regards to the conundrum. I told him to go for it, but it turned out to be elementary in the end, as I didn't know the answer.

Clearly, opinion is divided.

So......, WHAT WOULD YOU DO

Surely the max game is devalued if you give him an easy ride, should you also go 1 large for him in the last numbers if you're > 20 points behind going into the last numbers game? Of course not.

You did the right thing.

Particularly as it was against Scott

Jon Corby wrote:Surely the max game is devalued if you give him an easy ride, should you also go 1 large for him in the last numbers if you're > 20 points behind going into the last numbers game? Of course not.

Some might disagree.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... a&start=66

Of course Kirk is going to disagree, he's a pathological max-gamer.

But it's totally retarded to let the other person get the conundrum. Unsportsmanlike to try and win one of the 15 rounds required for a max game - what a load of rubbish. It's unsportsmanlike not to try. Someone did it against me I think.. I don't count it as a max game. Actually, he went one step further: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=196762. See the comments.

I think a max game is a special achievement. If the other person spots the conundrum first and denies him a max game I think that's fair (obviously) but unsporting, particularly if the game is already lost. I always ask my opponent what they want me to do. They usually thank me saying that I'll leave it till like 29 seconds. There's nothing worse than being on for your first ever max game and being locked out after you've typed FR.

Other examples of why you are being silly Kirk:

• Your opponent has potted all 7 of his reds and missed the black but left the black over the pocket. Instead of going for an easy yellow you have over the pocket, you half-heartedly attempt a ridiculous reverse double, knowing you'll miss so that your opponent can 7-ball you when he returns to the table, having never 7-balled anyone before.
  
• You are the goalkeeper and your team is losing 5-0 with a minute of stoppage time left. The opposition striker is about to take a penalty against you, has scored two goals in the game already, and has never scored a hat trick in his career. You deliberately let in the penalty by not moving and keeping your hands behind your back so that he can claim his first ever hat trick.
  
• It's the 5th and final round in a fight a UFC's title. Your opponent is predominantly a wrestler, and doesn't usually knock people out, winning all of his fights by judges' decision. He's already laid on top of you and controlled you for 4 and a half rounds, so you know you've lost the fight if it goes to the judges score cards in a couple of minutes. So, to be kind, you gift him his first ever career knockout win by standing up with your hands behind your back and your eyes shut so he can swing at you freely.

None of these things are amazing achievements if your opponent gifts them to you.
In all sports, and all games, records are only recorded in competitive games, not exhibition matches where people don't play properly.

Matt Morrison wrote:Other examples of why you are being silly Kirk:

• Your opponent has potted all 7 of his reds and missed the black but left the black over the pocket. Instead of going for an easy yellow you have over the pocket, you half-heartedly attempt a ridiculous reverse double, knowing you'll miss so that your opponent can 7-ball you when he returns to the table, having never 7-balled anyone before.
  
• You are the goalkeeper and your team is losing 5-0 with a minute of stoppage time left. The opposition striker is about to take a penalty against you, has scored two goals in the game already, and has never scored a hat trick in his career. You deliberately let in the penalty by not moving and keeping your hands behind your back so that he can claim his first ever hat trick.
  
• It's the 5th and final round in a fight a UFC's title. Your opponent is predominantly a wrestler, and doesn't usually knock people out, winning all of his fights by judges' decision. He's already laid on top of you and controlled you for 4 and a half rounds, so you know you've lost the fight if it goes to the judges score cards in a couple of minutes. So, to be kind, you gift him his first ever career knockout win by standing up with your hands behind your back and your eyes shut so he can swing at you freely.

None of these things are amazing achievements if your opponent gifts them to you.
In all sports, and all games, records are only recorded in competitive games, not exhibition matches where people don't play properly.

Yeah. If you're after max-games for the sake of max-games, play Prune.

I agree with Kirk, fair, but unsporting.

I see your points (except point 1 - you'd fucked up the 7 balling, you haven't fucked up the max game yet). If I was to buzz on 0.7 seconds like Rex then it'd be pretty impossible for anyone to get a max game against me. That's fair I know but it's nice for them to know they "maxed" it (against prune) but didn't "max it" against a human. It's a tough one. I'll always let them go for the max game. If they tell me not to as it will devalue it then fair enough but I'll always give them the option.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I'll always let them go for the max game. If they tell me not to as it will devalue it then fair enough but I'll always give them the option.

What if you're <=10 points behind them?

Clearly the correct thing to do is not buzz for the conundrum and just never tell them that's what you did

As above, I'd wait until 29s then buzz, but I wouldn't specifically admit to this. So now you know.

If someone was on a max game I used to not attempt the conundrum when I first started playing but now I would go for the conundrum and in fact want to get it to deny someone a max game. I disagree when it comes to the final numbers game though, I always think it's a bit harsh to choose something like 4 large or 6 small out of character i.e. if they are not a 6 small/4 large specialist.

I'd put the conundrum into a solver to deny them their max game.

Jon Corby wrote:I'd put the conundrum into a solver to deny them their max game.

Scum. Worse than Hitler.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'd put the conundrum into a solver to deny them their max game.

Scum. Worse than Hitler.

Even better, I'd just close the game and refuse to resume it

Ryan Taylor wrote:If someone was on a max game I used to not attempt the conundrum when I first started playing but now I would go for the conundrum and in fact want to get it to deny someone a max game. I disagree when it comes to the final numbers game though, I always think it's a bit harsh to choose something like 4 large or 6 small out of character i.e. if they are not a 6 small/4 large specialist.

Yeah, I tend to pick 1 large if I'm more than 20 behind, just because it's nice to get some points on the board once you've lost. I wouldn't act any differently if my opponent was on for a max.

I don't really feel that strongly about it either way. What is douchy is 1) buzzing in to tell your opponent the answer (how fucking patronising) or 2) buzzing to stall the clock and give your opponent extra time. There's no good technical solution to these problems, unfortunately, so I'm sure it will persist.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:If someone was on a max game I used to not attempt the conundrum when I first started playing but now I would go for the conundrum and in fact want to get it to deny someone a max game. I disagree when it comes to the final numbers game though, I always think it's a bit harsh to choose something like 4 large or 6 small out of character i.e. if they are not a 6 small/4 large specialist.

Yeah, I tend to pick 1 large if I'm more than 20 behind, just because it's nice to get some points on the board once you've lost. I wouldn't act any differently if my opponent was on for a max.

I don't really feel that strongly about it either way. What is douchy is 1) buzzing in to tell your opponent the answer (how fucking patronising) or 2) buzzing to stall the clock and give your opponent extra time. There's no good technical solution to these problems, unfortunately, so I'm sure it will persist.

Extermination!

What became of Michael "Scrooge" Davidson?

Ryan Taylor wrote:
What became of Michael "Scrooge" Davidson?

Dunno, but I hope it wasn't nice, I thought he was a bit of an arse.

I think I'd always leave it for my opponent to get a max game unless there was still a chance of me winning, or if it was a person I really disliked.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think a max game is a special achievement. If the other person spots the conundrum first and denies him a max game I think that's fair (obviously) but unsporting, particularly if the game is already lost. I always ask my opponent what they want me to do. They usually thank me saying that I'll leave it till like 29 seconds. There's nothing worse than being on for your first ever max game and being locked out after you've typed FR.

If I was on for a max game after 14 rounds (yeah right, I know it's not really a realistic situation but let's go with it) I'd be pretty fucked off if my opponent didn't try to get the conundrum. I'd want them to try as hard as they could to get it. In fact I WILL NOT REST until there's a special item specifically for stopping someone getting a max game. As Jono said, if you're looking for max games without opposition, play Prune.

Actually, further to earlier, I'd take pleasure in stopping a max for someone that's had loads already, the gits.

Kirk Bevins wrote:There's nothing worse than being on for your first ever max game and being locked out after you've typed FR.

What about AIDS?

JimBentley wrote:In fact I WILL NOT REST until there's a special item specifically for stopping someone getting a max game.

Sweet idea. I might rest a bit first though.

Jon Corby wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I'd put the conundrum into a solver to deny them their max game.

Scum. Worse than Hitler.

Even better, I'd just close the game and refuse to resume it

Is that all? I'd close the game and refuse to resume it, sure, but I'd want to stop them getting a max in any future games. I'd find out where they live, go there and axe them up a bit.

It's not really a max game if the opponent isn't trying.

One of my opponents in real life got the Conundrum ahead of me to reduce my lead. She suggested I might have deliberately let her get it to score some points; I was happy to be able to say that would have been patronising and I hadn't done it.

I can promise any prospective opponents of mine, if I ever take up Apterous, that any points they get against me will have been earned, with no free passes.

David Roe wrote:It's not really a max game if the opponent isn't trying.

Even though for the first 14 rounds it doesn't matter whether your opponent is trying or not?

Jon O'Neill wrote:Yeah. If you're after max-games for the sake of max-games, play Prune.

David Roe wrote:It's not really a max game if the opponent isn't trying.

Hmm!

And fwiw if I were in the position in question, I wouldn't stop trying to get the conundrum to allow my opponent a max game, but I certainly wouldn't try as hard as if it were crucial, if that makes any sense whatsoever.

Incidentally a similar discussion happened after my quarter-final against Tom Hargreaves where, after being 23 points down going into the final numbers, I switched from 6-small to a 1-large selection. Afterwards everyone assumed I was helping Tom achieve a monster score (he finished on 131) when in actual fact I couldn't have given a toss about his score, I was on for a high losing score of my own (I finished on 98, would've been 108 had I got the conundrum which I was going for regardless).

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Roe wrote:It's not really a max game if the opponent isn't trying.

Even though for the first 14 rounds it doesn't matter whether your opponent is trying or not?

Hmm, this is the point I was trying to steer Kirk towards eariler - clearly it does matter for those 14 rounds though, as this whole "easy ride conundrum" thing only arises if you're more than 10 points behind. Why do they deserve a max game more if you've played sub-optimally for the first 14 rounds?

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

David Roe wrote:It's not really a max game if the opponent isn't trying.

Even though for the first 14 rounds it doesn't matter whether your opponent is trying or not?

Hmm, this is the point I was trying to steer Kirk towards eariler - clearly it does matter for those 14 rounds though, as this whole "easy ride conundrum" thing only arises if you're more than 10 points behind. Why do they deserve a max game more if you've played sub-optimally for the first 14 rounds?

Yeah, I don't think I actually care, but I like to know what other people's rationale is. I think I'd just ask people whether they wanted me to try for the conundrum or not - ultimately it's only a 'personal' achievement, and since opinion is clearly (somewhat) divided on what you 'should' do in that situation then imo it's up to the max-gamer whether they care about how the conundrum is done.

I suppose you could argue that if you let someone get a free ride on a conundrum (at their request) then you're devaluing everyone else's max games or whatever, but I think at that point you're really starting to take the piss; it's a tiny number of people who would be affected by that (especially when you consider how rare an occurrence it is), and they don't need slightly fewer people getting max games to make them feel better about how awesome they are at Countdown.

Michael Wallace wrote: since opinion is clearly (somewhat) divided on what you 'should' do in that situation then imo it's up to the max-gamer whether they care about how the conundrum is done.

Except it's not up to them at all, it's up to their opponent.

I would enjoy depriving someone of a max game. It pisses me off when people beat me.

Jon O'Neill wrote:I would enjoy depriving someone of a max game. It pisses me off when people beat me.

I think if somebody pointedly asked or expected me not to try on the conundrum, it would now make me try harder.

I still wouldn't get it though, because I'm shit at conundrums.

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: since opinion is clearly (somewhat) divided on what you 'should' do in that situation then imo it's up to the max-gamer whether they care about how the conundrum is done.

Except it's not up to them at all, it's up to their opponent.

That's why I said 'imo'

Jon Corby wrote: Hmm, this is the point I was trying to steer Kirk towards eariler - clearly it does matter for those 14 rounds though, as this whole "easy ride conundrum" thing only arises if you're more than 10 points behind. Why do they deserve a max game more if you've played sub-optimally for the first 14 rounds?

Haha, I still don't understand this. The conundrum is the only round in the game that can be affected by your opponent (except their choice of numbers perhaps, like 6 small to fuck you up a bit). If I know they're going for the conundrum I'll buzz in instantly but sometimes I mess up like press SOURDOUGH when it's ROUGHSHOD. If I knew they're gonna leave it then I'll spend one extra second confirming which is which. If I'm rushed I've also missed max games by pressing the wrong letter (usually adjacent) on the keyboard first.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: Hmm, this is the point I was trying to steer Kirk towards eariler - clearly it does matter for those 14 rounds though, as this whole "easy ride conundrum" thing only arises if you're more than 10 points behind. Why do they deserve a max game more if you've played sub-optimally for the first 14 rounds?

Haha, I still don't understand this. The conundrum is the only round in the game that can be affected by your opponent (except their choice of numbers perhaps, like 6 small to fuck you up a bit). If I know they're going for the conundrum I'll buzz in instantly but sometimes I mess up like press SOURDOUGH when it's ROUGHSHOD. If I knew they're gonna leave it then I'll spend one extra second confirming which is which. If I'm rushed I've also missed max games by pressing the wrong letter (usually adjacent) on the keyboard first.

Okay, the point is: would you still try and win if your opponent is on a max game, but you're within 10 points of them? I'm assuming you'll say yes. So why are they more "deserving" of the max game if you failed to spot an easy numbers solution in round 14, than if you didn't?

Kirk Bevins wrote:sometimes I mess up like press SOURDOUGH...

Ahhhhh brought this back to me.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:sometimes I mess up like press SOURDOUGH...

Ahhhhh brought this back to me.

Ahhhh. Thanks for the link, I'd forgotten how much I enjoy that movie. (Although that clip probably makes zero sense out of context.)

Jon Corby wrote:
Okay, the point is: would you still try and win if your opponent is on a max game, but you're within 10 points of them? I'm assuming you'll say yes. So why are they more "deserving" of the max game if you failed to spot an easy numbers solution in round 14, than if you didn't?

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying. If I'm within touching distance of winning, I'll try to win. If not and the other guy is on for a max game (or a record, e.g. a 161) then I'll ask them if they want me to go for the conundrum or leave it. Don't think I understand your use of the word "deserving".

Somewhat related, what if your opponent typoes the conundrum? If you wouldn't have known it or spotted it, then it wouldn't be very nice to steal it, especially if it's crucial. But what if they typed in OSURDOUGH or something and you had SOURD in before it told you that they'd buzzed at all (in which case, iirc, the program has you automatically buzz in as soon as they enter a wrong answer)?

Miriam Nussbaum wrote:Somewhat related, what if your opponent typoes the conundrum? If you wouldn't have known it or spotted it, then it wouldn't be very nice to steal it, especially if it's crucial. But what if they typed in OSURDOUGH or something and you had SOURD in before it told you that they'd buzzed at all (in which case, iirc, the program has you automatically buzz in as soon as they enter a wrong answer)?

My position on this is: take the points. The conundrum is to some extent a test of speed and accuracy of typing so if you make a mistake, it might cost you some points. It's just the nature of the beast. apterous is not Countdown.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:
Okay, the point is: would you still try and win if your opponent is on a max game, but you're within 10 points of them? I'm assuming you'll say yes. So why are they more "deserving" of the max game if you failed to spot an easy numbers solution in round 14, than if you didn't?

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying. If I'm within touching distance of winning, I'll try to win. If not and the other guy is on for a max game (or a record, e.g. a 161) then I'll ask them if they want me to go for the conundrum or leave it. Don't think I understand your use of the word "deserving".

Okay...um. I don't think I can explain it any clearer than that. They get an "easier" ride to their max game depending on your performance. The conundrum isn't solving an anagram in 30 seconds, it's solving it before your opponent does. That's the whole fucking point of the round. The round isn't "maxed" if your opponent solves it before you.

Obviously it's entirely up to you what you want to do in this situation, and nobody would know if you did solve it but didn't buzz. But to say that it's "unsporting" to get the conundrum is a nonsense.

Jon Corby wrote:But to say that it's "unsporting" to get the conundrum is a nonsense.

Unlike, say, CHEATING ON ITBOXES

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:But to say that it's "unsporting" to get the conundrum is a nonsense.

Unlike, say, CHEATING ON ITBOXES

Yes. The differences have been explained elsewhere.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:If someone was on a max game I used to not attempt the conundrum when I first started playing but now I would go for the conundrum and in fact want to get it to deny someone a max game. I disagree when it comes to the final numbers game though, I always think it's a bit harsh to choose something like 4 large or 6 small out of character i.e. if they are not a 6 small/4 large specialist.

Yeah, I tend to pick 1 large if I'm more than 20 behind, just because it's nice to get some points on the board once you've lost. I wouldn't act any differently if my opponent was on for a max.

I don't really feel that strongly about it either way. What is douchy is 1) buzzing in to tell your opponent the answer (how fucking patronising) or 2) buzzing to stall the clock and give your opponent extra time. There's no good technical solution to these problems, unfortunately, so I'm sure it will persist.

I'd go for 2 large.

Edit:Which is what I usually go for.

Kirk Bevins wrote: Haha, I still don't understand this. The conundrum is the only round in the game that can be affected by your opponent (except their choice of numbers perhaps, like 6 small to fuck you up a bit). If I know they're going for the conundrum I'll buzz in instantly but sometimes I mess up like press SOURDOUGH when it's ROUGHSHOD. If I knew they're gonna leave it then I'll spend one extra second confirming which is which. If I'm rushed I've also missed max games by pressing the wrong letter (usually adjacent) on the keyboard first.

Unless you're the sort to enter a game with one eye on a max already, the nature of the game and the pressure on you comes from finding a word good enough to equal or beat your opponent, not necessarily finding the max. And there's a lot less pressure when you're clear by forty points rather than a tied score, just like it's far easier going into the conundrum knowing you have the luxury of all full thirty seconds to solve it, rather than having the hairs on the back of your neck prick up because your opponent might just snick it by a quarter of a second and deny you a max or victory. In getting maxes, your opponent is part of it too even before the conundrum.

Numbers: Go for what you went for in the last numbers game.
Conundrum: Just Go With It.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Numbers: Go for what you went for in the last numbers game.

Agreed. I always get a smile remembering the feeling clicking 6 small in this one. Love it.

Reading through this thread there seems to be a distinct differing of opinion between people who see apterous as a competitive game, and people who see apterous as a non-competitive ego booster.

Good question. I would have a go at the conundrum, even if there's no point - at least you wouldn't be as far away point-wise from the other person. If you did get it right and you buzzed before the person who is on the verge of getting a Max Game, that is very slightly mean, especially if you know the Max Game person is capable to get it after you, as they could have got a Max Game; if you think it's pretty unlikely that they can get it and you have got it, maybe wait until about fifteen to twenty seconds have gone by then go for it - they probably would not have got it if it is a very uncommon word and if they don't buzz before about 22 seconds, so then it doesn't matter. Basically, my opinion is that maybe you should wait about seventeen seconds before you buzz.