c4countdown

Countdown recap for Monday 28 April 2014.

C1: Champion Neil Green (1 win, 80 points.) a carer and comedy writer. Scored 80 points in his debut winning performance on Friday

C2: Challenger Glynn Linder. A financial advisor from Norwich. He also owns a race house “Trojan Rocket” who has been a sound investment

DC: Susie Dent and Arlene Philips.
RR: Rachel Riley.
OT: Other words or solutions.

R01: T R N D E A U S O
R02: B D H E I F N E R
R03: 8, 6, 8, 9, 1, 25. Target: 553.
TTT: HISSCUTE - "the sort of number thats very comfortable"
R04: S W R I A C N E Z
R05: S R T G A O E M R
R06: 5, 9, 3, 5, 7, 25. Target: 137.
R07: D L T S U E I P O
R08: N D H T A E B U P
R09: 2, 2, 7, 3, 8, 25. Target: 305.
TTT: RAISETHY - "raise thy excitement to an uncontrollable level"
R10: T F X A I P T E R
R11: S N D L O A E S P
R12: M Q R E A V N O V
R13: M S T I A E S K G
R14: 9, 5, 5, 4, 7, 25. Target: 236.
R15: D U E T S E G G S (conundrum)


And now a brief interlude before our main feature:

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Enjoy the show.

Round 1: T R N D E A U S O

Neil: UNSORTED (8)
Glynn: SOUNDER (7)
DC: TRENDS (6) REASON (6) ROUNDEST (8)
OT: ROTUNDAS (8) TONSURED (8) TRANSUDE (8)
Score: 8–0 (max 8)


Nice 8 to start from Neil, giving him an instant lead




Round 2: B D H E I F N E R

Neil: BEFRIEND (8)
Glynn: FINDER (6)
Score: 16–0 (max 16)


Neil is not on the show to BEFRIEND his opponents and a second 8 in two rounds doubles his lead.




Round 3: 8, 6, 8, 9, 1, 25. Target: 553.

Neil: 550.
Glynn: 551. ((8+8+6)*25)+1 (7)
RR: 553. ((9+1)+8)*6+25 (10)
Score: 16–7 (max 26)

We saw on Friday that Neil’s skills with words are not matched by his numbers games and this enables Glynn to get his first points on the board and reduce Neil’s lead.



Teatime teaser: HISSCUTE -> CUSHIEST

Round 4: S W R I A C N E Z

Neil: CRAZIES (7)
Glynn: RINSE (5)
DC: ARSENIC (7) CARNIES (7)
OT: WINCERS (7)
Score: 23–7 (max 33)


But Neil recovers the seven points immediately as his trademark word skills regain his 16 point lead.



Round 5: S R T G A O E M R

Neil: MORTARS (7)
Glynn: STORAGE (7)
DC: ROTAMERS (8)
OT: REARMOST (8)
Score: 30–14 (max 41)


Glynn scores on a letters round for the first time this show, but neither contestant gets the max here.


Round 6: 5, 9, 3, 5, 7, 25. Target: 137.

Neil: 137. (5*25)+9+3 (10)
Glynn: 137. (5*25)+5+7 (10)
Score: 40–24 (max 51)


During the countdown Rachel does a little dance, which must be a bit insulting to the people watching at home who don’t spot the solution



Round 7: D L T S U E I P O

Neil: SOLITUDE (8)
Glynn: DILUTES (7)
DC: PILOTED (7)
OT: POSTLUDE (8)
Score: 48–24 (max 59)


Another quality spot by Neil and he now has a bigger lead



Round 8: N D H T A E B U P

Neil: HAUNTED (7)
Glynn: PUNTED (6)
DC: PEANUT (6)
Score: 55–24 (max 66)


Just one max word in this round and Neil gets it to further increase his grip on the champions chair



Round 9: 2, 2, 7, 3, 8, 25. Target: 305.

Neil: 307.
Glynn: 306. (7+3+2)*25)+(8-2) (7)
RR: 305. ((8/2)*3*25)+(7-2) (10)
Score: 55–31 (max 76)


For the second time in the game, Glynn makes up seven points by taking advantage of Neil’s less than stellar numbers skills



Teatime teaser: RAISETHY -> HYSTERIA

Round 10: T F X A I P T E R

Neil: FATTIER (7)
Glynn: PATTER (6)
DC: PIRATE (6) PARTITE (7)
Score: 62–31 (max 83)



The lack of numbers skill from Neil seems unimportant as another max in this letters round recovers the damage of the previous round.




Round 11: S N D L O A E S P

Neil: loadens
Glynn: LOANED (6)
DC: PEDALOS (7) DAPSONE (7) NOPALES (7)
OT: LASSOED (7) NAPLESS (7) OLDNESS (7)
Score: 62–37 (max 90)


With a big lead already established Neil chances what sounds like a really unlikely word. Its unlikely to matter now though as a second win looks almost certain.



Round 12: M Q R E A V N O V

Neil: OVERMAN (7)
Glynn: OVERMAN (7)
DC: MOANER (6)
Score: 69–44 (max 97)


Neil seems to think that OVERMAN is risky. Maybe if Glynn had declared “a risky 7” Neil might have chanced not going for it but he has gone for it and is within one letters round of confirming his second win.


Round 13: M S T I A E S K G

Neil: MISTAKES (8)
Glynn: SKATES (6)
Score: 77–44 (max 105)


No MISTAKES from Neil as Glynn has to get his SKATES on and leave (this is starting to sound like one of Anthony’s recaps)



Round 14: 9, 5, 5, 4, 7, 25. Target: 236.

Neil: 236. (25*9)+7+4 (10)
Glynn: 236. Mistake in working.
Score: 87–44 (max 115)


In all four numbers games, the pick has been one large and the large has been 25, I dare say that’s an unusual occurrence.


Round 15: D U E T S E G G S

Neil buzzes on 1 second to say SUGGESTED which is correct.
Final Score: 97–44 (max 125)


Neil had already secured the win but he impresses again with his conundrum skills. An octochamp run is definitely within his capabilities, but its likely he’ll have to hope a highly skilled numbers player doesn’t stand in his way because that’s clearly his weakness.






Further summaries are at:
http://cdb.apterous.org/series.php?series=70

Andy McGurn wrote:Round 3: 8, 6, 8, 9, 1, 25. Target: 553.

Neil: 550.
Glynn: 551. ((8+8+6)*25)+1 (7)
RR: 553. ((9+1)+8)*6+25 (10)
Score: 16–7 (max 26)

We saw on Friday that Neil’s skills with words are not matched by his numbers games and this enables Glynn to get his first points on the board and reduce Neil’s lead.

I'm sure most of us took the opportunity for a Rachel beater here, but as often happens neither this summary nor the Wiki page record anything other than Rachel perfection.

CONGRATULATIONS CLIVE!!!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, CLIVE BROOKER!!!

Is that better?

No, that wasn't my point at all. If I'd felt like showing off I'd have posted in the spoilers thread.

Nearly everything that has been done in recording games for posterity is admirable. However I do find it strange that whereas there have been debates about matters such as whether conundrum solution times should be quoted to the nearest quarter of a second, few seem to think it's important to note whether Rachel needed extra time. With the existing Wiki data, any attempt to compare Rachel's success with other arithmeticians, past or future, is severely compromised.

Clive Brooker wrote:No, that wasn't my point at all. If I'd felt like showing off I'd have posted in the spoilers thread.

Uh-huh.

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm sure most of us took the opportunity for a Rachel beater here

Clive's making a valid point. No need to be a cunt about it, Corby.

Yeah I'm with Clive here Jon. Don't you care about statistical accuracy you cunt? Michael Wallace will have you across his knee.

Matt Morrison wrote:Yeah I'm with Clive here Jon. Don't you care about statistical accuracy you cunt? Michael Wallace will have you across his knee.

It's time to bully him off the forum.

That's as maybe, but he can make the point without the brag. That's my point.

Jon Corby wrote:That's as maybe, but he can make the point without the brag. That's my point.

Fair play. I see what you mean. But Clive's post wasn't that braggy in the grand scheme of things.
A better starting point for your mission would be to go into every spoiler thread ever and just post "shut up you twats".

Yeah, spoiler threads are generally a bit crap (other than for the occasional interesting discussions about stuff that happens in the episode), but this is an altogether different kind of brag.

The numbers game wasn't easy. Rachel didn't get it, the solution is by no means glaringly obvious or simple when you see it, it wasn't easy.

There's being upfront about it, by just posting your solution, possibly with a little sunglasses-wearing emoticon.

But no, Clive phrased it in such a way that he could go "oh no, that wasn't my intention". He had to not only mention that he got it, but also that it was meat and drink to him (as he's sure that so many others got it too).

Devious, underhanded bastard. Disgusting.

I hate you all. I trusted you all and you're nothing but letdowns compared to the perfect versions of you all up in my heart.

Jon Corby wrote:But no, Clive phrased it in such a way that he could go "oh no, that wasn't my intention". He had to not only mention that he got it, but also that it was meat and drink to him (as he's sure that so many others got it too).

I don't know whether you actually believe this, but if you do it's all in your imagination. I phrased it that way because several people did post solutions in the spoilers thread, not all the same and all different to mine which I have no intention of boring anyone with. By saying "I'm sure most of us..." isn't it just as likely that I'm playing down any idea of bragging? That's the way my mind saw it when I put the words together.

And seriously, the only reason for posting at all was to try to provoke a discussion along the lines of my subsequent post, something which interests me infinitely more than pointless bragging.

I still haven't solved that numbers.

79 x 7. What are the other 29 seconds for?

Preening, obviously.

Clive Brooker wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:But no, Clive phrased it in such a way that he could go "oh no, that wasn't my intention". He had to not only mention that he got it, but also that it was meat and drink to him (as he's sure that so many others got it too).

I don't know whether you actually believe this, but if you do it's all in your imagination. I phrased it that way because several people did post solutions in the spoilers thread, not all the same and all different to mine which I have no intention of boring anyone with. By saying "I'm sure most of us..." isn't it just as likely that I'm playing down any idea of bragging? That's the way my mind saw it when I put the words together.

And seriously, the only reason for posting at all was to try to provoke a discussion along the lines of my subsequent post, something which interests me infinitely more than pointless bragging.

Then why not directly reference the spoiler thread, or the solutions contained therein? You made it sound like you didn't know if others had solved it, but since it was so easy (to you) that you were convinced MOST - not just some - MOST of the users of this site would have got it. It's not playing it down, it's total false modesty and while it may have been enough to dupe Gevin, it just doesn't wash with me.

And then trying to paint me as some Brittainesque conspiracy theory loon by claiming "it's all in my imagination". That might be deflection enough for gullible, naive, simpering fools like Gevin, but most of us can see exactly what's going on here.

I wasn't duped. I knew he was being incredibly devious in his post - enough to make me physically sick in fact - but I just didn't want it to detract from the valid point. When I said you were being a cunt, I meant you were being one to everyone else on the forum for potentially taking away our chance to discuss this point. I thought you would have understood. You're more stupid than I thought.

Can't argue with that.

Back to the point that Clive accidentally raised during his brag anyway - are there still numbers games (since Rachel categorically started telling us "it's impossible") that are possible, but which she fails to (eventually) get?

Jon Corby wrote:Can't argue with that.

Back to the point that Clive accidentally raised during his brag anyway - are there still numbers games (since Rachel categorically started telling us "it's impossible") that are possible, but which she fails to (eventually) get?

Yes. Round 3 in this game from 19th February, for example.

Graeme Cole wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Can't argue with that.

Back to the point that Clive accidentally raised during his brag anyway - are there still numbers games (since Rachel categorically started telling us "it's impossible") that are possible, but which she fails to (eventually) get?

Yes. Round 3 in this game from 19th February, for example.

Graeme Cole wrote:Round 3: 25, 75, 50, 100, 5, 3. Target: 409.

C1: 410. 100*3+25+75+50/5 (7)
C2: 403.
OT: 409. 75*5+(100+50/25)/3 (10)
Score: 14–15 (max 36)

409 eludes even Rachel - very well done if you got this. The solver found only two ways of doing it: 375 + 102/3 is one way (shown above), and the other way is to do (75 * (50 - 5) * 3 + 100) / 25.

Clive Brooker wrote:I'm sure I was just one of many that got this, was very surprised when Rachel didn't come back to the show the solution.

When are you and Gevin going to move in together, anyway?