Apologies epm, I was having a bit of a brain-fart there
Which is why I would simply use a calculator Maybe a big comedy one which Joe could operate using his head

It usually comes out as 640...

(The difference of +2, multiplied by 8, must give a difference of 16 in the result.)

Any results can be verified by machine very simply. (I actually created a program, many years ago, that could solve the numbers game. It worked, but it was very dull to use after a couple of goes. More interesting to try and do it properly.)

I was surprised when I learned it was sometimes impossible. I'd assumed they had a computer verify there was a solution before displaying the target.

I was also surprised when, in a recent episode, the camera caught Rachel during the countdown. They give her a clipboard to help her figure it out. We never usually see the clipboard, which gives the impression she's doing it in her head.

Remember Countdown started in 1983 and was a program produced by Yorkshire Television which wasn't accepted as a network program for ITV. I think any kind of computer like that in the early 1980s would have costed more than the program's entire budget.

When Carol Vorderman was the numbers person there were occasions where she didn't get it and then they went back to her after the break when she had worked it out. I don't know if that still happens with Rachel ever and if it does whether they show that Rachel needed extra time or whether they edit it to look like she got it within or soon after the 30 seconds.

We had home computers in the early eighties that could do that, but probably not fast enough to detect, between pressing the button and the target being shown, whether the latter was achievable. (It would also need someone in the control room feeding it the number selections.)

Certainly not with the brute-force method I used to find solutions. Maybe a mainframe could have done it (it's not necessary to buy outright, just have a link to one), but it would have been a big complication and not in the spirit of the game.


It happens all the time. The recording is done almost in real time (a few delays while props are moved around); the commercial breaks are actually shorter in the studio than on TV.

Carol or Rachel have a slightly different task compared to the contestants: they are striving to get an exact answer, and not just the nearest to the target, so they can use different approaches. They have a bit longer than 30 seconds too (while Nick asks each contestant what they have, Rachel can still be working on it). They still have to be pretty good though.

Not sure if it's different for Countdown or 8 out of 10 does Countdown but for the latter they have 2 breaks where they all remain in their seats and the makeup girl comes around to top up their makeup but at the second break they can leave the studio for 5 minutes


Someone would obviously have needed to write a program to do that and the result would have been on a little monitor saying things like 75*4 which would need some kind of translation for most people

'Home' computers costed £1800 in 1982 while the average salary was £9000 so virtually no homes had one.

The original ZX Spectrum, released in April 1982 cost £125, later reduced to £99.

I wasn't much into computers in '82 but I know our school at the time had about a dozen BBC micros - according to Wiki they cost about £400 (equivalent to £1200 in 2011 prices. So I'm sure Yorkshire telly could've coughed up for one if they'd wanted to.
I think £1800 would be more the price of an IBM desktop computer which would've been almost entirely for business use.

The BBC Micros for school were a subsided scheme for education and I imagine the quoted price would be tax exempt

I got the price of a 'typical' IBM Micro in 1982 off this site: http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5150.html which states $3,000 with the option for a simple basic one for $1,565

(Deleted)

I don't know if you watch regular countdown but they show Rachel with the clipboard at least once every episode.

On what planet is Joe Wilkinson funny?
If the prog comes back C4 please leave him out.

I love this show. It doesn't get any better imho.

Apparently just acting an imbecile makes you funny.

Joe was very unfunny. They'd do well to get rid.

Last night's episode showed how comedy panel shows live and die by the guests they book because it was certainly one of the poorest episodes in a while.

Joe Wilkinson really does add nothing to the show at all.

I just watched last nights show on 4OD, I certainly concur with the above comment, a poor show for the final episode of the series.

I also echo the sentiments regarding Joe Wilkinson, since when has dressing up in obscure costumes ever been funny...
I suppose it worked for Little Britain, so if you found that funny Joe Wilkinson will have you in stitches.
Last edited by tony-w : 19-07-2014 at 07:33

Agree i started watching this last series & i like jimmy & jon so i watched.
Like 8 out of 10 cats & like this show itself
However joe is pointless , unfunny & adds nothing to the show.

He ruins it for me & was the reason i stopped watching when this series started.
I only watched last weeks ep for josh & this weeks for Richard.
Shame because Joe aside it's good - i fast forward through his bits.
Loved the dog in last nights ep very cute bless

I did find Joe's tragic side effects due to dodgy Drug Trials rather funny.

Hope they wear off for next weeks show.

Perhaps I should take drugs to in order to find Rachel attractive, she's nowt speshul.

There's no show next week - last night's was the last in the series.

I personally think Rachel is stunning, but each to their own

I wonder if it's a good time to maybe go back to the original panel format and leave Countdown alone for a while ?

I enjoyed the episode! Especially the dog!!

One of the weakest editions last night I thought
Wasn't really much to laugh at for me

It was the last in the series but there are some specials that have been recorded that haven't aired yet. Next Friday Alan Carr's on Ch4 at 9pm.

I think I noticed something for the first time the other night.

In the numbers round the target was impossible and so the closest gets the 7 points.

You get 10 points for hitting the target, but if the target is impossible then there's no chance of getting 10 points.

Bit of a bummer if you need those extra three points to have any chance of winning the game.

You just noticed that after 30 years? It's always been that way on Countdown.