The Most Challenging/Intellectual Shows Of All Time

[Jeremy Nelson]

On Challengers, it seems dicey to try to outguess the other players that way. Aren't you better off just taking the question with the lowest risk?

But to this point, I also think The Challengers should have let any player decide to pass a question (and thus avoid losing the value to a wrong answer or time expiring), not just the second (and third) player in a buzzer race. If I ended up alone on a question, I think it should be my right to refuse it if I ultimately don't know. I think this is one of the factors that depressed scoring on that show, and ultimately made the payouts look chintzy compared to Jeopardy! (Ultimate Challenge aside).

-Jason

Minus powerups, The Challengers has $16,000+ less available on their game board. The payouts are chintzy because the front game values lead to a finale with a 4x multiplier that only one contestant may or may not get.

If you just let contestants sit there and pass without penalty, the game gets really boring REALLY quickly. Think about how painful it was to watch that Jeopardy football category. Now think about how painful it would be to watch contestants punt on clues in half the categories.

[Otm Shank]

If you just let contestants sit there and pass without penalty, the game gets really boring REALLY quickly.

Although it's another thing to keep overhead on, a limited number of passes (whatever the comfortable amount is based on playtesting) could be employed. Maybe even some strategery to save a pass for a higher value question.

Regarding the Split Second button-mashing strategy, if it was brought back today (it won't, but would be nice), it would be interesting if you had to lock in a selection. The second and third contestants would have the option of answering their original selection or any that were answered incorrectly. Kennedy format, too: selections first, question second.

[JasonA1]

Minus powerups, The Challengers has $16,000+ less available on their game board. The payouts are chintzy because the front game values lead to a finale with a 4x multiplier that only one contestant may or may not get.

Yes, totally. It made sense economically. One part we touched on in an earlier thread was the idea of letting everyone keep their money, coupled with the potential to see everybody multiply it in the Final Challenge made them skittish on how much to offer up front. It just happens to mean the scoreboards are almost always showing a lower average total than Jeopardy! does. So flipping channels and seeing a game creep up from 850 to 700 to 150 midway through the show, when the podiums are staged identical to theirs with the same display mechanisms, the comparisons are unfavorable.

-Jason

[TLEberle]

I guess it depends on how much you need to cram for. Mort Kamins said once that "you can't start from scratch" and that it's best to study things that are unchanging; presidents, art, classic literature, etc.

Bob Harris and Joyce Brothers would disagree. Also in reading an article written by a Mastermind champion he said that he chose his specialist subjects with an eye towards studying as much as possible in the subject and to keep that window as closed as possible.

Jeopardy assumes that you do have a grounding in American liberal arts and if you somehow get on the show without it, perhaps it will take more studying than just running Anki packets to do well.

Excellent point regarding ringing in first on Split Second, and here's an example (I'm not putting up a spoiler alert; it's a 46-year-old video). The third-place contestant during the Countdown Round took a chance and rang in before Tom Kennedy even finished reading the text on the board--and nailed all three answers without even knowing what the question was at all.

I would argue that Neil did in fact know what the question was because he read and synthesized the clues on the board with his knowledge. It's not like he was buzzing in just because.