[I am posting this blog on behalf of Oyler, the setter of t20.]
Wedlock + Witrush = Duckworth-Lewis
When Chris was appointed editor of EV, I, along with many others, emailed him offering congratulations on his appointment. However I am pretty sure that I was the only one who added – ‘any thoughts about a numerical in EV?’. Chris replied that he was indeed thinking about it but there were various things to be taken into account and on balance things would probably rule against it. Well the fact that he was thinking about it and that there was some hope was good enough for me!
Last summer I retired (early) from my post as a maths teacher at Madras and was writing an article, which I’d been putting off writing for years, for the Mathematical Gazette on how I go about setting my puzzles. It was whilst I was writing the article that it dawned on me that I’d never set an old-fashioned story type puzzle akin to the famous ‘Little Pigley Farm’ which has appeared in numerous books, magazines and even The Listener (No 988) which was attributed to Surveyor. I decided to rectify the situation and as it was an Ashes summer and I’m a cricket fan I decided to use this as the theme. In the book ‘Fun With Figures’ by Clarke there is a crossnumber puzzle with a cricket theme based on the innings of a team.
I swithered about using the 1st test at Trent Bridge as the basis for the puzzle but rejected that on the grounds that solvers would probably expect accuracy and may well look through the scorecard looking for help. In addition a clue such as ‘The number of seconds it took Broad to decide not to walk’ would have resulted in a single digit entry or even worse a number less than 1. I ditched the idea of it being an ODI as well and went for the shortest form of the game, a t20. I abandoned all thoughts of international and county teams as that may have shown some bias on my part and went for two fictitious villages.
What to call them? One of the things that really annoy me about t20 and ODIs is the Duckworth Lewis method so I looked for anagrams of this using a web program and decided that Wedlock and Witrush would fit the bill perfectly. I did this to see if solvers would notice this as they have a habit of spotting things in my puzzles that are just a coincidence and miss the bits that I’ve deliberately put in!!
What size and type of grid was next? Puzzles of this type tend to have blocked rather than barred grids so I went with convention. Crossnumber puzzles have smaller grids than their word counterparts in that the average entry length in a numerical is about 4 whereas it is much higher in a crossword. An 8×8 looked good.
So how to get started? Well times in the 24 hour clock have to have 4 digits and some could therefore be dates which could cause some confusion – imagine a friend says that they’ll meet you 2015, well that could be 8.15pm or next year! As t20 matches tend to be played in the evening, starting about tea time, I looked at dates that started 18** and recalled the dates for the battles at Waterloo and Trafalgar which shared the same first, second and last digits and that would allow solvers to input three cells straight away provided that those dates were suitable candidates. To find this out I required their prime factorisations and was delighted to find that they were indeed ideal – 1805 = 5 × 192 and 1815 = 3 × 5 × 112 since both had a two digit prime factor that started with the same digit as this would be used in the clues. It would have been no use if I’d chosen, say, 1825 = 52 × 73 and 1835 = 5 × 367 as it might give the game away too quickly.
That 4-digit entry was placed in the top right hand corner and blocked off accordingly – one to the left of the first digit and another below the third digit to make it unchecked so that solvers would find out only later on in the puzzle which it was. Now, of course, if that block hadn’t been placed there then it would have to be 1815 as no entry starts with zero so by having that cell blocked out adds to the mystery. The corresponding symmetrically positioned cells were blocked out next and I just kept going making sure that there were some unchecked cells in the grid.
With that done I could turn my attention to fitting in numbers and writing clues. I had my lists of squares, primes, triangular etc numbers to hand and I wasn’t worried about fitting numbers into the grid as that is something I’ve had plenty of practise in doing. What I found most difficult was coming up with the context that each number represented. This slowed the setting process somewhat so I took a step back and started to write down various things that happen in a cricket match.
I had set a nice way in that allowed solvers to put in three digits [a lot of solvers tend to give up if they haven’t got an entry or at least some cells entered after half an hour], however I wanted another point somewhere else in the grid that would allow definite entries to be placed. I looked at my number lists and given that there are only five 3-digit Fibonacci numbers decided to investigate their placement in the grid. The 25ac/20dn cross check provided two pairs 144/610 and 377/233 and so to eliminate one of them I made 13dn a prime number so it couldn’t end in 4.
That done I turned my attention to the remaining 4-digit entries and decided to use the 24 hour clock again for some of them and have the time that the first innings finished and the second one started as a couple of the entries.
At this stage I had made no decision as to which of the two starting times would be used or the final scores for that matter. These would be linked together in some way at the end and I decided to have scores 11*. I continued setting until most of the grid was filled bar the top left and bottom right and these were perfect for the scores and by use of the extras resulted in a unique solution with the starting time being resolved at the end.
I did a cold solve and having done that wondered about whether I should send it in for publication somewhere. Since it was a puzzle I’d set to see if I could create a puzzle of this style I decided on The Magpie and sent it off with a request that they put it on the public part of their website in that with the Ashes fever it may attract new subscribers.
I waited and waited and it didn’t appear. During this wait time I looked at the puzzle again and reckoned that it might fit the bill for an EV puzzle so I sent Chris a copy.
The reason I felt that it would be ideal for EV was that it wasn’t a letter/number assignment coding type puzzle where the letters A to Z, say, represent the number 1 to 26 in some order and the clues are algebraic expressions that can make words related to theme as those type of puzzles tend to have solvers firing up spreadsheets and the like. This puzzle used number definition type of clues put into a context and is a much easier and relaxed solve in that I was aware that a numerical puzzle would come as a shock to those used to solving crosswords in the comfort of their favourite armchair and this puzzle, I reckoned, could be solved in that manner. Not that much calculation was required but solvers would have to set aside a block of time to tackle the puzzle during which they can’t be disturbed. By that I mean that numerical puzzles use sustained logical reasoning – there is a path through the puzzle – and if you are disturbed then your train of thought is broken. This is different from a crossword puzzle where you can pick it up, solve a few clues, put it down, go away and do something else and return later and continue quite happily in that the clues are effectively discrete entities. This is not the case in a numerical puzzle where solving one clue may give you information about non-crossing entries as well as crossing entries.
Chris liked the puzzle so I withdrew it from The Magpie. It turned out that Mark had been rushed off his feet at work and had only just solved it and had passed it on to AJ for the magazine. Mark was, as always, very gracious in letting the puzzle slip from the Magpie’s beak perhaps knowing that on previous occasions when I’ve done this they had either got the puzzle back or I felt so guilty that I set another one of the same style for them!!
To my knowledge, since I started setting in 1993, there have only been 3 puzzles of this style published. Two were set by Polymath and appeared in the Listener series. The first was A Harrowing Time (a puzzle with a farming theme) Listener 3477 in 1998 and had 1078 correct entries and the second was Pyramid (a puzzle about the Egyptians and their skills) in 2001 Listener 3632 and got 889 correct responses. The third puzzle was Aunt Augusta’s Will by Tangent and that appeared in issue 27 of Tough Crosswords in November 2001 as well as cropping up in his book Cryptic Crossnumber Puzzles by John Enock published by Tarquin in 2007. If you know of any others then I’d be most interested.
Finally, the puzzle is a complete work of fiction apart from Tango, our three legged cat, who made his appearance at 22dn.
Well thanks Oyler for the puzzle. We’ll see if it’s the last Numerical in the EV soon enough. I hope it isn’t.
I must disagree. While I admire the skill and techniques clearly involved in setting numerical puzzles, I certainly do hope it’s the last in EV. No offence intended to Oyler at all, but if I want logic puzzles there are plenty of monthly publications to cater for that. EV is a crossword not a crossnumber.
To each their own. What I think an infrequent but regular number EV could do is to bring just another bit of variety to the series, and (although I’ve said this before) perhaps a whole new set of solvers. 1 such puzzle a year isn’t too disruptive, I’d have thought, and so ought to be worth it.
” EV is a crossword not a crossnumber “. t20 is much closer to a crossword than the majority of mathematical style puzzles that are published in The Listener and The Magpie. As the setter of the offending item I can easily fit t20 into the definition of a crossword.
1. It had a grid. Check
2. It had clues which were words strung together to make statements, sentences. Check
3. The clues had answers which were words. Check. If you had to write me a cheque for £2500 then you would have to write the amount out in words!
4. The answers had to be modified before entry to the grid just as in some crossword puzzles, in this case a fairly obvious code.
QED
Finally I can’t help wondering how solvers would feel if they had answers such as before, asinine or forehead and had to enter be4, asi9 or 4head.
I am still puzzled by why the maximum partnership was 51 unless there is some particular condition in t20 rules – could have been 91 for example. My cricket consultant equally baffled.
Moll. It has to do with 17ac which is a multiple of 9dn and 16dn. My email is oyler57@gmail.com if you want the full solution.
There’s no rules restriction on the highest possible partnership, although it’s limited theoretically to 720 + extras (if both partners smash sixes off every ball). It was 51 here because it looks like the two sides aren’t blessed with the talents of the world’s top T20 batsmen…
9dn is a factor of 15ac. 9dn is 17 and is not a factor of 91 which is 7 x 13.
Re #4. This was not an “offending item” just something that’s not my cup of tea and an opinion to which I’m entitled. No use ranting about it.
And I though crossword clues had a definition and wordplay – or am I mistaken?
It is nice to see that you’ve not capitalised the last 4 letters of the word crossword as you did in a post on the solution blog! I wrote #4 in response to that as I, too, can be pedantic! However have no fear, t20 will more than likely be the only numerical to appear in ev so your normal puzzle diet will continue without the ‘breath of fresh air’.
I have no intention of pursuing this rather childish spat beyond this submission. It is, however, your opinion that this was a “breath of fresh air” – not mine. Also, I am not pedantic, just stating my opinions which clearly don’t agree with yours.
If you read (properly) my first comment, you will notice that I did praise the skill involved in setting t20 and I still do. My criticism was where it was published, not the puzzle itself.
Just accept that not everyone agrees with you and get used to it. I also fail to understand why anyone should get so upset about capital letters attempting to differentiate between a WORD and a NUMBER.
You, no doubt will have the last word on this …
Re this discussion, I’d say “live and let live”. I think it is only fair to point out that for many decades the Listener series has included a numerical puzzle four times a year. There are more entries for these than for the crossword (on average). Also the monthly subscription magazine, Magpie, which has four or five crosswords, similar in difficulty to, say, EV, Listener, includes a numerical puzzle each month. Many people, including myself, enjoy solving both types of puzzle.
The problem is that the language from your posts seems to speak as if the presence of such puzzles as T20 in the EV series is a threat. That’s very aggressive language, and you shouldn’t be surprised if the setter then comes back with his own reply.
How many crosswords in the EV series have there been which rely on “thematic entries clued without definition” — so you are mistaken. There was one such clue today, indeed. Thematic puzzle series rely greatly on new ideas being tried out, or at least on a very wide variety of such puzzles. Sticking rigidly to rules at the basic level of how a clue should be formatted is surely against the very spirit of these puzzles. Obviously we have the Ximenean structure but on the face of it this is best stated as “clues should be solvable and adhere to English grammar”, rather than what the answers are.
If this is to be the last fully number-based EV then I’d think it a shame. And I’m as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours. But that shouldn’t mean that there can be no discussion, and no criticism of each other’s views, which in your own posts you seem not to agree with because you are being very defensive of your position.
Come on Jaguar, since when did “not my cup of tea” become “very aggressive language”? And no one has denied you are entitled to your opinion – just as I am. The fact that I don’t agree with you is not me being “defensive”, just as you not agreeing with me is you being “defensive”.
darter: The quote ‘breath of fresh air’ is not mine but a comment from another solver. If you had left your comment as ‘not my cup of tea’ that would have been fine. It was the fact that you felt the need to point out in no uncertain terms that it was ‘not a crossWORD’ by capitalising the last four letters to add emphASIS which irked me somewhat. I do know the difference – honest!
However I would ask you to think about this. Imagine a world in which the crossnumber puzzle is the norm – not very likely I admit but bear with me – and you are a setter of crossword puzzles which only have 16 puzzles a year in two outlets. You manage to get one of your puzzles published in a series which up till then had not published a crossword. The majority of the feedback you get is ‘not impressed – it was not a crossNUMBER’. How would you feel?
Finally I would be interested to know whether or not you tried the puzzle.
Oyler
It would appear that I’ve inadvertently used a crossword clueing device on my first name in the last post!! Oops!
Re #15 & #16 : Oyler, I understand that your opportunities for publication must be limited and rather frustrating for you. As you will have gathered (!!) I am not a fan of numerical puzzles (from any setter) but that’s not to say I don’t appreciate the skill and cleverness that goes into compiling them.
My capitalisation of WORD was, in some respects, due to the limitations of this forum – if italics had been readily available, (if they are I don’t know how), I might well have used them. I was trying to emphasise the difference between WORD and NUMBER in an obvious way. It was not intended to upset, cause offence or the uproar which it clearly has. As it happens, I did attempt t20 and “nearly” completed it – but not quite!
I’ve been doing EV since its inception over 20 years ago (indeed, I don’t think I’ve missed a single one) and I would not want it to go down the numerical route simply because it would remove my traditional “Sunday fare”. Selfish? Possibly, but probably not a unique opinion – different from yours, certainly, but there is no real “right” or “wrong” opinion on this. At the end of the day, the EV editor will decide whether or not to include numericals in the future depending on the feedback on t20 he has had from all solvers.
#17. At least you had a go at it which is to your great credit. Many others did not even give it that much, so thank you for that and I’m sorry that it didn’t ‘float your boat’ so to speak. You won’t be doing the Listener this Saturday then!!!
So sad about the response. I find the numericals far more difficult than the verbal ones but was encouraged to attempt t20 and found that it had an element of humour and enjoyment that doesn’t appear for us in the Listener or Magpie ones (especially not the current Listener which has been highly praised but took us a full day). Thanks, Oyler.