c4countdown

Today's match-up features two contestants who in their own way had the greatest something in Countdown history. On one end we have David Williams, who had arguably the greatest 8 game run in the 9-round era of Countdown, certainly the highest score in that era with 535 points, before losing in the series 43 semi-finals. On the other end, we have Chris Davies, the series 61 champion who was part of what many consider to be the greatest Countdown game of all time, beating Innis Carson in the semi-finals (we see him tomorrow). Both have been very active since, and we'll see how things play out.

Join Jack for the recap later.

Here are the stats:

Firstly, Series 43 Semi-Finalist & CoC XI Contestant David Williams - 11 Games, 9 Wins, 748 Points (Average: 68 - 63.7 if you take away the single 15 rounder)
Highest Score: 111 vs. Chris Wills (CoC Prelim) & 78 vs. Tony McGill (2nd Game)
Lowest Score: 40 vs. Matthew Turner (Semi-Final)
9's Achieved: 4/4
Total Points/Max/%: 748/888 (84%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 459/551 (83%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 199/227 (88%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 90/110 (82%)

Secondly, Series 61 Champion Chris Davies - 12 Games, 11 Wins, 1,296 Points (Average: 108)
Highest Score: 139 vs. Ross Mackenzie (5th Game)
Lowest Score: 77 vs. Kirk Bevins (Special Game)
9's Achieved: 6/7
Total Points/Max/%: 1296/1609 (81%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 916/1029 (89%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 290/360 (81%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 90/120 (75%)

With many Italian words in the OED - CALORANDO in round 8 wasn't one of them

Mauro

Well done Chris, looks like you haven't lost your on-air touch, in particular ISOGAMY and the conundrum were great spots. I can tell David has a lot of skill, just happened to come across a series champion playing at his best.

Disgusting performance from Chris! I don't think anyone would have stood a chance against that. PINNULE, ISOGAMY, ECSTATIC, the 6 small solve and that conundrum solve were incredible. Strongest competitor I've seen so far in the Championship and surely a hot favourite for the Grand Final now? Was that 13 maxes? Only real blip was that 2nd numbers game.

Very well played Chris and an awesome conundrum solve!

It's been a good few days to be called Chris! Really impressive stuff here against a good opponent and some tough selections. OUGIYAS for a nice equaller in the ISOGAMY round, but overall they both meted out the worst armchair beating I've taken in ages!

Very well played Chris, fast as ever on the conundrums. Well done to David also.

Chris will be difficult to beat on this performance - solid game by both contestants. Well done both.

Mauro

Chris was awesome. Definitely the one to beat.

Great stuff from Chris there.

Interestingly enough, I also missed David's method for the second numbers round, but managed to reach the target by (10*6*6)+(100/5)+1

First numbers alternative: (10*7)+(4+1+1)*9

Very impressive performance there, Chris! ISOGAMY was superb in particular, as well as the lightning conundrum solve, I was nowhere near either of those. David's total of 58 doesn't do his performance justice, as he came up with some great stuff too.

It was lovely to meet David. A great guy who played the game in the perfect spirit.
Thanks for the comments guys.

A super performance there, Chris. Quite odd that I maxed the only 2 rounds you didn't, although you beat me in 4 others.

CORONAL in round 8.

1st Numbers Alt.: (((9 + 7 + 1) x 10) + 1) x 4 = 684
3rd Numbers Alt.: (10 + 1) x 9 x (8 / 2) = 396

Very well played Chris - you had me with both ECSTATIC and the conundrum. Was also great to see David on TV, a forumite and Countdown legend who was last on just a bit before my time.

Easter Egg perhaps? ROUNDNINE yesterday and SEATEDBNP today?

Chris was awesome. Nick was awkward, talking over Chris about three times in the intros alone.

I'd also like to say how much I enjoyed meeting David after reading his posts on here for so long - very friendly guy, and his skill shone through despite the harsh scoreline. And needless to say, congrats Chris on a great performance.

The first numbers is just embarrassing. 7x9x10, 54 to get from 4,1,1. And 7x9x11, 9 to get, got a 1, and about 28 seconds still left. I can't explain it. Numbers were always my strength.

I couldn't have done much better on the letters. Should have got ABSENTED, but that was the only word I missed that I knew, and I thought there were some pretty good spots that would have beaten many players - but not Chris. Watching a previous game in the Green Room I was 16 up against the contestants, 22 down to Chris.

OUTGRADES as a verb will be well known to chess players, and I felt I'd come across it as a noun recently. (It's misshapen fruit and veg that doesn't meet Tesco/EU standards.) When you meet someone who outgrades you, you need a bit of luck (see what I did there), and a nine letter word new to the dictionary would be gold dust. But it wasn't, the game was over. I quickly jotted down how to get 4x74, noticed at the last second that the target was actually 396, and rapidly went from possibly four behind to fifty behind.

Lastly, some observations on Countdown then and now. My first time there was no Green Room. Five male contestants plus guests in a tiny changing room with one small window, in midsummer. We took turns standing in the corridor. There seemed to be more interaction with the presenters in those days. I wouldn't say Richard and Carol were exactly sociable, but everything was smaller. You were right next to the DC guest, so you could chat during the breaks, and Carol wandered around showing pictures of her kids to grannies in the audience. The changing rooms were all together, so you bumped into people in the corridors. And in those days there was also a bar open after filming, and you got your picture taken with the presenters. This time I was in the studios for seven hours and never spoke to Nick or Rachel. Maybe I've been lucky, but one thing that hadn't changed is just how nice everyone you meet is. All the staff are great, I've always got on really well with all the other contestants I've met, and there's just a really great spirit. I hope Chris has gone on to win it now. As pleasant in person as he seems on TV, but I'll also be rooting for all the other winners that were there with me.

At the moment I can't decide whether to have a complete break from Countdown, or to start lobbying Damian for a Seniors Tournament (no geniuses, just people the audience can identify with!).

Very good game from Chris, and unlucky David. Often it comes down to how the rounds come out. Another game, there would be more flat rounds and Chris wouldn't have been able to use his Apterous word power to pull ahead by so much.

It's interesting what you said about the first numbers, David. I think I've heard you saying before how you solve 6-small games, and I know a lot of people get three numbers to multiply together that get near the target and fiddle with the rest. For me that's always been a secondary approach. I start by dividing numbers into it. I saw that 9 went into it, and it was job done straight away. (7*10+4+1+1)*9. 76 was obviously my lucky number today as I did 76*5+1 in the second numbers. (100-4*(10-4) for the 76)

I was actually a bit surprised Chris didn't get the second numbers, and while against most contestants it would make no difference whatsoever because of the rest of the game, it could have done against some of his potential later opponents.

Cool observations, thanks. I think that day may have been a bit of an aberration in some respects David, as it was the first day in a much bigger studio. By the time I returned everyone knew their way around a bit more. Make-up seemed to be the place where people seemed to interact with the presenters the most apart from on-set.

Anyway it was nice to meet you and put a face to a forum personality. You were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats, and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous, be drawn against one of the all-time best.

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's interesting what you said about the first numbers, David. I think I've heard you saying before how you solve 6-small games, and I know a lot of people get three numbers to multiply together that get near the target and fiddle with the rest. For me that's always been a secondary approach. I start by dividing numbers into it. I saw that 9 went into it, and it was job done straight away. (7*10+4+1+1)*9.

At the risk of going over old ground for the umpteenth time! I'd agree with you if it was like the conundrum - first to finish gets the points. But the downside of 'your' method is a significant chance of going nowhere. You are going to be at least 9 away if you can't make 76. If 'your' method works, 'my' method will probably arrive at the same way, but a bit slower. And if 'your' method doesn't work, I win. Fat lot of good it did me this time.

Well played Chris! That was almost flawless and you certainly trumped me.

A seniors tournament would be a great idea.

David Williams wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:47 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's interesting what you said about the first numbers, David. I think I've heard you saying before how you solve 6-small games, and I know a lot of people get three numbers to multiply together that get near the target and fiddle with the rest. For me that's always been a secondary approach. I start by dividing numbers into it. I saw that 9 went into it, and it was job done straight away. (7*10+4+1+1)*9.

At the risk of going over old ground for the umpteenth time! I'd agree with you if it was like the conundrum - first to finish gets the points. But the downside of 'your' method is a significant chance of going nowhere. You are going to be at least 9 away if you can't make 76. If 'your' method works, 'my' method will probably arrive at the same way, but a bit slower. And if 'your' method doesn't work, I win. Fat lot of good it did me this time.

Not necessarily because I can try other things as well! Today I got it with 19 × 4 × 9.

But anyway that scoreline doesn't reflect the play. The rounds were mostly disgusting making for more frequent obscure winners. OUTGRADES would have set up the endgame nicely though.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:11 am Anyway it was nice to meet you and put a face to a forum personality. You were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats, and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous, be drawn against one of the all-time best.

Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:05 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:11 am Anyway it was nice to meet you and put a face to a forum personality. You were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats, and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous, be drawn against one of the all-time best.

Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Which would only be true if he played Jono. But he didn't. He played Chris.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:05 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:11 am Anyway it was nice to meet you and put a face to a forum personality. You were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats, and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous, be drawn against one of the all-time best.

Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Which would only be true if he played Jono. But he didn't. He played Chris.

What?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:05 pm

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:11 am Anyway it was nice to meet you and put a face to a forum personality. You were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats, and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous, be drawn against one of the all-time best.

Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Which would only be true if he played Jono. But he didn't. He played Chris.

I'm as confused as you are.

I think the premise of the comment is that I got further in the tournament than both players I was talking about. It's surprising that someone who has devoted a life's work to voting and scoring systems doesn't understand that you can't infer that players are superior to those who are knocked out in earlier rounds of a single knockout tournament.

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 4:20 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:05 pm
Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Which would only be true if he played Jono. But he didn't. He played Chris.

I'm as confused as you are.

I think the premise of the comment is that I got further in the tournament than both players I was talking about. It's surprising that someone who has devoted a life's work to voting and scoring systems doesn't understand that you can't infer that players are superior to those who are knocked out in earlier rounds of a single knockout tournament.

Well I inferred it as:

You [David] were unfortunate to, as one of the all-time greats [still David], and one of the all-time best pre-Apterous [still David], be drawn against one of the all-time best [Chris].

Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 4:20 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:34 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:05 pm
Way to slip in an under-the-radar "I'm an all-time best" comment.

Which would only be true if he played Jono. But he didn't. He played Chris.

I'm as confused as you are.

I think the premise of the comment is that I got further in the tournament than both players I was talking about. It's surprising that someone who has devoted a life's work to voting and scoring systems doesn't understand that you can't infer that players are superior to those who are knocked out in earlier rounds of a single knockout tournament.

I mean, you're not confused and you got the premise correct. Obviously I know that getting further in a knockout tournament doesn't make you a superior player, but a devious player could use it as a means of self-promotion. Plus it was a throwaway comment that I (quite reasonably I think) assumed everyone would instantly understand.

First Round Game 5 2020 Word Update

The max would have increased by one (from 119 to 120), if played today, as there were 8's available in Round 9, that weren't available in 2013.

New Words Now Allowed:

R2: ALVEUS, HAVELS, HAZLES
R3: JARGER
R7: YOGISMS
R8: ACNODAL, LOCANDA
R9: POUNDMEN, ROUNDMEN, UNMODERN (increases MAX from 7 to 8)
R12: DEBOARD, DERMOID, MORDIDA, RABDOID, RADIOBE
R13: OUTDARES, OUTREADS