Games That Got "Smarter" (Though The Contestants Did Not)

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Neumms\' post=\'153712\' date=\'May 29 2007, 11:46 AM\']
I don't know if this is smartening up or not, but it's funny to me how on Peter Marshall's Hollywood Squares, the first player almost never went to the center square (usually starting with Charley Weaver or George Gobel in the lower left), while on Bergeron's they almost always did.
[/quote]
The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing.

[beatlefreak84]

The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing.

I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often.  Not saying that it never happened, of course, but I'd be willing to put my money on him giving me a right answer.

Probably the best choice at center square would have been Whoopi; I don't recall her really missing questions, and, the few times she did, she would always say, "I'm not too sure about this, but I'm going to say..."

But, maybe my memory's a little fuzzy...

Anthony

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153722\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:28 PM\']
I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often.  Not saying that it never happened, of course[/quote]
I hope not, because anyone who's read Peter Marshall's book knows that not only did Paul Lynde occasionally bluff, but he was a complete asshat about it; he intentionally tried to screw over the players in doing so. "Fooled you, didn't I?" ring a bell?

[Steve McClellan]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153718\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:12 PM\']The point that has been made to me in the past (and I'm not sure if I agree with it, but the arguments I've been given are plausible) is that while the center square is the obvious first move in tic-tac-toe, it is not necessarily the best opening move in Hollywood Squares, because of that whole miss-the-question-and-you're-really-screwed thing. [/quote]
Not only that, but because a lot of the players don't know basic tic-tac-toe strategy. Assume we number the squares as they were in the Tic Tac Dough endgame. If you start at 7 and agree/disagree correctly, the only correct place for your opponent to go is the center. However, they'll usually go to 2 or 6, so as not to set up a three-question win if they're wrong. If they pick 2, you then go to 9, they block at 8, and your block at 5 gives you two-thirds of each diagonal, so unless you miss your next question, your opponent is screwed.

If, on the other hand, you start in the middle, your opponent is correct to go to any of the corners, which they usually do, leaving you hoping for a five-square win unless they miss a question.

[WhammyPower]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'153723\' date=\'May 29 2007, 02:36 PM\'] [quote name=\'beatlefreak84\' post=\'153722\' date=\'May 29 2007, 12:28 PM\']
I thought about that, too, but I was trying to think back to the Paul Lynde days and how often he would try and bluff...IIRC, it wasn't too often.  Not saying that it never happened, of course[/quote]
I hope not, because anyone who's read Peter Marshall's book knows that not only did Paul Lynde occasionally bluff, but he was a complete asshat about it; he intentionally tried to screw over the players in doing so. "Fooled you, didn't I?" ring a bell?
 [/quote]
The Hooded Claw would be pleased.  :-P

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'153688\' date=\'May 29 2007, 01:08 PM\']

1) The $xx,000 PYRAMID.  In the $10,000 era, rarely did you see games get even close to a full 21-21 tie.  

Of all of the answers I've seen, this is probably the best example, but I'm not sure why. Did the players not know what all they could do, or not understand that the idea was to finish in under 30 seconds?
[/quote]
This may sound a little obvious (hence my sig), but when the game first came out, you have to remember that no one had ever seen it before.  Today it's part of the fabric of game show history, which is why it was so disappointing to so many of us to see it played so awkwardly by so many people on the Osmond version.  When it was new, there was a learning curve as people started figuring the game out (which is why, as you said, it makes such a good example in this thread).  Imagine playing charades for the first time, having never heard of it before.  You could do it, but you wouldn't be as good as the people who've done it a lot and know their way around.  Originally, no one knew their way around.  

Also, since this hasn't been mentioned in a while, it's useful to know that originally, there was no such concept as "finishing" in 30 seconds.  When people were averaging four or five correct answers a round, no mention was made that there was a finite number of answers available.  Once people started getting better, we found that the total possible number of answers was eight, later reduced to seven.  And as people got better still, more of a big deal was made about getting all seven as often as possible.

[BrandonFG]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'153738\' date=\'May 29 2007, 04:51 PM\']
Also, since this hasn't been mentioned in a while, it's useful to know that originally, there was no such concept as "finishing" in 30 seconds.  When people were averaging four or five correct answers a round, no mention was made that there was a finite number of answers available.
[/quote]
That just gave me an interesting idea for if and when they revive Pyramid. Instead of worrying about getting 7-in-:30 or 6-in-:20, just have contestants get as many as possible in the set number of time, with highest score after three rounds winning. I really don't think the average viewer would care about the 6-in-20/7-in-30 rule, let alone remember it.

Maybe just one the incentive for each match, then do a Super Six/Big Mystery 7-11.

[jmangin]

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'153740\' date=\'May 29 2007, 04:57 PM\']
...Have contestants get as many as possible in the set number of time, with highest score after three rounds winning.
[/quote]

Not to pull a clemon79, but isn't this how it's always been played?

It's important to have a finite number of clues available in each category.  What game show writer wants to think of more than 6/7/8 things that fit into a certain category?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'jmangin\' post=\'153743\' date=\'May 29 2007, 03:28 PM\']
Not to pull a clemon79, but isn't this how it's always been played?
[/quote]
Not when there is a maximum possible score of 21 points, it isn't.

(But your point about having a finite number of answers is correct.)

[Jimmy Owen]

On the ABC show, they would break ties with "Things That Begin With A,B.C, etc" which would conceivably cover more than 7 or 8 words and could be pre-written by Webster.

[Neumms]

An interesting thing about Donnymid is that the reduced time limit in the front game brought on far more terrible rounds and runaways. The players got worse AND the game got harder.

[Jimmy Owen]

Players on TPIR boiled Check Game to it's basic essence: How much away from $5000 is the price of displayed item(s)?

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'153745\' date=\'May 29 2007, 05:45 PM\']
On the ABC show, they would break ties with "Things That Begin With A,B.C, etc" which would conceivably cover more than 7 or 8 words and could be pre-written by Webster.
[/quote]
I didn't know Emmanuel Lewis wrote for game shows!

/I guess Henry Polic II had to host them.
//SPLAT!!!  OK, I had it coming.

[Robert Hutchinson]

Going back to the Q about why name categories were dreaded on Pyramid: you're more likely to run into a famous name that someone hasn't heard of than you are a random thing-inna-list that someone hasn't heard of. Also, many names do not lend themselves to sounding out. If your partner can't remember or doesn't know the name "Alan Alda", what can you do but pass?

It's harder to tell, with both all-civilian play and format changes, but I think Scrabble had a notably higher caliber of play later in its run.

[JasonA1]

Absolutely. Early on, lots of people took Sprint words out to the last letter. Later, they'd buzz-in and get it on the clue alone. Plus people started going for bonus money specifically rather than happen into it all the time.

-Jason