Talk:Mornington Crescent (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Radio
 Radio Portal
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.


Contents

[edit] Correction?

I'm pretty sure Samantha isn't ficticious, i seem to recall an interview with her in the Radio Times on the "Face behind the voice" (a slight misnomer in this case) column. I may be wrong but someone with the ability to do so should check

(very late reply but) I have been to an ISIHAC recording. We all applauded the thin air when Samantha didn't appear. She is as real as the rules of the game. The RT column was presumably in on the joke (was there actually a picture?) --Bth 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighting Coke Boilers

Dear Angus Deighton I am having trouble getting my stove to light. I am told that you are the coke expert so I hope that you can advise. Mrs Trellis 22:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) Llanystumdwy


Removed from article:

(perhaps because it's very near another underground station and there's no need for two?) and was reopened in 1998-presumbably because of popularity with I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue by Humphrey Lyttelton. It features in the music hall song:

nope, it was for rebuilding. (have you seen the crush at nearby Camden Town? it's definitely needed... ;-) It remained closed for so long because London Transport ran out of funds for the work partway through, and the station was in such a state of reconstruction that it couldn't be reopened. -- Tarquin

What *really* is the game Mornington Crescent? Perhaps this should be directly mentioned somewhere, along with "Wikipedia contains spoilers"? I've never been able to find an exact description, although it appears to be a big inside joke.

Fans of the game may not appreciate me linking to a spoiler because even admitting that there is something to spoil is probably sufficient to spoil it. But this is an encyclopedia and needs to be factual, so I think material along the same lines of the article should be included (it is written by a private individual so it's quite possible we could obtain permission to copy bits wholesale).

I suppose this should be disambiguated. There is a street, a tube station, and a game. ( 18:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I don't think there's much to say about the street. And splitting the station from the game will be awkward, since they are connected. -- Tarquin 13:00, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Although the article says "the rulebook itself remains eternally elusive", it has always been my understanding that the rulebook is maintained with inimitable accuracy by the lovely Samantha, who sleeps with it under her pillow. As it now runs to 17 volumes, she is running out of pillows. -- Gandalf61 12:04, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

I think I heard that too, so added it to the article. Please feel free to edit. I think the article, either in spite of or because of my tinkering, still lacks clarity... which is kind of mildly amusing given the subject matter but not good for A Very Serious Encyclopedia such as this.. so really please feel free to edit! Pete 12:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do we have a cite for the bit about Finchley Central being invented by play-by-mail types? I've heard (though have no authoratitive cite) that it actually originated with Cambridge University SF Soc in the '70s and in fact predates MC on the radio. --Bth 13:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Tricky one this, because my understanding is that the game did originally have rules, involving an old A to Z and a tubemap - the rules involving certain combinations of moving between pages and between tube stations. In its current form the article is accurate, but I have read that it originally had sensible (if obscure) rules. Of course this site could be a spoof too... --/Mat 03:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that site is an excellent spoof. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a Swedish version of the game where you use Stockholm Metro and Stora Mossen instead. // Liftarn

Presumably the rules of this game are monitored by Samantha's understudy Sven? :-) Adambisset 21:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it the case that in real life, the game was invented by John Junkin? Bonalaw 10:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler notice

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

<-- Added by a genius - a joke in the true spirit of the game! -- Picapica 21:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But sadly, not encyclopedic. ;(
Really? Do you think there isn't a spoiler (of sorts) in this article? OK, it's not "plot details", but did you never experience the thrill of worrying that there might actually be some rules to MC? I say put it back; maybe we could use custom wording instead of the template. --rbrwrˆ 09:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that really, a spoiler notice is necessary (some people spend several months belabouring under the impression that there must be some rules, somewhere :-)); the wording of the standard notice accomplishes this requirement and is also amusing - I don't really see the problem. James F. (talk) 10:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think a custom warning would be best. "Warning: Secrets revealed" might actually be a nice selling point for the article - so many sites prefer to maintain the game. Pcb21| Pete 11:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) [edit conflict]

Oh dear. I do hope I wasn't the catalyst for the spoiler notice's having been removed. The whole point of my message was intended to be that putting it there was a stroke of genius. Unless there are any objections within the next 24 hours, I propose to re-instate it (with thanks and apologies to whoever put it there in the first place) -- Picapica 19:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(The lovely Samantha writes: "In, out? Ooh, yes please.")

The spoiler notice has come and gone again a couple of times now. At the moment it seems that the consensus is that it should be in. --rbrwrˆ 20:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do object- certainly to the boilerplate notice (what plot?). I think that any other notice would be irrelevant- who is going to read the article except people who want to know the truth about the game?- but if anyone has a proposal, I'd be happy to see it. Markalexander100 00:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what plot? - precisely! But, OK, objection received. No jokes allowed in the Wikipedia then. -- Picapica 09:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have put the spoiler warning back in after Hyphz's "inappropriate tone" cleanup. The article is now much more encyclopaedic but also much more spoilery. --Bth 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ciphergoth.org link

An anon removed this external link:

When I checked, it gives a "404 Not Found" error; however the ciphergoth.org home page implies this is a temporary technical problem. I'm putting the link here so we can check whether it ever comes back. --rbrwr± 12:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Link reinstated as the page is back. I know the site owner as it happens and there was a short-term hiccough. --Vamp:Willow 23:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] example game

Somewhere fairly high up in the article (ideally before the spoiler), the article should really include a half-dozen or so turns from an example game, since it's very hard to understand otherwise. (Also, for the record, my vote is to include some kind of spoiler warning. It's not a joke, it's absolutely serious; some people may prefer NOT to read something they could figure out for themselves.) Doops 21:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, not having seen any response, I've acted on both counts. Doops 19:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Mornington Crescent" means victory?

I had always been of the opinion that people were trying to avoid being made to mention "Mornington Crescent", and that the person who was forced in to saying it was the loser, not the winner. This article says I am wrong in that assumption. Can anyone provide sources to show that the first person to be forced to say "Mornington Crescent" is actually the winner, contrary to my own impressions? - PaulHammond 15:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Well, certainly in the form of MC as played on the internet (which, incidentally, has almost diverged so much from MC as played on ISIHAC that they could almost be considered seperate games, and I've been meaning to add something to this article about the current state of MC on the net and how various conventions of play and understandings appeared), Mornington Crescent is the winning move (in all games, of course, where it is indeed the target: there have been numerous rulesets used where it's not), and I don't think this would have become standard had it not appeared (at least) to be so on ISIHAC. On the other hand, of course, one must look at the two most important principles of MC that are enshrined in every ruleset ever devised: "The winner is the first player to move to Mornington Crescent" and "No player may move to Mornington Crescent", in that order, often shortened to "Win" and "Don't win", which does imply somewhat that the winner of a particular game, while still being the winner on paper, may really have lost by bringing the game to a close.
Or I could just be talking crap. Your choice. Certainly I can offer no hard evidence, merely conjecture. How fitting, considering the article in question. Hig Hertenfleurst 15:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PaulHammond, I think your perception is pretty easy to explain: although calling "Mornington Crescent" makes you the winner of the game, it also ends the game immediately. If players are enjoying themselves, they want to drag out the game as long as possible — hence a reluctance to win. Moreover, if a player wins "too early" (whatever that means), he or she may well fear that other players will resent his/her impatience and recklessness. (It's like taking the last cookie — everybody wants the cookie, but nobody wants to be thought a boor by the other guests, so nobody takes it.) In short: while naming "Mornington Crescent" makes you the winner, winning isn't necessarily the object of the game. Or at least that's my understanding. Doops 16:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mostly fictitious

Cross-posted from User talk:195.194.178.251:

Under what circumstances does the game use rules that are not fictitious? --Theo (Talk) 16:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you trying to say? :) Rje 23:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • The first player to say "Mornington Crescent" wins seems to be used in most games and seems to be a non-fictitious rule.--Henrygb 23:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • My edit conflicted response was: :::With this edit User:195.194.178.251 suggested that the rules were mostly fictitious. I am unable to think of any rules that are not fictitious so I wondered why the qualifier was added. I suppose that one could pedantically argue that a nonfictional rule is that each player in turn names a station/street/whatever. Or that the game ends when a player names Mornington Crescent. But, as some of us know, even those are not mandatory! --Theo (Talk) 23:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Think Tank question 1, 30 June 05

Interestingly, this question in the Metro (page 48) seems remarkably similar to part of the Mornington Crescent (game)#Real rules section:

About 15 years ago, Roger Heyworth of Gibson's Games suggested the idea of selling a game consisting of a box that was empty save for a leaflet promoting a fan club for players of the game. Reputedly devised by comedian John Junkin and still played to this day, can you guess which famous game this is?

Compared to the original:

In the late 1980s Roger Heyworth, a director of Gibson's Games mooted the idea of publishing a Mornington Crescent game consisting of an empty box containing a flier promoting a club for aficionados.

I don't have a problem with this by the way! NickF 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Nice to see they've employed somebody to change the words a bit more (compare the Metro's obituary of John Peel and the Wikipedia articles on e.g. John Peel, Billy Bragg etc). Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)
Think Tank is set by David J. Bodycombe, who, according to his page, "runs the UKGameshows website, a wiki-based site cataloguing UK television gameshows". NickF 30 June 2005 20:44 (UTC)

[edit] New word

This article makes me long for Korinthenkacker and Wikikrap. Hopfrog 19:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is ridiculous

This article is far too cryptic. It's meant to be an encyclopedic entry, not an extension to ISIHAC. The spoiler tag wants moving to the top and the article a clear explanation of what the game actually is, the fact that it is tongue-in-cheek and that there are no real rules. To be honest, if someone is curious enough about the game to look it up in Wikipedia, they probably don't care about spoilers, and spoilers only confirm that it is not a normal game with concrete rules. Give it up and put some sense into the article. BigBlueFish 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia isn't a comedy site, and trying to be cute will just make us look even more unprofessional than normal. Molimo 01:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Pish and tush! Have you not seen The International Mornington Crescent Association's Complete Rules of the Game (Cryer and Garden, eds.)? ISBN 0-68-986380-2 Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've bitten the bullet and been honest, much as it pains me. See if that meets the objections above. Just zis Guy you know? 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article and I think it now reads much more clearly and informatively. I like the current opening in particular, with the first paragraph explaining what MC is, then the spoiler notice, then why it is so notable. No doubt it can and will be further improved, but in my opinion it is no longer the cause for concern that it was. Thanks to everyone who's contributed. BigBlueFish 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belle and Sebastian

In case this goes to an edit war, it turns out that the song doesn't have any direct connection to the game, in a Q&A on their web site. "Chris told me about the game show, and it turns out the origin of the song and the show might be the same- I was moved to write when the tube I was in passed through the ghostly station while it was being renovated." --McGeddon 21:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1,2,3 O'Leary

I've heard of a game similar to this called 1,2,3 O'Leary in which the first person to say "1,2,3 O'Leary" is the winner. Utterly pointless and not very funny though. Anyone else heard of this??

[edit] Move to remove exposé here. Who agrees?

Hey everyone,

I find it a bit of a letdown to find that the Wikipedia page on Mornington Crescent exposes the game as a joke. I know it's supposed to be a serious encyclopædia, but... still! I think there's something quite cool about there being a big conspiracy, which even encyclopædias are in on :)

Who else thinks that this page should be re-written in order to perpetuate the joke? EuroSong 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not me. — ciphergoth 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It pains me deeply, but for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, the explanation should stay as long as it's properly spoiler-warning-ed. (Though the very fact that there is a spoiler gives the whole thing away really. But I'd much rather people read it here than at Ciphergoth's rant.) --Bth 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I also say no but for different reasons. Try writing a fake article that "explains the rules". It is quite hard, and probably won't be that funny - MC is somewhat funny normally because of the brilliance of the comedians in terms of comic timing, intonation etc. Words on the page just aren't the same. Pcb21 Pete 13:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:ENC. Sorry, Eurosong. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) [Including minor change by Pcb21]
Absolutely it should. Does no one remember the joy of the dawning realisation that they're taking the piss? The rules section should hint that it's improvised throughout but stop short of shoving the fact down the reader's throat - so the list of similar games is right out. If debunking is strictly necessary then do it by linking to other sites that would ruin the fun, rather than doing it here. If someone really needs to know then they'll click the link, if they don't then they won't. 15:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In my case, there was never a time where I thought the game was real. I heard an episode of ISIHAC on the radio (one where MC was not played), looked the article up on Wikipedia to learn more, and found out about both MC and the fact it wasn't real at the same time. (I did, however, initially think Samantha was real). In my opinion, we definitely should not pretend the game is real in the article - it's a serious encyclopedia, not a fansite. BillyH 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid this will have to be the case. However, there is always Uncyclopedia Popexvi 13:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my comment from 2004, and move it here. When I came to WP looking for information on Mornington Crescent, it was specifically because I believed it to be a joke and wanted to see if that was true. I would have been disappointed and angry if WP had carried on the joke. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 15:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the order of the sectons around, so that the person reading it will not realise till the last possible moment what is going on. I for example only had to read 3 paragraphs to discover the 'true' nature of the game. No content was deleted, just reshuffled to give people more of a chance of not finding out. Hopefully everyone agrees that this is in the spirit of the game! --Wireddeath 20:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Marvellously in the spirit of the game, yes, but this is an encyclopedia. First of all, reading the article it makes no sense to see sections in that order so it's just confusing. People might even scroll down for links (which always occur near the end) and be appalled to find out the truth they didn't want to see! Second of all, there is already a spoiler warning at the top. People have worked hard to make this article encyclopedic and easy to access the information they are looking for. I reverted the reorder. BigBlueFish 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that the article be removed altogether. I think I can understand both sides of the argument. Wikipedia should be a serious encyclopedia containing facts so the article should tell the full truth about MC. On the other hand it seems a shame for it to be so easy to find out the truth. I remember the first time I came across the game some years ago on a forum I posted on from time to time. I was completley confused and fascinated by the game and was keen to figure out what the hell was going on. I googled it and was faced with a page of results with baffling rules and sites where you could play - as far as I could tell it was a real game. I watched the game on the forum and gradually started to wonder if it was all just made up. I tentatively joined in and my contributions to the game were taken well so I carried on. I soon got the hang of it and was making up variations and breaches of the rules all over the place. It was really good fun. These days if you google MC the second result is this article. Most people will click on that result first and then instantly discover that the game doesn't really exist. This is a shame as far as I'm concerned. Let me make this analogy, you are shown a magic trick and are really thrilled by it. You spend hours trying to figure out how it's done and eventually discover the secret. You will rightly be pleased with yourself and gain some real enjoyment both from the discovery and from performing the trick for others (and of course you would never tell how it's done). Being able to find the secret behing MC so easily is akin to being shown the secret behind a magic trick - instantly disappointing. To stretch this analogy a little - Wikipedia would never reveal how a magic trick is performed, similarly it should not reveal the secret behind MC. I would like to see the article removed completley. There would then be no silly entry and no falsehood but no ruining of the magic either. What do people think? Dave86.145.108.85 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Not that I disagree particularly with the idea of removing the article in the spirit of preserving the illusion, I do have to point out one flaw in your analogy, in that Wikipedia does indeed reveal the secret of some magic tricks. However, it strikes me that to intentionally remove the article would be unlikely to preserve the mystery anyway; given the depth of coverage given to other games, to have no coverage on what appears to be the most complex and popular game on the show would be a significant anomaly. People would simply look elsewhere and this isn't the only place online that reveals the truth. Far better that people find out here, where the subject is treated in a sensible manner, than, say, through CipherGoth's rambling discourse on the subject, which also appeared on the first page of Google results when I went looking. --Tailkinker 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as is. When I first encountered this article there was no spoiler warning at the top. That spoiler should be enough to make people think twice before continuing, if they take notice of spoiler warnings, that is!
The article needs to remain, or the encyclopedia is incomplete. The only thing that could be done is to revise the intro paragraph:
The game is intended as a parody of complicated strategy games, and particularly satirises the complex rules and terminology that evolve around games such as contract bridge or chess.
...but surely the words 'parody' and 'satirises' accurately describe the game without, as it were, 'giving the game away'?
Nothing in the TOC box 'spoils the fun', so readers have to scroll or jump down past this before anything really spoiling is stated.
I understand your concerns. (Consider the description of Samantha on the ISIHAC page: Claiming she doesn't exist? Sacrilege!) But I think we must give way to the principles of WP here, bending the text as far as we can without breaking the rules...
EdJogg 10:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is truly beautiful. The majority of clear and rational thought says that the article must stay as it is because it's encyclopedic, however, there appear to be no citations in any of the sections that claim that the game is a hoax, therefore, by encyclopaedia standards, those sections should be removed, or clearly marked as disputed and rewritten. I'm reminded of one of my late Grandfather's favourite moves (Barkingside via Newbury Park) from which only the most experienced player can hope to salvage a draw. --Ear1grey 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realise you'd been part of the conversation here, from the tone of your edit summary. I agree there is a lot of original research in the article, but it's disingenuous to cram all the hoax-relevant material into a single section towards the end, and write the rest of the article "in spirit".
I think clear context would do as good a job as citable sources - that ISIHAC is a comedy radio programme, that many of its other rounds are playful nonsense-word games, and that the organisations and tournaments it mentions do not appear to exist in real life. There's no need for the Ministry of Silly Walks article to cite a clear source defining the ministry as fictional. --McGeddon 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Silly Walks is a good example and (thanks to the Life of Brian) it led me to the God article, which (by happy coincidence) follows a very similar structure to this morning's revised MC article: it describes the history, then discusses the doubt. I certainly wouldn't advocate adding a spoiler to the God article on the premise that there's no proof. In contrast, the current (reverted) MC article, presents unverified speculation as spoiler-delivered fact; and thus implies a lack of neutrality.
Everyone seems to be agreed that MC started with a basic set of rules, so it is correct to discuss these first, which the re-written article did - it then discussed examples from broadcast games which illustrate the perceived complexity of the game, and then having established those factors, it describes why some people speculate that there are no rules at all. The structure is only disingenuous if there is proof that there really are no rules. Perhaps in an earlier section its necessary to state that there is some controversy in the interpretation and inference of the rules which links to the doubting section.--Ear1grey 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain and Dollis-Breaking

Fair enough if it's from the programme rather than original research, but I imagine they're both one-off jokes rather than part of the more general "recurrent themes". The first-turn-win still sounds like it's repeating itself, though, that Brooke-Taylor's was also the immediate victory that "occurred once on air". Or wasn't it? --McGeddon 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The time I heard it didn't involve a great deal of explanation - just an argument. Maybe the are the same one, but the argument was considered a lengthy explanation by whoever wrote it. The other thing though was that the initial example suggested he got away with it, whereas he didn't in the example I was thinking of. I thought I would pop the other bits in seeing as they gave an idea of the humour in the show. You can delete them if you want, I suppose.Popexvi 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me. I must 'listen again' to Monday's episode. :) Popexvi 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station

The Mornington Crescent tube station is on London's Northern Line between Euston and Camden Town on the Charing Cross Branch. However, if you travel between the same two stations on the City Branch, the station simply isn't there. Now you see it, now you don't. The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.

Never having been to the UK (let alone London) and knowing little about it's subway system I'm a bit confused by this. Does it mean the City branch uses a different line/track between Euston and Camden or does the City branch simply skip Mornington Station (go through it but not stop). I guess it's the former although who knows. I admit I don't quite get why the fact the City branch goes through the same two stations but uses a different line is so strange but whatever :-) Nil Einne 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the two lines are side-by-side, and travel parallel, but only the Northern Line has Mornington Crescent station cut into that particular tunnel.

[edit] Mornington Crescent does not have (and has never had) escalators

Photos of the station interior from 1930 shows the presence of lifts, and several other sites (e.g. BBC News and Wikipedia) state that the 1992 closure was for repair to lifts not escalators There really is no room for escalators in the station anyway. Therefore I've reverted the change by User:HLGallon --128.40.76.138 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory?

That bit about game theory.. doesn't make any sense to me, and I do game theory. Surely if I want to win Mornington Cresent, I just say "Mornington Cresent"? This seems to be a bit like an attempt to start sneaking silliness into the article, but I'm happy to have a reference to something and be proved wrong. Mrjeff 09:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section says "the real objective of the game is to announce 'Mornington Crescent' in the turn immediately before your opponent was going to do so" (my emphasis). Is that really true? Surely the the real objective of the game is to announce "Mornington Crescent" in any turn before your opponent does so. If so, it is, as you say, amenable to game theory. Bluewave 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There _is_ a description in one of Douglas Hofstader's "Metamagical Themas" columns to this aspect of the game, in which he compares it to nuclear deterrence - the ideal time to launce a nuclear strike is just before your opponent plans to. Could someone dig out an exact quote and definitive reference? I recall that Hofstader calls the game "Finchley Central" rather than "Mornington Crescent" in the article, but don't have my copy to hand. Tevildo 23:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hofstader quote

Here's the section in question. What you really want to get your hands on is the Manifold (apparently a journal of the University of Warwick) article that Hofstader is quoting. (I'm formatting it as a subsection to avoid excessive indentation and blockquoting. I'll happily take suggestions for better formatting.)


In an article in the British journal Manifold titled “A Pandora's Box of non-Games”, Anatole Beck and David Fowler set forth a panoply of rather silly games that are halfway between true games and pure jokes. The tragedy is that so many of them resemble current global political behavior. For instance, consider the game they call Finchley Central:
Two players alternate naming the stations on the London Underground. The first to say 'Finchley Central' wins. It is clear that the 'best' time to say 'Finchley Central' is exactly before your opponent does. Failing that, it is good that he should be considering it. You could, of course, say 'Finchley Central' on your second turn. In that case, your opponent puffs on his cigarette and says, 'Well,...' Shame on you.
Another amusing game, quite similar to the ones described in the column, is called Penny Pot:
Players alternate turns. At each turn, a player either adds a penny to the pot or takes the pot. Winning player makes first move in next game. Like Finchley Central, this games [sic] defies analysis. There is, of course, the stable situation in which each player takes the pot whenever it is not empty. This is a solution?
At the end of their article, Beck and Fowler add:
M. Henton of New Addington noted with horror that there is an isomorphism between Finchley Central and the game commonly known as 'Nuclear Deterrent'. 'It occurs to me that we should work very fast to analyse the non-games, before we are left with a non-world.'
--Hofstader, Douglas R. (1985). Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 714. 

And here is Hofstader's citation, from his bibliography:

Beck, Anatole and David Fowler. "A Pandora's Box of Non-Games". In Seven Years of Manifold, edited by Ian Stewart and John Jaworski. Nantwich, England: Shiva Publications, 1981.
--Glp 01:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm still not positive what they are trying to get at, but I assume they must have some point. Of course, that also doesn't reference Mornington Cresent directly :)--Mrjeff
Don't think about it too hard, Mrjeff. Hofstadter is a very intelligent man, but he was completely out to lunch on the subject of the nuclear arms race. ~ CZeke 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Search of Mornington Crescent

Was this really billed as the second part of Mornington Crescent Explained? Because, looking at the link, it looks like a different documentary entirely, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with explaining the rules, rather, it's about someone trying to find them. BillyH 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aldgate East

I am suspicious of the reference to Aldgate East which mentions a rucksack. I can find no reference to the move in any of the recordings I have. It's possibly a bad taste reference to the involvement of Aldgate station in the 7 July 2005 London bombings. --Ear1grey 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "powerful and devastating" is very suspicious. The rules rarely, if ever, require the participants to be in possession of anything other than themselves. I don't remember a rucksack being mentioned, although it would take me several days to check all my recordings! I would be inclined to remove the line, after all, it is unverified. EdJogg 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sentence was created in two parts the rucksack portion from an unregistered user in rev 64934314 --Ear1grey 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact in question

Another user has deleted this paragraph and claims it is untrue:

The Mornington Crescent tube station is on London's Northern Line between Euston and Camden Town on the Charing Cross Branch. However, if you travel between the same two stations on the City Branch, the station simply isn't there. Now you see it, now you don't. The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.

The map seems to support the statement. Can anyone offer first-hand knowledge here?

Paul 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Googling for history of the station, I found this excellent page describing the history of the Underground map. (Haven't checked whether this is linked to from the approp. WP article yet...!) The two lines between Euston and Camden Town ARE in separate tunnels that are far from parallel, as the two lines are at right-angles at Euston (first shown on the 1924 map), having been constructed as separate entities.
On the web page mentioned, the section describing the 1936 map (the second by Harry Beck), highlights the 'problem' concerning Mornington Crescent station. The following extract notes one of the many changes introduced from the previous issue of the map:
– Euston now clearly shows the two branches of the Mordon-Edgeware Line interchanging but not looking like they merge. Consequently the Charing Cross branch with Mornington Crescent is shown to the west of the Bank branch, whereas before (and in reality) the branches were the other way round. *See note below.
* Note by [webmaster]: - This... ...has always been a confusing part of the line for travellers and Mornington Crescent (MC) is still shown, to this day, to the West whereas geographically... ...it is situated to the East side of the Bank Branch. To add to the complication for those wanting to get to MC, there is a platform for each of the two Northern branches at Camden Town, but southbound trains can depart from either platform toward either Charing Cross (& MC) or Bank. The map in 1941, depicts the line arrangement more accurately but shows the junctions to the North of the station when they are really to the South.
Perhaps this was why MC was adopted as the destination for the, even more confusing, Radio 4 strategy game of the same name ;-) NB. The rules of this game and an opportunity to play can be found through a link on the home page.
(I have copy-edited the extract slightly, and sections marked '... ...' have been deleted since they make no sense away from the original page. No significant text was removed.)
From the disputed paragraph we should certainly delete the comment "The name is an allusion to the mystery of the game.", as this doesn't really make any sense. However it would be quite reasonable to create a factual paragraph that describes the problem for travellers at Camden Town, since this is a very sensible reason for MC being chosen - it would not even be necessary to say that this WAS the reason, as that would lead to requests for citations! (Another reason for the choice is that the name contains five syllables and is thus quite distinctive.)
EdJogg 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If the fact has no connection to the game, though, it shouldn't be here, it should be in the Mornington Crescent tube station article. --McGeddon 10:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varients

All of those varients look to me like random things someone made up for a laugh. Does anyone have any references to any of them? I think this article more than most needs references, else it will just fill up with stupid randomness Mrjeff 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules?

It is not factual to state that Mornington Crescent has no rules. I notice that all statements to the effect that the rules are "imaginary", "fictitious" or "arbitrary" are unreferenced and as such are mere supposition.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/Talk%7EMornington_Crescent_%28game%29_ba71.html"