Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

This is where all of the games are discussed.

Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall

Brayden
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Brayden »

goongas wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:50 pm Precalled Don Quixote for FJ, the first time in my life I think I have precalled the subject matter for FJ that I can remember. I knew it instantly...I couldn't think of any other 1600 literary characters that J! would care about. On a Google search, The Pilgrim's Progress, and The Misanthrope would be fair game. Some Shakespeare plays also were published in the 1600s as well, but they would more likely have Shakespeare as the category.
Same. When the category came up, I was like bam--Don Quixote or later Shakespeare plays. The "island" word threw me off though, since I though DQ was just on the Spanish mainland. (I haven't read it.) Still was thinking Sancho Panza since I knew 100% it was 1600s, and wasn't sure that Gulliver was. I had just been reading Robinson Crusoe and knew it was early 1700s so I knew that wasn't it. Still, I had my doubts about Gulliver since the clue was referring to a character that wasn't the title character. But "island" pushed me toward Gulliver anyway. Mark this as the third FJ I talked myself out of. Very frustrating.

David was a great opponent, and although with proper wagering I still might have won if he got DD2 right in DJ, he outplayed me. Better Coryat (slightly). He was the opponent that week that I was least eager to play against. He could have been quite the champion in his own right.
talkingaway
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:59 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by talkingaway »

Nope on the FJ! - I read Don Quixote, but it was about 25 years ago. I had no recollection of an island being part of the plot to get poor Sancho to become Don Quixote's squire. I also misread the clue as pertaining to simply the title character. I came up with "Phineas" Fogg, which I knew was wrong because it was in completely the wrong century. I didn't know it was also wrong because I butchered the first name. (And, no, I never watched Phineas and Ferb.) Gulliver was my backup response, but, again, I knew it was too modern. I should have just gone with the books I read in my college class on the epic - with the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Inferno, Don Quixote, and Ulysses, it basically supplies a lot of my literary J! responses.

I said "crime solver" for the Sue Grafton character - didn't know her by name, but knew it because of the "25" part. I'm giving myself credit on a BMS.

The Ryan Reynolds "Free Guy" clue was probably a leftover plug - it was supposed to come out in early December, but it's been delayed, again. According to Wikipedia, it was delayed in November, so during taping, they thought it would be released.

Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" is a pre-COVID 'last' for me - the last time I went to one specific live theater in Boston, over Christmas 2019. I saw a couple of other theatrical shows since, but none at the Wang.

I had no idea seismology was a subject you could be a professor of. It seems so specific. I went with "geology", so I'm docking it from my total, but it would have been nice to have a nudge away from the wrong clue.

I got trapped by ABCDEFG and went with "bIRdcage" instead of "cage". Didn't even notice the "I", but as soon as "cage" was accepted, I knew the "r" disqualified me.

Ornithology for 1600, but ophthalmology for 2000? If they're going to make it 2000, they should have the contestants spell it.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

MarkBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:04 pm I'm going to start working on archiving the game. How many notches will I get in my belt for spoiling Brayden's 5th win by adding game 1, 2, 3, 4 to those game pages from December?
I was too dumb to assess the significance of that and remained unspoiled.

Congrats to Brayden on becoming the last 5-time champ of the Trebek era.
User avatar
opusthepenguin
The Best Darn Penguin on the Whole JBoard
Posts: 10319
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by opusthepenguin »

Euphonium wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:12 pm Glad we got a Kebert Xela reference this week
Only Kebert. I guess a few days later he must have said Xela and that was that. :cry:
User avatar
MarkBarrett
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 16472
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:37 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by MarkBarrett »

opusthepenguin wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 9:31 pm
MarkBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:04 pm I'm going to start working on archiving the game. How many notches will I get in my belt for spoiling Brayden's 5th win by adding game 1, 2, 3, 4 to those game pages from December?
I was too dumb to assess the significance of that and remained unspoiled.

Congrats to Brayden on becoming the last 5-time champ of the Trebek era.
Glad to see the added game notes did not spoil you.

If Brayden wins tomorrow then the most recent champ who won exactly five games can lay claim to the Trebek distinction?

What about superchamps? That most recent person has to sweat out being the last 6, 7, 8-time champ of the Trebek era. Or the champ who concluded S36 returns to win and usurps Brayden's trivia nugget?

There may be need for asterisks and footnotes?
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

goongas wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:50 pm Precalled Don Quixote for FJ, the first time in my life I think I have precalled the subject matter for FJ that I can remember. I knew it instantly...I couldn't think of any other 1600 literary characters that J! would care about. On a Google search, The Pilgrim's Progress, and The Misanthrope would be fair game. Some Shakespeare plays also were published in the 1600s as well, but they would more likely have Shakespeare as the category.
Paradise Lost would have been another possibility, with 3 familiar characters to reference. But (especially if you were sure enough to eliminate the wrong works given...as I didn't... :oops: ), Don Quixote was the obvious precall...I had to swat away Friday, but leaving on an adventure points away from him...
I saw that magic show on Broadway, and couldn't remember what they called it... :roll:
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

Euphonium wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:12 pm H

Need a ruling on "Bowdlerization" as an antonym for "dysphemism." I get the dys-/eu- Greek roots they were going for--is that strictly necessary to qualify as a "direct antonym"? Is that a well-defined term?
It's not direct, and bowdlerization is more extensive than the substitution of inoffensive words, so no.
User avatar
Woof
Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 5125
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Woof »

Brayden got a stiff challenge from David but won with superior wagering and better performance in the DDs.

I also precalled Don Quixote as I couldn’t think of another famous literary work from the 17th Century. I was surprised when none of the three came up with the right work, let alone the correct character.
seaborgium
Undefeated in Reruns
Posts: 8941
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:31 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by seaborgium »

Brayden wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:14 pm with proper wagering I still might have won if he got DD2 right in DJ
Are you saying that you might have wagered properly from second place, or just maintaining a possibility that David might have made an unexpected wager from the lead? If I were David, I'd be very interested to know whether you would have stayed above $22,000 if I had gotten that last DD right.
morbeedo wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 7:37 pm Bummer for today's worthy challenger, who rightly wagered big on that second row DD in -OLOGIES
Unfortunately, given how the scores and FJ turned out, $10,000 was big enough to hurt him if wrong (putting him behind in a crush) and not big enough to help him if right (putting him a little under a crush lead). To be able to win on a TS FJ, he had to wager $8,933 or less on a miss (to ultimately stay within 2/3 of Brayden's score), or more than $10,900 on a get (to ultimately get above 1.5x Brayden's score).


I pre-called Robinson Crusoe on the category reveal, but questioned whether he was in the 1600s. I actually said out loud, "It could also be latter-day Shakespeare," but had to stop talking for the clue reveal before I could add my caveat that it would probably just be a Shakespeare category in that case. As the case was, the word "island" just made me throw all my Robinson Crusoe questioning out the window, leaving me only perceptive enough to guess Friday instead of the title character. I would have been better off sticking with Shakespeare, as that would have at least left me open to lateral thinking down a line of longitude toward his Spanish contemporary.
User avatar
This Is Kirk!
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 6562
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by This Is Kirk! »

Don Quixote was my pre-call, but I couldn't really see how it fit the clue and ended up going with Crusoe. It will be interesting to see how many of us picked a character who is the title character just like all three of the contestants did.
User avatar
BigDaddyMatty
Hoping not to get pruney this time
Posts: 3300
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:05 am
Location: Anderson, IN

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by BigDaddyMatty »

Coryat: $43,800
46 R/1 W
DD: 3/3
FJ: :mrgreen:
LT: Yosemite, Charlie Chaplin, Arctic Ocean, anthropology (DD)

DD3...yikes. I feel so bad for David, though others have rightly noted that, all else being equal, Brayden still would have won with a proper second-place wager. On DDs, take a second to re-read both the category and the clue.

On FJ!, I considered both Sancho Panza and Friday, but I was 99% sure Friday was a native whom Robinson Crusoe met on the island rather than a traveling companion.
davey wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:36 pm
Euphonium wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:12 pm Need a ruling on "Bowdlerization" as an antonym for "dysphemism." I get the dys-/eu- Greek roots they were going for--is that strictly necessary to qualify as a "direct antonym"? Is that a well-defined term?
It's not direct, and bowdlerization is more extensive than the substitution of inoffensive words, so no.
Agreed. As I understand it, bowdlerization generally refers to the outright removal of offensive material rather than the mere substitution of a milder word for a swear.
Sprinkles are for winners.
User avatar
BrigadierSolo13
Double Double Machine
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:40 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by BrigadierSolo13 »

Couldn't get off Crusoe for FJ so add me to the list that said Friday

This FJ was also educational for me because I would have bet the farm that Don Quixote was 1500s, not 1600s. That's a good thing to fix.
reddpen
Thrice Unplucked from the Jeopardy! Pool
Posts: 844
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:51 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by reddpen »

My FJ precalls were Pilgrim's Progress (can't name a single character) and Paradise Lost (Satan and a bunch of other fallen angels with funnier names). Should have listed Don Quixote* but doubt I'd have gotten FJ even then. Of those three works I've read only sections of the Milton.

When the clue appeared, like others I started island-hopping with Crusoe but was pushed away by the wording. Paddling desperately I landed on Gulliver, another title character. Was also pretty sure both works are early 1700s, but whatcha gonna do when the drum sounds?

Brayden, mad respect both for the way you play and your gracious and thoughtful posts. I hope that having vanquished your toughest foe bodes well for the rest of your week.
[ETA: Sorry! I should know better by now.]

*A textbook I read in ninth grade included a footnote indicating this name was pronounced kwik'-sote. When I said to the teacher, "Isn't it pronounced kee-oh'-tee?" the class hooted at me. (I'm almost sure I've posted this anecdote somewhere before, and don't see it on the LL board.)
Last edited by reddpen on Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In and out of the pool four times
User avatar
Robert K S
Jeopardy! Champion
Posts: 5251
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by Robert K S »

"Quixotic" is pronounced /kwikˈsädik/.

And I wonder whether Shakespeare would have used the anglicized pronunciation, a la Don Juan (as Trebek was so fond of pronouncing).

We can be pretty sure Shakespeare read Cervantes in translation, because he co-wrote a now-lost play, Cardenio, probably based on an episode in Don Quixote.

Shakespeare and Cervantes died the same day, sort of. Cervantes died ten days before, but because of differences in calendar adoption, both died on April 23, 1616.

I precalled not only Don Quixote but specifically Sancho Panza. During the 30 seconds, briefly considered but quickly discarded Gulliver and Crusoe as being title characters. If I had thought about it further I could have also discarded them as not being 1600s characters, but I didn't even need to go there. They were title characters and that ruled them out.
heppm01
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:30 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by heppm01 »

Another precall for Don Quixote. Quickly read the clue, saw no reason to change, sat smugly for the next 29 seconds. Had I parsed it a little closer I would have realized they were not asking for the title character. Lesson learned.
User avatar
The Talking Mime
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 534
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by The Talking Mime »

BrigadierSolo13 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:41 am This FJ was also educational for me because I would have bet the farm that Don Quixote was 1500s, not 1600s. That's a good thing to fix.
I initially wrote down Friday, then I thought of Don Quixote, but sat on it because I thought it was a 1500s novel as well. I decided it made more sense to change, so I changed it to the title character with 5 seconds left. I briefly forgot they were looking for a supporting character, but I've butchered Sancho Panza's name before, so it probably made no difference.

I negged the Zenger clue by trying to give his full name, saying John Paul Zenger instead of his actual name, John Peter Zenger. I'm irritated because if I had known they just would've accepted the last name, I would've had it. I thought it would be a category where they would've wanted all three names. Then again, I think they would've said so if they wanted all three names.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."
-Bertrand Russell
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

The Talking Mime wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:42 pm
BrigadierSolo13 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:41 am This FJ was also educational for me because I would have bet the farm that Don Quixote was 1500s, not 1600s. That's a good thing to fix.
I initially wrote down Friday, then I thought of Don Quixote, but sat on it because I thought it was a 1500s novel as well. I decided it made more sense to change, so I changed it to the title character with 5 seconds left. I briefly forgot they were looking for a supporting character, but I've butchered Sancho Panza's name before, so it probably made no difference.

I negged the Zenger clue by trying to give his full name, saying John Paul Zenger instead of his actual name, John Peter Zenger. I'm irritated because if I had known they just would've accepted the last name, I would've had it. I thought it would be a category where they would've wanted all three names. Then again, I think they would've said so if they wanted all three names.
Alex paused after "Zenger" was given, so I don't think he was sure just that should be accepted either.
User avatar
econgator
Let's Go Mets!
Posts: 10673
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:32 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by econgator »

davey wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:48 pm Alex paused after "Zenger" was given, so I don't think he was sure just that should be accepted either.
Yep. I think he was wondering, "Did I tell them all three names were needed? No? Damn."
talkingaway
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:59 am

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by talkingaway »

econgator wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 1:38 pm
davey wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:48 pm Alex paused after "Zenger" was given, so I don't think he was sure just that should be accepted either.
Yep. I think he was wondering, "Did I tell them all three names were needed? No? Damn."
Yeah, I think that kind of ruined the category accidentally. If it had been, say, "(John Quincy) Adams" or "(Alexander Graham) Bell", a BMS would have been fair and basically perfunctory, because anyone who got to the right last name would have the right first and middle. Although, thinking about it, if you know "Zenger", you probably should know JP = "John Peter", too, right? But it seems unfair to possibly penalize someone for only knowing the last name unless Alex introduces the category with the "you have to give all three names" caveat.

Apparently, from the archive, only the last two were given the "last name only" treatment.
davey
Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
Posts: 6030
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Re: Monday, January 4, 2021 Game Recap and Discussion (SPOILERS)

Post by davey »

"3-Named" is not an unusual J! category. Usually all 3 are given, but in this case 3 out of 5 were not (and one of the others was a stumper)- Alex specified the full name wasn't needed, though...

http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?g ... ht=3-named

This time, they "need all three."
http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?g ... ht=3-named
Post Reply