Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
It's the first game of series 60, and Number 1 seed and king of the castle Zoe Bowman defends her position at the zenith of the leaderboard today against the second of potentially eight dirty rascals.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
what on earth did Rachel just say when GOD came out in R1 letters? It was truly mumbletastic.
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
The look on Rachel's face when that woman said "he's with us" (or did Rachel say that, I wasn't paying attention).Matt Morrison wrote:what on earth did Rachel just say when GOD came out in R1 letters? It was truly mumbletastic.
- Mike Brailsford
- Acolyte
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:41 pm
- Location: Blackpool, England
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Round 2 = PIKIEST ?
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Not sure... Zoe and Rachel both seemed to mumble something simultaneously, I didn't catch either... looked like Rachel wasn't sure whether to make a joke or just ignore GOD's existence...Ben Hunter wrote:The look on Rachel's face when that woman said "he's with us" (or did Rachel say that, I wasn't paying attention).Matt Morrison wrote:what on earth did Rachel just say when GOD came out in R1 letters? It was truly mumbletastic.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
MENSURAL as an anagram of NUMERALS. Crikey I wish it was still CoC
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I love that guy's technique of just sitting there looking absolutely disgusted.
Not there I'm afraid.Mike Brailsford wrote:Round 2 = PIKIEST ?
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I'm enjoying Andrew's flat refusal to write down anything in any round, haha.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
8x25 = 200
200 + 9 = 209
209x4 = 836
10/5 = 2
836 - 2 = 834
200 + 9 = 209
209x4 = 836
10/5 = 2
836 - 2 = 834
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
MARINATES for Round 7 ?
2nd Numbers: 100 + 75 + 4 = 179; (50/25) + 3 = 5; 179 x 5 =895
Last letters game: FRIARIES
Last numbers game: (((4 x 2) + 4 ) x 50) + (8 x 8).
2nd Numbers: 100 + 75 + 4 = 179; (50/25) + 3 = 5; 179 x 5 =895
Last letters game: FRIARIES
Last numbers game: (((4 x 2) + 4 ) x 50) + (8 x 8).
Last edited by Mark Kudlowski on Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I don't think MARINATES was there, weren't there two Ts?
Great numbers solution though.
Great numbers solution though.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Fraid you've got the wrong letters. It was AEIRTMTSAMark Kudlowski wrote:MARINATES for Round 7 ?
- Phil Reynolds
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:43 pm
- Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
REUNIONS as a DC beater in round 12.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
(8*4)=32
32+50=82
82*8=656
4*2+8
656+8=664
32+50=82
82*8=656
4*2+8
656+8=664
- Ben Hunter
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1770
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
- Location: S Yorks
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Could be in for a double conundrum!
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
very poor not to get those numbers, I thought pretty easy:
4 x 2 = 8, + 4 = 12
12 x 50 = 600
8 x 8 = 64
600 + 64 = 664
4 x 2 = 8, + 4 = 12
12 x 50 = 600
8 x 8 = 64
600 + 64 = 664
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
This solution and mine are quite counter-intuitive - I was happy to get them and I'm the greatest numbers player of all time - so I don't agree with you.Matt Morrison wrote:very poor not to get those numbers, I thought pretty easy:
4 x 2 = 8, + 4 = 12
12 x 50 = 600
8 x 8 = 64
600 + 64 = 664
Last edited by Jon O'Neill on Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Lesley Jeavons
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:05 pm
- Location: Brighton, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Ditto to Matt - two 8s were just begging me to get the 64 out of the way.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I did...
50 - 8 = 42
42 x 8 x 2 = 672
672 - 4 - 4 = 664
Could do 42 x 8 then take off 4 if you wanted to use one less number
50 - 8 = 42
42 x 8 x 2 = 672
672 - 4 - 4 = 664
Could do 42 x 8 then take off 4 if you wanted to use one less number
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Last numbers alt- (50+4+2)*(8+4)-8
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I'm not going to bite as I am fairly sure you are jokingJon O'Neill wrote:This solution and mine are quite counter-intuitive - I was happy to get them and I'm the greatest numbers player of all time - so I don't agree with you.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Yeah, I wasMatt Morrison wrote:I'm not going to bite as I am fairly sure you are jokingJon O'Neill wrote:This solution and mine are quite counter-intuitive - I was happy to get them and I'm the greatest numbers player of all time - so I don't agree with you.
I am though.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:47 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Seemingly lots of ways to get 664 - here's another:
50 + 4 = 54
8 + 4 = 12
54 x 12 = 648
8 x 2 = 16
648 + 16 = 664
Jeff
50 + 4 = 54
8 + 4 = 12
54 x 12 = 648
8 x 2 = 16
648 + 16 = 664
Jeff
- Martin Bishop
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 471
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:29 pm
- Location: Tadworth, Surrey
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I'm a bit disappointed with Rachel today. I got the first and last numbers games correct in the time and would have expected her to get at least one of them before the clock finished. She did well to find a solution to the tricky second numbers, though.
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:18 am
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I got the same as Matt, and within 15 secs. Don't see how it's counter-intuitive. My first approach was to look for 13x50, but there was no easy way to get 13. So I thought about 12x50 instead, and then of course saw instantly the two 8s for 8x8 = 64. All I had to do then was look for a way of getting 12 out of 4,4,2 which as Matt says is just (4x2) + 4.Jon O'Neill wrote:This solution and mine are quite counter-intuitive - I was happy to get them and I'm the greatest numbers player of all time - so I don't agree with you.Matt Morrison wrote:very poor not to get those numbers, I thought pretty easy:
4 x 2 = 8, + 4 = 12
12 x 50 = 600
8 x 8 = 64
600 + 64 = 664
Maybe counter-intuitive is a very personal thing, i.e. sauce for goose etc?
I saw REUNIONS in the 2nd to last letters round, too. One of those where it leapt out at me without me even writing the letters out in a circle, but that doesn't happen to me often. Just luck I think.
Last edited by Clare Sudbery on Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
AMARETTI + S = ???????Dinos Sfyris wrote: Fraid you've got the wrong letters. It was AEIRTMTSA
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
METATARSI (making the possibly false assumption from the posts so far that it wasn't mentioned on the show)
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:17 pm
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: (8+4=12x50=600)+ (4x2=8x8=64) = 664
Not here, no. Here.Emily Toogood wrote:No?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:18 am
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Oh dear, I didn't see this. Fell for it again! Doh.Jon O'Neill wrote:Yeah, I wasMatt Morrison wrote:I'm not going to bite as I am fairly sure you are jokingJon O'Neill wrote:This solution and mine are quite counter-intuitive - I was happy to get them and I'm the greatest numbers player of all time - so I don't agree with you.
I am though.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Rule of thumb... assume that every single post on here is a joke unless you have insurmountable proof otherwise.Clare Sudbery wrote:Oh dear, I didn't see this. Fell for it again! Doh.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Re God - it was Rachael said "He's with us".
Loved and got "jounced" a very round word.
Loved and got "jounced" a very round word.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Jeez I didn't even notch up a century today. Did dire on today's numbers. On the last one I saw 600 (a multiple of 100) + 64 (8x8) and was sat pretty thinking (100+8)x8=664 then desperately tried to find 83x8 but was left with a bucket of fail! Saw Matt's method after time, closely followed by Jono's. Thought John Inverdale's bit on most dangerous animals was quite interesting. Any takers for what might be number 1? Also Paul well done on METATARSI. Epic spot
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:06 am
- Location: Lincolnshire
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Letters 1 – GOADED
Letters 2 – PASTIE
Letters 3 – SMALLER
Letters 4 – CLONED
Numbers 1 – 835
Tea Time Teaser 1 – got HOARDING
Letters 5 – MATIER
Letters 6 – BELATED
Letters 7 – WEAPON
Letters 8 – TIRADES
Numbers 2 – A slow brain didn’t get in gear!
Tea Time Teaser 2 – got RECEIVER
Letters 9 – FOOTIE
Letters 10 – SUNNIER
Letters 11 – FAIRIES
Numbers 3 – got up to 640!
Conundrum – Nope!
Letters 2 – PASTIE
Letters 3 – SMALLER
Letters 4 – CLONED
Numbers 1 – 835
Tea Time Teaser 1 – got HOARDING
Letters 5 – MATIER
Letters 6 – BELATED
Letters 7 – WEAPON
Letters 8 – TIRADES
Numbers 2 – A slow brain didn’t get in gear!
Tea Time Teaser 2 – got RECEIVER
Letters 9 – FOOTIE
Letters 10 – SUNNIER
Letters 11 – FAIRIES
Numbers 3 – got up to 640!
Conundrum – Nope!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Man, I hate watching it on 4od as you always beat me to the beaters. I got METATARSI which I was pleased with (after having AM(A/O)RETTI/O + S written by my dartboard for weeks to aid memory) and REUNIONS. I also got 664 and 834 so I'm far too late. One beater I did get that hasn't been mentioned: NOUMENA in round 8.
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Ben Hunter wrote:The look on Rachel's face when that woman said "he's with us" (or did Rachel say that, I wasn't paying attention).Matt Morrison wrote:what on earth did Rachel just say when GOD came out in R1 letters? It was truly mumbletastic.
Definitely Rachel who said "He's with us"
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Craig Beevers wrote:8x25 = 200
200 + 9 = 209
209x4 = 836
10/5 = 2
836 - 2 = 834
Sorry Craig, but there was no 25 in it. It was a 50
My version:
4 x 50 = 200
200 + 8 = 208
208 x 4 = 832
832 + 2 = 835
Could excuse Rachel not getting one of them, but 2 + 1 out of time. Shame on her.
I failed maths O levels 3 times with a "D" (way back when we had A, C & E as passes) and still managed to get this one in about 10 seconds.
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Dinos Sfyris wrote:Jeez I didn't even notch up a century today. Did dire on today's numbers. On the last one I saw 600 (a multiple of 100) + 64 (8x8) and was sat pretty thinking (100+8)x8=664 then desperately tried to find 83x8 but was left with a bucket of fail! Saw Matt's method after time, closely followed by Jono's. Thought John Inverdale's bit on most dangerous animals was quite interesting. Any takers for what might be number 1? Also Paul well done on METATARSI. Epic spot
My money's on number 1 being "Man" or "Humans" though "Woman" would be most apt!!!
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Sorry Laurent, there was no 50 in it. It was a 25Laurent wrote:
Sorry Craig, but there was no 25 in it. It was a 50
My version:
4 x 50 = 200
200 + 8 = 208
208 x 4 = 832
832 + 2 = 835
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Apologies Craig, ignore the above. Don't know what I was on. Perhaps the coke zero was too cold!!! 832 + 2 = 834, which was not even the sum set, that was the one in R3. Yours was R1. I hang my head in shame.Laurent wrote:Craig Beevers wrote:8x25 = 200
200 + 9 = 209
209x4 = 836
10/5 = 2
836 - 2 = 834
Sorry Craig, but there was no 25 in it. It was a 50
My version:
4 x 50 = 200
200 + 8 = 208
208 x 4 = 832
832 + 2 = 835
Could excuse Rachel not getting one of them, but 2 + 1 out of time. Shame on her.
I failed maths O levels 3 times with a "D" (way back when we had A, C & E as passes) and still managed to get this one in about 10 seconds.
Also, Rachel got 2 out of time not 1 as I said. I usually jump through the ads, saves 10 minutes and not really relevant to me here in Switzerland, so I missed her solution beginning R2.
So I got that wrong as well.
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Kirk Bevins wrote:Sorry Laurent, there was no 50 in it. It was a 25Laurent wrote:
Sorry Craig, but there was no 25 in it. It was a 50
My version:
4 x 50 = 200
200 + 8 = 208
208 x 4 = 832
832 + 2 = 835
Yes, I got them muddled up. Thanks for putting me on the right path.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Yeah, pretty shocked by the numbers today from Rachel - with the first one it seems fairly natural to to 25 x 4 x 8 and then it doesn't take too long to check splitting the multiplication up until you get the one that works (25 x 8 + 9). The last numbers miss made my jaw drop a bit, but I suppose everyone has off days.
edit: oh oh, and Susie finally mentioned something that "you see in chat rooms on the Internet" that I've actually encountered. Now all she needs to do is start talking about lolcats and the lolrus, and then maybe modding will get in
edit: oh oh, and Susie finally mentioned something that "you see in chat rooms on the Internet" that I've actually encountered. Now all she needs to do is start talking about lolcats and the lolrus, and then maybe modding will get in
Last edited by Michael Wallace on Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Bisley, Surrey
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
I was surprised to see PASTIE allowed in Round 2.
The singular of Pasties is PASTY, and none of my dictionaries mention PASTIE, though having checked online I see that it is included as a variant in the OED.
The singular of Pasties is PASTY, and none of my dictionaries mention PASTIE, though having checked online I see that it is included as a variant in the OED.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
Same here. I failed with the second one but got the first right on 30s and third one in about 10s. Fortunately Rachel is just too scrumptious for me to stay mad atMichael Wallace wrote:Yeah, pretty shocked by the numbers today from Rachel - with the first one it seems fairly natural to to 25 x 4 x 8 and then it doesn't take too long to check splitting the multiplication up until you get the one that works (25 x 8 + 9). The last numbers miss made my jaw drop a bit, but I suppose everyone has off days.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:09 pm
Re: Spoilers for Monday February 2nd 2009
That was bizarre. From the way she was looking across the studio, it seemed to me that it was some private joke between Rachel and Jeff.Laurent wrote:Definitely Rachel who said "He's with us"Ben Hunter wrote:The look on Rachel's face when that woman said "he's with us" (or did Rachel say that, I wasn't paying attention).Matt Morrison wrote:what on earth did Rachel just say when GOD came out in R1 letters? It was truly mumbletastic.