Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Moderator: James Robinson
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
This challenger's looking pretty handy...
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
INNARDS as a DC equaller, round 4.
-
- Series 62 Champion
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:13 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
ruralise for round 9
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
STIBINE for round with Z.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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!
Again, only half-watching, sorry if those letters weren't there!
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
- Ben Wilson
- Legend
- Posts: 4552
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
- Location: North Hykeham
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
3rd numbers alt: (75*50-2)/(7-3)
Edit: Brilliantly, this was my 937th post. Which I suppose makes this edit post # 937.5
Edit: Brilliantly, this was my 937th post. Which I suppose makes this edit post # 937.5
- Andy Wilson
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
What about rehosting?Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.Andy Wilson wrote:What about rehosting?Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
- Andy Wilson
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
You're for it after school Bevins...
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
I did.Was also hoping for an E for PAGINATES in the ADAPTING round but Fiona asked for a consonantBen Wilson wrote:No one felt like adding the H to SORTING to make SHORTING then?
- Mark Kudlowski
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.Kirk Bevins wrote: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.Andy Wilson wrote:What about rehosting?Hannah O wrote:For the round with NEOSHGIRT- GORIEST as a contestant equaller?
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.Mark Kudlowski wrote: I thought stibine was a chemical compound of antimony and hydrogen, formula SbH3.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.
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.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Yeah, if a word has alternative spellings then they don't normally list the alternative inflections, so SAMBOES is fine.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.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:56 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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
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
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Likewise, I didn't manage to get any of them today. Very impressive. She'd kick Carol's arse in a Numbers Attack.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
- 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
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.
I only managed to do the first one but there were all rather hard.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.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.
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.
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Not really, the second one was 524 = (75-25)*10+(5-2)*8. That's pretty far removed.Kirk Bevins wrote:Without finding my notes, I think the two she got were split multiplications weren't they
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.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.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
That was probably one of the most awkward moments of my life.Kirk Bevins wrote:Naturally I smiled at her and said "well, opposites attract" which didn't quite cause the desired effect.
- Kirk Bevins
- God
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:18 pm
- Location: York, UK
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.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.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.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.
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?
- Rosemary Roberts
- Devotee
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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.Kirk Bevins wrote: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.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.
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 !".
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Yes.Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.Jon Corby wrote:Yes.Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
Thanks. Bristol auditions are next Wednesday, so don't expect anything before then!Charlie Reams wrote:Agreed. It doesn't really prove anything much, but it's potentially interesting.Jon Corby wrote:Yes.Clive Brooker wrote:Does anyone think I should pursue this, cleaning up the data as far as possible from the recaps?
- Martin Bishop
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 471
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:29 pm
- Location: Tadworth, Surrey
Re: Spoilers for Wednesday, 8th April
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!