Did anyone see that weird first goal
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderator: James Robinson
Brewer's Droop hey?James Robinson wrote:Can he keep it up, unlike last night.
And SEPTATEKirk Bevins wrote:HASTATE as a beater in round 2.
I did this Craig's way. Possibly the mark of a factoriser, which I admit to being.Matt Morrison wrote:more 'obvious' method for 1st numbers:
7 x (9+2) x 10 = 770, -1 -2 = 767
I don't understand this. The target was 767, which is close to 770. Factorising gives 7x11x10, which is easily obtainable, keeping the 2 and 1 by to subtract afterwards. I did it Matt's more intuitive way.Clive Brooker wrote:Possibly the mark of a factoriser, which I admit to being.
Don't speak any Spanish but isn't it COJONES?Matt Morrison wrote:I was thinking MARACONES* as the Spanish word for bollocks, but that's MARICONES I think. I could be talking bollocks altogether though (half a pun intended).
Oh yeah, course. Having just looked it up this time, MARICONES are gays. My bad. Lesson learned: if you're gonna pick up slang from a Spanish friend you really ought to know what the words mean.Charlie Reams wrote:Don't speak any Spanish but isn't it COJONES?Matt Morrison wrote:I was thinking MARACONES* as the Spanish word for bollocks, but that's MARICONES I think. I could be talking bollocks altogether though (half a pun intended).
The 770 route looks painfully obvious when you've seen it, so I'm wondering what logic led Craig, like me, to approach the target via 765.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't understand this. The target was 767, which is close to 770. Factorising gives 7x11x10, which is easily obtainable, keeping the 2 and 1 by to subtract afterwards. I did it Matt's more intuitive way.Clive Brooker wrote:Possibly the mark of a factoriser, which I admit to being.
I thought he meant MEDALS.Marc Meakin wrote:Did the challenger declare MEDDLES?
No.Ben Hunter wrote:Anyone else's Channel 4+1 just disappeared?
No, MEDALS like what Mark Foster has.Marc Meakin wrote:Did the challenger declare MEDDLES?
I also did it the same way as Craig. I started by dividing the target by 9 to get 85 with 2 remaining. So now I had to find a way to make 85 without using the 2 or 9. If I hadn't spotted one I would have moved on to try dividing the target by 7 (or maybe 10, which was Matt & Kirk's way). I think I chose the 9 to start with because it seemed the most likely at first glance to divide evenly into the target.Clive Brooker wrote:The 770 route looks painfully obvious when you've seen it, so I'm wondering what logic led Craig, like me, to approach the target via 765.Kirk Bevins wrote:I don't understand this. The target was 767, which is close to 770. Factorising gives 7x11x10, which is easily obtainable, keeping the 2 and 1 by to subtract afterwards. I did it Matt's more intuitive way.Clive Brooker wrote:Possibly the mark of a factoriser, which I admit to being.
My first instinct, rightly or wrongly, is to factorise the target or something close to it. If 767 has factors I didn't know what they are. I regarded 770 as unpromising because if you want to be spot on you only have 4 numbers left to make 770. But 765 and 768 are both readily factorisable (?) and since there's a 9 in the selection, I started by looking at 765. As it happens 768 gets there as well.
Personally I fucked it up and was a bit annoyed with myself. But I've still got my 200 in bullet numbers attack. How's it going for you?craig wrote:767 divides by 13 to give 59 I believe. Can't see that method working though. I can't remember what went through my mind, I usually look to use the 10 as in the other method. Maybe it was because there wasn't a 3 there to minus. Oh well I got the points at least, any other methods people found?
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Personally I fucked it up and was a bit annoyed with myself. But I've still got my 200 in bullet numbers attack. How's it going for you?
I did it Craig's way, but not really deliberately. The best solution almost certainly had to be based upon multiplying the three big numbers together so I worked from 630 and found the extra 137 (2 lots of 63 plus 9 plus 2). I didn't work out how many 9s went into 765. If I had carried on looking after solving it I may well have found 2*70-2-1 as well in the remaining time.Liam Tiernan wrote:I also did it the same way as Craig. I started by dividing the target by 9 to get 85 with 2 remaining. So now I had to find a way to make 85 without using the 2 or 9. If I hadn't spotted one I would have moved on to try dividing the target by 7 (or maybe 10, which was Matt & Kirk's way). I think I chose the 9 to start with because it seemed the most likely at first glance to divide evenly into the target.Clive Brooker wrote:The 770 route looks painfully obvious when you've seen it, so I'm wondering what logic led Craig, like me, to approach the target via 765.Kirk Bevins wrote: Clive:"Possibly the mark of a factoriser, which I admit to being."
I don't understand this. The target was 767, which is close to 770. Factorising gives 7x11x10, which is easily obtainable, keeping the 2 and 1 by to subtract afterwards. I did it Matt's more intuitive way.
My first instinct, rightly or wrongly, is to factorise the target or something close to it. If 767 has factors I didn't know what they are. I regarded 770 as unpromising because if you want to be spot on you only have 4 numbers left to make 770. But 765 and 768 are both readily factorisable (?) and since there's a 9 in the selection, I started by looking at 765. As it happens 768 gets there as well.
Don't give up! Do you always see them through to the end? Maybe you'd see it as cheating, but if I got a solution wrong before about the 8th round, I'd normally quit and start again.craig wrote:Gavin Chipper wrote:
Personally I fucked it up and was a bit annoyed with myself. But I've still got my 200 in bullet numbers attack. How's it going for you?
Hope that worked, I'm still very noobish at this quoting business. I got another 190 yesterday, this time I mis clicked though so I'm getting closer. Might just give up on it considering I've tried over 100 times!
Aw thanks, I'm flattered. If I recall correctly, I went for 11x70-3. With 6 small, I typically aim to get close to the target with 3-5 of the numbers, hoping there'll be enough left over to negotiate the difference. There's often more than one way to go; here 63x12=756 gets you there too (which I think is what Craig did), but I think the 770 route was more intuitive.Matthew Tassier wrote:I'd love to hear how Junaid did it (and thought about doing it) as his 6 small figures are phenomenal.