c4countdown

So, the effort levels are now approaching MAXIMUM level, and we have 2 contestants today who know what it's like to hit top gear.

In the champions' chair is Chris Wills, who for over 6 months, had the highest ever score in the 15 round format with a 129, which I at the time, seemed like a humongous score, until a certain Julian Fell came along a few months later with a 138, then a 146, the latter of which is still the highest score in the show's history.

Well, that might not have been the case if things were slightly different 9 days ago, when our 2nd competitor, Jack Hurst took on Wayne Kelly in the last round, but just a risk too many cost him a record score of 150, leaving him to "settle" with 143, the 2nd highest score of the show's history.

But, with the strength of these 2 players means that anything could theoretically happen today.

Here are the stats:

Firstly, Series 47 Champion & CoC XI Runner-Up Chris Wills - 17 Games, 15 Wins, 1,811 Points (Average: 106.53 - Not Including The 25th Birthday Special With Conor Travers)
Highest Score: 129 vs. April Carlin (4th Game)
Lowest Score: 73 vs. Graham Nash (CoC Grand Final)
9's Achieved: 5/17
Total Points/Max/%: 1811/2209 (82%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 1233/1545 (80%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 448/494 (91%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 130/170 (76%)

Secondly, Series 63 Champion Jack Hurst - 13 Games, 13 Wins, 1,527 Points. (Average: 117.46)
Highest Score: 143 vs. Wayne Kelly (30BC Round 1)
Lowest Score: 108 vs. Peter Godwin (Quarter-Final) & vs. Mark Deeks (30BC Prelim)
9's Achieved: 9/10
Total Points/Max/%: 1527/1649 (93%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 1051/1141 (92%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 375/378 (99%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 100/130 (77%)

Join me for the recap later on.

Over the duration of at least 4 games is there a better numbers percentage than jack hurst's of 99??

Wow. Just in case it wasn't already clear what a massive douche you are, you then go and wear my jumper on Countdown knowing damn well that I wore it before you but that yours would be broadcast first. Trying to make it look like I'm copying you are you?! God I hate you.

Ken Bruce: "We couldn't improve on that"

How about sticking that S on the end of it!

Surely Susie could've said solanums was also valid...

Round 3: Lexplorer allows SALMONS. If Chris loses....

MP

She explained the reasoning - I'd say in this instance, it'll be lexplorer that's wrong.

Chris' tactic to win this game is to flirt with Jack! Incredible scenes on Countdown.

CENTIMO as an equaller to LEXICON.

Some tactics are creeping in here as there's a definite selection pattern:
Chris is selecting 3 vowels and 6 consonants
Jack is selecting 5 vowels and 4 consonants

Mauro

@eoin monaghan im sure you liked nicks comments at the end!!

Excellent performance by Jack. Well done to Chris also for keeping in good spirits as ever.

Well done both contestants on a good game. That's two Chris' down one to go ?!

szodiac wrote:Round 3: Lexplorer allows SALMONS. If Chris loses....

MP

I'm sure I remember Susie saying that she WOULD allow SALMONS in a previous episode, due to the food ordering rule. Very odd.

Grant Waters wrote:

szodiac wrote:Round 3: Lexplorer allows SALMONS. If Chris loses....

MP

I'm sure I remember Susie saying that she WOULD allow SALMONS in a previous episode, due to the food ordering rule. Very odd.

I could imagine she might have said that without double-checking as if it was just a "oh, and you could have had..." it doesn't really matter, whereas here it was pretty important for her to make sure she was right (and she sounded genuinely surprised to me when she found it).

Also, if that was a deliberate jumper-based ploy by Jack, that's genius.

When I was watching this game I was very surprised SALMONS wasn't accepted - I'd have been pretty miffed in Chris's situation.
At least it didn't really change the result

I'd just like to say well played to Chris, he was a nice guy and a good sport in the studio. Its a privilege to have appeared in an episode alongside guy who is probably countdown's most aired contestant. On a better day Chris could have beaten me, I think as it was I was lucky to be able to pull away early, Chris had especially bad luck with SALMONS. I should have spoken up at the end to say my bit to give Chris praise, but I felt like they were trying to move things along quickly, so I pussied out of interrupting Nick (Ken Bruce likes to speak for a long time, so I think contestants struggle to get as many words in when he is on!).

Andy Platt wrote:When I was watching this game I was very surprised SALMONS wasn't accepted - I'd have been pretty miffed in Chris's situation.
At least it didn't really change the result

It really annoys me when people say stuff like this. Of course the game would have been different if SALMONS was allowed, the score would have been closer, there would have been more pressure on me, Chris would have been concentrating harder, who knows what could have happened. This is just like when people say "We should have drawn that game 3-3 if the ref gave us those penalties". Well no, because if he gave you the first one, then the whole sequence of events that lead to the second penalty shout never would have happened. [/Football rant]

Ryan Taylor wrote:Wow. Just in case it wasn't already clear what a massive douche you are, you then go and wear my jumper on Countdown knowing damn well that I wore it before you but that yours would be broadcast first. Trying to make it look like I'm copying you are you?! God I hate you.

Yes, I delibrately wore this because I knew it would make it look like you were copying me I wanted to joke that it was my girlfriend's and I was wearing it as a tribute on Valentine's day, but I didn't get the chance.

szodiac wrote:Some tactics are creeping in here as there's a definite selection pattern:
Chris is selecting 3 vowels and 6 consonants
Jack is selecting 5 vowels and 4 consonants

Mauro

5 vowels wasn't a predetermined tactic. Round 2 I was trying to get COWPEA darrenic, round 4 I wanted MURIATE to come out, round 6 I was fishing for E for the 8s, and in round ten I wanted PIRAGUA to come out. Personally, I think to go into a game and decide what you will pick each round before you play is a bad move.


Interestingly 725 is always possible with 4 large, which is my favourite selection on apterous. All my friends groaned like it was going to be easy when they saw it was divisiable by 25...

In round 12 when the first three letter were WET, I was tempted to pause and laugh, but I chickened out because I wasn't sure how Rachel would take it! Also, about 10 seconds into that round I can be seen shaking my head, because I realised I should have went for a final consonant hoping for another N. Good job it didn't come out!

As for the conundrum, when Chris buzzed that quickly, I thought there was a chance he didn't have it, so I kept trying to work it out (Discussion: is that cheating??). After I had dismissed ALLUDIBLE/ILLUDABLE on the basis that Damian wouldn't set conundrums that shit, LULLABIED became immediately obvious. It looked like I forgot which side the buzzer was on.


Looking forward to rewatching tomorrow's episode to find out who I played in the quarter final now!

JackHurst wrote:

Andy Platt wrote:When I was watching this game I was very surprised SALMONS wasn't accepted - I'd have been pretty miffed in Chris's situation.
At least it didn't really change the result

It really annoys me when people say stuff like this. Of course the game would have been different if SALMONS was allowed, the score would have been closer, there would have been more pressure on me, Chris would have been concentrating harder, who knows what could have happened. This is just like when people say "We should have drawn that game 3-3 if the ref gave us those penalties". Well no, because if he gave you the first one, then the whole sequence of events that lead to the second penalty shout never would have happened. [/Football rant]

Well you have a point, and after reading it back I sounded well disrespectful to Chris - apologies, I totally didn't mean to. He's a great player too.
I just think with (a) you having proven your ability to keep a lead under pressure time and time again and (b) with you going 2nd and having an extra numbers choice if you needed it, you were always going to be OK from there even if SALMONS was accepted (which I still think it should have been).

Grant Waters wrote:

szodiac wrote:Round 3: Lexplorer allows SALMONS. If Chris loses....

MP

I'm sure I remember Susie saying that she WOULD allow SALMONS in a previous episode, due to the food ordering rule. Very odd.

The plot thickens Jessica tells me SALMON falls into the 'COUNTNOUN' rule.

Mauro

szodiac wrote:

Grant Waters wrote:

szodiac wrote:Round 3: Lexplorer allows SALMONS. If Chris loses....

MP

I'm sure I remember Susie saying that she WOULD allow SALMONS in a previous episode, due to the food ordering rule. Very odd.

The plot thickens Jessica tells me SALMON falls into the 'COUNTNOUN' rule.

Mauro

Well yes, in that it can be pluralised - but then that applies to the fish itself - and the plural is clearly given as SALMON, not SALMONS.

Well played again today Jack, jumper theft notwithstanding.

Andy Platt wrote:When I was watching this game I was very surprised SALMONS wasn't accepted - I'd have been pretty miffed in Chris's situation.

I was pretty surprised a few months ago when Susie said she'd allow it. In my view it was a mistake then, which was rectified today.

Jack Hurst wrote:As for the conundrum, when Chris buzzed that quickly, I thought there was a chance he didn't have it, so I kept trying to work it out (Discussion: is that cheating??).

No. Everyone knows that pressing the buzzer stops the clock, and therefore that if you buzz in with a wrong answer, your opponent might get an extra few seconds' thinking time. It's part of the game.

Best bit of today's episode:

JackHurst wrote:All my friends groaned like it was going to be easy when they saw it was divisiable by 25...

Yeah, I kinda went down that route - you're looking for 29 * 75 divided by 3, but since there was no 3 anyway I then looked at doing 58 * 75, and dividing by 6, which luckily turned out to be fairly easily achievable. (But I was left trailing by SOLANUM(S), PIRAGUA and probably some others that I can't remember before that starts to look like a brag!)

JackHurst wrote:As for the conundrum, when Chris buzzed that quickly, I thought there was a chance he didn't have it, so I kept trying to work it out (Discussion: is that cheating??).

Not at all, if your opponent wants to buzz in and give you extra time, that's their call. (You'll be unsurprised to hear that In this instance, I actually wasn't impressed that Chris appeared to buzz and then continue working - give your answer or say you haven't got it goddammit! But it's probably harsh to focus on that as the game was played in a much better atmosphere than the last one - well done both but particularly Jack after last time )

JackHurst wrote:Looking forward to rewatching tomorrow's episode to find out who I played in the quarter final now!

Yeah, congratulations - who is tomorrow's contest between? Actually, is there a nice grid anywhere with all this in because I have no idea who is playing day-by-day or who is facing who next, it's just too big.

I agree that disallowing SALMONS was a questionable call. When the dictionary says "plural same", it's referring to the definition which is actually listed (the fish themselves) rather than portions of salmon in a restaurant. If someone wanted to order two salmon dishes, I would think it's much more likely they'd say "two salmons please" rather than "two salmon please". You could argue that since the dictionary doesn't specify this, it clearly isn't in common enough usage to be allowable, but that whole concept goes out the window with the 'portions' rule anyway. If Susie can invoke 'common sense' to invent a sense of a word that the dictionary doesn't recognise, it isn't really any more of a stretch for her to use her own judgement to decide what the plural should be in that case.

Jon Corby wrote:

JackHurst wrote:Looking forward to rewatching tomorrow's episode to find out who I played in the quarter final now!

Yeah, congratulations - who is tomorrow's contest between? Actually, is there a nice grid anywhere with all this in because I have no idea who is playing day-by-day or who is facing who next, it's just too big.

Tomorrow's match is a battle between the champions of Series 58 & 61, David O'Donnell and Chris Davies.

And for extra cool information about this series, go here http://wiki.apterous.org/Series_68

James Robinson wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

JackHurst wrote:Looking forward to rewatching tomorrow's episode to find out who I played in the quarter final now!

Yeah, congratulations - who is tomorrow's contest between? Actually, is there a nice grid anywhere with all this in because I have no idea who is playing day-by-day or who is facing who next, it's just too big.

Tomorrow's match is a battle between the champions of Series 58 & 61, David O'Donnell and Chris Davies.

And for extra cool information about this series, go here http://wiki.apterous.org/Series_68

Perfect, just what I was looking for, cheers Robbo!

Nick says: "let's slip the dogs of war, unleash" after the DC offering. This struck me as weird since it's sounds like he's quoting Shakespeare but recommending unleash as a better word than slip.

Graeme Cole wrote:Well played again today Jack, jumper theft notwithstanding.

Andy Platt wrote:When I was watching this game I was very surprised SALMONS wasn't accepted - I'd have been pretty miffed in Chris's situation.

I was pretty surprised a few months ago when Susie said she'd allow it. In my view it was a mistake then, which was rectified today.

Yes, that's how I interpreted it as well.

Innis Carson wrote:I agree that disallowing SALMONS was a questionable call. When the dictionary says "plural same", it's referring to the definition which is actually listed (the fish themselves) rather than portions of salmon in a restaurant.

Are you saying the ODE mentions salmon only as an animal, and not as a foodstuff? In that case, you certainly can't have SALMONS.

If OTOH it lists the animal and the food as two definitions, then it depends on where exactly the "plural same" note appears in the entry - before all the definitions or within a single definition.

Innis Carson wrote:If Susie can invoke 'common sense' to invent a sense of a word that the dictionary doesn't recognise, it isn't really any more of a stretch for her to use her own judgement to decide what the plural should be in that case.

Indeed, you could well ask the extent to which Susie's allowed to use "common sense" to override the rules whereby inflections can be inferred. Whether a monosyllabic adjective can take comparative and superlative forms is another example.

And SOLIDEST - "it's got more than one syllable, and so it has to be specified" - so words like "more", "least", "best", "worse" can be inferred somehow?

Stewart Gordon wrote:Are you saying the ODE mentions salmon only as an animal, and not as a foodstuff? In that case, you certainly can't have SALMONS.

If OTOH it lists the animal and the food as two definitions, then it depends on where exactly the "plural same" note appears in the entry - before all the definitions or within a single definition.

Good point. If the Oxford Online entry is the same as the one in ODE3 (not an entirely safe assumption I know) then the foodstuff sense of SALMON is a subentry, with "(plural same)" applying to the entire definition. I guess it makes sense to say that the invented mass noun plural would have to conform to that, even if it goes against intuition - it certainly isn't my intention to advocate expanded use of 'judgement calls'. I'll redirect my gripe to the dictionary rather than Susie.

Andy Platt wrote: I just think with (a) you having proven your ability to keep a lead under pressure time and time again and (b) with you going 2nd and having an extra numbers choice if you needed it, you were always going to be OK from there even if SALMONS was accepted (which I still think it should have been).

I've just saw the recap - I incorrectly remembered the SALMONS thing happening much much later in the game btw

Lee Kelly wrote:@eoin monaghan im sure you liked nicks comments at the end!!

I read this before I had got to the end assuming I had got a wee mention but alas, no!

Other than that, very well played Jack! You seemed much more reserved and calm and this was a very enjoyable game to watch .

Well played too to Chris, was great to see you back on the screens as I'd never seen you before and you really are such a legend of the game. Was really brilliant to be sitting beside you in the audience at the finals there recently.

Graeme Cole has already spoken on the SALMONS thing in a previous thread, and what Graeme says is binding.

Would people say SHEEPS and FOXS should be allowed for the same reason, if they were regularly on menus?

Jon Corby wrote:(You'll be unsurprised to hear that In this instance, I actually wasn't impressed that Chris appeared to buzz and then continue working - give your answer or say you haven't got it goddammit!

There's a difference between continuing working and appearing to do so though, and I think it's quite natural to pause and reflect if you buzz and immediately see that you're wrong. I don't know what was actually going on his head of course but I didn't really think of this badly.

But yeah, good game and stuff.

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, I kinda went down that route - you're looking for 29 * 75 divided by 3, but since there was no 3 anyway I then looked at doing 58 * 75, and dividing by 6, which luckily turned out to be fairly easily achievable.

Good technique. I'll make sure I don't forget that.

When Chris declared SALMONS my immediate thought was that it was obviously invalid. The more I think about it, the less certain I am. What about, say, RAVIOLIS. RAVIOLI is a plural noun, so you clearly could never add an S to it under the dictionary definition. You simply can't have two of it/them. But if you assume another definition, a portion of ravioli, and you wanted two, then you'd probably order two raviolis. In a similar vein, if you have another defintion of salmon, does the plural necessarily not take the S?

Ask me again in five minutes and I'll probably have changed my mind.

What we need is a dictionary that tells you what the words are.

Gavin Chipper wrote:What we need is a dictionary that tells you what the words are.

It always boils down to this really. If the dictionary compilers are able to make definitive judgements on whether or not all other words are in sufficiently common usage, why can't they do the same with portions of food?

David Williams wrote: But if you assume another definition, a portion of ravioli

Surely if this specific [mass noun] definition of ravioli isn't listed, this is a complete non-starter? lol ravioli isn't usually a starter, no
Doesn't the food portion rule apply only to mass nouns? (I don't have the dictionary to hand atm)

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Yeah, I kinda went down that route - you're looking for 29 * 75 divided by 3, but since there was no 3 anyway I then looked at doing 58 * 75, and dividing by 6, which luckily turned out to be fairly easily achievable.

Good technique. I'll make sure I don't forget that.

Hmm, I think you're being sarcastic here, but I'll proceed as if you're not. There was actually a similar thing in Conor v Tournoff the other day, when you had 625 to get but only the 100. Everyone knows it's 25 squared, and Conor managed to do (100/4)*25 but since there was no 4 to begin with, if you made it the wrong way you were screwed. However, there was an 8 - so can you instead do (100*50) / 8 ? Again, yes, it was fairly easy to do so - (9+1)*(8-3) for the 50, if memory serves.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:(You'll be unsurprised to hear that In this instance, I actually wasn't impressed that Chris appeared to buzz and then continue working - give your answer or say you haven't got it goddammit!

There's a difference between continuing working and appearing to do so though, and I think it's quite natural to pause and reflect if you buzz and immediately see that you're wrong. I don't know what was actually going on his head of course but I didn't really think of this badly.

Yeah, I probably ordinarily wouldn't have mentioned it but am doing so in fairness to Jack, since he specifically asked (albeit a different question) about the conundrum, and because I gave him a bit of stick after his last show. I don't think of Chris as that kind of player, and it wasn't important - but if it had been a crucial I would have been seething. Nonetheless, press and give your answer ffs. We've seen it enough times in this tournament to know that the 'thinking time' Chris smuggled in after buzzing is ample for these top players to solve a lot of the time. I think the conundrum should be out of eyeshot and the monitors should shut off on buzzing (what apterous does is great) but I've gone on about this enough times before, I think.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Graeme Cole has already spoken on the SALMONS thing in a previous thread, and what Graeme says is binding.

That explains why I remember it so well - it was one of my games!! I was thinking big because I went for SHOALS (of SALMON).

Another good game. Well played Chris, but Jack was on top form again - very well played. The games from the quarter-finals on could well be ultimately decided by the numbers rounds, and I think Jack will be hard to beat on those.

Jon Corby wrote:I think the conundrum should be out of eyeshot and the monitors should shut off on buzzing (what apterous does is great) but I've gone on about this enough times before, I think.

It is out of eyeshot, as I realised when I played Innis! There were two cameras positioned in front of the conundrum board such that I couldn't see it at all. You can see me flinch about a second in to that conundrum round when I realised that I couldn't see anything and looked up at the hanging TV screen instead (I couldn't see my in-desk monitor without leaning right over the desk, so I gave up on it and was using the actual letters / numbers board instead).

Jon Corby wrote:

David Williams wrote: But if you assume another definition, a portion of ravioli

Surely if this specific [mass noun] definition of ravioli isn't listed, this is a complete non-starter? lol ravioli isn't usually a starter, no

You got me, very good

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

David Williams wrote: But if you assume another definition, a portion of ravioli

Surely if this specific [mass noun] definition of ravioli isn't listed, this is a complete non-starter? lol ravioli isn't usually a starter, no

You got me, very good

How the hell did you see that with your vision?

Jon Corby wrote:press and give your answer ffs

I already can't remember exactly what Chris was doing when he buzzed but as a general statement this rule is hard to enforce with Nick, who must be one of the slower buzz-to-query presenters.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:press and give your answer ffs

I already can't remember exactly what Chris was doing when he buzzed but as a general statement this rule is hard to enforce with Nick, who must be one of the slower buzz-to-query presenters.

I'd need to see a GC graph tbh.

Nah, Nick wasn't the issue here though. Chris spent a long time looking at the letters with a furrowed brow when he should have been giving his answer. As I said, it wasn't important here so I don't suppose anybody wants to particularly argue the toss over it, but what he did wasn't on at all.

Adam Gillard wrote:It is out of eyeshot, as I realised when I played Innis! There were two cameras positioned in front of the conundrum board such that I couldn't see it at all. You can see me flinch about a second in to that conundrum round when I realised that I couldn't see anything and looked up at the hanging TV screen instead (I couldn't see my in-desk monitor without leaning right over the desk, so I gave up on it and was using the actual letters / numbers board instead).

Ah okay, I couldn't remember whether you could actually see it from one or other of the desks, but the studio set-up is probably all different now anyway to what I knew. That's poor about the monitor though, I remember thinking when I did CoC (new studio) that the in-desk monitors weren't as clear as the old ones as they had glass over the top. The challenger's one in particular suffered from significant glare. It's actually why I lost.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

David Williams wrote: But if you assume another definition, a portion of ravioli

Surely if this specific [mass noun] definition of ravioli isn't listed, this is a complete non-starter? lol ravioli isn't usually a starter, no

You got me, very good

Me too! But you're point is a good one. RAVIOLIS is invalid.

I think you're being very harsh on the conundrum. It's inevitable that sometimes you have doubts in the time between pressing the buzzer and declaring the word. You wouldn't be human if you didn't hesitate before saying that you'd got it wrong.

David Williams wrote:Me too! But you're point is a good one. RAVIOLIS is invalid.

And yet Susie has approved it on two occasions. Looks like her discretion extends beyond mass noun plurals. How far does it go?

David Williams wrote:I think you're being very harsh on the conundrum. It's inevitable that sometimes you have doubts in the time between pressing the buzzer and declaring the word. You wouldn't be human if you didn't hesitate before saying that you'd got it wrong.

Yeah, people always think I'm being harsh on the conundrum. I'm very clear that once you've pressed your buzzer, you've got an answer that you're going to give. If you then instantly decide that your answer probably isn't right, either say it in anyway just in case, or say "nope, sorry". You just can't have people double-checking themselves once they've buzzed, it's not fair - as I said, the time Chris spent doing that is easily enough for a load of these guys to solve, the freaks that they are. Regardless of whether he's actively checking, Hansfording, whatever, there's still a chance that the answer is going to hit you in that time. It's not fair. (Yes, it's irrelevant in this instance though.)

(btw I have a feeling it may have been Kirk who set me straight on the RAVIOLI(S) non-mass noun issue, I might have played it in a game against him and got in a big huff over it or something, can't quite remember.)

Innis Carson wrote:

David Williams wrote:Me too! But you're point is a good one. RAVIOLIS is invalid.

And yet Susie has approved it on two occasions. Looks like her discretion extends beyond mass noun plurals. How far does it go?

Aargh! No contestant has ever actually had it accepted though? Maybe she said it in a STOWAGES kinda way, as in "hmm, I might allow it"?

COUNTDOWN IN CRISIS

If RAVIOLIS why not BEANSES?

Gavin Chipper wrote:If RAVIOLIS why not BEANSES?

It certainly opens the door to GOUJONSES and FAJITASES, which are classified no differently from RAVIOLI in the dictionary.

What was that disallowed word that Julien Fell submitted in the game he lost? GAMBIERS I think it was.

By the way, the Chambers dictionary gives SALMONS explicitly, saying that this plural is used when referring to different kinds of salmon. (It also has a second entry, but as the meaning is conjectural - referring to the mass - it's no help with the plural.)

I assume it's an avid Countdown watcher in Sidmouth who has come to the elegant solution (noting Susie's restaurant ordering rule) for advertising his food on a board outside his shop. PANINI'S are on offer there, apparently, though I don't know if he does BEANS'S.

Gavin Chipper wrote:If RAVIOLIS why not BEANSES?

Becuase BEANS doesn't have its own entry.*

If you're going to criticise the dictionary, how about actually getting a copy first?

* Actually it does but it's got nothing to do with food or a portion of food.

Stewart Gordon wrote:And SOLIDEST - "it's got more than one syllable, and so it has to be specified" - so words like "more", "least", "best", "worse" can be inferred somehow?

That doesn't follow. If it's got more than one syllable it does have to be specified. There also happen to be some one-syllable adjectives where the comparatives and superlatives are specified, but that doesn't make what Susie said wrong.

Jon Corby wrote:Hmm, I think you're being sarcastic here, but I'll proceed as if you're not. There was actually a similar thing in Conor v Tournoff the other day, when you had 625 to get but only the 100. Everyone knows it's 25 squared, and Conor managed to do (100/4)*25 but since there was no 4 to begin with, if you made it the wrong way you were screwed. However, there was an 8 - so can you instead do (100*50) / 8 ? Again, yes, it was fairly easy to do so - (9+1)*(8-3) for the 50, if memory serves.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. It was a good method and I totally missed it. I got Conor's method in the other game, and I also looked at 29*75/3 for this one but couldn't do it so gave up on that method. For some reason it didn't occur to me to do 58*75/6, so I'll have to make sure that I don't miss that sort of thing again.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:If RAVIOLIS why not BEANSES?

Becuase BEANS doesn't have its own entry.*

If you're going to criticise the dictionary, how about actually getting a copy first?

* Actually it does but it's got nothing to do with food or a portion of food.

The situations aren't identical, but I see no logical reason why a noun that comes as a plural as standard should be allowed a "double plural" any more than a normal noun. You're just as likely to want to order two portions of beans as two portions of ravioli, and the extension is just as logical, and just as much specified in the dictionary (i.e. not at all). You could also devise situations where you might want to use a triple plural.

Anyway, having reread this thread and the recap thread, it's quite clear that SALMONS and RAVIOLIS should not be allowed. The plural of SALMON is given as SALMON before the different definitions of the word, so it covers them all. It's irrelevant that you might think it's reasonable to use the word SALMONS. It's about what the dictionary says. There are many reasonable words that aren't in the dictionary. Otherwise we might as well do away with the dictionary. Same goes for RAVIOLIS. It's given as a plural noun, not a mass noun. There's no discussion.

However, it does seem slightly unfair if Susie has ruled in favour of these words before and someone offers them on that basis. It means the game lacks consistency and the game can become a lottery.

By the way, in NODE (so a few dictionaries back), it does give SALMONS as an alternative plural, so they must have taken an active decision to remove this.

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's about what the dictionary says. There are many reasonable words that aren't in the dictionary. Otherwise we might as well do away with the dictionary. Same goes for RAVIOLIS. It's given as a plural noun, not a mass noun. There's no discussion.

So, what about this then................

James Robinson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's about what the dictionary says. There are many reasonable words that aren't in the dictionary. Otherwise we might as well do away with the dictionary. Same goes for RAVIOLIS. It's given as a plural noun, not a mass noun. There's no discussion.

So, what about this then................

It was an incorrect decision.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:It's about what the dictionary says. There are many reasonable words that aren't in the dictionary. Otherwise we might as well do away with the dictionary. Same goes for RAVIOLIS. It's given as a plural noun, not a mass noun. There's no discussion.

So, what about this then................

It was an incorrect decision.

I haven't actually been beaten in this tournament

Jon Corby wrote:I haven't actually been beaten in this tournament

I don't think you meant to post that in this thread. That counts as a defeat.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I haven't actually been beaten in this tournament

I don't think you meant to post that in this thread. That counts as a defeat.

Oh balls. How did that happen? Must be Charlie's fault.