c4countdown

Good to see Charlie getting in another plug

I'm not sure I dare point it out...

6/3 = 2
7 - 2 = 5
100 - 8 = 92
5 x 92 = 460
460 + 9 = 469

Applauds Ben. I was still figuring something with the 7 x table...

(100-3x9-6)x7=469

THAT's where I was heading Peter. Well done.

Interestingly, I did exactly the same thing as Charlie, thought I'd got 471 when I'd actually got 467 doing the same as him.
Most odd. Great minds think alike etc. etc.

Ist numbers game:

I knew that 469 = 67 x 7, so I made the 67 by
subtracting (8+3) x (9-6) from 100.

(100 - ((8 + 3) x (9 - 6))) - 7

Also equalled panel with RAMEKIN in previous word game

Is MARONITE (a Christian sect) always capitalised ?

SAVOURS! Wow, can't believe they both missed it.

Does SAVOROUS (8) exist? (It's in Webster.)

Mark Kudlowski wrote:Ist numbers game:

I knew that 469 = 67 x 7, so I made the 67 by
subtracting (8+3) x (9-6) from 100.

(100 - ((8 + 3) x (9 - 6))) - 7

Also equalled panel with RAMEKIN in previous word game

Is MARONITE (a Christian sect) always capitalised ?

No MARONITE in this dictionary, sorry.

HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.

25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959

(25 + 1) x ((9 x 4) + 1)
= 26 x 37 = 962
- 2 = 960 (1 away)

If Peter had taken the extra 1 away from 963 then he would of only got 3 away!

mikebuk wrote:HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.

I'm sure that's good, was that what Charlie didn't risk then? If it isn't good it's a real glaring omission from the ODE. Well done Charlie, a good game even if the scores didn't reflect it. The last numbers game in particular was nightmare (I got 952)

25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959

alternate for 960, leaving the 2 left over:

(25 -1) x (4 x (9 + 1) = 24 x 40 = 960

Martin Gardner wrote:

mikebuk wrote:HARDWIRE ? - as in devices used for Internet and cable tv.

I'm sure that's good, was that what Charlie didn't risk then? If it isn't good it's a real glaring omission from the ODE. Well done Charlie, a good game even if the scores didn't reflect it.

Yeah, I guess they edited that out. HARD-WIRED is in (but hyphenated); nothing else similar.

Is it just me, or did I hear someone coughing when Charlie said good afternoon to Rachel before his first letters selection?

I had FOAMING and then FLAMING but for some reason never thought to add the O...

Well done Charlie, great performance, looking forward to seeing you play Junaid.

Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today

Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.

I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.

I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?

I can assure you it was genuine...he made quite a few offerings through the whole championship (BEDTIME in my game). Not hugely surprising as he is a long time viewer of the show and does seem quite sharp.

Rich Priest wrote:I had FOAMING and then FLAMING but for some reason never thought to add the O...

Well done Charlie, great performance, looking forward to seeing you play Junaid.

I got FLAMING and somehow turned it into MAGNOLIA... Can't wait for the rematch on Friday!

Matt Morrison wrote:25 9 1 4 1 2, target 959

(25 + 1) x ((9 x 4) + 1)
= 26 x 37 = 962
- 2 = 960 (1 away)

I did it this way! Great minds think alike. I was pleased with SIDEBURN and BURNSIDE and then Jeff stole my thunder but well done for spotting it Jeff! I was pleased with LATEENS and ANGIOMA but missed DESOLATE and FLAMINGO respectively so well done to Charlie for those (I did catch up with SAVOURS, SIDEBURN and CAROTENE though!). TELEOST was a great seven in round 6 too.

Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?

I'm starting to be quite impressed with Jeff's ability at the letters. Am being increasingly underwhelmed by Rachel's numbers (and yes, obviously she is presumably really very good and it's much much harder in her position etc. etc. but still). Thought I saw MONIKER in there somewhere, which is a word I always find myself seeing when it's almost there but never actually comes out. The conundrum spot was superb.

Stewart Holden wrote:SAVOURS! Wow, can't believe they both missed it.

Heh, I got that too! Though I effed-up in virtually every other round

BTW, loved Rachel's "taking the P" comment! Well, I love Rachel full-stop
Great win Charlie, looking forward to the grudge-match

Was PANPIPE valid?

Matthew Green wrote:Was PANPIPE valid?

I wondered this so I looked it up. Only pan pipes is in, and as two words, so I'm guessing not.

Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?

Hmm. I can't find it either...

A different solution to 469 out of 100 9 8 7 6 3

((8x6 - 7) x 9) + 100

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?

Hmm. I can't find it either...

It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??

Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, I guess they edited that out. HARD-WIRED is in (but hyphenated); nothing else similar.

Just FTR, HARD-WIRE (vb.) is also listed.

Today's highlight for me was Susie saying, smilingly, to Charlie
that "sexily" was a lovely (or was it "nice"?) word.

Mike Brown wrote:It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??

I believe they have an electronic wordlist that they use to check if the conundrums are unique etc. Someone (in case they get sued) passed me a copy of this list and it's very dodgy, it seems to be based on SOED or something. I guess they normally cross-check them manually but this time forgot. So it looks like I lost on a conundrum that isn't even valid

Mike Brown wrote:It was listed as an alternative spelling in ODE2, but taken out when ODE2r was published - presumably the reason it's still erroneously in CountMax etc. Does this mean the conundrums were checked against Countmax for validity??

It's just as well that the conundrum wasn't crucial isn't it.
However, against me, it certainly was crucial, and with that conundrum Peter beat me by 2. So I now claim victory over Peter. Having already built up a good lead over Peter, I threw most of it away by cocking up a couple of rounds, discarding LOOSES, thinking it too risky, and going for a mis-spelt SOILY rather than LOOSE. And then inexplicably going for BUDGIER instead of BUDGIES.

BTW, you could have comfortably got 470, only 1 away, in the first numbers round, Charlie. Having decided to start with 100x(8-3), and thus being 31 off your target, you could have subtracted 6 from the 100 to make it 94x5.

Really looking forward to the repeat of the S59 final on Friday. I'm glad it's being shown before COLIN.

Charlie Reams wrote:So it looks like I lost on a conundrum that isn't even valid

Lost being a relative term...

Junaid Mubeen wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Junaid Mubeen wrote:Spot of the day was SIDEBURN by Jeff, really wowed the audience. I missed it then and more remarkably missed it again today
Well played Charlie. Grudge match, indeed.

I made that post earlier, but for some reason thought he'd said SIDEBURNS... remembered Charlie had chosen BUDGIES (with a G) and then panicked and thought I'd imagined the whole thing so deleted my post!
Thanks for clearing it up - was definitely impressive, mostly because DC had missed it too - but is this for real, or just playing up to the cameras?

I can assure you it was genuine...he made quite a few offerings through the whole championship (BEDTIME in my game). Not hugely surprising as he is a long time viewer of the show and does seem quite sharp.

Er, don't forget Jeff has an earpiece. Des O C definitely used to get words piped down to him from above so why not Jeff?

It didn't seem to me like he was lying. He looked too proud of it. Also most things that go through Jeff's earpiece also go through Susie's, and she looked genuinely surprised by SIDEBURN, so I think he probably did get it. It could all be a ruse, of course.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?

Hmm. I can't find it either...

It's not in CorbyDic, which suggests it's not in, hidden or otherwise.... SCANDAL !

Charlie Reams wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: Also, as for the conundrum, that was spot of the game for me. I (sadly) clapped out loud at home. I'd never heard of the word and was such an awesome spot. However, upon checking in the dictionary, I couldn't find it! It's only listed as FETTUCCINE. However, it's listed in Countmax so I assume it's one of those that's hidden quite well into the dictionary. Can anyone find it?

Hmm. I can't find it either...

Collins (& Chambers) list it as an alternative, so it's OK in Scrabble.

Another solution for 469 from 100, 7, 8, 9, 3, 6:
(6X9)+100=154 X3=462 +7=469
Penny

FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).

John Douglas wrote:FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).

Except that:
1) The dictionary lists irregular plurals explicitly, so the plural of FETTUCINE would be FETTUCINES unless it says otherwise.
2) FETTUCINE isn't in the dictionary anyway.

If you mean "should" as in an addition to some future edition, I agree.

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but they showed the conundrum answer for a ridiculously short time. I don't know if they always do that but I hadn't noticed it before,

John Douglas wrote:FETTUCINI "should" (in my view only) be allowed because it is the plural of FETTUCINE, and we always eat more than one strand of any type of pasta - hence MACCHERONI (sing. MACCHERONE), SPAGHETTI (sing. Lo SPAGHETTO).

FETTUCCINE is in fact the plural of FETTUCCINA. Not sure where the alternative FETTUCINI comes from - presumably some kind of corrupted version, but I'm not an expert in Italian. Do we have any on the forum?