c4countdown

Game 6 : DESCANT (equal DC)
Game 9: HARPISTS (equal DC)

Also, 1st numbers game could have been done if powers were allowed, but that is not in Countdown rules !

3^5 = 243; (243 x 3) - 7 = 722.

Round3: REFRAIN for DC & contestant beater.

Congratulations Neil, you're certainly being made to work hard at the moment by some tough opposition so well done for staying in the champion's chair.

Close call there Neil, the very safe play almost cost you.

I found two words missed by DC and the contestants- also REFRAIN in round 3 (really surprised they missed that) and Tolerant in round 7 (Only mentioned by Jeff- it leapt right out at me). Also tried IMPIEST (round 8) but thought it was a bit dubious.
Loved the 2 conundrum final!

Neil, I think you're a bit unlucky to have such tough opponents, albeit you didn't play as well today as you did yesterday. You both seemed to be in good humour after that first conundrum was solved. Out of interest, how long was there between the two conundrum? Obviously it looks like seconds on our screen, but they cut out the bit where they bring someone in to change the letters. Interestingly, I got ADVANCING at exactly the same time as you, but I didn't get OVERTHROW until after he had buzzed, about a second or so later. Notice that the letters -OVER- were already in the right order.

I thought the challenger was really jovial today and a pleasure to watch. I hope he joins the forum. Anyway, well done again Neil. Boy, you're making hard work of this aren't you - some narrow scrapes. You looked really worried after the first crucial conundrum had been solved. Just how many more games are going to be tight?

Kirk Bevins wrote:I thought the challenger was really jovial today and a pleasure to watch.

Absolutely agree. Another fascinating game to watch. Well played Neil...its sheer drama! I missed a few today but am dead chuffed to have found NEPHROSIS, my first 9 of the series

Junaid Mubeen wrote: but am dead chuffed to have found NEPHROSIS, my first 9 of the series

F*cking awesome mate. Top spotting.

Mark Kudlowski wrote:Game 6 : DESCANT (equal DC)
Game 9: HARPISTS (equal DC)

Also, 1st numbers game could have been done if powers were allowed, but that is not in Countdown rules !

3^5 = 243; (243 x 3) - 7 = 722.

Speaking of, can anyone get within ten, within the time? Not me.

Martin Gardner wrote:
Speaking of, can anyone get within ten, within the time? Not me.

I got 720 in the time which turns out to be the closest.

3x3x5x(7x2+2)=720.

I think it could be time for Neil to rethink his numbers tactics.

Challenger (Simon, wasn't it?) seems like a great guy, really fun game to watch and he took that frighteningly narrow defeat very well. Well played again Neil though.

got REFRAIN in round 3
HARPISTS in round 9
CLOGGER in round10
PRISONS to match in round 11.

Well done - a closely contested game.

Neil's pretty cool as well though. I enjoy watching him and each day I like him more and more. Haha that description is so good and it probably applies to me as well. The varying ability of your contestants is crazy - that guy was utter shite (I'm surprised nobody mentioned that) and the woman was superb. Well played Neil, I really hope you become an octochamp.

You see I started off talking about Neil and then talking to you. Oh well.

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it could be time for Neil to rethink his numbers tactics.

Why? Out of interest.
Neil hasn't lost any of the 5 numbers games that he has chosen, surely that's the objective.
Other selections may give his opponent more chance of equalling him, and also, the only game he has lost was a 3 large selection.
(P.S. I'm just off to post on the 'Kirk is OK' thread, as this is not a personal attack.)

Martin Gardner wrote: Out of interest, how long was there between the two conundrum? Obviously it looks like seconds on our screen, but they cut out the bit where they bring someone in to change the letters.

Only 2 or 3 minutes, really. Someone needed to go and put a new conundrum in the conundrum board.
I certainly picked an exciting day to watch the recordings (I saw Weds, Thurs and Friday's games being filmed).

I got an alternate method on round 10:

(75 + (10 + 3 - 1)) x (9 - 5) = 348

(Yes, I know I've seen the game before, but I have a crap memory! LOL!)

David Gunn wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:I think it could be time for Neil to rethink his numbers tactics.

Why? Out of interest.
Neil hasn't lost any of the 5 numbers games that he has chosen, surely that's the objective.

The really strong players who are likely to become octochamps should be looking to maximise their score and hence seeding in the finals. However Neil has so far largely been in tight games where he's needed to ensure the win, so I think I largely agree with his decisions.

I thought doing 1 large would mean you'd get it 99.99% of times and so that puts the pressure on your opponent who is usually quite weak with numbers. If you do 6 small you can sometimes draw a blank and so does your opponent and you've made no ground. Maybe 6 small or 4 large in the finals but you have to judge your opponent's word power I guess.

Thanks for the replies, Kirk & Charlie, interesting points made.
Unfortunately as the reigning champion Neil only gets to choose his numbers game a third of the way into the contest, possibly too early to alter his tactics.
The tactics of Simon yesterday were very interesting, 20 pts down with 2 rounds to go, select 3 large, and it worked.

Charlie Reams wrote:The really strong players who are likely to become octochamps should be looking to maximise their score and hence seeding in the finals. However Neil has so far largely been in tight games where he's needed to ensure the win, so I think I largely agree with his decisions.

You could argue that I should've been trying to maximise my score, but I wasn't really thinking like that. Part of me was convinced that everyone I played against would be a genius, and so as soon as I got a small lead I played it ultra safe (such as picking 5 vowels to ensure that, even if they beat me, they'd only get 5 or 6 points). It never dawned on me that I'm not *that* bad, so maybe I could extend my lead. Pessimism rules.
Also, I quite wanted to see a round where there was nothing greater than a 3 or something low like that, so if the first 4 consonants were rubbish I generally picked lots of vowels...
There's also the fact that I seem to be messing up the one large targets- r14 on Wed, and r14 today, for example (OK I didn't mess them up, but I'm disappointed I didn't get closer) which doesn't help.

Julie T wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote: Out of interest, how long was there between the two conundrum? Obviously it looks like seconds on our screen, but they cut out the bit where they bring someone in to change the letters.

Only 2 or 3 minutes, really. Someone needed to go and put a new conundrum in the conundrum board.
I certainly picked an exciting day to watch the recordings (I saw Weds, Thurs and Friday's games being filmed).

Is that all? It felt like a heck of a lot longer after I nearly threw that game away...

What a great game (I had to record it and watched it today). Neil, you're doing so well, but Simon was a big threat and a really nice character. Shame we won't see him again. Incidentally, did no-one see HIPSTERS, or isn't it a recognised word? Can't wait for my OED to arrive from Amazon.

Neil Zussman wrote: Is that all? It felt like a heck of a lot longer after I nearly threw that game away...

Probably did feel a lot longer up there actually in the game. I have a crap memory, but Alex reckons not long either.
You could be right, though. Someone had to take down 2 lots of letters and then put another set up, in order.

He got that conundrum really quickly - you're not still beating yourself up about it, are you?
You're a fantastic player. I'm glad I was there to see some of your games.

Kathleen Batlle wrote:Incidentally, did no-one see HIPSTERS, or isn't it a recognised word?

Well done, it's in.

Julie T wrote:He got that conundrum really quickly - you're not still beating yourself up about it, are you?

Well, it was the only conundrum I missed all day, so naturally I'm a little bit disappointed- although I suppose I should be grateful it was that one rather than Wednesday's one that I missed!

Julie T wrote:You're a fantastic player. I'm glad I was there to see some of your games.

Aw shucks

Kai Laddiman wrote:

Kathleen Batlle wrote:Incidentally, did no-one see HIPSTERS, or isn't it a recognised word?

Well done, it's in.

Thanks Kai. Wow, I must be getting better!

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Junaid Mubeen wrote: but am dead chuffed to have found NEPHROSIS, my first 9 of the series

F*cking awesome mate. Top spotting.

Just caught up with this game and so did I after missing NEPHRITIS (INHERITS + P) a whole bunch of times on apterous.

Finally got round to watching this game. Well done for finally coming through. Beat you on the tie-break conundrum, Neil, but not on anything else. It was a good game to watch.