c4countdown

Matt Tassier back for game 6 - can he be an octchamp this week?

((4+5)x9+2)x10+8=838

CHEERIO in the CHEERY round.

Alt first numbers: ((4+5)x10+2)x9=838

According to apterous FAUXEST is allowed as a beater, and there was another one available in the SONATA round.

Peter Mabey wrote:Alt first numbers: ((4+5)x10+2)x9=838

Unfortunately 838 doesn't divide by 9 - check by adding the digits.

Tony Atkins wrote:

Peter Mabey wrote:Alt first numbers: ((4+5)x10+2)x9=838

Unfortunately 838 doesn't divide by 9 - check by adding the digits.

8+3+8=19; 1+9 = 10; 1+0 = 1 therefore 838/9 leaves remainder of 1 .

I saw SEXTAPE in round 11 the expats round but it isn't in, i thought it was plausible

Steven M. McCann wrote:CHEERIO in the CHEERY round.

Also OCHREAE for another 7.

GLEANER/GRANULE in round 2 as well.

Tony Atkins wrote:According to apteous FAUXEST is allowed as a beater

Using the established criterion of being very strange, I wouldn't be surprised if this were disallowed.

Clive Brooker wrote:

Tony Atkins wrote:According to apteous FAUXEST is allowed as a beater

Using the established criterion of being very strange, I wouldn't be surprised if this were disallowed.

I don't think they could disallow it. It certainly wouldn't be disallowed in a CoC game, not that it should make a difference.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think they could disallow it. It certainly wouldn't be disallowed in a CoC game, not that it should make a difference.

What do you mean by that? Why do you think there are different rules for CoC and non-CoC?

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think they could disallow it. It certainly wouldn't be disallowed in a CoC game, not that it should make a difference.

What do you mean by that? Why do you think there are different rules for CoC and non-CoC?

There aren't but in the past Susie's dismissively said stuff like "I can't think of any way you'd use that word", whereas with the top players, she's more likely to think that they're right by default and then go on to understand the logic behind the declaration.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think they could disallow it. It certainly wouldn't be disallowed in a CoC game, not that it should make a difference.

What do you mean by that? Why do you think there are different rules for CoC and non-CoC?

There aren't but in the past Susie's dismissively said stuff like "I can't think of any way you'd use that word", whereas with the top players, she's more likely to think that they're right by default and then go on to understand the logic behind the declaration.

I haven't noticed this. Do you have any examples in mind?

I'd always allow TRUER and TRUEST, so I'd also allow FALSER and FALSEST, and since FAUX means false, I'd find it difficult to disallow FAUXER and FAUXEST. Perhaps "this faux outrage is the fauxest outrage I've ever seen" sounds a bit clumsy, but IMO it's a valid usage example and therefore not one of those "I can't think of a case where you'd use it" situations.

Graeme Cole wrote:I haven't noticed this. Do you have any examples in mind?

Basically any time she's incorrectly disallowed a word.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I haven't noticed this. Do you have any examples in mind?

Basically any time she's incorrectly disallowed a word.

Top quotework Gev.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:I haven't noticed this. Do you have any examples in mind?

Basically any time she's incorrectly disallowed a word.

E.g. RIGHTEST v BENTER. There's no direct proof, but I can imagine a "normal" contestant struggling to get BENTER past DC.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Graeme Cole wrote:I haven't noticed this. Do you have any examples in mind?

Basically any time she's incorrectly disallowed a word.

E.g. RIGHTEST v BENTER. There's no direct proof, but I can imagine a "normal" contestant struggling to get BENTER past DC.

Since the "very strange" pronouncement, my impression is that things like this have been allowed more often, notably the first allowance of FEINTER.

Maybe it's been realised that unless there is proper guidance on what constitutes very strange, allowing everything is the only real option. A truly ridiculous example could always be covered up with a retake, and perhaps that's more economical than spending many hours developing new guidelines which might not work very well.

I'd be very surprised if Susie didn't see FAUXEST, but equally I doubt she'd want to give an opinion on it voluntarily. It's quite surprising to see this was the first time it's ever been the only plausible 7 in a selection.