c4countdown

This challenger's looking pretty handy...

INNARDS as a DC equaller, round 4.

ruralise for round 9

STIBINE for round with Z.

round 11, 12? (sorry only half-watching); INDITES as a DC beater for 7.
Again, only half-watching, sorry if those letters weren't there!

No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?

For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?

3rd numbers alt: (75*50-2)/(7-3)

Edit: Brilliantly, this was my 937th post. Which I suppose makes this edit post # 937.5

Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?

What about rehosting?

Andy Wilson wrote:

Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?

What about rehosting?

Not in, nor is STIBINE^. SEMIOTIC/COMITIES as nice equallers to COMFIEST. I was chuffed with MEIOTIC in that round until that damn S came out.

You're for it after school Bevins...

Ben Wilson wrote:No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?

I did.Was also hoping for an E for PAGINATES in the ADAPTING round but Fiona asked for a consonant

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Andy Wilson wrote:

Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?

What about rehosting?

Not in, nor is STIBINE^. SEMIOTIC/COMITIES as nice equallers to COMFIEST. I was chuffed with MEIOTIC in that round until that damn S came out.

I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.

Mark Kudlowski wrote: I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.

It is, but it's not useful enough to have made it into the ODE2r. Many words aren't listed (obviously) so you really do have to know your dictionary.

Got SAMBOES in R3 as an equaller.

Would it have been allowed? SAMBO is listed together with both versions (S and ES) for the plural, but it's capitalised. On the other hand it's also listed lower case, but no plurals this time. CountMax has it, so I guess it's ok.

Howard Somerset wrote:Got SAMBOES in R3 as an equaller.

Would it have been allowed? SAMBO is listed together with both versions (S and ES) for the plural, but it's capitalised. On the other hand it's also listed lower case, but no plurals this time. CountMax has it, so I guess it's ok.

Yeah, if a word has alternative spellings then they don't normally list the alternative inflections, so SAMBOES is fine.

Rachel = Outstanding.

I'm normally reasonably handy with the numbers rounds, but today is the first time I failed to get any of them with Rachel getting them all.

I really want to marry her

Vikash Shah wrote:Rachel = Outstanding.

I'm normally reasonably handy with the numbers rounds, but today is the first time I failed to get any of them with Rachel getting them all.

I really want to marry her

Likewise, I didn't manage to get any of them today. Very impressive. She'd kick Carol's arse in a Numbers Attack.

That was the best I have seen Rachel do in a long while, I kept expecting her to say she couldn't do them.

I only managed to do the first one but there were all rather hard.

Darren Carter wrote:That was the best I have seen Rachel do in a long while, I kept expecting her to say she couldn't do them.

I only managed to do the first one but there were all rather hard.

Without finding my notes, I think the two she got were split multiplications weren't they (i.e. times, then add, then times)? When I was playing in the studio she told me that's the way she looks for first all the time. After my 8th win she reiterated this to me in the green room saying how I always do the numbers games different to her as she does the split multiplication way. Naturally I smiled at her and said "well, opposites attract" which didn't quite cause the desired effect.

Anyway my point is this; if you see a numbers game that may appear hard but can be solved by timesing, then adding/subtracting, then timesing again, Rachel will have probably solved it.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Without finding my notes, I think the two she got were split multiplications weren't they

Not really, the second one was 524 = (75-25)*10+(5-2)*8. That's pretty far removed.

Kirk Bevins wrote: if you see a numbers game that may appear hard but can be solved by timesing, then adding/subtracting, then timesing again, Rachel will have probably solved it.

One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Naturally I smiled at her and said "well, opposites attract" which didn't quite cause the desired effect.

That was probably one of the most awkward moments of my life.

Rosemary Roberts wrote: One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.

Would this be Jon O'Neill who always chose 4 large numbers and divided by 25? If it was, that's slightly different as he doesn't know what, say, 784x25 and then work backwards - he learns tricks.

Jon Corby wrote:Likewise, I didn't manage to get any of them today. Very impressive. She'd kick Carol's arse in a Numbers Attack.

I few weeks ago I began a study comparing Rachel's performance to date with CV's over a randomly chosen "equivalent" period, using William T-P's rating system to provide a tariff for every game which neither contestant could solve.

Having completed this for Rachel's first eight weeks, I realised that the CountdownWiki data was occasionally suspect inasmuch as Rachel is sometimes credited with a success which the recap shows to have been late. Some of these I remember specifically. So I didn't post the results.

Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote: One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.

Would this be Jon O'Neill who always chose 4 large numbers and divided by 25? If it was, that's slightly different as he doesn't know what, say, 784x25 and then work backwards - he learns tricks.

It very likely was him, there haven't been very many such. But I would never denigrate "learning tricks" - it's a very good trick if you can do it.

You remind me a little of the woman I once overheard at kindergarten, answering another mother's praise of her own child's incredibly neat colouring book, in which none of the crayon had crossed any of the lines: "That's just technique !".

Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?

Yes.

Jon Corby wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?

Yes.

Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?

Yes.

Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.

Thanks. Bristol auditions are next Wednesday, so don't expect anything before then!

Andrew was at my audition back in July. There were 4 nines available in my audition. I got two of them and Andrew spotted the others. I was surprised not to have seen him on the show sooner, because he was very good. Go Andrew!