Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7824
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Matt Morrison »

Nobody loves spoilers any more.

I'm glad that Paul won. He seems likable, scared, and that woman was such a cheat with numbers solutions.
Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Eoin Monaghan »

APHELION in round 4.
Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Eoin Monaghan »

Eoin Monaghan wrote:APHELION in round 4.
and EXEUNT as an equaller in round 7 I think.
User avatar
Phil Reynolds
Postmaster General
Posts: 3329
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Phil Reynolds »

Eoin Monaghan wrote:and EXEUNT as an equaller in round 7 I think.
Yep, that definitely equals the EXEUNT which Susie mentioned.
Eoin Monaghan
Kiloposter
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:33 pm

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Eoin Monaghan »

Phil Reynolds wrote:
Eoin Monaghan wrote:and EXEUNT as an equaller in round 7 I think.
Yep, that definitely equals the EXEUNT which Susie mentioned.
:? oops, mustn't have heard that.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by John Bosley »

Matt Morrison wrote:Nobody loves spoilers any more.

I'm glad that Paul won. He seems likable, scared, and that woman was such a cheat with numbers solutions.
Was she an actual cheat? I thought she was a bit hesitant, which I suppose is not on, but she did know how to get to the number she had declared.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7824
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Matt Morrison »

John Bosley wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:I'm glad that Paul won. He seems likable, scared, and that woman was such a cheat with numbers solutions.
Was she an actual cheat? I thought she was a bit hesitant, which I suppose is not on, but she did know how to get to the number she had declared.
To be fair, she wasn't as bad today as she was yesterday. But she's 'hesitated' on, I think, every single numbers game (apart from perhaps the easy 114 today) over the last two days, so there's something up with that. She'll take a few extra seconds to declare, and then a few extra seconds still once she's asked for her solution, so you can tell that she was still working on it, or at the least double-checking.

I guess I used 'cheat' as shorthand for "someone who was a bit cheeky with the game's etiquette". Cheating or not, I still preferred her opponent :)
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Get in. Another max game today to add to the tally. :D
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Kirk Bevins »

I suppose this belongs in here as there's not an official thread of brag for playing along at home with the TV.

Had I finished an octochamp run today I would have had a personal record. That record is percentage of maximum obtained. The TV record is 92.1% by Mr Beevers. This last run of 8 gave me a 96.4% of maximum and I'm so chuffed. In fact my octototal would have been 974! The record so far for me came yesterday where had I finished my octochamp yesterday I'd have had an octochamp total of 983 with a 96.21% of total over the 8 games. This is thanks in part to many 13+ max games recently. I don't think this form can continue but I felt I needed a little gloat. :ugeek:
User avatar
Ben Hunter
Kiloposter
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: S Yorks

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Ben Hunter »

Kirk Bevins wrote:I felt I needed a little goat.
Here ya go.

Image
User avatar
Jon O'Neill
Ginger Ninja
Posts: 4588
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Jon O'Neill »

Kirk Bevins wrote:I suppose this belongs in here as there's not an official thread of brag for playing along at home with the TV.

Had I finished an octochamp run today I would have had a personal record. That record is percentage of maximum obtained. The TV record is 92.1% by Mr Beevers. This last run of 8 gave me a 96.4% of maximum and I'm so chuffed. In fact my octototal would have been 974! The record so far for me came yesterday where had I finished my octochamp yesterday I'd have had an octochamp total of 983 with a 96.21% of total over the 8 games. This is thanks in part to many 13+ max games recently. I don't think this form can continue but I felt I needed a little gloat. :ugeek:
Yeah, cos we didn't think you were any good before you posted that.

Well done though.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Jon O'Neill wrote: Yeah, cos we didn't think you were any good before you posted that.

Well done though.
It's not about that mate, I still surprise myself and it's nice to get it out (if you excuse the expression).
User avatar
Neil Zussman
Enthusiast
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Neil Zussman »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Jon O'Neill wrote: Yeah, cos we didn't think you were any good before you posted that.

Well done though.
It's not about that mate, I still surprise myself and it's nice to get it out (if you excuse the expression).
Obviously you have to take into account the fact that in the rounds you didn't max, if your opponent did max them then your score would be lower. But 974 is still a phenomenal effort. Although I'm disappointed that, in the comfort of your own home, with no cameras staring you in the face (presumably), you haven't got to 4 figures yet. Honestly, you suck. :? ;)
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Neil Zussman wrote: Obviously you have to take into account the fact that in the rounds you didn't max, if your opponent did max them then your score would be lower.
That's all taken into account. On my spreadsheet I type my scores against champion and challenger and the octoruns are worked out continuously, the first game being played against the champion and the last 7 games against the challengers.
User avatar
Neil Zussman
Enthusiast
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Neil Zussman »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Neil Zussman wrote: Obviously you have to take into account the fact that in the rounds you didn't max, if your opponent did max them then your score would be lower.
That's all taken into account. On my spreadsheet I type my scores against champion and challenger and the octoruns are worked out continuously, the first game being played against the champion and the last 7 games against the challengers.
Were any of them good enough to beat you in any round, or did you just happen to find 8 consecutive contestants who weren't that good?
Also, doesn't that mean you 'played' against Hamish during his first game? How did you do?
Edit: Having just checked the spoilers thread from that game, my questions have been answered. You were beaten in at least one round then, so your score could've been higher.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Neil Zussman wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:
Neil Zussman wrote: Obviously you have to take into account the fact that in the rounds you didn't max, if your opponent did max them then your score would be lower.
That's all taken into account. On my spreadsheet I type my scores against champion and challenger and the octoruns are worked out continuously, the first game being played against the champion and the last 7 games against the challengers.
Were any of them good enough to beat you in any round, or did you just happen to find 8 consecutive contestants who weren't that good?
Also, doesn't that mean you 'played' against Hamish during his first game? How did you do?
Edit: Having just checked the spoilers thread from that game, my questions have been answered. You were beaten in at least one round then, so your score could've been higher.
I was going to put my spreadsheet on here as someone ages ago asked about it but this was before I went on and I didn't want to give too much away before I'd recorded. Now I'm happy to put it on here I don't know how as I can't attach anything, unless one of you computer nerds know differently. To answer your question, I was beaten by DEMURELY by Hamish so I only had 143 compared with 150 against the champion. If my octochamp run started there it would count the 150 as I would be the challenger for that particular game.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7824
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers - Thursday 7th May 2009

Post by Matt Morrison »

Kirk Bevins wrote:I was going to put my spreadsheet on here as someone ages ago asked about it but this was before I went on and I didn't want to give too much away before I'd recorded. Now I'm happy to put it on here I don't know how as I can't attach anything, unless one of you computer nerds know differently.
You're right that you can't attach files to posts (I think), but there are plenty of easy ways to host it on the web. Try http://www.mediafire.com/.
Post Reply