c4countdown

Nathan Pace is our newest champion, and our first champion among two new contestants this series. Can he stay on pace with a second win today?

Join Jen for the recap later.

Alt 1st numbers: (10+9)x(50+3)-5-3

Peter Mabey wrote:Alt 1st numbers: (10+9)x(50+3)-5-3

Congratulations, you just won a Concorde.

(50+100)x(4+1)-9 is an other method Rachel didn't see for 2nd nos.

PHALERA R1

(6-1-1)x75-10-3 one of the alts in 3rd nos.

Went for "piggiest" - that's my max game gone.

DIORAMAS R 12/13

Std method for last nos: 50x10-100+3+1

Crazy, If Nathan hadn't missed that "open goal" i.e. the last numbers game, he would have won.

Steven M. McCann wrote:Crazy, If Nathan hadn't missed that "open goal" i.e. the last numbers game, he would have won.

Hmm, think that's underselling the 404 slightly - working out how to make the 4 with which to multiply the 101 wasn't easy IMO, and it was certainly harder than some of the numbers games he'd missed previously. Only being able to get 400, however...*

(*Although he couldn't win unless he got all 10 points, so was probably only looking for the 404 - but even so.)

After tomorrow, seeds 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 could have 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 wins. Has that ever happened before?

Anyone?

Johnny Canuck wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:Alt 1st numbers: (10+9)x(50+3)-5-3

Congratulations, you just won a Concorde.

I think the oxygen mask takes priority!

Steven M. McCann wrote:Crazy, If Nathan hadn't missed that "open goal" i.e. the last numbers game, he would have won.

Yeah, I was stunned when he didn't get it too

Tony Atkins wrote:Went for "piggiest" - that's my max game gone.

Me too - well that's half true - the second bit doesn't apply to me

Easier to spot 111 x 9 = 999 than 27 x 37.
In the 287 Tony's way of saving the 13 and make the 4 a different way to x 75 by is a lot simpler than 72 x 4 - 1.
Seemed to be some unnecessarily complicated solutions today.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:(*Although he couldn't win unless he got all 10 points, so was probably only looking for the 404 - but even so.)

This is ridiculously easy to do, more so than you might think...

Johnny Canuck wrote:After tomorrow, seeds 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 could have 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 wins. Has that ever happened before?

Anyone?

Am I the only person who really, really, really wants this to happen?

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:(*Although he couldn't win unless he got all 10 points, so was probably only looking for the 404 - but even so.)

This is ridiculously easy to do, more so than you might think...

I just thought of the best headline ever for Nathan's performance in that game...
"ERROR: 404 NOT FOUND"

Rhys Benjamin wrote:

Johnny Canuck wrote:After tomorrow, seeds 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 could have 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 wins. Has that ever happened before?
Anyone?

Am I the only person who really, really, really wants this to happen?

You might be. I really, really, really want it to happen, but only without the bold type on the third "really".

Also, as I realised, an eventual 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 lineup is actually inevitable, unless nobody ever wins more than one game again.

Does it mildly bother anyone else at all when a contestant says "I've got a risky 8... DESPOTIC" and then Susie says "yes, not risky at all" because it's valid?

Jon Corby wrote:Does it mildly bother anyone else at all when a contestant says "I've got a risky 8... DESPOTIC" and then Susie says "yes, not risky at all" because it's valid?

Every time.