c4countdown

Paul Worsley got a win against a tough opponent yesterday, is a second win coming?

Join Anthony for the recap later.

Today's challenger is newly-joined forumite Colm Byrne.

Nice 9 from both - I was stuck with UNSOLDER, UNSOILED etc

Anyone done the first numbers yet? - it is doable. Why do folk insist on picking the hard 1L option?

Tony Atkins wrote:Anyone done the first numbers yet? - it is doable. Why do folk insist on picking the hard 1L option?

(9-9)/(5-3-2)=835. Easy.

2nd numbers alt :

(25 + 8) x (((7 + 8) x 2) - 1) = 33 x 29 = 957

Tony Atkins wrote:Anyone done the first numbers yet? - it is doable. Why do folk insist on picking the hard 1L option?

I had the standard method.

FOUETTE in round 13.

Another great comeback.

If I was playing Paul Worsley I could be 11 points ahead going into the conundrum and still wouldn't feel confident of winning.

Wasn't sure Paul would make that until the Darrenic STOMAS and then coping well enough with another hard, but gettable, 1L.
Well played to both.

Fred Mumford wrote:Another great comeback.

If I was playing Paul Worsley I could be 11 points ahead going into the conundrum and still wouldn't feel confident of winning.

Probably not the best tactic to let good players get 10pts+ ahead though!

Interestingly, Susie took her time before allowing GARPIKES, on the grounds that GARPIKE would be the plural. I also had EPIGRAMS and GRAMPIES written down, but thankfully she allowed it.

Paul Worsley wrote:Interestingly, Susie took her time before allowing GARPIKES, on the grounds that GARPIKE would be the plural. I also had EPIGRAMS and GRAMPIES written down, but thankfully she allowed it.

Controversial again! GARPIKES isn't found in the search bar. It doesn't tell you how to pluralise it presumably because it has a minimal entry just saying that it's another term for GARFISH. Maybe we're supposed to make the analogy from PIKE, but it's not clear. Also what if it was an entirely different word that had an irregular plural? Would it tell you then? The ODO is letting us down!

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Paul Worsley wrote:Interestingly, Susie took her time before allowing GARPIKES, on the grounds that GARPIKE would be the plural. I also had EPIGRAMS and GRAMPIES written down, but thankfully she allowed it.

Controversial again! GARPIKES isn't found in the search bar. It doesn't tell you how to pluralise it presumably because it has a minimal entry just saying that it's another term for GARFISH. Maybe we're supposed to make the analogy from PIKE, but it's not clear. Also what if it was an entirely different word that had an irregular plural? Would it tell you then? The ODO is letting us down!

Considering Susie still has to decide which words are allowable and which are not, clearly ODO is very ambiguous with its entries and definitions. Should it not be replaced with a more definitive word judge from OED?

Mauro

Did anyone else think the clue for the first Teatime Teaser was pretty lame? It was basically a dictionary definition.

Paul Worsley v The Opposition

Rounds 1 to 11: 133-143

Rounds 12 to 15: 66-0

If any subterfuge is taking place during Susie's special spot, I think we should be told.

Another good game, well played, Paul.

(In my opinion, GARPIKES is unquestionably fine, regardless of its etymology. No one dictionary can hope to address, let alone resolve, all lexicographical ambiguities. However, the online dictionary seems a more comprehensive resource than the single-volume print version, and if this leads to more words being allowed - hooray!)

Heather Styles wrote:Another good game, well played, Paul.

(In my opinion, GARPIKES is unquestionably fine, regardless of its etymology. No one dictionary can hope to address, let alone resolve, all lexicographical ambiguities. However, the online dictionary seems a more comprehensive resource than the single-volume print version, and if this leads to more words being allowed - hooray!)

I think you overestimate the task. It wouldn't be that much of an achievement to have a dictionary that essentially defines the entire wordlist.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to have a dictionary that essentially defines the entire wordlist, but I imagine it would be quite an achievement.

Heather Styles wrote:I'm not saying it would be impossible to have a dictionary that essentially defines the entire wordlist, but I imagine it would be quite an achievement.

Lexplorer?

Just caught up, unlucky Colm, very well played Paul. Great game!

Also just catching up due partly to holidays and partly to outside scaffolding disabling my Sky Plus

The conundrum brought back memories - http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4623

Richard Priest wrote:Also just catching up due partly to holidays and partly to outside scaffolding disabling my Sky Plus

The conundrum brought back memories - http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4623

I weirdly enough was thinking of conundrums to use for COHUD and thought of this one too, so that's one ruled out then

Nice work again though, Paul. Am having to rush through these ASAP, to make sure I'm back to normality ASAP.