Nice!John Boy wrote:I had, "what would you serve if the Pope was coming over for dinner?"
...ok, not really....
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- sillymonkey
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:34 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:08 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
How did the Canadian not get hoser maybe this is why
The origin of the term is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use in writing as being a 1981 Toronto Star article about the McKenzie brothers, and there is no clear evidence that the term was in use before then. Nonetheless, the term has spawned several popular false etymologies. A popular origin story holds that in outdoor ice hockey before ice resurfacers, the losing team in a hockey game would have to hose down the rink after a game to make the ice smooth again. Thus the term hoser was synonymous with loser.
The origin of the term is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use in writing as being a 1981 Toronto Star article about the McKenzie brothers, and there is no clear evidence that the term was in use before then. Nonetheless, the term has spawned several popular false etymologies. A popular origin story holds that in outdoor ice hockey before ice resurfacers, the losing team in a hockey game would have to hose down the rink after a game to make the ice smooth again. Thus the term hoser was synonymous with loser.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:34 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I think you're taking a rather uncharitable reading of this. My specific complaint was about the choices that lead to Coyote Ugly appearing several times while Miyazaki, for example, appearing zero. I did not claim that every movie J! asks about is bad or not notable (many are good), nor that every one is from Hollywood (though most are). I just think that there are many international films that are more notable, even to a general American audience, than some of the Hollywood ones that get asked about. You may have disliked Spirited Away, but I and many others enjoyed it and it got a lot of traction (even an Oscar nom), and I'd claim that it's a more important movie to 2017 America than Coyote Ugly is.IronNeck wrote:Yep, that was my performance in the category, too. Incidentally, Soviet chess players smoking in the 30s-50s was more common than baseball players chewing gum or sunflower seeds today. (So some incidental contact with smoke wouldn't bother any player of that era) Of course, actually blowing smoking at an opponent's face at the board would either get you kicked out of the tournament by the TD or possibly punched by the opponent.rpg wrote:
I recall being flummoxed by this chess clue when I came across it on the archive a few months ago. I've put many hundreds of hours into playing and studying chess and had never heard about this before. I hate clues like this, where deep knowledge of the topic provides zero help; if chess players are stumped by your second-row clue (but find all the others very easy) it feels to me like you're doing something wrong.
Yeah, the film category was harder than usual, especially for a fill-in-the-blank one. I sweep those at least 80% of the time, but in this case I finished with a mere 3/5. I was a half second slow on Whale Rider and have honestly never heard of The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep, which I clammed on.rpg wrote:I earned a solid zero in the film category and it's hard for me to feel particularly upset by that. Another peeve of mine is that we get questions about movies like Coyote Ugly, which has a 5.6 on IMDB and yet has appeared on J! twice in the last 5 months,
Neither movie is hyper-obscure, but the challenge is magnified by being a speed category.
I disagree, despite watching a litany of foreign cinema.rpg wrote:while meanwhile there are zero hits for e.g. Miyazaki, whose movies are far higher quality, more important, and more popular. The Hollywood bias is crazy to me and it annoys me that getting good at J! movie trivia requires becoming familiar with a bunch of fifth-rate American movies while basically ignoring many first-rate movies from outside the country. Okay, rant over
1. The movie category is no more or less America-centric than the rest of the Jeopardy clues. They ask a disproportionate amount about American authors and not nearly enough about Japanese authors, for instance. So what? It's an American show.
2. I wouldn't necessarily call the movies Jeopardy asks about "fifth-rate". I'm often impressed at how often they ask about great, classic films. It's all subjective; I would easily take High Noon, which has been asked about at least 20 times on the show, over the second-rate, overrated dreck shoveled out by Miyazaki after Porco Rosso.
3. Not a good category to use to make this rant.
The highest-valued clue, for Whale Rider is a New Zealand movie.
The aforementioned The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep is considered a joint British-US-New Zealand production. Probably British more than the others.
What's Up, Tiger Lily?, has to be considered at least half Japanese, considering all the actors and footage is from a Japanese film.
So you're ranting about the preponderance of American movies in a category with only 2 solely American productions. Less than half.
Look at Three O'Clock High, which appeared a couple weeks ago for the second time on the Archive; it was a box-office flop from 30 years ago that it seems like nobody has seen (only ~8.5k ratings on IMDB). Then compare to In The Mood For Love, a Hong Kong film from 2000 that is often considered by critics to be one of the best movies of the new millennium, and which I'd wager has been seen by more Americans than Three O'Clock High (it has nearly 10x as many IMDB ratings), but which has never appeared in the Archive. I think there's a clear nativist bias here in this and many other examples.
I don't want to drag this out too much though, since I think there's precisely zero chance of this changing, and I don't want to spend too much time grousing about a show (Jeopardy) that I otherwise enjoy.
- goatman
- Man Who Stares At Goats!
- Posts: 1430
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:43 pm
- Location: Calvert, Maryland
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
INteresting... so Zamboni was the ultimate hoser, or he eliminated hosing?!?macrae1234 wrote:How did the Canadian not get hoser maybe this is why
The origin of the term is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use in writing as being a 1981 Toronto Star article about the McKenzie brothers, and there is no clear evidence that the term was in use before then. Nonetheless, the term has spawned several popular false etymologies. A popular origin story holds that in outdoor ice hockey before ice resurfacers, the losing team in a hockey game would have to hose down the rink after a game to make the ice smooth again. Thus the term hoser was synonymous with loser.
The corridors of my mind are plastered with 3M Post-It notes!
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
This nativist biasrpg wrote:
I think you're taking a rather uncharitable reading of this. My specific complaint was about the choices that lead to Coyote Ugly appearing several times while Miyazaki, for example, appearing zero. I did not claim that every movie J! asks about is bad or not notable (many are good), nor that every one is from Hollywood (though most are). I just think that there are many international films that are more notable, even to a general American audience, than some of the Hollywood ones that get asked about. You may have disliked Spirited Away, but I and many others enjoyed it and it got a lot of traction (even an Oscar nom), and I'd claim that it's a more important movie to 2017 America than Coyote Ugly is.
Look at Three O'Clock High, which appeared a couple weeks ago for the second time on the Archive; it was a box-office flop from 30 years ago that it seems like nobody has seen (only ~8.5k ratings on IMDB). Then compare to In The Mood For Love, a Hong Kong film from 2000 that is often considered by critics to be one of the best movies of the new millennium, and which I'd wager has been seen by more Americans than Three O'Clock High (it has nearly 10x as many IMDB ratings), but which has never appeared in the Archive. I think there's a clear nativist bias here in this and many other examples.
I don't want to drag this out too much though, since I think there's precisely zero chance of this changing, and I don't want to spend too much time grousing about a show (Jeopardy) that I otherwise enjoy.
1. Exists for all Jeopardy categories, not just movies.
2. Is not nearly as bad as you think.
Incidentally, Coyote Ugly has only appeared 6 times in the archives. Yeah, In the Mood for Love, or Fallen Angels, or Chungking Express, are all great, phenomenal films. So what? I can even point out that some lousy pictures, from the same foreign market, Hong Kong, get asked about way more often than the dreaded Coyote Ugly. Like Hero.
Also, I doubt you're correct about Three O'Clock High being viewed by fewer Americans than In the Mood for Love. IMDB has a huge international userbase that would benefit the latter, and only a very small portion of people who watch a film in theaters actually rate it.
I remember at one point some argued with me that Titanic ($2.2 billion at the box office) was watched by FEWER people than The Shawshank Redemption ($58 million at the box office) because Shawshank has about 1.78 million votes on IMDB and Titanic has a mere 830,000.
-
- Contributor
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:26 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I'm also a MOTT (member of the tribe) and realized that Wednesday would be Ash Wednesday because alternate side of the street parking would be suspended due to religious reasons.alietr wrote:Well, I'm Jewish and found FJ ridiculously easy. Yes, the clue was atrocious, but WECIB?
In New York City, this is vital information.
- Lefty
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:49 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Is that how Mott Street got its name?Magnoliasims wrote:
I'm also a MOTT (member of the tribe) and realized that Wednesday would be Ash Wednesday because alternate side of the street parking would be suspended due to religious reasons.
I'm smart and I want respect.
-
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:08 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Zamboni was an American who invented his machine to resurface his California ice rink he started when electric refrigerators replaced ice boxes and his ice making plant became obsolete
- Category 13
- Wagering Viking
- Posts: 1912
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:43 pm
- Location: This side of paradise
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I see what you did there.macrae1234 wrote:Zamboni was an American who invented his machine to resurface his California ice rink he started when electric refrigerators replaced ice boxes and his ice making plant became obsolete
-
- Just Starting Out on JBoard
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:59 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
IronNeck wrote:
There are quite a few apocryphal stories referenced on Jeopardy. Well before I signed up on here, I recall simultaneously laughing and swearing at the TV screen when I saw the absurdly dumb clue for $400 in Chess at this ToC game.
After my gob-smacked laughter died down (there are half a dozen reasons why this story is utter BS), I started wondering where it originated from. After all, I have read Botvinnik's complete 4-tome autobiography (about 1,500 pages) as well as countless dozens of books written about him by his closest friends, competitors, and students, and at least a few hundred different articles. I had never heard of this before. There are no shortage of exaggerated/inaccurate/disputed claims in ALL of those sources, Botvinnik's memoirs included, as well as ones that directly contradict one another. Still, one would expect it to come up at least somewhere!
Turns out it first crops up in a number of 1995 obituaries, mindlessly repeated in the LA Times, Telegraph, TIME magazine, and the NY Times, among others.
It reminded me of the old anecdote about a man reading the newspaper about a subject he actually knows about.
I'm a longtime lurker who has no wish to post here, but these comments are so wrong and made with such an unwarranted air of authority that I feel compelled to refute them. The tale of Botvinnik's unorthodox training methods, including the smoke in the face, is a standard part of countless stories about the man and long predates 1995. Even a cursory Google Books search for "Botvinnik" and "smoke" will show it being recounted as far back as 1946 by such varied and respected experts as Timman, Tukmakov, Kasparov, Fine, Taimonov, Reinfeld, and Soltis as well as in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess; it's next to inconceivable that someone with a deep knowledge of the man's life could have failed to encounter it. Crucially and dispositively, it's told in Botvinnik's own Selected Games, in which he writes, "In my training I had been given invaluable assistance by Ragozin, with whom I have been in joint training since at least 1936. This time, in addition to training games and joint analysis, we also practiced to accustom me to specific tournament conditions. For instance, in the Twelfth Championship Tournament I had suffered through not being used to tobacco smoke, so we had to resort to "radical" treatment: during our training games Ragozin "smoked" me for five hours in succession. Naturally, I soon got used to tobacco."Yep, that was my performance in the category, too. Incidentally, Soviet chess players smoking in the 30s-50s was more common than baseball players chewing gum or sunflower seeds today. (So some incidental contact with smoke wouldn't bother any player of that era) Of course, actually blowing smoking at an opponent's face at the board would either get you kicked out of the tournament by the TD or possibly punched by the opponent.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KaujA ... ke&f=false
Back to the shadows.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 12:26 am
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I got someone to sign up and post after years of lurking because of how much they disagreed with my post. Yay!
It's the difference between a baseball player chewing and spitting tobacco on the ground versus spitting it at an opponent's face. The former is normal, the latter absurd.
And yes, Ragozin, one of Botvinnik's closest friends and his second for his later World Championship matches, was indeed a chain-smoker. And a top Soviet player in the 30s and 40s. Who never did, and never would have blown smoke into anyone's face!
Which one? There is no book with that exact title. The closest is One Hundred Selected Games, which is an English translation/reprint/partial rewrite published in 2013, 18 years after Botvinnik's death. And it's actually based on the 4-tome autobiography I mentioned reading in Russian.caissa wrote:Crucially and dispositively, it's told in Botvinnik's own Selected Games,
The translated passage is very different than "blowing smoke at his face". Instead, it merely notes that Ragozin smoked inside the (tiny) room they used to train in for 5 hours straight. I've had many older Soviet players smoke while playing against me, too. That would indeed be a way to acclimate to the smell of tobacco, without being as ridiculously stupid as claiming Botvinnik had someone blow smoke directly into his face.caissa wrote: "In my training I had been given invaluable assistance by Ragozin, with whom I have been in joint training since at least 1936. This time, in addition to training games and joint analysis, we also practiced to accustom me to specific tournament conditions. For instance, in the Twelfth Championship Tournament I had suffered through not being used to tobacco smoke, so we had to resort to "radical" treatment: during our training games Ragozin "smoked" me for five hours in succession. Naturally, I soon got used to tobacco."
It's the difference between a baseball player chewing and spitting tobacco on the ground versus spitting it at an opponent's face. The former is normal, the latter absurd.
And yes, Ragozin, one of Botvinnik's closest friends and his second for his later World Championship matches, was indeed a chain-smoker. And a top Soviet player in the 30s and 40s. Who never did, and never would have blown smoke into anyone's face!
- Lefty
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1823
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:49 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
One Hundred Selected Games has existed in English since long before 2013. My copy was a Dover edition published no later than the 1970s. I also have encountered the smoke-blowing story numerous times, whether there or elsewhere. I'll grant that is likely exaggerated. I wouldn't want to downplay the hazards of second-hand cigarette smoke.IronNeck wrote:Which one? There is no book with that exact title. The closest is One Hundred Selected Games, which is an English translation/reprint/partial rewrite published in 2013, 18 years after Botvinnik's death. And it's actually based on the 4-tome autobiography I mentioned reading in Russian.caissa wrote:Crucially and dispositively, it's told in Botvinnik's own Selected Games,
I'm smart and I want respect.
- MTGcollegestudent
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:39 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Oh...*Facepalms* I see what you did there. It's unfortunate they couldn't have came up with another Family Guy "Q" answer. It just reminded me of the flashback episode of Family Guy where Peter Griffin was on Wheel of Fortune and said "Z, 4, Q, Q, Q and a Batman symbol". I'm ROFLing in my amusement.BigDaddyMatty wrote:Coryat: $27,800
41 R/1 W
DD: 3/3
FJ:
LT: grist, Congregationalist, Yosemite, Jackson Hole (DD), Sparta, hoser (DD)
The hoser clue is one of my all-time favorite DD's. A fact virtually no contestant will know off-hand, but one that a contestant with a strong TOM game can tease out within the time limit. Bravo!
The second column was cruel to me tonight. Between Beastly Movies and 1980s Bestsellers, I netted only $600.
Giggety, indeed.OSXpert wrote:Two family guy clues in a row with Quahog and Quagmire might not have been a mistake.
Jeopardy! is like History. It's a mixed bag of categories that try to test your knowledge to see if you know or can recall answers that seem familiar to the viewer.
- morbeedo
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
(late to the party)
Raised Catholic, and I think the idea of giving up something for Lent is absurd. I said "What's your greatest vice?" A totally plausible answer, and I don't think the clue is specific enough.
I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
Poor, poor Leanne.
Raised Catholic, and I think the idea of giving up something for Lent is absurd. I said "What's your greatest vice?" A totally plausible answer, and I don't think the clue is specific enough.
I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
Poor, poor Leanne.
- dinghammer
- No Relation
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:10 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I can't remember a time when "da Vinci" hasn't been accepted. It bugs me. But there have been many times when just "Caesar" was accepted, and that makes me incandescent with rage.morbeedo wrote:I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 6030
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:55 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
I can't remember a time when "da Vinci" hasn't been accepted by the world at large. So while I always think better of people who call him "Leonardo" and if I had the chance on J! I'd make sure to use the latter (kind of like not adding What is to a response that's already a question), I have to admit that it makes me a bit of a pedantic snob.dinghammer wrote:I can't remember a time when "da Vinci" hasn't been accepted. It bugs me. But there have been many times when just "Caesar" was accepted, and that makes me incandescent with rage.morbeedo wrote:I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -debate-6/
- This Is Kirk!
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
This seems like apples and oranges to me. I get what you're saying, but when has John Irving ever been referred to as "John from New Hampshire?" OTOH, Leonardo is commonly referred to as "Leonardo da Vinci."morbeedo wrote: I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving.
edit: so, yeah, I agree with the link Davey posted above.
-
- Also Receiving Votes
- Posts: 12897
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:39 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
dinghammer wrote:I can't remember a time when "da Vinci" hasn't been accepted. It bugs me. But there have been many times when just "Caesar" was accepted, and that makes me incandescent with rage.morbeedo wrote:I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
I understand your issue with "da Vinci", but is their anyone else of note known as da Vinci? If there was a famous person named Fred da Vinci, then a BMS would be warranted. But it is pretty clear who you mean when you say "da Vinci".
But with Caesar, there are two people from the same era known as Caesar. While Julius is more likely to come up than Augustus, a BMS is certainly needed in most cases. (Probably not if the clue mentions something happening 3/15/44).
What really bothers me is no BMS when the clue mentions the English Lord Protector.
- morbeedo
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Yeah, I completely agree with all of you that there is no ambiguity in "Da Vinci." It's just odd that you can get away with not really saying the dude's name on Jeopardy! And in the scheme of BMS offenses on the show, this one ranks very very low. OTOH, if anyone responds Da Vinci in the current TD, I will penalize them bigly! My TD, my rulesBamaman wrote:dinghammer wrote:I can't remember a time when "da Vinci" hasn't been accepted. It bugs me. But there have been many times when just "Caesar" was accepted, and that makes me incandescent with rage.morbeedo wrote:I was truly taken aback that "da Vinci" was accepted. That's like accepting "from New Hampshire" for John Irving. Yeah, ok, who else could it be, but I'd expect a BMS here. 'Caesar' wasn't enough but 'da Vinci' is ok? Puh-lease.
I understand your issue with "da Vinci", but is their anyone else of note known as da Vinci? If there was a famous person named Fred da Vinci, then a BMS would be warranted. But it is pretty clear who you mean when you say "da Vinci".
But with Caesar, there are two people from the same era known as Caesar. While Julius is more likely to come up than Augustus, a BMS is certainly needed in most cases. (Probably not if the clue mentions something happening 3/15/44).
What really bothers me is no BMS when the clue mentions the English Lord Protector.
- This Is Kirk!
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:35 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
OK, but if a clue comes up asking what European discovered America I'll expect you to answer "Leif."