c4countdown

I'll be out at 3.25 so I'll have to watch when I get home on 4od, so good luck with winning. It's nice to see you again since the only time we met was at COLIN 2005 and I can tell you've been working out since then.

Can't be arsed checking if AIRCREW is in, should be anyways...

and WARNER = WARREN

I did R5 the same way as Charlito at first, then spotted the challenger's way and felt a right berk...

Craig Beevers wrote:Can't be arsed checking if AIRCREW is in, should be anyways...

AIRCREW is allowed.

Another way for first numbers: (100+6)x7/2=371

Number Game 1:

(100 / 2) + (10 - (6 + 1)) = 53 x 7 = 371.

Charlie said on facebook that this'd be a corker... I think I can see why!

Darren will have that moment 'repressed' I'm sure

NEGATORS as an equaller.

(10+1)*5*5+8-1- that's also 282.

2nd numbers game again:

(5 x 5) + 10 = 35; (35 x 8) + 1 + 1 = 282.

God another 9, why didn't I ever get letters like this...

Should be another big 100+ score anyways.

3rd Numbers alt: (((4 x 7) + 3) x 10) + 1

EDIT: Well done Charlie for a cracking 2nd win and also getting the highest score of the series

3rd numbers game:

(5 x 7) x (10 - 1) - 4 = 311.

Another alternative for third numbers: (10+1)x7x4+3

Great stuff, I got SPREADERS but missed INCUBATES - disappointed Charlie missed the 2nd numbers though. What's the biggest winning margin anyway? That game when DOD left someone with about 15?

I was particularly amused by the rounds when the challenger was clearly risking his 7 (or whatever) and then Charlie would confidently declare an 8 (or equivalent beater) anyway

Nice one Charlie. I only managed to beat you on the conundrum (but under studio pressure etc I may not have) so you owned me there!

240 in 2 games is pretty f**king magical!

Fantastic game, Charlie.

I matched you up to round 6, then you soared away. It was wonderful to watch.
At least I convincingly beat your challenger today.

I got a DC equaller for round 3 that I didn't hear mentioned: TRAUMA
I got BATTENED for round 13 (correctly spelt )

Highest score of the series so far.
I can't see you not being in the finals, unless you're unlucky enough to be challenged by someone equally as brilliant.

P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

Michael Wallace wrote:Great stuff, I got SPREADERS but missed INCUBATES - disappointed Charlie missed the 2nd numbers though. What's the biggest winning margin anyway? That game when DOD left someone with about 15?

I was particularly amused by the rounds when the challenger was clearly risking his 7 (or whatever) and then Charlie would confidently declare an 8 (or equivalent beater) anyway

Julian beat his final heat opponent by 109- still the only 100+ margin in history. Still six games left for Charlie though...

Michael Wallace wrote:What's the biggest winning margin anyway? That game when DOD left someone with about 15?

http://www.apterous.org/cdb/records.php ... est_margin

I spotted INCUBATES and SPREADERS but missed DESPOILS, AIRLINER and DETONATE and was nowhere near the conundrum so I have to concede defeat to Charlie today, well done great score.

Dan Vanniasingham wrote:Personally - I'm disappointed. I expected at least 125 for a debut score and a 70+ point winning margin. Rubbish.

Sincerely,

Mr I M Takinda Pees

Alright, I'll let you off now, despite the incubates miss.

Julie T wrote:Fantastic game, Charlie.
P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

No, but I got BARSTOOL (not sure if it's one word) for the first one. That's even worse, because the clue almost worked.

Well done, Charlie. Beat me on the conundrum this time.

I forgot Charlie was appearing so it was a real surprise (a nice one, honest) to see you on Wednesday. Great stuff so far, it's great having a forumite on again to cheer on. 120 average so far , I am worried about my place in the octochamp listings but at this rate even Mr. Fell might be a little bit worried!

Martin Bishop wrote:

Julie T wrote:Fantastic game, Charlie.
P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

No, but I got BARSTOOL (not sure if it's one word) for the first one. That's even worse, because the clue almost worked.

Well done, Charlie. Beat me on the conundrum this time.

Commiserations, Martin. I thought TOOLBARS was a brilliant TTT and clue, though.
Lots of references to get: computer - toolbars, screwdriver - tools and vodka and orange, bars where you can get a v&o.

I thought that ARROGANT might have something to do with 'leaving in a huff' or whatever the clue was. Sometimes the clues are quite tenuous.

I was seriously impressed (obviously) a shame about INCUBATES which would have given you 136, one of the highest ever scores. I'm starting to wonder what the longest ever string of scoring in every round is? You've scored points in 30 rounds of out 30 so far, I think. Seriously well done.

Julie T wrote:P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

Nah - that's what the cryptic clue is for

Very impressive, I thought you were going to rack up a Fellesque megascore when INCUBATES came out but it was still a pretty monstrous total in the end.

Martin, I think Tom Hargreaves had a ludicrous run of scoring in consecutive rounds, I can't remember the exact details though. Hopefully Charlie can go on and smash it.

Well done today Charlie - You were truely awsome matey. Well done!

Allan

Michael Wallace wrote:

Julie T wrote:P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

Nah - that's what the cryptic clue is for

I came up with ARROGANT Julie.

What I normally do, is mute the TV when Des gives out the TTT and clue, so I can see if I can solve the anagram by myself without any clues.

Ah - my approach is to try and solve it between Des reading (and often spelling) out what it is and him saying the cryptic clue, although they seem to be getting harder.

In the APOGEE round I was urging the last letter to be an N for the impressive JALAPENO (which it would have been had you gone for a consonant) but you picked 5 sodding vowels!

I spotted incubates and got the 282 numbers game. I narrowly pipped Charlie to the conundrum but overall - well, let's just say I lost!!

Michael Wallace wrote:Ah - my approach is to try and solve it between Des reading (and often spelling) out what it is and him saying the cryptic clue, although they seem to be getting harder.

What you could also do is turn over for a few minutes, then turn back whilst the ads are on and then try to solve it at the beginning of the next halve, before it reveals itself.

Michael Wallace wrote:Great stuff, I got SPREADERS but missed INCUBATES - disappointed Charlie missed the 2nd numbers though. What's the biggest winning margin anyway? That game when DOD left someone with about 15?

Had I been playing the challenger and not bottled, I'd have won 137-16 (a winning margin of 121) which would have been a record for me and the TV but hey. You beat me with DETONATE Charlie as I decided not to risk BATTENED. Well played. Please stop the Jonoesque 5 vowels though!

5 vowels is good. The objective is to beat your opponent, not to get the longest word possible.

Charlie Reams wrote:5 vowels is good. The objective is to beat your opponent, not to get the longest word possible.

Good shout.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:5 vowels is good. The objective is to beat your opponent, not to get the longest word possible.

Good shout.

I agree if the game is close and you have the edge on word power - In this instance the game was already in the bag long ago and record scores were looming - was it the wisest choice to almost eliminate the chance of a 9 letter word?

Can't fault Charlie's performance though, as he got the best possible with what he selected.

Allan

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Julie T wrote:P.S. BTW, did anyone else get ARROGANT for the second TTT? Crappy when there's more than one possible anagram.

Nah - that's what the cryptic clue is for

I came up with ARROGANT Julie.

What I normally do, is mute the TV when Des gives out the TTT and clue, so I can see if I can solve the anagram by myself without any clues.

Having read Jon Corby's recap, I hadn't heard Des mumbling 'herb' - thought he said 'earl' or somesuch. Makes sense now, Michael.

I usually enjoy thinking through the clue, Joseph - added extra brain workout!

Think I'll go back to watching it recorded, so I can rewind what my little-old-lady ears haven't heard. (Don't tell her, or she may want them back! )

I'll just have to contain my fluttering anticipation to see 'DREAMIEST REAMIEST' in action again.
(Becks - Jon? I think not! )

Poor old challenger... not much went right for him, four words disallowed, SPOILED when DESPOILS was there, and then Susie making him spell BATTENED and drawing the mistake when he was already 67 points behind just put the tin lid on it! Can't help feeling a bit sorry for him, although not faulting Charlie at all, I know what it's like to be in that position.

George Greenhough, the no.3 seed in my series, actually used, once he was miles ahead, to deliberately lose rounds / leave the conundrum even though he knew the answer, to let his opponents catch up a bit. Can't say I recommend that

Well done Charlie, you beat me in r4 when I went for CARNIER^ (used to be in ). Am pleased that no-one else - not even Beevers? - seems to have spotted FAMULUS though

Charlie, you've just given me what is probably my most depressing breakfast ever - almost certainly my heaviest defeat when playing along at home. My only respite was to beat you with the 282 numbers round.

As for other comments I've read here: I, too went for BARSTOOL in TTT1. The clue was pretty close.

Charlie's comment about going for five vowels because the prime objective is to do better than your opponent, rather than for both to get a high scoring word, is very valid, but I'd never considered that with letters selections before. I've always regarded that as the right approach on numbers rounds, and get annoyed when Carol says things like she said in today's programme "we had three nice numbers rounds yesterday". No we didn't have three nice numbers rounds yesterday; we had three easy numbers rounds. A nice numbers round is one in which you can get closer to the target than your opponent can. Round 10 today was a nice numbers round.

You were bloody brilliant today, Charlie. I look forward to many more. Let's hope the football team which you support can emulate your performance this afternoon. If they don't, I think I shall feign sickness tomorrow, rather than face my Stoke supporting pupils.

[quote="Howard Somerset"]Charlie's comment about going for five vowels because the prime objective is to do better than your opponent, rather than for both to get a high scoring word, is very valid, but I'd never considered that with letters selections before. I've always regarded that as the right approach on numbers rounds, and get annoyed when Carol says things like she said in today's programme "we had three nice numbers rounds yesterday". No we didn't have three nice numbers rounds yesterday; we had three easy numbers rounds. A nice numbers round is one in which you can get closer to the target than your opponent can. Round 10 today was a nice numbers round./quote]

If you look at it from Carol's perspective though, the most 'work' she has to do is if there's a tough numbers game which neither of the contestants get. I've often thought that she must be genuinely relieved when it's an easy round because it means she doesn't have to worry!

Michael Wallace wrote:

Howard Somerset wrote:Charlie's comment about going for five vowels because the prime objective is to do better than your opponent, rather than for both to get a high scoring word, is very valid, but I'd never considered that with letters selections before. I've always regarded that as the right approach on numbers rounds, and get annoyed when Carol says things like she said in today's programme "we had three nice numbers rounds yesterday". No we didn't have three nice numbers rounds yesterday; we had three easy numbers rounds. A nice numbers round is one in which you can get closer to the target than your opponent can. Round 10 today was a nice numbers round.

If you look at it from Carol's perspective though, the most 'work' she has to do is if there's a tough numbers game which neither of the contestants get. I've often thought that she must be genuinely relieved when it's an easy round because it means she doesn't have to worry!

I quite agree, Michael. Carol is using the word nice from her own perspective, or from the perspective of a contestant who is weak at numbers, rather than viewed by someone whose strength is numbers. To give a letters round analogy, someone, such as me, who is weak at letters rounds, would regard a letters selection in which a 9 letter solution can easily be obtained by simply reversing the last two letters as a nice selection, because I would know I couldn't be beaten. A person who's good a letters, on the other hand, would prefer a selection in which the maximum is much more obscure.

Julian Fell wrote:Poor old challenger... not much went right for him,....

True. It's easy to forget, when cheering on Charlie, that there are other players involved, who've been able enough to get through the process to get onto the show, but are then pitted against a maestro.

Julian Fell wrote: George Greenhough, the no.3 seed in my series, actually used, once he was miles ahead, to deliberately lose rounds / leave the conundrum even though he knew the answer, to let his opponents catch up a bit. Can't say I recommend that

Also seems a bit patronising to the challenger really, even if you've got past the point where you're not risking losing. Also, with all the effort that Charlie puts into being great at Countdown, if I were him I'd want to aim for max scores.