Spoilers for Tuesday October 27th 2015 (S73 P80)

[Jordan F]

Zac Goodman got win number 5 yesterday, and is now on the verge of entering the top 8. A win will do it, as will a losing score of 55 or more. Can he do it, preferably with a win?

Join Jen (I assume she's back) for the recap later.

[Steven M. McCann]

Any chance of Zac playing a "live" one, before he becomes a octochamp?

[Tony Atkins]

Was happy with 1 away on second numbers.

Alt 3rd numbers (75-7-2)x10+6-5

[Peter Mabey]

EMERSION in ENROBES round

[Jordan F]

And with that, Zac moves into the top 8 by one point over Rhys. A lot of close gaps this series, that one and Thomas/Jonathan.

[Tony Atkins]

Well he got his 55, don't expect he will survive until the finals at no 8.

When I saw the ORIENTALS/RELATIONS/TENSORIAL selection come up I guessed that would decide the game.

[Tony Atkins]

Retire after getting CHIMERA? ARCHIVE her instead!

[Steven M. McCann]

Damn, why didn't Zac play like that yesterday against the fragrant Francesca!

[Johnny Canuck]

Is this the first time anyone has ever been #9 seed by a single point?

[James Robinson]

Interesting looking at the solver for the 2nd numbers game. It must have a glitch somewhere, as it seems to suggest only one method to solve the numbers, yet it's not the way that Rachel (and me) did.........

DIASPORE in round 2, ATTUNED/DITTANY in round 5.

1st Numbers Alt.: ((25 x 7) - 10) x 6 = 990
3rd Numbers Alt.: ((75 + 7) x (6 + 2)) + 5 = 661

[Rhys Benjamin]

Is this the first time anyone has ever been #9 seed by a single point?

[Jon Corby]

Interesting looking at the solver for the 2nd numbers game. It must have a glitch somewhere, as it seems to suggest only one method to solve the numbers, yet it's not the way that Rachel (and me) did.........

That's how I did it, took a couple of seconds as it was just the first thing I looked at. Was surprised that Rachel didn't have it (and to see it described as tricky) as it seemed fairly straightforward. Interesting that the solver reports it as the only solution, I guess it's more likely to be a bug in determining the uniqueness of solutions, rather than genuinely missing it? (No idea how that particular one works obviously but the easiest way to write one is just to brute-force every possible sum, you'd have thought it would have been noticed by now if it genuinely did omit some routes.)

Also, what the hell was that PROMISED bit about? "I think I've got a risky eight. I'll write it down. Promised" ? Huh? Did he just mean he was unsure if all the letters were there?

[Jennifer Steadman]

Also, what the hell was that PROMISED bit about? "I think I've got a risky eight. I'll write it down. Promised" ? Huh? Did he just mean he was unsure if all the letters were there?

This was how I understood it. It's fair enough; if you think you've spotted something on 29/30 seconds then you haven't got the time to check all the letters are definitely there and you'll understandably be a bit nervous.

[Clive Brooker]

Interesting looking at the solver for the 2nd numbers game. It must have a glitch somewhere, as it seems to suggest only one method to solve the numbers, yet it's not the way that Rachel (and me) did.........

It's a "weakness" that is acknowledged in the FAQs, but the author seems to be trying to minimise the damage by using trivial illustrations and not admitting that the consequences can be much more bizarre, as in this game. This inappropriate suppressing of solutions happens a lot but is usually less obvious because the missing solution would've been one in a long list.

The promise to implement a new definition of equivalence has been there for at least twelve years so I don't think it's a high priority.

Edit: I completely agree with Jen's assessment of PROMISED. I remember something similar happening to me, except that the word wasn't there - 7 points thrown away if you like, but you have to make a decision at that moment.