c4countdown

Andy Platt got another strong win yesterday, can he keep up his momentum with a third win today?

Join James for the recap later.

Think Conor's got this one, mate
Edit: or did he pull out?

James should be lying in the sun by then so presumably not him.

Alt last numbers: 75x8-(9x10)-1

Anyone get the alt 9 to CRENULATE?

Wow. Another impressive game.

Can't help wondering though if you were looking for a (too) clever way of getting 845 Andy?

If you are capable of doing (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 = 236, then why didn't you see (7 + 4) x 75 + (5 x 4) = 845?

Not meant to be a criticism as I know how tough it is and missed loads of numbers games I would normally have found easy, just because of the pressure.

I can't do stuff like (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 and wouldn't even attempt it in case I made a silly mistake and looked like a prize chump!

Grant.

Tony Atkins wrote:Anyone get the alt 9 to CRENULATE?

No, I just had ULCEREIGHT

Grant Waters wrote:Wow. Another impressive game.

Can't help wondering though if you were looking for a (too) clever way of getting 845 Andy?

If you are capable of doing (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 = 236, then why didn't you see (7 + 4) x 75 + (5 x 4) = 845?

Not meant to be a criticism as I know how tough it is and missed loads of numbers games I would normally have found easy, just because of the pressure.

I can't do stuff like (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 and wouldn't even attempt it in case I made a silly mistake and looked like a prize chump!

Grant.

To be fair, there's been plenty of games on Apterous where I've gone looking for a complicated solution and missed an obvious one.

Anyway, third great game Andy. I could practically hear tomorrow's challenger - "Hello love. Listen, don't worry about clearing a space for the teapot..."

Third win, third century, going by what Mark Deeks said yesterday and todays question from Grant, I don't really think Andy can win (although I realise Grant wasn't being 'funny').

Grant Waters wrote:Wow. Another impressive game.

Can't help wondering though if you were looking for a (too) clever way of getting 845 Andy?

If you are capable of doing (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 = 236, then why didn't you see (7 + 4) x 75 + (5 x 4) = 845?

Not meant to be a criticism as I know how tough it is and missed loads of numbers games I would normally have found easy, just because of the pressure.

I can't do stuff like (100 × 50 + (6 + 6) × 75) ÷ 25 and wouldn't even attempt it in case I made a silly mistake and looked like a prize chump!

Grant.

Heh don't feel as if you are wrong to ask, it was stupidity/complacency from me. Long story short I'd been using a non-existent 100 rather than 75. By the time I realised, I didn't have the time/composure to adjust.

Just about to watch it back, I'm hoping my dickish behaviour on the conundrum got edited!

Very well done again Andy, with another cheeky 4L solve to boot.

WEIGELAS in round 11.

Andy Platt wrote:
Heh don't feel as if you are wrong to ask, it was stupidity/complacency from me. Long story short I'd been using a non-existent 100 rather than 75. By the time I realised, I didn't have the time/composure to adjust.

Just about to watch it back, I'm hoping my dickish behaviour on the conundrum got edited!

Think you'd been hynotised into believing it was 100...

You played safe in the hidalgos round - had you seen that but not been 100% definite with it? Got the feeling a couple of times today that if you'd needed to step up a gear against a stronger challenger you'd have done so no problem - custard, regular and the 845 in particular I suspect you'd have got if you were being put under a bit more pressure.

Very impressive so far, hope there's plenty more of the same.

Keith Bennett wrote:You played safe in the hidalgos round - had you seen that but not been 100% definite with it? Got the feeling a couple of times today that if you'd needed to step up a gear against a stronger challenger you'd have done so no problem - custard, regular and the 845 in particular I suspect you'd have got if you were being put under a bit more pressure.

Very impressive so far, hope there's plenty more of the same.

Cheers man, much appreciated - and yeah, I had seen HIDALGOS but I couldn't remember 100% if it was maybe something I'd seen on apterous, whether it was perhaps a minor Spanish airline or whether it was a character from Futurama. I also couldn't be certain it pluralised, or even whether it could have pluralised to HIDALGOES, so no point even going anywhere near it when I had a 7.

REGULAR and CUSTARD are very gettable too, but I just don't have the same consistency and concentration as the 30BC crowd unfortunately!

How much was my chair shaking when I declared the 9? Must have been well nervous about it.

Edit:

I wrote:Just about to watch it back, I'm hoping my dickish behaviour on the conundrum got edited!

Got away with it Cheers Damian et al

was rotarian there -and is it capitalised?

Well played again Andy.

Andy Platt wrote:

I wrote:Just about to watch it back, I'm hoping my dickish behaviour on the conundrum got edited!

Got away with it Cheers Damian et al

Oh, come on, you can't say that and not tell us what happened.

I noticed DC offered PELAGE but not PELAGES. PELAGES is valid on apterous, but the dictionary gives it as a mass noun only - "the fur, hair or wool of a mammal". So I'm wondering whether Susie would actually allow PELAGES. I think it's very similar to the PLUMAGES situation.

John Brackstone wrote:was rotarian there -and is it capitalised?

Capitalised.

Graeme wrote:Well played again Andy.

Cheers dude

Graeme wrote:I noticed DC offered PELAGE but not PELAGES. PELAGES is valid on apterous, but the dictionary gives it as a mass noun only - "the fur, hair or wool of a mammal". So I'm wondering whether Susie would actually allow PELAGES. I think it's very similar to the PLUMAGES situation.

Same thing happened with MOHAIRS (?) the other day, it wasn't mentioned, but I'd back DC to be good enough to nail it. Then again I haven't yet checked the wiki to see if anyone has offered it recently.

Graeme wrote:Oh, come on, you can't say that and not tell us what happened.

On about 35 seconds I shouted out an incorrect answer which was a pretty dickish thing to do, Nick just dismissively said 'no' and rightly so! Fortunately got glossed over. And after about 45 seconds I had my hand in the air trying to get his attention as I had solved it, that wasn't as bad as I think I've seen it happen before with Jeff and he was just like "sorry mate you've had your turn". Don't think Nick noticed lol.

Well played again, Andy. Chuffed to say after being utterly thumped playing against you/the TV yesterday, that I beat you today by a point. Don't let it happen again, you've got a reputation to uphold