Comments on: Independent 7,092/Nimrod http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/ Never knowingly undersolved. Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:05:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Chunter http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90086 Chunter Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:31 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90086 ‘X’ certainly isn’t used to indicate a rook: it denotes a capture (for example Rxf6).

]]> By: IanN14 http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90082 IanN14 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:53:41 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90082 But the game played with rooks, kings and queens isn’t chequers. It’s chess.
And how do you account for “similarly”?

No, I’m still with Testy…

]]> By: John McDonald http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90075 John McDonald Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:44:30 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90075 Re. 23 across

I think the parsing is as follows:
Queen = ER which accepts X (chess indicator of King’s rook rather than the one on the queen side) and cheque being “most of this game”.

John M.

]]> By: jetdoc http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90019 jetdoc Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:11:36 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90019 To clarify 1a — ‘not on one’ is the definition, i.e. an offside fielder, who is not on the on side; ‘tod’ is the wordplay. It could be argued that, backward of square, what isn’t the off side is the leg side rather than the on side; but that is taking cricket pedantry a touch too far, perhaps.

I loved this clue, but the chess-related ones were lost on me. As doubtless this cricket talk is on many other people.

]]> By: IanN14 http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90013 IanN14 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:55:13 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90013 The trafites,
Please see the last line of comment 2.

However, I now think that Testy’s reasoning is more likely…

]]> By: The trafites http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90012 The trafites Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:34:47 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90012 EXCHEQUER.

I think this works like this.

[R]EX (rook taken), by queen = ER collecting (i.e. having) most of CHEQUers.

CHEQU in EX + ER

]]> By: Paul B http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90011 Paul B Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:34:29 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90011 Chunter – Mick H I think refers to ‘fabric with a pattern of squares or crossed lines’, positing a CD (using the double meaning?) as the mechanism for the clue. ‘Discovered check’ doesn’t necessarily lead to a cost in terms of chess materials, if I understand the definitions correctly, but I’m not au fait.

]]> By: Testy http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90010 Testy Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:31:35 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90010 How about:
King’s rook’s taken = (r)EX
by queen = + QU
similarly = another queen ER
collecting most of this game = containing CHE(ss)

]]> By: Chunter http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90009 Chunter Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:30:21 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90009 Yes – thanks.

]]> By: Mick H http://www.fifteensquared.net/2009/07/09/independent-7092nimrod/#comment-90008 Mick H Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:16:09 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=9244#comment-90008 It’s a homonym indicator – Chekhov sounds like ‘check off’ on the radio.

]]>