Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Discuss anything that happened in recent games. This is the place to post any words you got that beat Dictionary Corner, or numbers games that evaded Rachel.

Moderator: James Robinson

Post Reply
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Ben Wilson »

This challenger's looking pretty handy...
User avatar
Richard Priest
Devotee
Posts: 678
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Richard Priest »

INNARDS as a DC equaller, round 4.
Oliver Garner
Series 62 Champion
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:13 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Oliver Garner »

ruralise for round 9
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Mark Kudlowski »

STIBINE for round with Z.
User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Matt Morrison »

round 11, 12? (sorry only half-watching); INDITES as a DC beater for 7.
Again, only half-watching, sorry if those letters weren't there!
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Ben Wilson »

No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?
Hannah O
Acolyte
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:15 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Hannah O »

For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4544
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Ben Wilson »

3rd numbers alt: (75*50-2)/(7-3) :D

Edit: Brilliantly, this was my 937th post. Which I suppose makes this edit post # 937.5 ;)
User avatar
Andy Wilson
Kiloposter
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Andy Wilson »

Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
What about rehosting?
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Andy Wilson wrote:
Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
What about rehosting?
Not in, nor is STIBINE^. SEMIOTIC/COMITIES as nice equallers to COMFIEST. I was chuffed with MEIOTIC in that round until that damn S came out.
User avatar
Andy Wilson
Kiloposter
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Andy Wilson »

You're for it after school Bevins...
User avatar
Richard Priest
Devotee
Posts: 678
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Richard Priest »

Ben Wilson wrote:No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?
I did.Was also hoping for an E for PAGINATES in the ADAPTING round but Fiona asked for a consonant :(
User avatar
Mark Kudlowski
Enthusiast
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Mark Kudlowski »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Andy Wilson wrote:
Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
What about rehosting?
Not in, nor is STIBINE^. SEMIOTIC/COMITIES as nice equallers to COMFIEST. I was chuffed with MEIOTIC in that round until that damn S came out.
I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Mark Kudlowski wrote: I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.
It is, but it's not useful enough to have made it into the ODE2r. Many words aren't listed (obviously) so you really do have to know your dictionary.
Howard Somerset
Kiloposter
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Howard Somerset »

Got SAMBOES in R3 as an equaller.

Would it have been allowed? SAMBO is listed together with both versions (S and ES) for the plural, but it's capitalised. On the other hand it's also listed lower case, but no plurals this time. CountMax has it, so I guess it's ok.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Charlie Reams »

Howard Somerset wrote:Got SAMBOES in R3 as an equaller.

Would it have been allowed? SAMBO is listed together with both versions (S and ES) for the plural, but it's capitalised. On the other hand it's also listed lower case, but no plurals this time. CountMax has it, so I guess it's ok.
Yeah, if a word has alternative spellings then they don't normally list the alternative inflections, so SAMBOES is fine.
Vikash Shah
Rookie
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Vikash Shah »

Rachel = Outstanding.

I'm normally reasonably handy with the numbers rounds, but today is the first time I failed to get any of them with Rachel getting them all.

I really want to marry her :cry:
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8021
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Jon Corby »

Vikash Shah wrote:Rachel = Outstanding.

I'm normally reasonably handy with the numbers rounds, but today is the first time I failed to get any of them with Rachel getting them all.

I really want to marry her :cry:
Likewise, I didn't manage to get any of them today. Very impressive. She'd kick Carol's arse in a Numbers Attack.
User avatar
Darren Carter
What a lot of bling
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:58 pm
Location: Shrewsbury

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Darren Carter »

That was the best I have seen Rachel do in a long while, I kept expecting her to say she couldn't do them.

I only managed to do the first one but there were all rather hard.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Darren Carter wrote:That was the best I have seen Rachel do in a long while, I kept expecting her to say she couldn't do them.

I only managed to do the first one but there were all rather hard.
Without finding my notes, I think the two she got were split multiplications weren't they (i.e. times, then add, then times)? When I was playing in the studio she told me that's the way she looks for first all the time. After my 8th win she reiterated this to me in the green room saying how I always do the numbers games different to her as she does the split multiplication way. Naturally I smiled at her and said "well, opposites attract" which didn't quite cause the desired effect.

Anyway my point is this; if you see a numbers game that may appear hard but can be solved by timesing, then adding/subtracting, then timesing again, Rachel will have probably solved it.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8021
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Jon Corby »

Kirk Bevins wrote:Without finding my notes, I think the two she got were split multiplications weren't they
Not really, the second one was 524 = (75-25)*10+(5-2)*8. That's pretty far removed.
User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Rosemary Roberts »

Kirk Bevins wrote: if you see a numbers game that may appear hard but can be solved by timesing, then adding/subtracting, then timesing again, Rachel will have probably solved it.
One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Charlie Reams »

Kirk Bevins wrote:Naturally I smiled at her and said "well, opposites attract" which didn't quite cause the desired effect.
That was probably one of the most awkward moments of my life.
User avatar
Kirk Bevins
God
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: York, UK

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Kirk Bevins »

Rosemary Roberts wrote: One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.
Would this be Jon O'Neill who always chose 4 large numbers and divided by 25? If it was, that's slightly different as he doesn't know what, say, 784x25 and then work backwards - he learns tricks.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Clive Brooker »

Jon Corby wrote:Likewise, I didn't manage to get any of them today. Very impressive. She'd kick Carol's arse in a Numbers Attack.
I few weeks ago I began a study comparing Rachel's performance to date with CV's over a randomly chosen "equivalent" period, using William T-P's rating system to provide a tariff for every game which neither contestant could solve.

Having completed this for Rachel's first eight weeks, I realised that the CountdownWiki data was occasionally suspect inasmuch as Rachel is sometimes credited with a success which the recap shows to have been late. Some of these I remember specifically. So I didn't post the results.

Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Rosemary Roberts »

Kirk Bevins wrote:
Rosemary Roberts wrote: One thing I haven't yet seen her do is much division. Carol almost never used division (occasionally by 2 or 3). I have often found neat answers that way - even really silly things like 75 / 3 *4 may be useful - though I never found anything as brilliant as the guy a few seasons ago (whose name escapes me) who solved almost all his numbers game that way.
Would this be Jon O'Neill who always chose 4 large numbers and divided by 25? If it was, that's slightly different as he doesn't know what, say, 784x25 and then work backwards - he learns tricks.
It very likely was him, there haven't been very many such. But I would never denigrate "learning tricks" - it's a very good trick if you can do it.

You remind me a little of the woman I once overheard at kindergarten, answering another mother's praise of her own child's incredibly neat colouring book, in which none of the crayon had crossed any of the lines: "That's just technique !".
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8021
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Jon Corby »

Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
Yes.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Charlie Reams »

Jon Corby wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
Yes.
Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.
User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Clive Brooker »

Charlie Reams wrote:
Jon Corby wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
Yes.
Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.
Thanks. Bristol auditions are next Wednesday, so don't expect anything before then!
User avatar
Martin Bishop
Enthusiast
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:29 pm
Location: Tadworth, Surrey

Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April

Post by Martin Bishop »

Andrew was at my audition back in July. There were 4 nines available in my audition. I got two of them and Andrew spotted the others. I was surprised not to have seen him on the show sooner, because he was very good. Go Andrew!
Post Reply