c4countdown

I think it's time to move away from that potential banana skin of a dress and carry on hoping for good things from our Apteforumite Craig Chittenden, who if he wins today's game will not only be halfway to achieveing octochamp status, but will also overtake or possibly outsteer Jay on the leaderboard.

Although in fairness, Jay has been the only one of Craig's 3 opponents so far to give him a reasonable go at the champion's crown, but hopefully a contender will emerge to give Craig a run for his money today.

See you for the recap later, the first person to see it, wins a free banana split.

Sorry Craig, not rooting for you today.

Matt Morrison wrote:Sorry Craig, not rooting for you today.

Ditto!

Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.

Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.

Likewise. Didn't think 803 was doable with those numbers. Very well done.

Matt Morrison wrote:Fucking awesome 1st numbers Craig, I only got 802. Brilliant.

Ditto again!
Edit: Except that I only got 801!

Is Craig series winner material?

SPOOLED and PEDALOS for nicer alternatives.

Go Craig.

Ian Dent wrote:Is Craig series winner material?

I think he only started playng on Apterous after recording this. If that's true, ,and given his steady improvement since joining, he should be pretty formidable by the time the series finals come around. (assuming he qualifies, of course).

DOUBLET for another 7 in Round 5

I've been away for ages, but wow yes. The best I've ever seen on the numbers. Has he actually dropped any points on the numbers yet? I can't think of any. I remember Mike Pullin from Series 47 being unbelievable on the numbers, this guy is better.

VAPOURY is good for 7

Martin Gardner wrote:I've been away for ages, but wow yes. The best I've ever seen on the numbers. Has he actually dropped any points on the numbers yet? I can't think of any. I remember Mike Pullin from Series 47 being unbelievable on the numbers, this guy is better.

He missed a (relatively) easy numbers game with 6 small in yesterday's show, apart from that I can't remember any other time, his numbers is brilliant. He was sat next to me in my audition for when I got on the show and I remember him just saying that "I like numbers" and I think his Gran used to set him really long sums to do when he was small so this could be why he is class at his artihmetic. Also I do believe he is capable of winning a series, given that he has a lengthy period of time on Apterous before the finals record (also assuming he is in the finals) and is very eager to learn and practise.

Argh crucial. I hope SINUSES isnt costly

Great contest and well played Craig, unlucky Catherine

vgg

R14

(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962

Awesome game...well played Craig and awesome first numbers, I had 802 like a lot of folk.

The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.

Back to business: DC beaters in round 8 with COITION and round 11 with VAPOURY. Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.

Malcolm James wrote:R14

(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962

Again, I'll assume this was out of time?

Kirk Bevins wrote: The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.

I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1

Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.

Craig is better than Rex: http://www.apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=187464

Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.

DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote: The contestant today was so hot, but I missed the intro. Was she married? How old was she? Not that I'm stalking or anything but what a shame to see another hottie lose.

Not that I'm stalking or anything either* but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1

*OK so I am a pervert

Looking at that, she'd have been at Leeds Uni at the same time as me, the first time I was there, I mean.

D Eadie wrote:
DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word.

An excellent point. Thought you may have come across it on apterous or something.

Kirk Bevins wrote:An excellent point. Thought you may have come across it on apterous or something.

I don't play on apterous anymore.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Not that I'm stalking or anything either but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1

That's dedication Ryan. How many of the 861 Catherine Jacksons did you have to go through?

D Eadie wrote: I don't play on apterous anymore.

Haha - OK, when you used to play it then.

Just did a Julie T and watched this on catch up.

Great game, the challenger is easily the second fittest contestant of the series so far and I think will hold that title for a long time to come. Really starting to like Craig, liked his 'that's not fair' comment when he realised sinuses was valid!

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:Not that I'm stalking or anything either but I found her on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/pro ... 9119457..1

That's dedication Ryan. How many of the 861 Catherine Jacksons did you have to go through?

Ha! I refined the search with the location 'New Zealand' which cut it down to 3 people.

D Eadie wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.

DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?

DC can check their words in the dictionary so what's confidence got to do with it? I considered VAPOURY but when no-one mentioned it I assumed it wasn't there.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Malcolm James wrote:R14

(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962

Again, I'll assume this was out of time?

I got it in the time but a different way. (50+4)*3*(7-1)-10. I also got the first one the same way as Craig (except I did the multiplication in a different order) to complete my world domination.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Kirk Bevins wrote:
Malcolm James wrote:
R14

(50 + ((7 - 1) x 4)) x (10 + 3) = 962


Again, I'll assume this was out of time?

How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.

Blumming heck, Craig! That was a game and a half! The longer that conundrum went on, the more I thought that you weren't going to get it

Fantastic performance again, brill 1st numbers, like many on here, I only got 802, but I have a nice 2nd numbers alternative:

(7 x 4 x 10) + (5 - (75 / 25)) = 282

It almost looked like you had a lot of nerves today, I hope it's not another sign of Rawsonitis, the crucial 4th show, followed by a defeat in the 5th....

Good luck tomorrow.

Also BOULTED in round 6, but I found it odd that TRIONIC wasn't allowed in round 8

James Robinson wrote:The longer that conundrum went on, the more I though that you weren't going to get it

n/t

Kirk Bevins wrote:Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.

Me & Jon Coles declared MOTLIER and MOTTLIER respectively in one round.

Awesome show today. Gorgeous challenger, all the presenters were on great form, and a cracking game too. Loved it.

I was in the audience for that one. Catherine was indeed an excellent contestant, good humoured, lovely personality, she was great. Shame she was up against Craig, I'm sure she would have beaten a slightly weaker contestant in No 1 chair. Agreed, Jon, a cracking game.

Malcolm James wrote: How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.

Sorry Malcolm. The only reason why I assumed it wasn't was because it involved doing 13x74 which, for a 1 large game, was a most bizarre way of attempting it. Anyway if you did, fair play, a superb solution.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

D Eadie wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Vapoury - Surprised DC didn't pick up on this potential winner after the contestants mentioned VAPOUR.

DC are unlikely to pick up on something unless they know the word. VAPOUR isn't the sort of word you'd readily stick -Y onto with complete confidence of it being allowed, is it, Kirky ?

DC can check their words in the dictionary so what's confidence got to do with it? I considered VAPOURY but when no-one mentioned it I assumed it wasn't there.

Delighted you considered vapoury, maybe one day you'll consider disappeary, hari-kari, or get-a-lifey.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Malcolm James wrote: How dare you insult me like that! It was within the time.

Sorry Malcolm. The only reason why I assumed it wasn't was because it involved doing 13x74 which, for a 1 large game, was a most bizarre way of attempting it. Anyway if you did, fair play, a superb solution.

I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"

Jon Corby wrote: I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"

I meant for *that* 1 large game not any 1 large game. That one large game involved a 50 and so a 13 or 74 factorisation is very strange.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote: I assume you mean "for a 1 large game without the 75 (or 25)?"

I meant for *that* 1 large game not any 1 large game. That one large game involved a 50 and so a 13 or 74 factorisation is very strange.

Yeah, same point really.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Just to add to Craig, MOTLIER is fine, but not MOTTLIER. Odd that Susie didn't clear that up.

You get that sometimes. When someone offered DIABLO instead of DIABOLO, Susie seemed to assume he'd misspelt the game, rather than thought the Spanish word for devil had made our dictionary.