c4countdown

Two wins for Graeme Cheek now, can he get a third?

Join Callum for the recap later.

Only two solutions for round 3 apparently, that must be pretty rare with 100 and a good mix of smalls.

Andy Platt wrote:Only two solutions for round 3 apparently, that must be pretty rare with 100 and a good mix of smalls.

I found Rachel's way - will have to look for the other during the ads.

ECLIPSE in R5

Another of Rachel's couple of ways to 282 is ((5x9)-7)x10-100+2.

Numbers are pretty hard when you're nervous or in front of the TV cameras but they're making it look like quantum mechanics.

Alt 3rd numbers: (9x5x10)-100-(2/2)

I like to think of that method to 349 as 100/2 times 7 (and then do 10-9 to make the one to subtract), but Rachel's way is more flexible.

Andy Platt wrote:Numbers are pretty hard when you're nervous or in front of the TV cameras but they're making it look like quantum mechanics.

I found it was how much coffee and sleep that you had had that made the difference!

I did (100+5x10-9)x2 = 282
And in R5 had VESICLE

Wow the second max of the game with UPBRAIDS - nice spot!

UPBRAIDS from C2 was pretty impressive, looks like it might turn out to be decisive with the close low-scoring game.

Nope then. Good comeback from C1, decent contest to watch with how close it was.

Nice last solve by Rachel - I only did 51x19 to make 969.

Tony Atkins wrote:Nice last solve by Rachel - I only did 51x19 to make 969.

I got three away the other side, which I was quite happy with:
((50+4)x2-1)x(8+1) = 963.

CONTRITE in round 1.

Chris is actually a friend of one of my workmates, so I was aware of him coming on the show.

He did reasonable for most of the game, just his numbers was a bit lacklustre (if only he hadn't forgotten how to do the 2nd one, he'd have won the game............ )

But, UPBRAIDS was a fantastic spot and I thought that was it then, but Graeme does seem to have the bouncebackability about him, and he might win a few more games, unless maybe Brett might have something to say about it when he comes on.

Tony Atkins wrote:I like to think of that method to 349 as 100/2 times 7 (and then do 10-9 to make the one to subtract), but Rachel's way is more flexible.

Yep, that was my way for that one, which could be done by just inserting the appropriate signs between the numbers in the order displayed. (100/2) x (5+2) + 9 - 10 = 349.
Do you guys have a word for that kind of numbers round solution??

Philip Wilson wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:I like to think of that method to 349 as 100/2 times 7 (and then do 10-9 to make the one to subtract), but Rachel's way is more flexible.

Yep, that was my way for that one, which could be done by just inserting the appropriate signs between the numbers in the order displayed. (100/2) x (5+2) + 9 - 10 = 349.
Do you guys have a word for that kind of numbers round solution??

I think it's called "the standard method".

Perfectly executed.