Guardian 28,129 / Pasquale

103 comments on “Guardian 28,129 / Pasquale”

1. There was a lot of excitement and suspense as I struggled to fill in a few clues, wondering what the numbers were all about. I finally cracked the code when 3 gave me the LI in LIDO, and at that point I got a periodic table and translated the remaining numbers, chemistry not being among my strengths. In retrospect I wish I hadn’t, because the rest of the clues then surrendered without putting up much of a fight. A bit of a letdown, but I can only blame myself for being too quick to turn to outside help. Anyway, it was a nice bit of creativity from the Don, whom I usually enjoy, and I did like PROCURE, GLASSBLOWER, PULLET, and SNOWBALL. Didn’t know MORGANATIC, INRO, or ESURIENT, but all fairly clued. Thanks to Pasquale and mhl.

2. I realize it might not be everybody’s cup of tea, but I just love this kind of thing – although I’m a bit embarrassed to say I was 3/4 of the way through before I made the connection. I had noticed the tendency of single letter substitutions to be associated with lower numbers, which should have given the game away earlier. At first, before I had any of the 2-letter substitutions, I thought the numbers might stand for the offset of the required letter in the instruction sentence – now that would be some circularity!

   The biggest challenge for me was TRIPODAL since I was for a while determined to work “tripos” into it (tripod, examination, sure bet, right?) so that those three years would pay off again, but it was not to be.

   I have to give Pasquale extra credit for calibrating the difficulty of the clues so that enough of them were gettable after some consideration to get a foothold without having yet spotted the theme, but none were “easy”.

3. Thanks to Pasquale and mhl. I was ready to give up on this one, but after a few days I decided that 8 down had to be EDDY, so I googled DY and 66 and got the atomic number of dysprosium. After that the other clues all made sense. I had trouble with the 2 Rs in PARRAKEET and INRO but I did remember ESURIENT.

4. A quick scan of the terrain threw up R(AG)DOLLS. Knowing I’d be a mug to go bush without a map I turned to the periodic table, and motored serenely along the beaten track.  To those with knowledge who made it through rough country on their own, bravo.

5. Like DaveinCarolina, my initial way in was through LIDO, my FOI, though I had three others by then as well, plus a wrong fourth (14d might be STARVING, with 92=AR? But I could not make ‘free entries’ = STING). So, how is LI = 3? The hard bit for me was uncapitalising the “I” to give Li, then it was obvious. So I made a list of all the atomic numbers mentioned and their elements’ symbols and the rest followed pretty easily. Great fun, though. CHAIN SMOKER perhaps my favorite, for the definition. Thanks, Pasquale – and mhl for the blog, though I had them all parsed anyway.

6. I found this one of the easier Guardian Saturday solves.  It’s a long time since I did A-level chemistry, but something clicked after two or three clues and found a list of atomic numbers and that was that.  It all fell into place quickly after that.

7. Thanks mhl. It took far too long for the penny to drop and by then I was nearly finished while still staring at a seemingly meaningless jumble of letters and numbers. The answers were not too difficult but I thought the construction was ingenious. It must have taken Pasquale much longer than usual to set. I thoroughly enjoyed it – in retrospect!

8. Well I was a bit disappointed. I spotted the periodic table thing almost right away (I mean, what else could it be?) but being no scientist at all, I acquired a copy of it, after which nearly all the clues were pretty much fill-ins. Having said that, even though I finished it, I still couldn’t parse 1,7 or 9 so thanks mhl – I don’t think I’d ever have got 9. And thanks Pasquale – deep respect to anyone who can fit “morganatic” into a crossword! Which, incidentally, like 14, was new to me.

9. I thought this was a superb puzzle, but it paid not to use reference materials.  I don’t have the Periodic Table memorised beyond about 35 but what I loved was that a little knowledge of the table allowed you to use the puzzle to deduce some of the required heavier elements.  For example, I didn’t know element 85, but I did know that francium is an alkali metal, which meant 85 had to be a halogen and almost certainly astatine, At.  This helped distinguish PALATINE (which I didn’t know either) from (the admittedly less likely) PALAMINE or PALACINE.

   A puzzle right in my Goldilocks zone and one I thoroughly enjoyed.

   Thanks, Pasquale and mhl.  One slight parsing difference:  I saw EDDY as a verb with definition “to be in a whirl”.

10. Thanks Pasquale and mhl. I completed the puzzle last weekend without much ado although I had a quibble with the 2Rs in 2D. I’ve always thought the spelling was PARAKEET for the bird. Is there an alternative spelling unknown to me?

11. I solved this eventually but did not really enjoy it.  Surely no one could have known all the symbols so it was necessary for everyone to have a copy of the periodic table at ones side the whole time or else it was like having one hand tied behind ones back metaphorically.  All very clever and I appreciate the lengths Pasquale must have gone to to set such a puzzle but for me the requirement to look up something on at least 20 of the 26 clues took most of the fun out of the solve for me.  Still most of the reactions here seem to be positive so all I can say is thanks to Pasquale and mhl.

12. Michael @10, Collins does indeed give PARRAKEET as an alternate spelling. I didn’t know that either.

13. Like acd@3, I twigged when I got 8d EDDY, my FOI – prior to that I was totally bamboozled. When trusty Chambers told me what the abbreviation DY stood for, I also had the key to the puzzle and that helped unlock the rest. I was one who definitely needed the Periodic Table beside me for reference, but as it is over fifty years since I studied Chemistry, I thought that was fair enough. Favourite was the afore-mentioned GLASSBLOWER at 18a. Thanks for an intriguing puzzle, Pasquale, and to mhl for the blog (particularly for the parsing of 9a FRESCO, where “art” = the French “es” which confounded next yet again!).

14. I don’t usually complain about puzzles being too easy, but having seen the periodic table connection almost straight off, I couldn’t resist using it to fill up the grid with little challenge

15. I stared bemused for a long time at a piece of paper with a few uncertain guesses penciled in, without seeing what was going on. I had LIDO, but wasn’t convinced, and I’ve found in the past that I often can’t see the parsing of an answer I’m not sure of – it’s too easy to give up and assume it’s wrong. Finally, I got MORGANATIC, which had to be right, and felt, just as you did, mhl, that I should have seen it right away. I mean, me with a Physics degree. Of course, I didn’t actually remember the order of the periodic table, but tried to complete it without looking one up as an act of atonement. It took quite a while, that way, given I’d not heard of INRO or ESURIENT, and LARRUP, last in, was pretty unfamiliar. But all decently clued, and a fun challenge. I only saw how TRIPODAL worked after the event, when I checked on #84 – until then, like Dr WhatsOn, I was hung up on Tripos. So thanks to Pasquale, mhl, and everyone else who made me feel better by admitting to not spotting the theme straightaway.

16. Very fun puzzle to solve once I worked out what was going on!

    Could not parse the ES bit of FR/ES/CO – very clever!

    New word for me was INRO, as well as the alternative spelling of PARRAKEETS.

    Thank you Pasquale and mhl.

17. molonglo@4

    I love the way you wrote your comment:

    “Knowing I’d be a mug to go bush without a map I turned to the periodic table, and motored serenely along the beaten track.”

18. Some people clearly did “go bush without a map” and even hint that consulting a periodic table at all might be in some way cheating. I realised fairly quickly what the numbers must be, but not having had to learn the table by heart (or at all) at school I had to resort to laborious looking up, which did rather take some of the fun out of the job.

    ES for “French art” is one of those crossword cliches (like PI for “good” and OR for “men”) that pops up often enough to be worth remembering.

    Didn’t know INRO, or that you could legitimately spell PARRAKEET that way.

19. Couldn’t find my copy then realised it was because there wasn’t one, hadn’t done it! Oh well, print it out and give it a quick crack; just finished. Solved the whole thing without the faintest idea about the element trick. Once I saw there was no simple correspondence, just carried on, putting in missing bits as solutions required, tho had to cheat for 7d; alpha search for i_ro..nada. Hey ho. If I’d done it a week ago, might have pondered the numbers more. Not to fuss. Thanks P and M. Now for today’s Picaroon.

20. After some pen sucking for the first few clues, we were looking for a word probably meaning stretches and probably starting “ex…”. There wa then an unfinished synonym for “trial” leaving only Nd unaccounted for, at which point it clicked.

    Fun puzzle.

21. PS…and I did do a bit of undergrad Chem..in 1966 🙂

22. Can’t add to what Dave @1 said – my experience too.

23. I did eddy as a verb like phitonelly@9

24. Judging from previous comments it seems like this was a bit of a Marmite puzzle.  I loved it. Fortunately I’d decided to run through the clues from the bottom up, so LIDO was FOI which gave the game away immediately.  Had to “cheat” with a hardcopy of periodic table for reference since recalling atomic numbers from memory now beyond me and, like molonglo@4, I saw no reason to go bush.

25. Loved this, but then I do like marmite 🙂

    Like molonglo @4 the key for me was Ag in RAG DOLLS.

    I did try and ‘go bush’, but it meant I failed on 25a.  I guessed, more in hope than expectation, that GULLET might be a young gull, and that Gu might be an element as well as a branch of medicine!

    73 Pasquale & mhl

26. Even though RAG DOLLS and TOUCAN came quickly without realising what the numbers were, it took me too long to identify the theme. American states? No, there are more than 50. French departements? They cannot be easily translated to letters. (I did fail O Level chemistry.) Once the penny (whether Cu or Ag) dropped, it was fairly straight forward, but I did look the periodic table up of course.

    I also had to check that PARRAKEETS is a possible variant spelling.  With the more familiar one R, the word featured in Paul’s Guardian puzzle yesterday (15 May) – ‘a playboy in love’, so ‘rake’ is a component of it again.

    Useful to learn ESURIENT and INRO as new words. And thanks to mhl for explaining how ‘Parisian Art’ parses as ‘es’.

    I enjoyed it, so thanks Pasquale also.

27. Thanks, DaveinNCarolina @12, for the pointer on the alternative spelling for PARAKEET in the Collins Dictionary. Much appreciated.

28. I was pleased to see that there were special instructions – surely this was the sign of a good puzzle to come.  Alas, my expectations were soon to be dashed.  Perhaps I was just lucky that I guessed straightaway that they were atomic numbers.  A copy of the periodic table and a quick test with EMPLOY, FRESCO and CHAIN SMOKER confirmed it.

    And thereafter the puzzle was over all too quickly.  Some of the clues were ridiculously simple, specially for a prize puzzle.  Clues like EXTENDS, BACCARAT, EDDY, MORGANATIC, LIDO –  I would have considered easy even for a Quiptic.

    I did have one tick, for FRESCO, the only decent clue in the whole puzzle.

    A most disappointing way to end a week of wonderful puzzles.

    Nonetheless, thanks to Pasquale and to mhl.

29. Having read the rubric it took me the all the way to 16d to get in but then immediately twigged the rule and at first my heart sank. I didn’t know any of the elements by number and for me personally any use of reference materials counts as a fail

    [I remember as a youngster sitting
    opposite someone on a train who was doing the Times cryptic at speed with no more than a pen and being in awe of them. Ever since, that’s been the standard I aspire to]

    Additionally, looking up the elements and therefore knowing for certain part of the wordplay seemed like it would make things too easy. So with nothing much else to do for the day, I ploughed on

    It was tough but ok until the last two clues to fall (7d & 12d plus an unparsed 10a). Being Pasquale I expected some obscurities and that’s where I had to admit defeat. Incomplete fodder made 12 a bridge too far and similar to grantinfreo I couldn’t come up with a sensible guess at the last letter for I-RO!

    Thanks very much Pasquale, put me in the camp that really liked this. Dare I say it, it sounds like the solvers that didn’t ‘cheat’ had far the more enjoyable experience 😉

30. A nice puzzle, but rather easy once the numbers made sense. I found it a little frustrating to solve on the phone because of all the tab switching and scrolling needed to check the list. I never managed to remember them in order beyond Na.

    Thanks to Pasquale and mhl

31. I ,too, had to have a copy of the table at hand. I am never sure what counts as cheating. A dictionary must be ok? A thesaurus? Google? Wikipedia?

    Thanks to Pasquale for an ingenious puzzle and to mhl for the explanations.

32. Petert @31:  Everyone has their own boundaries, but like Nobby I started on the train in pre-mobile days, so pen and paper is my ‘comfort zone’.

    Beery @30:  Once you get to Na, NAM GAL SIPS CLAR has a nice ring to it.  At least it got me as far as argon!

33. A classic puzzle, in my view.  I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I had the additional pleasure of getting to the end without having worked out (until then) what the key was.  (In my defence, I will just say, truthfully, that I wasn’t looking for it.)  It was easy to work out because I knew oxygen (8), boron (5) and a dozen others, but, although I had O and B early on, nothing clicked when they first appeared.

    I agree with what has been said above about the sound clues, and I latched on particularly to what Dr. WharsOn @2 said about what I call the pitch of clues.  All setters should be generally aware of the pitch of their clues and indeed of the crossword as a whole.  I believe most of them are aware, but I suspect a few are not.  [I remember months ago bringing up this point about pitch – in a puzzle (elsewhere) that was pitched too high, of course – and the setter admitted that he is never really aware of the ‘pitch’ of his clues and puzzles and leaves it to the editor to make adjustments or instruct him to do so!]

    Thanks to Pasquale and mhl.

34. It always amuses me that people refer to cheating. I’m always happy to use whatever aids are at hand to finish a crossword because I am more interested in understanding the parsing than struggling forever with a recalcitrant clue. I saw the atomic numbers early on and did, indeed, use a copy of the periodic table, which made solving pretty straightforward, although nonetheless engaging. I even remembered the ‘French art’ from previous crosswords.

    It was a nice idea; thanks Pasquale and mhl.

35. Wasn’t expecting this to cone down to a discussion about cheating. If you’re happy to look up oblique words in Chambers (the alt-spelling of PARRAKEET foxed me) or check definitions on Google (ESURIANT was lingering at the back of my head but I didn’t really have a clue what it meant) then why not use a Periodic Table.

    Similar to Beery, the problem I had was that – once you cracked the code – all the challenge evaporated. I went drilling after the code straight away, solved EFFICACY first, and 20=Ca didn’t take long to deduce. After that, despite Pasquale’s immaculate cluing, it was all a little too undemanding.

36. It took me a while to catch on re the numbers and then it was reasonably plain sailing although I could not parse 9a Fresco. Thanks to mhl and Pasquale.

37. Another prize that I suspect was more of a challenge for the setter than the solver unless you were prepared in my case to treat the rubric as “Each clue has one or two random missing letters” which I wasn’t. Congratulations to those who were. Even Tom Lehrer would have struggled. I started by taking translation literally i.e. 8= huit, acht, otto but quickly realised that quatre-vingts neuf wasn’t going to fit. Then I tried 8=H, 85=HE, 18=AH or R, but again not for long before realising that the only translation could be from atomic numbers of which I thought I knew “1” but didn’t.

38. I don’t think it’s cheating to use a Periodic Table – I spent 40 years as a professional chemist and I had to.  Chemists in fact don’t keep atomic numbers in their heads, but tend more to know atomic weights.  Very enjoyable puzzle.

39. Another one here who had several answered before the penny dropped with RAG DOLLS. Needed the periodic table to help with a number of the clues but am not convinced that this equates to cheating. Agree a relatively straightforward solve.
    Thanks for the parsing of FRESCO, must remember my school girl French from last millennium. INRO also new to me as was the alternative spelling of PARRAKEETS. ESURIENT rang the vaguest of bells, what a great sounding word, thanks for the link to Monty Python sketch.
    Thanks to Pasquale for the fun and Mhl for the blog.

40. I don’t consider using outside sources as cheating especially when you are sure that the clue gives a word but you do not know the word so have to check it exists. However, there is nothing more satisfying then completing a crossword without aid. I decided not to use the periodic table and was able to complete all but 3 (pullet, inro, larrup) before caving in. Then discovered that trinodal was not correct. I’m sure I would not have enjoyed this puzzle if I had used the periodic table. Thanks to Pasquale and mhl.

41. There’s been a lot of talk about whether it’s cheating to look up the numbers in the periodic table. Some have commented that doing so reduces the challenge. Others have complained that, having looked up the elements, they were left with a puzzle that was too easy. I anticipated that and, even though I realised what the theme was after about a dozen clues, decided for the sake of the challenge to continue without use of resources.

    This lasted until I had about four or five unfilled lights left, and a choice of two unknown words at 7d. I plumped for IRRO (with iridium) but when I checked Chambers it was INRO, of course (with indium). I count this as a dnf, but I was happy with the challenge and the level of cluing. Would I have been happier to have completed, but with the use of resources? No, but that’s just me and I wouldn’t suggest that anyone who did had cheated.

42. I was not worried about cheating, only that it rendered the whole exercise a bit academic if one needed to consult the periodic table for many/most of the clues. I just prefer a genuine contest, and when I need to consult an aid on occasions it should be the exception rather than the rule.  But, each to his own!!

43. I did exactly what DaveinNCarolina@1 did- LI looked up Lithium and saw the Atomic number,then to the table. It was a breeze after that. I did enjoy the puzzle though.
    Thanks Pasquale.

    Ps. A belated RIP to Little Richard. I can still remember my father’s face when he first heard me playing him!

44. I find the whole idea of “cheating” very bizarre when applied to a crossword. One can cheat at a game, by deliberately breaking the rules and gaining unfair advantage (looking at the opponents’ cards at bridge or poker). One can cheat in a pub quiz by using the phone to find answers. One can cheat in an exam by copying someone else’s answers and therefore falsely pretending to be competent and knowledgeable. But with a crossword, nobody wins and nobody loses. There are no crossword gods marking one’s conduct and penalising those who do not solve in the approved way. In fact nobody could care whether you complete it or not, still less how you complete it. So one cannot, in any meaningful sense, “cheat” at a crossword; one simply fails to live up to one’s own sense of self worth and appropriate behaviour (and in the process spends more or less time on the thing). Personally I loved the puzzle and looked at the Periodic Table right at the end to test the existence of an obscure element or two – what is the point of deducing an answer if you can’t then confirm how clever you have been, especially if nobody else is interested!

45. [Ditto your vale re Little Richard, Peter A, and ditto re fathers: at ours, anything other than the classics were f’ t’devil]

46. Can I just put in my twopennyworth about cheating?  We all make our own rules.  As Sagittarius has said, there are no crossword gods keeping an eye on you.  Personally I regard the use of dictionaries to be totally acceptable, and therefore the use of the periodic table is also fine.  I would, myself, draw the line at using an app on the phone to suggest answers to clues – but hey, if someone else does, that’s OK by me.

    One of my (many!) little quirks is to only enter an answer in the grid if it crosses with an existing answer.  At least, I try!

47. Well Sagittarius @ 44:  there are Crossword competitions, the Times holds them annually I think.  Obviously they are invigilated so no aids at all.  If I step outside those rules I consider MYSELF a cheat – I could not care less, in this instance, about anyone else – and would strive to improve upon that situation. My point about this crossword is that unless one had/could memorise the whole periodic table one needed to keep it at ones side to complete the crossword, which I did and FOR ME that reduced the pleasure.

48. Another here who needed to consult the periodic table, as I had not studied chemistry since the age of fourteen. I enjoyed it as it took me to an area I rarely encounter. Cheating? No, most ‘normal’ cryptic clues give you the word fodder / letters for you to rearrange, here an extra step was included to get to the letters. It didn’t lead to the answer, just to some of the ‘fodder.’ It would have been different if the answers had been the names of the elements themselves. I learnt the names of many elements along the way e,g. Neodymium, dysprosium etc. Thanks, Pasquale and mhl.

49. I’m seeing this puzzle in a whole new light after reading the comments to date. It was by pure chance that I did not spot the key until the end, and with that piece of luck I had a good puzzle to enjoy – it was not too easy and not too difficult.
    I can now appreciate how easy – too easy – it was for anyone who got the key early and either knew most of these atomic numbers or chose to look them up. (As it happens, I knew nearly half of them, and if I had spotted the key at the start I would have exercised my free choice not to look up the elements, just so that I could get maximum enjoyment from the puzzle.)
    It’s clear to me now that it was a bit of a weakness to use a code that (singly or as a group) turned out to be transparent to so many solvers. I wonder if it could have been disguised in some way, for example by giving numbers one less than the true atomic number (like 7 for oxygen). But that would have to be indicated in the instructions in a cryptic and fair manner.
    It’s a pity that I’m in the minority who found this to be an interesting and entertaining puzzle that was not a breeze.

50. Like Dave @ 1, LIDO (my FOI) turned out to be my way in although the penny DIDN’T drop until I had 4 or 5 answers and wrote all the ‘extra’ letters and numbers down. Now I studied A Level Chemistry years ago, but I was never required to actually learn the periodic table for some reason – so I too looked it up and wrote down all the remaining chemical symbols next to the relevant clues. Definitely not cheating in my book, that’s a load of bollards, I felt it was probably what the Don expected us all to do.

    After that as you have all said it was a fairly easy solve, although none the worse for that. INRO and ESURIENT were new to me as they were to many although I did know MORGANATIC. Thanks to Pasquale and mhl!

51. At the risk of descending further into a cheating debate…but just to clarify as I feel partly responsible! Similar to others I have my own personal approach but I certainly don’t take issue with or judge how anyone else chooses to tackle a puzzle and get the most enjoyment out of it. Each to their own, absolutely.

    In the case of this particular crossword it just seemed a little odd to me for some of the solvers that had chosen to look up part of the answer to each clue to then complain about things being too easy, as well as a little unfair to the setter

    (And to Sagittarius’ point about winners and losers – there was a prize to be won for this particular crossword! 🙂 )

52. Nobby @ 51

    I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the last sentence. There wasn’t a prize to be had, as recent Saturday puzzles have stated that “in the present circumstances we are unable to process prize entries for this puzzle.” The same applies to the everyman on a Sunday.

    In fact, the pdf, which I use, is currently headed ‘Guardian cryptic crossword’, though the web address still says prize.

53. To Nobby @51

    I don’t think there was a prize actually.  Though, in normal circumstances, yes, the Saturday cryptic is a prize puzzle.

54. To Nobby @51  again

    Simon S beat me to it – it’s a long way for the email to get to you all the way from Finland.

    With regard to using dictionaries and periodic tables and what-not, I look upon these crosswords like course-work in school.  You are allowed to use references.  Encouraged to, even.  And ti can still be presented as part of an exam.

55. Thanks Pasquale and mhl

    JohnB @50

    It’s standard in all chemistry exams I’ve seen in this country for many years for each student to have a data sheet. This always includes a Periodic Table, so there is no benefit in memorising it!

    For the record, EDDY was my first, and also gave me the key.

56. Stared at the grid and the numbers for a while, realising they were in every clue and beyond cross-referencing limits, but no more than double digits. hmm. Then first one in was LIDO, which presented the key. right.

    Even chemists would be hard-pressed to translate this without a legend (I’m a chemist, originally). I had to go find a periodic table on my phone and write in all the symbols in the margins. Perhaps inevitably, i had skipped a handful of clues in that process, so I had to pull out the tables again several times, which I just found frustrating. I see others have used the puzzle itself to help in the translation. didn’t even occur to me. I think I would have found that annoying, much in the same way as continually encountering words i need to look up.

    For me the game is all about elegant surface readings, and although the numbers can usually be interpreted as an age, or a number of items or people, the surface readings have (necessarily, I imagine – unless you include the meaning of the translation!) become contrived, and somewhat repititious

    So while I am in awe of the concept and the construction, the fun of the solve itself was a step down from usual (for me)

    many thanks pasquale and mhl

    Many thanks

57. Thanks to Pino @37 for reminding me of Tom Lehrer.  If anyone hasn’t come across The Elements song, it’s here.

    On listening again, I wondered if DISCOVERED had ever been clued homophonically as disc Harvard – and how it would go down with solvers here!

58. Nobby@51. – the Prize crossword example illustrates my point, that it is almost always meaningless to talk of cheating in relation to solving a crossword; it’s just personal views about solving etiquette. Even when there was a prize, there were no rules about how one could get to the answers, and no advantage in doing so quicker than other people. So you couldn’t “cheat” to win the prize (which was determined by a draw from all the completed entries); there were no rules to transgress. As SPanza @47 points out, there are very occasionally special competitions arranged (eg by the Times) which are run under exam conditions and at which one could conceivably “cheat”, but I don’t think these get blogged or commented on by Fifteen Squared contributors!

59. Not nearly as much fun as Pasquale usually is, in my view. On initial scan, I didn’t get started until the final Down clue, when I realised that 3 had to be Li.  Shortly after that, with 66 having to be Dy (how many millions of journalists have given us “ED” over the years??), I realised that we were probably in Periodic Table territory.  However, not knowing any of said table, I didn’t find this any help.  It’s many decades since I studied Chemistry, and one of my school reports then described me as being “completely at sea” at the subject, which was harsh but accurate.

    Preferring not to cheat, I plodded on and eventually solved it all – with two uneducated guesses (INRO and MORGANATIC which were unknown but plausible) – writing out my own table as I went. Then I looked up the Table to confirm everything. I just found it unsatisfying overall, the clueing a bit dull, with the numerals in each a bit jarring.  I guess it’s an achievement to incorporate so many elements but none of them are tricky letter combinations, so how much of an achievement I cannot really gauge as a non-setter.

    Not my favourite, but thanks to both

     

60. What a treat! A chemistry theme. FOI was ESURIENT, a new word to me, but U=92 blew it open for me.

    Thanks Pasquale!

    Nothing else to say but thanks to mhl.

61. After figuring out the gimmick, I thought the puzzle might be too easy, so I decided to finish it without reference to a list of elements. I know the first two rows of the periodic table more or less by heart, but not the rest, so for most of the clues I just knew that the number referred to a one- or two-letter abbreviation for a chemical element. I had to cheat on a couple  — INRO for sure, and I think one or two more I’m not remembering.

    I also had know idea that PARRAKEET was a permissible spelling. Google’s Ngram viewer says that the two-R spelling was slightly more common in the late 19th century, but it’s pretty much disappeared by now. It also appears to have been more popular in the UK than the US during its heyday. (The link above doesn’t show this, but you can switch to different corpora to see.)

62. “no idea”, not “know idea”, of course.

     

63. Ted @61

    “PARRAKEET” actually makes more sense, as they are closely related to paRRots!

64. An interesting debate about what constitutes a solve and what aid is or is not employed/allowed. My goal, whenever I start, is to feel that I could have written the blog at the end. All solutions arrived at, all wordplay explained, everything accounted for and ninas, themes, acrostics spotted. But it doesn’t bother me remotely if I fall short of that – which I regularly do – and I have an escalated scale of aid I can then employ. Including dictionaries, Google, Wikipedia and specialist resources. (I tried the Arucaria Pruze recently recommended here and had to have to hand the Wikipedia entry on Robert Browning for example). If all else fails, I may use a crossword checker or similar to find a solution rather than come here for that. I certainly come here – regularly – for help with parsing those that have beaten me. And in those circumstances I consider it a technical dnf – I’ve been beaten – but, again, I feel none the worse for that.

    I found it interesting how many commenters found themselves arriving at solutions without the letters contributed by the chemical symbols Many of us appear to have solved quite a few before realising the theme. Once the penny had dropped I then managed to complete most of the outstanding clues, subsequently verifying that a chemical symbol did exist to supply the included letter(s). And yet I’m one of the minority who actually do not enjoy crosswords which have special instructions telling me there are unclued elements or missing letters.
    Thanks Pasquale for the work that must have gone into this and mhl for the explanations

65. Mark @64

    My heart sinks when I see “Special Instructions” too, and I often don’t bother. I was on the point of discarding this one when I saw EDDY and thus the explanation. As others have said, then referring to a Periodic Table made the rest rather easy.

66. Muffin @65 you have no idea what a relief it was to read your last post! As a well regarded contributor here, your admission is appreciated. I am the same. (Less well regarded, though!). I love a theme, whether overt or ghost, whether in the clues, the solutions or the whole puzzle. But I rarely attempt a Special Instructions. No judgement on their quality. And I generally read and enjoy the relevant blogs. And admire the creativity of both setters and solvers. But I’m a simple guy and my preferred challenge is well written surfaces, cunning definitions and misdirections but all the elements required by the classic definition of a cryptic clue.

67. You are underrating yourself, Mark. I always appreciate your contributions.

68. Cheating is not quite the right word, I think, it all is a matter of one’s tolerance for using aids. So here’s an incomplete list off the top of my head of different ways one can get help, listed approximately in my order of reluctance to use.
    – Using the app’s anagram aid (all it does is shuffle the letters randomly)
    – Look up the meaning of a word you are conjecturing as an answer.
    – Look up the meaning of a word in the clue you are unfamiliar with.
    – Use a reference source to find a fact whose description you’ve deciphered from the clue but whose value you don’t know (e.g. capital of country X, atomic number of an element).
    ———————
    – Use a thesaurus to find synonyms.
    – Use an anagram finder.
    – Use a wildcard search to find candidates that fit the letters you have so far.
    – Use the reveal button.
    There are probably others, and people may quibble with some of the ordering, which is fine. The bottom line, though, is that at some point in the list is a threshold where for each individual, crossing it amounts to a DNF. Mine is at the divider.

69. Dr. WhatsOn @68 I’d broadly agree with you but the occasional prize or bank holiday special might move the boundary. The Maskerade place names one, for example, was pretty much impossible without a good map (or a google one) I’d have said, making the puzzle unsatisfactory without an aid. Indeed, I’d go as far as to suggest that the setter intended solvers to use both their brains and a map to solve it. With this puzzle I am another who saw the theme early on (“lido”, FOI), grabbed a periodic table and then found it almost a write-in. I wish I’d resisted grabbing the aid now, but I had no idea how much of a difference it was going to make.

    I’ve had a similar “problem” with the Genius this month. Once I understood how it worked many of the answers went in almost as quickly as I could read the clues. It was like a Necker cube, switching from impossible to trivial in the blink of an eye!

70. muffin @67 My original post used the term ‘seasoned’: you’ve been commenting here for some time and certainly longer than me.  And then I wrote the parenthesis and realised it could be taken as a disparaging comment on your age!  Which, of course, I know not.  So swapped to well regarded.  Thanks for your kind words anyway.

    Dr WhatsOn @68 I toyed with the idea of contributing my own list, like you in ascending order.  Mine is substantially the same as yours though I’ve never used the scrambler.  I’d add one though.  And its placing with regard to the divider is challenging.  And that’s the use of the Check button when I think I’ve found an answer that works but there’s something I haven’t got from the wordplay.  If I’m feeling strict with myself, Check is probably below the line.  If generous, then it’s above.  I guess the proof is that I feel vindicated if Check confirms I’ve got it right.  If I haven’t and Check reveals to me letters that are correctly inserted, then I feel I’ve cheated because the resulting combination nearly always leaves the solution obvious.

71. self @70 Of Course we’re commenting on a Prize today so the Check observation is not relevant but it applies on other days (and other sites).

72. Glad to see others elaborating on what aids (if any) they’re willing to use. Of course an unaided solve is the most satisfying and is the gold standard here, and I always begin by aiming for one, but I nearly always fall short. My list of “acceptable” aids coincides with Dr. W’s @68, except that I will sometimes resort to a thesaurus trawl. I will use the check button to confirm an answer in order to head off any wild goose chases, but an incorrect check is followed by a reveal and a dnf. Having said all that, I remain in admiration of those like Nobby, essexboy and others whose breadth and depth of knowledge allows them to face a puzzle armed only with a penci!

73. Following all this discussion today, it occurs to me that Pasquale didn’t have to put the numbers in the clues.  The instructions could have said something along the lines that the word play in each answer omits one or two letters and the solver has to get the connection between these letters.  Having put in the numbers then I assumed that we were suppose to use them.  And I can’t  imagine it was expected that everyone knows atomic numbers off by heart.  That looking up the atomic numbers made it an easier solve makes me wonder if this wasn’t fully thought through.

74. Mark @ 70. I hardly ever do the crossword online, and the main reason for that is the check button! It’s almost impossible to resist using it, but I then always feel that I’ve let myself down (and my family, my team, my school and of course my country).

    So I’m with Nobby @ 29:

    “I remember as a youngster sitting opposite someone on a train who was doing the Times cryptic at speed with no more than a pen and being in awe of them. Ever since, that’s been the standard I aspire to.”

    With the exception of speed, that’s what I’m aiming for too.

75. My father got me in to crosswords (though he only did the Times). He told me a similar story of sitting opposite a woman on a train who was writing in answers without pause. He complimented her.

    “Oh, I don’t read the clues”, she said, “I just write in anything that fits”….

76. …although grid-filling is a skill!

77. muffin @ 75 Yes, but were they real words? Arguably, getting words to fit into a crossword grid is harder than solving clues to complete a crossword grid that’s been prepared by a setter.

78. essexboy@57. Thanks for posting the link to Tom Lehrer singing the elements which I hadn’t heard in years. I’m sure that others will enjoy it if they haven’t already. I used to know the first two discs just about off by heart but not this number!

79. On the subject of quick solving for show.  I seem to remember a Tony Hancock sketch where he gets up very early, buys The Times, laboriously works out all the answers at home, then sets out on his commute to work.  He buys a new paper and with great pretension, fills in the answers non-stop to the amazement of his fellow passengers.

80. sheffield hatter @77

    …as I acknowledged @76! My father didn’t see the filled grid, though.

81. I remember hearing a short radio play. A new worker in an office was annoyed that his immediate senior did no work in the mornings; he just did the Times crossword. He interrupted and disrupted the solving. The top boss took him aside and explained that it was vital that a completed crossword could be left on the entrance hall table to impress visitors, so the chap was providing a vital function.

    So the next day, on his commute into work, he made his way along the (compartmented – it was a long time ago) and asked in the first “I’m just stuck on 1 across – any suggestions”, and so on down the train, and was thus able to hand in a completed puzzle as he arrived at work!

82. muffin @81 Ha ha!

83. Dave @72:  Thanks for the kind words, but I often fail, as I did this time!

    @ everyone:  On the subject of doing crosswords on trains, I’m sure Eileen posted this a little while ago – but if anyone didn’t see it, it’s not to be missed 🙂

84. Thanks for that, essexboy – I’d missed that one. “Has anybody got a rubber?”

85. Having read all the comments today, I think I am part of the minority who found this crossword really enjoyable.
    Like sheffieldhatter @56 I am a dead tree solver because not only do I hate the ‘Cheat’ button, I also like to see all the clues in one glance.
    That said, on occasions I’ve done the Guardian crossword on my phone but I still hate it.

    Apparently, a lot of solvers found this puzzle far too easy after spotting what was going on.
    We (my inseparable crossword partner, on Google Meet, and I) found our way in through RAGDOLLS (16d).
    What happened next is up to the solver.
    We decided not to use a copy of the periodic table.
    We only checked every now and then whether what we were missing was an element.
    I think, those who did use a list and then complain about the level of this crossword, have only to blame themselves.
    You don’t have to look at it!
    While Robi @34 did, I totally agree with him on the use of external resources in general.

    For many solvers a DNF seems to be a defeat, for me (as for Robi) understanding and enjoying clues is more important than being part of a sort of contest.
    Though I get why dutch @ 56 found the use of numbers somewhat repetitive, I must say that Pasquale clearly did try to make them fit into the surface.

    Talking about Pasquale, I also think that writing a crossword like this is not that troublesome (but I may be wrong).
    There are so many chemical elements, one and two letter building stones.
    Very useful to a setter who is looking for the ‘finishing touch’.
    Well, to each their own, but we thought this was a really original idea that deserved a lot more kudos – alas.

    Many thanks to mhl & Pasquale.

86. To Mr Muffin et al

    If any of you are still reading this, at this late hour, perhaps you will realise how thoroughly upset I am that you continue your little discussion between yourselves without taking a blind bit of notice of what I have to say.  It is not the first time that I have felt I am totally unwelcome and wasting my time by writing comments in this blog.

    This is the reason that I shall no longer bother to contribute (or, in your eyes, to be a nuisance).  It is the reason why I have already stopped contributing during the week.  There was actually a discussion during this last week about something linguistic and I would have loved to make a few points, but I didn’t.  Because I know I would be ignored.

    I am sure you shall continue to enjoy your little club.  I shan’t be making any further appearances, so you needn’t worry.

87. Anna @ 86

    I only contribute here when I think I have something worthwhile to say (though others may disagree of course), but always read the G, I, & FT comments.

    But I have to say that I have always appreciated your contributions, and think that the threads would be diminished if you didn’t chip in in he future.

    Please reconsider your decision.

88. Anna @86

    Can I just echo Simon S’s last comment.

    I always enjoy reading your posts, and would have valued your linguistic insights earlier this week, as that is a particular area of fascination for me too.

    I apologise if any of my comments came across as rude, or as ignoring the points you had made – that certainly wasn’t my intention, and I’m sure the same goes for muffin too.

    nähdään pian, Toivon   (is that right??)

89. Anna@ 86,

    I often have the feeling of being ignored too, but I think that’s just the nature of online blogs and not an intention on anyone’s part to cause offence.  I did think of making a comment on your point @46 but forgot to.  It was:  given you last sentence there, how do you ever actually start a crossword? 😀

    I remember you are in Finland and I like to hear from all posters around the globe, if only to see how the UK-centric puzzles go down in different places.  So please continue to comment and try not to take a lack of response personally.

90. phitonelly @ 89

    I wondered that too.

    But I assume, possibly erroneously, that you solve mentally two intersecting clues and, if satisfied, take it from there.

91. I’m sure you’re right, Simon @90.  My comment was of course somewhat facetious.  But it is interesting that Anna’a approach is diametrically opposed to mine.  I run through the clues in number order these days and only fill in the gaps after that, which I find is more effective as a solving method, rather strangely.

92. Anna, I think you will know from previous exchanges how much I value your direct, interesting and insightful contributions to this group. Recently, I have missed seeing you more regularly on the forum. I too sometimes feel invisible when I post but try not to be over-sensitive about that, as I guess inclusivity in some discussion threads is not a priority for everyone who comes here. Sometimes I get very agitated when it is clear some contributors have not read what others have already said. Again I know there is usually no conscious understanding of that though I would expect it is just common courtesy. Longer blogs recently have probably contributed to some hurtfulness.
    I would hope that you might rethink your decision to withdraw as the forum would be the poorer without you. Ours is essentially a lonely hobby and the links across the world via this cryptic community have become important to me personally over time – and others I suspect – and even more so in these recent challenging circumstance of isolation and amidst fears for family, friends, and those I care about around the world (including you, Anna).

93. Anna
    I am not a frequent contributor here, but I recognise you as someone who has insightful views on subjects that crop up in these crosswords – in particular language, which is one of my abiding interests. I read the blogs of puzzles that I have solved, and I try to read all previous comments when I comment myself, but very recently it has been difficult to do so because there has been a spate of very long blogs, some of which have been heavy-going too.
    This is the best forum for this hobby of mine, and I value solvers’ comments in general. I especially value respectful, constructive and interesting comments whether or not the views expressed are in agreement with my own. Personally, I would hate to see a respected contributor vanish from these pages.

94. I looked at this several times without really getting anywhere. I correctly guessed LIDO, but didn’t connect LI with Li so couldn’t understand the 3. I got EFFICACY and decided LIDO must be wrong because it was a Caesar shift, where A=0 and C=2 (so B=1,  etc). That theory didn’t stand up long, looking at some of the other numbers. I also posited EDDY but I’ve never even heard of Dysprosium. Someone had commented on the Guardian Crossword Blog that they weren’t getting anywhere with the puzzle and I thought to commiserate. Another commenter had given the hint “Think of Sherlock Holmes”, which annoyed me both because it could constitute a spoiler, but probably more because it wasn’t working as one for me! I was about to remark that fact when a moment’s reflection brought the phrase “Elementary, dear Watson” to mind and I scrubbed the commiserations and went and solved the whole thing double quick (online, with the periodic table in another tab — come on, why would I make it hard for myself?). Quite a feat of setting though (and quite a feat of memorisation, those who had the Periodic Table off by heart).

    Can I also say that I don’t want Anna to leave either and that I enjoy getting a Finnish linguist’s take on things, even if I don’t say so.

95. Anna please don’t take a lack of response on these pages personally.  I often post several comments on here which no one directly replies to.  I always read your comments with interest but I do not believe I have ever replied to you by name, simply because the areas you cover are not area I have any knowledge of.  Please be assured that your words are read and treasured and that we do NOT want to lose you!!

96. Anna @86 I’m another who’s sorry to read how you feel.  A problem with blogs like this is that we all feel we have something worthwhile to contribute and hope our message will inspire a response.  Yours certainly did last night: I don’t think I’ve ever added to a discussion so late in the day – which means you probably won’t see it.

    We last exchanged messages when bridgesong blogged Pauls’ last prize.  Last Saturday.  You had never heard of OJ, I felt it was reasonably well known, you were pleased that I felt that and you and, funnily enough, muffin exchanged messages about the movie Trading Places in which OJ futures are traded.  He gave it as an example of OJ being used, you asked if it was in English and he replied “No, American!”. And that appears to be your last appearance here.  So I do think you’re being a little harsh.

97. Sorry that you felt slighted, Anna. I think, though, if you look at my responses you will see that I didn’t make any comment on “cheating” by any of the posters (except, perhaps, the use of Data Sheets in Chemistry exams).

98. What a bloated mess these Guardian blogs have become.  97 comments and counting where the only substantial issue was whether the theme approach worked to make an enjoyable puzzle, where the position was established after the few opening entries.  And a tedious debate about what constitutes cheating, which Anna @46 had put an end to with the simple statement that we all make our own rules. No wonder she was upset by all the narcissists piling in to bore us with their views.

99. VW @98 I think “narcissists piling in to bore us with their views” is being a bit hard on yourself?

100. Well, I too am sorry that Anna feels the need to exclude herself from this forum, and hope that she will rethink her position.

     This crossword has inspired many comments, and some of the comments have inspired responses. Anna’s @46 was one of many on the subject of perceived “cheating”, and her comment included “We all make our own rules”, which was succinct and to the point. However, several other people had already made the same point, though perhaps less elegantly, and no reference was made to Anna’s contribution in subsequent posts.

     I do think, though, that if we all feel that we have to pause to acknowledge others, this forum will become even more of a “bloated mess” than it already is. While I appreciate that it is pleasant to have a contribution acknowledged, and it’s nice to feel part of a community, if every post had to include a reference, an acknowledgement and an appreciative nod, it would become even more of a tangled web than it is now.

     (Apologies for being such a narcissist and boring you all with my views.)

101. That was precisely my point … that Anna’s contribution that any rules are self-imposed should have been acknowledged by an end to the argument, not a parade of individuals setting out their self-imposed rules.

102. @99 Bodycheetah 🙂

     These threads will be poorer without Anna’s contributions. I support those asking her to reconsider.

     If VW ever decides to retire from this  forum, I will fully support his decision too.

103. I would just to like to say I appreciate the frank comments here, in particular sheffield hatter’s 3rd paragraph @100.

Comments are closed.