c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote:

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.

Yes, that's what Susie said and I quoted.

Gavin Chipper wrote: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.

That's somewhat obvious, given that comparatives and superlatives of one-syllable adjectives usually have two syllables.

Gavin Chipper wrote:If RAVIOLIS why not BEANSES?

Indeed, I've wondered whether CHIPSES is a word on this basis.

Anyway, time to sign off and catch up on my backlog of Eggheadses...

Oh yes. I see. She meant because SOLID had more than one syllable.

Edit - And anyway, your point would have been clearer if it was more logical. Susie declared that SOLIDEST had to be specified because it has more than one syllable (when she meant because SOLID had more than one syllable), so you would have been better off saying "What about words like TALLEST and OLDEST? They have more than one syllable and aren't specified." The "fact" (actually incorrect) that a comparative and suplerlative (as opposed to the root word) have to be specified if they have more than one syllable doesn't imply that in all cases where they have one syllable, they can be inferred (MORE, LEAST etc).

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:09 am

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.

On tenterhooks waiting to see if Gevin remembered this technique 7 years later. FWIW I solved it this way today.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:33 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:09 am

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.

On tenterhooks waiting to see if Gevin remembered this technique 7 years later. FWIW I solved it this way today.

Well, yes but with a caveat. I accidentally clicked on this thread before watching the game on 4+1. I didn't see the method at all but just the thing about me remembering the technique and then closed the tab immediately. But obviously I guessed there might be something like that going on there. But I'm generally aware of this sort of method now, so I'm confident I would have got it anyway. I got it pretty quickly as it happens.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:12 pm Best bit of today's episode:

I was going to comment on how this game was the last to have the Wills wobble. Until he's invited back on.

JackHurst wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:15 pm
5 vowels wasn't a predetermined tactic. Round 2 I was trying to get COWPEA darrenic

COPIED was already available from the first 8 letters so it couldn't have been darrenic regardless. Not noticing this makes me think that you probably won't make the final.

Second Round Game 4 2020 Word Update

The max would have increased by FIVE (from 119 to 124), if played today, as there was a 7 available in Round 2, and there were 8's available in Rounds 7, 9, 11 & 12, that weren't available in 2013.

New Words Now Allowed:

R1: AGNISED, FAGINES, GADINES, PANDIES, PANSIED, PEDANGS, PEGASID
R2: DECIPIA (increases MAX from 6 to 7)
R6: NEMATOID
R7: FERRINHO (increases MAX from 7 to 8)
R9: MONTICLE (increases MAX from 7 to 8)
R11: SUBRENAL (increases MAX from 7 to 8)
R12: BANEWORT (increases MAX from 7 to 8)