c4countdown

So, it's Wednesday and I seem to be starting the spoiler thread today. That's mainly cos I'm off work today after having what is probably the best birthday anyone can have

I have managed to catch up with Countdown though, and I see that our very own Brett Davids is still going strong with 3 wins under his belt so far, and was agonisingly close to breaking the highest score of the series on Monday. Will he become a half-octochamp today, I wonder

As I wasn't sure if I was going to be available today, I decided to take precautions, so for one week only, Graeme Cole is returning to the recappers' chair to do today's recap.

So, you can look forward to him then.

1st numbers (out of time): ((50-5)x75x3+100)/25 = 409

Why was BORDERING and any of the 8s so hard to spot? I rejected REBORDING and missed the obvious too.

Jack Worsley wrote:1st numbers (out of time): ((50-5)x75x3+100)/25 = 409

Nice - I got 410 a different way to Rachel and was happy with that.

From the desk of George Pryn: 75 x 5 + (100 + 50/25)/3 = 409

Excuse me - has anyone seen my wheels?

(100 x 75 - 50) x 3 / 25 as a cheeky solve in round 9 going over 20k

Alt 3rd numbers: ((100+50)-((75/25)/3))x6

OATMEAL in R10

Was DISPROVEN the intended declaration in R11? It's invalid apparently, but cracking effort and necessary when losing.

Oh dear - I saw the phantom second D on one of my shows....

DISPROVEN^ strangely not there. I was surprised they didn't mention it. Actually I still am just to say it wasn't in.

ALONGSIDE in round whatever number it was.

ALONGSIDE round 13

Oh screw you Callum

Andy Platt wrote:ALONGSIDE round 13

Oh screw you Callum

Ditto.

Unlucky there Brett, Andy was that rare animal of apterous standard without the practice. He looks pretty good for 8 wins if he can improve in numbers.

Suzie did ask me if I meant disproven. I kind of did, but as it wasn't in anyways it didn't really matter. Worth a pop at that point!

TABLIERS in round 7 and OVERSPIN in round 11 as equallers.

Unlucky there, Brett. I must say, I had you as octochamp material after your opening show. Shows how right I can be sometimes

The first numbers game was a 99%er, slightly surprisingly for a game with 2 discrete solutions. Both were fiendish though, so it's fair enough. Muchos kudos to those that got it within 30 mins, never mind 30 secs.

Andy appeared on Countdown in 2003, losing his only game 95-98. I would expect him to have a good run.

Andy Platt wrote:Unlucky there Brett, Andy was that rare animal of apterous standard without the practice. He looks pretty good for 8 wins if he can improve in numbers.

Unless he spends a lot of time studying word lists.

Martin Thompson wrote:Andy appeared on Countdown in 2003, losing his only game 95-98. I would expect him to have a good run.

You sure it's the same one, Martin

He mentioned being on previously around ten years ago so yes, I'd assume same guy.

And so my run came to an end. With my rather erratic performances it was only a matter of time until I came up against someone with the consistency to beat me, as was proven today. Andy had some great spots - especially PALMATE - and my attempts to thwart him (apparently he's got some experience in statistics) with a 4-large numbers approach failed - but ultimately the gambled nine - and then not gambling on SULKIEST in the next round as a result - proved my undoing. I don't think either of us would have expected me to pull back 28 points in the last three rounds, but at least it made the score respectable!

One thing I didn't really comprehend before going on was how much each game takes out of you. I suppose having seen Graham looking visibly thinner through each game the day before should have given me a clue, but despite being able to play game after game online with no noticeable fatigue, in the studio I found things much harder to maintain. I take my hat of to all octochamps not just for their abilities, but also for their stamina!

Unfortunately with the audience full and a wife and baby demanding I RETURN HOME AT ONCE when they found out I'd lost, I didn't get to stick around afterwards, but I would imagine Andy has both the skill and the mental fortitude to knock up a fair few victories.

Overall, I had a whale of a time, and am certainly not ashamed of my performance. Despite all the talk in the studio and elsewhere of potential Octo-ability, even with all the Apterous practice I never considered that achievable, and I take my teapot, pulling a niner and a hundred game as more than I could have ever expected.

If Zarte walked away with five wins, I'm very, very happy with three.

Martin Thompson wrote:Andy appeared on Countdown in 2003, losing his only game 95-98. I would expect him to have a good run.

Who did he play in 2003?

Anthony Endsor wrote:

Martin Thompson wrote:Andy appeared on Countdown in 2003, losing his only game 95-98. I would expect him to have a good run.

Who did he play in 2003?

Jan Rolnis, just a few weeks after my début appearance interestingly enough.

You came across very well on TV Brett, a good few shows there.

I spoke to Andy's wife at length whilst you were all in make up and he does spend a lot of time practising and is aware of apterous but doesn't really use it. He also seemed to have good knowledge of champions before so is clearly a Countdown afficionado.

Jon Stitcher wrote:but doesn't really use it.

Do you mean that he's never used it or that he's played a couple of games under a pseudonym?

Brett Davids wrote: One thing I didn't really comprehend before going on was how much each game takes out of you. I suppose having seen Graham looking visibly thinner through each game the day before should have given me a clue, but despite being able to play game after game online with no noticeable fatigue, in the studio I found things much harder to maintain. I take my hat of to all octochamps not just for their abilities, but also for their stamina!

I wonder about that. Playing Scrabble tournaments of 7 games a day is tiring, but of course with Countdown there's the numbers to solve as well.

Fred Mumford wrote:The first numbers game was a 99%er, slightly surprisingly for a game with 2 discrete solutions. Both were fiendish though, so it's fair enough. Muchos kudos to those that got it within 30 mins, never mind 30 secs.

When Rachel said it was "Very, very difficult" I think we all knew she must have been told it was possible.

David Williams wrote:

Fred Mumford wrote:The first numbers game was a 99%er, slightly surprisingly for a game with 2 discrete solutions. Both were fiendish though, so it's fair enough. Muchos kudos to those that got it within 30 mins, never mind 30 secs.

When Rachel said it was "Very, very difficult" I think we all knew she must have been told it was possible.

Yes. Whenever Rachel says she's going to have another go or anything other than "it's impossible" you now know that she's been told. Either that or she's always told when it's impossible so that the absence of that implies to her that it's possible.