This page is for the discussion of general crossword related matters and other topics of interest.
Comments posted before 10/04/24 can be found here.
This post is now closed. New comments can be posted here.
145 comments on “General Discussion”
Comments are closed.
Guardian Cryptic 29,355 by Fed
Comment 65
Not in keeping with site policy 2. Any criticism of a puzzle or clue must be valid, constructive and presented in a polite manner. The reason for any dissatisfaction should be clearly indicated. Comments that do not comply with these criteria may be removed.
I have one suggestion for those who blog Quiptic puzzles:
These blogs need to be more detailed (explanatory) than those for regular cryptic puzzles so that beginners/relative beginners understand how the different elements of each solution are derived from the respective clues.
This is not meant to be a criticism.
I continue to be in awe of the immense voluntary service that each blogger is doing to the crossword society. Thank you bloggers!
Jay, thank you for suggesting the online crosswordsolver forum. I’ve checked it out and will post my question there!
Happy to help Kristi. Genius 10 we have the preamble for so hopefully that is the one you needed. No.13, though we’ve solved the puzzle, the cypher still eludes us.
Agree with KVa@2
There’s an Araucaria Prize Puzzle 15,886 from Wednesday 13 September 2023 that appears to have gone unnoticed and unblogged. Ten years after his death,
but a strange day and date to choose. Was it mentioned in that day’s paper? — ‘Special instructions: This is a vintage puzzle and its prize was awarded in 1981.’
FrankieG –here’s your explanation – it’s to go with the Crossword Blog at that time.
Firstly, in the Guardian Crossword blog this week, there’s an announcement that the annotated solution is ending, with part of the rationale being:
“Since then, a world of offsite comment and analysis has proliferated, with Fifteensquared assiduously providing the same analysis, but in plain English rather than “IN/DIVING” and the like, the format used here.”
Linking to 15^2 on the page.
Secondly, not that I can find it on-line, but this week’s supporter newsletter from the Guardian, entitled Bras, jockstraps — and you? (10) has an interview with Alan Connor, where he discusses cryptic crosswords and the new Quick Cryptic. I won’t quote it all, but after an introduction to who he is there are a series of questions and answers:
“Hi Alan, can you tell me what makes a Guardian crossword a “Guardian” crossword?
When Hugh Stephenson, the previous crossword editor, left, we wrote on his pretend front page [a newspaper tradition for people leaving jobs] that “the Guardian has built a crosswording culture unlike that of any other newspaper, all of which prefer such things as consistency and some of which even have a coherent house style.”
With a cryptic crossword, you don’t know what you’re going to get. You don’t know what the rules of engagement for each clue are – whether it’s an anagram or requires general knowledge. With the Guardian, it’s even more so because it doesn’t have an accepted set of conventions. You get some setters who create puzzles that other newspapers could slot in unchanged – and then you get very idiosyncratic setters whose puzzles could only actually exist in the Guardian.”
I’m not sure I’d entirely agree with that, knowing how many of the same setters set for different papers, but it does suggest that the very different setters that are sometimes irritating some of the users here are a deliberate choice.
As an archetypal Guardian reader and crossword solver I find the smug , self-congratulation very worrying . I never thought the day would come when I preferred the FT puzzle to the Guardian most days. I do not recall John Perkin being obsessed with his own media image, those were the days.
John Perkin started it by giving setters bylines, allowing them their individual character. The Times still doesn’t, which reflects its preference for consistency from one setter to the next.
I don’t mind the quirks – you see “Qaos” or “Philistine” at the top of a puzzle, you know what to expect.
I think Alan Connor’s point holds true. Paul is a lot more idiosyncratic than Mudd or Dada, for example.
I do not mind the quirks but John Perkin was content to let his setters do all the talking via their puzzles and made sure the Guardian had a full range of difficulty nearly every week , Now we get a similar challenge day after day after day …..
If John Perkin were around today, you can bet he’d be doing all the blogs and other extra features. All about the clicks, innit. If people actually bought the paper rather than expecting to get the content for “free” online, these extras wouldn’t be necessary. (It’s never really free, you’re always paying for it one way or another. Again, compare with The Times, whose crossword is paywalled and doesn’t come with the extras.)
Anyway, a lot of people like the blogs and other extras. If you don’t, you can always ignore them.
I do ignore all the blogs , apart from this site I never look at a thing online except the BBC and JWST and Euclid but even I can’t avoid our media obsessed crossword editor , he even turns up on Radio 4, it will be Pointless Celebrities next. I would not mind any of this if we actually had a decent range of puzzles in the paper and he stopped the likes of Paul being a parody of themselves.
From the same supporters’ newsletter, another question, part of the answer from Alan Connor:
Q: You’re also a comedy writer. Is a good sense of humour essential for setting crosswords?
A: There are some setters where you know you will at least groan, if not laugh. Paul is the epitome of that. There is no near soundalike that his brain would not at least consider. He recently did: Turn up for yoga class, did you say? Boo and Hiss! and the answer was … “onomatopoeia”.”
I get the impression Paul’s outrageousness is more than tolerated, possibly even encouraged.
(To be a supporter, I subscribe to the online paper, so I am actually paying for this, which is why I got the supporters’ e-mail.)
The onomatopoeia pun is a very old one outside of crosswords, but anyway, Philistine got there first in the Guardian (using “up here” rather than “appear”) –
https://www.fifteensquared.net/2015/08/19/guardian-26654-philistine/
Are there any regular Guardian Weekly readers out there? Just wondering if the cryptic printed in it is always the
Tuesday one from a week and a half ago as it was this week, or is it just random?
I’ve reluctantly (for various reasons) given up the daily print version of the paper so am doing the cryptics online. It is much more fun on paper, so I’d quite like to avoid doing online the one that’s going to appear in the GW later on in the week.
Crossbar@15 If you are using the free Guardian crossword site there is no need to solve online – you should be able to print out the PDF version of the crossword from there.
Does anyone know who actually sets the Guardian’s Quick crosswords?
Rudolf@16 I mostly use the app – but I was trying to avoid wasting paper.
I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this so please excuse me if not.
My grandad is turning 90 in June and he still does the cryptic every day. I’m composing one for his birthday and it will be the first time I’ve done this. I was hoping there might be a few folks who wouldn’t mind critiquing my effort?
Hi Jimmy, I’d be very happy to help. I do some test solving for a couple of setters. How can I get in touch? And which cryptic does your grandad do by the way?
Jimmy @19
I’ve removed your reply as it contained a raw email address and I don’t want bots trawling this site to start sending you spam.
Jay @20
If you send an email to admin, I’ll pass on Jimmy’s email address to you. Apparently granddad (or is it grandad) does The Telegraph every day.
Jimmy @19, another alternative is to put your crossword on MyCrossword (assuming granddad isn’t on there) and you should get some constructive criticism. I’ve found it useful as someone beginning to set.
Another mystery regarding the Guardian Genius series of puzzles is that nos. 20 and 33 seem to be missing from the Guardian online archive. Does anyone know how to locate them?
The Guardian app is showing a Picaroon “cryptic” no 1282 today, as well as the expected Cryptic and Quick. Looks like it might be a Quiptic sneaked in 4 weeks early. The previous Quiptic was 1278.
Linking this here too, because there’s been a lot of discussion on the Everyman blogs that the Everyman is getting harder (including me, who knows it’s taking me longer than it used to), this week’s Guardian crossword blog discusses relative difficulty of crosswords:
“When you think something’s hard, it then is. I mention this because there have been enough remarks recently suggesting that the Observer’s entry-level Everyman puzzle (of which I am the sixth incumbent) is “getting harder than it used to be” to make me worried that some solvers might be tempted to believe it.
Everyman is not supposed to be a taxing exercise. Looking at the recent range: it almost never uses a reverse hidden. It clues E with “constant” less than once a year. It never mentions Bolivian poets. Perhaps our new quick cryptic series has been so effective in its approachability, it has redefined the centre?”
Sadly for Alan Connor, the crossword he linked to, the first online Everyman Crossword, I sailed through in half the time the current Everyman takes me.
It is hard for me to really judge , I do not time myself and it is not aimed at me anymore. It does feel a lot different and trickier than the puzzles of Allan Scott for example.
At work lots of people bring me crossword queries , at the moment those who do the Everyman just as their only puzzle are constantly complaining. Some of them have been doing it for many years and are used to finishing it on a Sunday morning.
In the blog the newer solvers seem very unhappy.
Perhaps the setter needs a trusted test solver who will be completely blunt in their opinions.
I’m another who doesn’t necessarily equate “difficulty” with “time spent” (something I seldom measure). I think AC is doing good work in encouraging new solvers with simpler puzzles and explanatory blogs (helped admirably by Shanne’s QC blog btw). Also remember the Guardian/Observer universe isn’t the only one out there. The best advice I’ve received from a setter on this site (I won’t say who) was to start doing the Times. Also, Roz encouraged me into the world of Azed, something for which I will be forever grateful! And my most recent discovery is the Magpie… but that’s a whole other story.
Finally, on the subject of test solving at any level, please reach out; it’s something I enjoy and have been doing lot of recently for new setters and those with more complex puzzle offerings.
The following off-topic comment has been moved from the blog of Guardian 29,401
Roz
June 5, 2024 at 11:30 am
[ A day late – the Brummie theme yesterday even better than it appears, apart from “main sequence”, which is hard to fit in , it gives the life cycle of a large star .
NEBULA – A STAR IS BORN – ( main sequence ) – RED SUPER GIANT – SUPERNOVA .
Supernova shock waves cause contraction in new nebulae to repeat the cycle and seed them with heavy elements. The iron in the Earth’s core and our blood comes from supernova explosions. Hear endeth the lesson , the test is on Friday ]
The following off-topic comment has been moved from the blog of Guardian 29,401, and references the comment now at General Discussion 28
Judge
June 5, 2024 at 3:55 pm
[ Roz@44 thanks for the star info, which encouraged me to look up a star’s life cycle. The sequence in the grid is for a massive star and we had MASSIF. It all ends with a BLACK HOLE and, sadly, the DYING OF THE LIGHT.]
The following off-topic comment has been moved from the blog of Guardian 29,401, and references the comments now at General Discussion 28 & 29
Roz
June 5, 2024 at 4:03 pm
[Pauline@56 and Judge@63, I was too busy yesterday for this but thought it deserved a mention , I did put BLACK HOLE at the end of the sequence @44 but you can’t see it. I did not think of DYING OF THE LIGHT.
Only occurs for stars above 8 solar masses and the remaining core after the supernova needs to be about 3 solar masses, otherwise it finishes with a neutron star . ]
Crosswords: what to do when a puzzle looks harder than it actually is By Alan Connor
(copied and pasted the whole article here for the benefit of those who don’t access links)
Does it mention Bolivian poets? If not, that’s a good start. The trick is to turn a seemingly taxing crossword into a game. Plus: a challenge
I was finding a recent puzzle a challenge, and wrote as much by the setter’s pseudonym: HARD. A few clues further in, it felt not just hard, but also … familiar. How could this be?
I had a look through my clipboards, and there it was. Due to a filing error, this was a puzzle I had solved a month earlier.
Written by the setter’s pseudonym: EASY.
The phenomenon is sometimes easily explained, like those moments in 2021 and 2022 where I said to myself: well, well, the quick is getting harder and harder, not like the old days – before remembering that I was in bed having tested positive for Covid-19.
Other times, less prosaically, it’s to do with my expectations. Often, when I’ve been struggling with a clue in one of the weekend puzzles with no black squares and added endgame shenanigans, I realise that it’s nowhere near as demanding as I’d thought. The “cross” in the clue is not a ZHO somewhere in the answer or even a ZO (a Himalayan hybrid cattle; Chambers also gives DSO, DZO and incredibly DZHO), but an actual cross. An X. A clue that could have appeared in a reasonable puzzle.
When you think something’s hard, it then is. I mention this because there have been enough remarks recently suggesting that the Observer’s entry-level Everyman puzzle (of which I am the sixth incumbent) is “getting harder than it used to be” to make me worried that some solvers might be tempted to believe it.
Everyman is not supposed to be a taxing exercise. Looking at the recent range: it almost never uses a reverse hidden. It clues E with “constant” less than once a year. It never mentions Bolivian poets. Perhaps our new quick cryptic series has been so effective in its approachability, it has redefined the centre?
(The reference to Bolivian poets is from Reginald Perrin, who wondered if it was the puzzles or him. “Can’t finish the crossword like you used to?”)
More likely the best way of thinking about this is, as usual, to turn it into a game, or at least a kind of challenge.
Can anyone find an Everyman puzzle – one of those fine examples from before the 2020s – that is easier than today’s Everyman? The first in the archives is 2,965, from an issue dominated by the invasion of Iraq.
If anyone is successful, I will donate £100 to the Minesweepers Fund (if it still exists) and use the vintage Everyman to recalibrate the Difficultothon 3000 algorithm that helps me gauge the fiendishness of Everyman clues.
In the meantime, does anyone have a trick to help them solve (other than looking things up, which is fine)? Do you avoid looking at the setter’s pseudonym, perhaps? Or do you, like me, find that getting halfway to looking something up is the prompt that as often as not brings the word to mind?
The crossword blog returns on 10 June
I’ve been beavering away at the guardian crossword for the last 5 years since I retired .. I began with the Quiptic section until I now follow them weekly , I’ve finished the easier Cryptics Rufus, Quantum Rover and have started in earnest at the rest. My current nemesis is Araucaria but I gamely plug on.
I have a question for the experts How would you clue the Latin word PECCAVI ( it means I have sinned) .. it was the shortest military signal made by General Napier when he conquered the province of SIND during the days of the Raj very droll I know I thought it might make a great clue
Allan,
My first thoughts on clue construction would be…
An anagram of (ice caps)* around V (e.g. five or volume)
A subtractive anagram of (acceptive)* – ET
A charade using PE (exercise) CC (cricket club) A (from the clue perhaps) and VI (six), a cricket theme here perhaps?
For the definition you could go with “admission of guilt” or “I have sinned” or make a direct reference to the Napier quote, though as I understand it, it was a pun on “I have Sindh” and I’m not sure it can be attributed to him with total certainty.
Not easy to clue , especially the rather obsure Sindh link.
I have seen it a few times along the lines of – Classical admission of guilt . Not great.
Allan @32, here are some ways it’s been clued in the past (not by me)…
Partly retired spiv accepts admission of guilt
Constable – about six – seizes Ecstasy and confession of guilt
and one which will elicit a severe Paddington stare from Roz…
A confession of sin when two hundred and six monkey around
🙂
I have just done today’s FT by Aldhelm. It is a numerical puzzle which I greatly enjoyed. Recommended for those of a mathematical bent.
Has anyone else suddenly run into an insurmountable paywall on the Independent cryptic puzzle site? Until today I’ve never had a problem. But now, I can’t past a “subscribe now” banner —even after creating a login for their platform and everything else. All the puzzles appear with a padlock icon that says “subscribe”—and this all happens AFTER watching an ad (which I thought was my payment)….
Yep AJ@37, today’s Independent puzzle is accessible free, everything else is behind a paywall.
There is an interesting article in today’s paper. I agree with many of the points made that clues tend to favour older solvers, eg singer + Cher, Elvis; actor = Garbo; movie and stage show references are often from the 1950s and earlier.
Less Elvis, more Taylor Swift: a clue for ‘dated’ cryptic crossword setters
Interesting observation michelle @39. My two sons who I try to encourage into the joys of Cryptic Crosswords have made comments in the past like “how did you know that?” and “you know a lot more GK than me”. I think age adds experience and knowledge. I know that a lot of clues I just “get” immediately these days, I would have struggled with when I was in my twenties.
Tim C @40 – I agree that age adds experience and knowledge. I am part of the 65+ age group and I sometimes wonder how the younger generation cope with the crossword clues that include GK. I always hope that younger people will love cryptic crosswords as much as we do and sometimes I am afraid that the puzzles might become extinct if there are not enough younger solvers starting to take them up as a hobby. Impossible to know if cryptic crosswords will still exist in 20, 30, 40 years from now…
I guess the only way to “modernise” the clues is to have more setters who are aged 40 and below?
Thanks michelle for pointing out this interesting article. Like you, I agree with many of the points it makes. I would struggle, however, if many aspects of text speak or social media abbreviations started being used. I prefer, generally, clues which avoid specific general knowledge and wonder how people coped with some of them before the internet. How many Scottish islands or past cricketers do you need to know? I think we have seen a greater variety of cluing recently with the current Guardian crossword editor and that can only be a good thing.
I read the article and thought it was a little unfair. “School is always ETON” was one that caught my attention. No, ETON (when that combination of letters appears in a clue) is often clued by “school” – and why shouldn’t it be when you consider the influence that educational establishment has had on British culture and politics? It’s hardly obscure. And “school” also clues TRAIN, GAM and POD, or just SCH.
Michelle @39 and others, in today’s Times there’s a follow-up article and a specially commissioned cryptic crossword using references that would particularly appeal to younger solvers. A collaboration between Victoria Godfrey (Carpathian) and Ali Gascoigne (Gila), I think. Great fun.
Many thanks Jay, Rob and Tim C.
I am slowly coming around to the way some of these compilers think. I sometimes think they were put on this earth to drive me around the bend … and then I find a clue that captures the right combination of intrigue, whimsy and plain pig headedness that I manage to solve and the world comes right again.
Although Araucaria and Paul are as yet on my Public Enemy list who’s nuisance value is as yet very high but we shall overcome
Cheers
Allan
[Test message]
Hello,
I am new to the cryptic crossword arena and am finding the Guardian quick cryptics fit the bill for me exactly. I don’t always have time to finish them in one sitting. There is a message that says crosswords will be automatically saved. Can I then retrieve and then continue with a part completed one somehow?
Thank you
It means that if you leave the puzzle or site, when you come back, you can continue where you left.
I imagine that it uses cookies to achieve this.
A very good initiative by HG on YouTube. He is solving G Quick Cryptic live in this video. Brilliant idea.
https://youtu.be/UsYFOoBG6ug?si=Ju1TTalURo3aoeIM
Hi all – just wondered if we know where the blog for the 4054 Everyman (guardian) from last Sunday is?
Cheers
JD
@50
There appears to have been a communications breakdown and blog should appear soon.
@50 & 51
https://www.fifteensquared.net/2024/07/07/everyman-4054/
Cheers!
A good question by Chris @52 in today’s Guardian blog which probably belongs better here.
I’d like to expand the question to whether templates are accessible for other publications (Independent, FT etc)?
Your best bet might be to visit MyCrossword.co.uk. They have lots of grids.
Tim C,
I don’t know about the FT but I believe the Indy doesn’t have a stock set of grids and instead accepts custom grids from their setters. I would assume Eimi has some standards he applies to these but don’t know what they are. I have a full set of the Guardian grid library (though I’ll have to find it on an old drive which might take a day or two) which I can supply to you and Chris@52. If you’re interested you might ask Ken (admin) to send me your email. I’m sure Ken wouldn’t mind dong that, Gaufrid was always happy to when I needed to contact people directly for more private conversations. Ken is, of course, more stern but just as friendly as Gaufrid was 😉
No problem with you having my email Blah.
Admin, thank you (I have the MyCrossword grids – jugular on there).
If it’s just one particular Guardian grid pdf that Chris wants for the time being, wouldn’t taking a screen shot of it, editing for size and then converting/exporting to pdf work?
Without posting a link in here, I Googled Guardian Crossword Grids and the sixth item from Claret dot Org contained a full set of empty grids since 2007….and it’s part 1. Didn’t delve any further but there were a lot there. Hope that helps…maybe add Claret to the search to get an instant hit.
I’ve been away for a while but can’t help but notice that essexboy is no longer a daily commenter on the Guardian puzzle. I hope he’s ok as I valued his input.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7GNiol9Nkc
HG’s live solve. It’s worth sharing with those starting to solve crossword puzzles.
This week’s Guardian prize setter is Soup – no spoilers of course, but there is an interview with him and a couple of other setters (Komornik, and Marble who will be one to watch in future I hope) here:
https://www.caths.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Wheel%202024_digital%20version.pdf
There is also a crossword on the back page, set by Marble, though some entries involve very specific knowledge/slang and the grid can best be described as unorthodox in a solver-unfriendly way! (Sorry if this is old news but I only just got hold of it and thought worth sharing.)
I have just spent many hours solving this month’s Genius puzzle, and when I was half way through typing the answers, I noticed a typo in an earlier answer. On attempting to edit this, I must have inadvertently hit a wrong key, and somehow the answers were submitted, with no way to undo it. Can anyone shed any light on what key combination may have caused this? Very frustrating! I think there ought to be a final confirmation before submission, or even an inability to submit an incomplete entry.
Hello all – I have an incredibly geeky query and I hope someone on here is an expert on the Chambers Dictionary.
As both solver and setter my primary reference source is the Chambers Dictionary. However, up until now I have used the digital version in the form of the iPhone / iPad app (which is described on the Chambers website as the “11th edition”, though whether this means the 11th edition of the digital version, or a digital version of the 11th edition, remains unclear – but that’s not important right now…).
I am currently considering stumping up for the latest version of the paper edition just to make sure that I have the full, official, definitive reference source to hand when required. One reason for this is that I am working on a submission for Enigmatic Variations and one needs to specify the primary reference source. Every EV puzzle I’ve seen in my puzzling memory says “Chambers Dictionary (2016) is recommended.“.
So this is where it gets confusing…! “Chambers Dictionary (2016)” does not appear to be an official designation, according to the publisher. The Chambers website refers to the current edition as (my emphasis): Chambers Dictionary (hardcover, 13th edition). Publication date: 27.06.2014.
To either clarify or further confuse things, the Amazon listing refers to it as “13th edition (9 Sept. 2014)” but also features a line of text in the description stating that it has been “Fully revised and updated February 2016“.
Does this make it the “(2016)” edition that EV setters refer to? (and if so, why does Chambers still call it the 2014 edition?! and isn’t a “revised 13th edition” more of a “14th edition” anyway…?)
Thanks in advance for any clarification forthcoming…
Rob as far as I remember the 13th edition 2014 was published with a lot of words missing, Chambers made the list available , I think online and as paper copies for people who had bought the dictionary .
An updated dictionary was published in Feb 2016 with the missing words in , plus other updates. I think this is still the 13th edition ??? ( not certain ) but is definitely known as Chambers 2016 , as used by Azed and others .
The defintive edition is the 1st ( 1993) , you can get mint condition copies of this second-hand for less than £5 . My sprogs got one for me to replace my original 93 which fell apart.
Rob I also think Chambers were very embarrassed by the blunder for 2014 so have tried to keep quiet and left it shrouded in mystery. There must be a lot of people with defective 2014 copies.
Roz @65/66 – aha! That now all makes sense!
I was not aware of that particular story but it’s understandable that they brushed it under the carpet 🙂 Many thanks for the elucidation.
Just to confirm that what Roz says is correct, and to add that it’s known as the “Revised 13th Edition” on the cover, published in 2016. The original 13th edition with some 500 words missing was published in 2014.
I think those missing words had been marked as being of unusual interest, possibly printed in bold at some stage, but had been overlooked in an update.
In case anyone has the 2014 version and needs the missing words without having to shell out for the correct 2016 version, they’re here: https://chambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chambers-Missing-Words-1.pdf – although it’s a pain in the neck when you can’t find a word in the book and have to consult the list to see if it’s in that.
I can confirm what both Roz and Twmbarlwm say, Rob. I struggled through this confusion 2 years ago when I was trying to work out whether I had the 2016 version for Azed. There was a discussion about it here.
I concluded that I have the 2016 version as it has the missing words from 2014, even though inside it has “This thirteenth edition published in 2014” and the spine is just labelled “13th edition”. It seems that the only way to tell is the front cover of the dust jacket which has “Revised 13th Edition”.
The electronic version I have in WordWeb Pro (which came with the Crossword Compiler software) is listed as “Chambers Dictionary (13th Edition)…. 2014” although it also has the missing words and so is the “2016”. I think you’re safe in assuming that anything purchased new after 2016 is going to be the “2016” edition even though it says 2014. Confused now?
Thank you also to Twmbarlwm @68 and Tim @69 for your confirmation and additional information. In particular, knowing about the Missing Words list has made my life easier, as I decided to check a number of them against my digital version – and every entry I’ve checked is in my app, which is leading me to believe that the “Digital 11th edition” and the “Revised 13th edition” have the same coverage. Which might have just saved me about £50 including international postage 🙂
It’s somewhat ironic that a respected reference source could (a) make such an egregious mistake, and (b) subsequently be so coy about admitting it…
@65-70 I always find the Chambers missing words fiasco intriguing because I think it’s possible Azed may have inadvertently triggered it. I remember when the edition with the highlighted words came out he made some amusingly unimpressed remarks about it in his slip. I like to think Chambers’ staff treated this as such a humiliation and top-level emergency that they panicked and moved too fast to get rid of the highlighting, hence the cock-up.
I think the 12th edition’s ‘innovation’ of highlighting words that were deemed to be quirky was thought by many at the time to be a silly misstep that implied other words must therefore be less interesting.
Here’s what Azed himself said in the competition slips, first about the original 12th edition, and then about the debacle for the 13th:
Competition 2062 – I am now using the new edition of The Chambers Dictionary (which will be recommended from January). [ … ] Certain entries in the dictionary itself are highlighted, though the reason for this is not explained (unless I’ve missed something), and seem again to be merely words for us to enjoy. A pointless addition, I’d say, that kills for the user the joy of serendipity.
Competition 2200 – I have just acquired a copy of the new (13th) edition of The Chambers Dictionary. [ … ] Another improvement is the scrapping of the gimmicky highlighting of ‘unusual words’ in the text, but this has led to the loss of these words altogether, an editorial blunder which I am assured will be corrected at the first opportunity. I plan to start recommending the new edition from the start of 2015.
Competition 2205 – [ … ] The ‘project editor’ at Chambers has sent me the following (not wholly reassuring) message: ‘We are working on compiling all the corrections for the reprint of the dictionary with the “highlighted words” from the 12th edition which have gone missing from the 13th edition … We will look to provide a free PDF available to download for free to purchasers of the first print of the 13th edition so they can have all the missing words at their disposal.’
Competition 2222 – While on the subject of Chambers, I’ve had the following update from the ‘project editor’: ‘The situation with The Chambers Dictionary, 13th edition is that we can [sic] to reprint it later this year, although we do not have a set date for this yet. It would not be cost effective to pulp our current stock and to reprint the book just yet so our next reprint will be based on shifting our current stock. We do have the missing words list available on the Chambers website as a printable PDF for those who have purchased the 13th edition.’ This strikes me as pretty outrageous and I shall say so. If you feel like complaining direct to the publishers, please do. Meanwhile I shall continue to recommend the new edition, but this should not inconvenience those who have not yet bought it.
Very interesting discussion in @66 – @72. I received a copy of Chambers as a leaving preset in 2016 and until an hour ago still untouched, as I am still using the 12th Ed on a day to day basis.
Not being aware of the fiasco before, I thought I’d better check which version I’d received and fortunately it is the revised one. Very confusing that it doesn’t say reprinted in 2016 inside. So thanks to all.
I have just finished Sunday 54 the numerical puzzle. It has one clue, 15d, where the answer is wrong. How can this be rectified as the puzzle is not on the. 15 squared blog?
@SM №74. I don’t see a problem with the clue nor answer. Excuse me for posting solutions in a non-blog post…
15 d is ” a product of two consecutive numbers”. My answer is 56 which is indeed the product of two consecutive numbers 7*8. This ties in with 15a – 546; an anagram of 21a which is 465. And with 20a which is 60; three score.
Admin please feel free to delete if you would prefer this answer not be here
Thanks for putting me right Matthew Newell. I thought the product (56) was the sum of two consecutive numbers and could not make it out. My mistake.
Test message
SM @74 – do you think there would be interest in a blog of the Numbers puzzle? Since the clues are non-cryptic (they’re pretty much all either straight maths or general knowledge), I didn’t think a blog was merited. Maybe others disagree.
I’ve been blogging the regular monthly FT News puzzle since it started, and when the editor expanded the Sunday series, I took on the World puzzle as well. Both are cryptic so worth blogging.
The US puzzle is non-cryptic (aside from some whimsical cryptic-ish definitions) so I didn’t think that was worth blogging – it also relies heavily on US general knowledge, which is often beyond me, so I don’t think I’d be up to the job anyway.
But if anyone feels it would be worth blogging the US and/or Numbers puzzles, and would like to volunteer, get in touch with site admin!
Widdersbel@78
I had a silly lapse when I queried a numbers clue and do not think it merits a blog. You either know it or you do not.
I am not a fan of the US style puzzle so I am the wrong person to give an informed opinion but expect it does not merit a blog. Not enough to chew on.
Any Ideas please!
The latest android update has broken one of my favourite apps (LetterSlate) – an anagram scratch pad (not a solver!). It was very simple and allowed required letters to be seen on moveable tiles which could be shuffled around and sorted to one’s hearts content. It was basically a virtual version of getting the Scrabble tiles of your anagram fodder and playing around with them to aid solving. I cannot find any sort of replacement app.
Any ideas for alternatives would be greatly appreciated.
TIA Matthew
FYI, creating crosswords with black cultural references
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/2024/08/20/she-didnt-see-her-black-heritage-in-crossword-puzzles-so-she-started-publishing-her-own
I have just seen the discussion in comments 64-73 about the revision to the 13th edition of Chambers and hence the distinction between Chambers 2014 and Chambers 2016. The revision does not in fact consist entirely of restoring the missing words. I say that with a mathematician’s confidence in the principle that a single counterexample refutes a universal proposition. The single counterexample of which I am aware is as follows: C2014 (p 1595) has an entry for taser as a noun and verb. In C2016 (still p 1595) this has been replaced by Taser “a brand name and registered trade mark …”. This became apparent when Azed used TASERED as an answer in puzzle 2682
https://www.fifteensquared.net/2023/11/19/azed-no-2682-plain/
The above discussion expands on, but generally seems to confirm, the one paragraph summary of the story which I wrote in the comments to that puzzle. I know that I can always find my version of the story by putting the word TASERED into the site’s search engine. Perhaps when I have posted this, the search results will also give a link to this page. (Edit, no at least for now.)
Curiouser and curiouser, Pelham Barton @82. My hardcopy 2016 (revised 13th edition complete with missing words) only has the lower case taser (noun and verb) and no Taser with trademark. My e-version (not the app but embedded in WordWeb Pro) is 2016 and has both taser and Taser.
Tim@83: Interesting. I did not buy my copy of C2016 until some time after Azed started recommending it, so my copy is likely to be at least as recent as Azed’s. I have an idea that may explain the discrepancy. Can I ask you to have a look at the page in the front of your hardcopy 2016 opposite the contents page? Counting back from later pages, I think it is page iv. About half way down, just below the ISBN, mine says “10 9 8 7”, which I think means the seventh impression. If your copy has a longer list, going back to a smaller last number, that would be consistent with the idea that the entry on TASER was changed between different impressions.
If anyone else wants to join in the hunt here, please feel free to do so.
PB@84. Interesting. My C2016 shows 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 below the ISBN number on the page you are referring to.
The entry for Taser relates only to the trademark.
Pelham, mine has 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2, so it’s the second impression, meaning I must have bought it not too long after 2016. I haven’t been able to find when I bought it exactly.
That raises the question of what else may be different between various impressions.
Jay@85 and Tim@86: Thank you for your responses. In relation to Tim’s last point, I have been looking further at page iv, in particular at the three paragraphs immediately below the line we have been comparing. The last of these ends by saying that the publisher “will endeavour to rectify the situation for any reprints and future editions” (emphasis added). While this was written in the context of copyright, it looks as though the same principle has been applied to trademarks, which were discussed in the previous paragraph.
That means that there is no good evidence of any changes between C2014 and C2016 first impression other than the reinstatement of the missing words, and I must retract much of what I said in comment 82, unless and until someone can provide an example of any other changes.
Finally, I suppose it is too much to hope that someone will be reading this who has a copy of the third impression and can narrow the gap between Tim’s copy and Jay’s.
Once again Chambers93 shows its superiority . It has Taser as a registered trademark , says ( also without cap ) and has it as a verb plus an adjective – Tasered.
There’s a question from noblejoble @15 on today’s Guardian Philistine blog asking which setters are like Philistine or approachable for newer solvers.
In answer, it’s all a bit subjective because it depends on your general knowledge and how you think, but observing comments from other newer solvers I’ve encountered on the Quick Cryptics, some setters are easier to move on to.
Starting from the Guardian, Picaroon, Carpathian and Maskarade all set for the Quick Cryptic and are approachable elsewhere, particularly in the Quiptic. Pasquale’s Quiptics are fair, as are those from Chandler, Hectence and Matilda. (I’m sure I’ve forgotten some others.). (Brummie also set a Quick Cryptic puzzle, which I enjoyed, but others found a bit challenging.)
Vulcan sets a reliable Monday cryptic, but includes a fair few cryptic definitions, which you either get on with, or don’t. He also sets standard Cryptics as Imogen which are a definite step up.
Pasquale’s Cryptics tend to include obscure vocabulary and Picaroon can dial the difficulty up and down. If you like Philistine, Fed might be worth a look.
Also check the Setters page on this site, because Picaroon also sets as Buccaneer in the FT and Rodriguez in the Indy. Philistine is Goliath in the FT, and etc.
[Not crossword relevant. Did any one manage to complete last Sunday’s Observer’s Killer Sudoku? I must be missing something subtle, but I have ground to a halt.}
[Dave @90 – Finished it this morning, but it wasn’t easy. Usually there’s a key square that opens things up, but that didn’t happen this time – too many “if that, then this, but then what” moments]
I’ll add some personal impressions to Shanne@89’s advice to beginners looking for more challenge.
Generally, but not always, I find the FT setters more approachable than the Guardian (Thursday to Saturday) setters. One exception is Io in the FT. Three setters who appear in both papers are often easier in the FT – Paul/Mudd, Picaroon/Buccaneer and Pasquale/Bradman.
Also, while Maskarade does good Quiptics on Mondays, his regular cryptics can be very difficult for relative newbies.
My other recommendation for people easing their way into cryptics is to go back into the Guardian archives and check out the superb puzzles by Matilda and Orlando – approachable and brilliant.
While they may be a bit more challenging, I would also recommend Arachne/ Rosa Klebb’s puzzles which are always rewarding, even if you need help from fifteensquared.
… And elsewhere Picaroon (aka Robyn) currently has the approachable anonymous Monday crossword in the Telegraph. The Quick Cryptic six times a week in the Times is excellent – regular setters include Picaroon, Pasquale, Paul and Wurm, using different pseudonyms. Obviously those aren’t free, but both papers do have flash sales from time to time – the Telegraph currently has a year’s access to all its puzzles for a very low price.
I’ve got the impression lately that puzzle difficulty levels have dropped significantly. Certain harder setters are becoming a rarity, like Vlad, Enigmatist, Boatman, Tramp and even Paul.
Anyone know if there’s been a definite change in editorial policy or is this just normal statistical variation?
Has anyone else tried to use AI to solve cryptics? I saw this article today, which was interesting: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/llms-vs-cryptic-crossword-matt-rudge-7q2se/
philotelly @94
Yes, I am increasingly concerned that crosswords that are entry- or improving-level are being extravagantly lauded, whatever their individual merits as puzzles. So, conversely, when a Quiptic is thought to be above entry-level, there are howls of protest. When, for a few weeks recently, Everyman seemed to become more challenging, again there were complaints and cheers when it seemed to revert to novice-level. In this way, I feel that there is a growing collective voice among those who comment on the Guardian puzzles which want the challenge-level to be dragged down, and that setters and/or the editor are responding to this.
Balfour @96. The vibe I get is that more variety in the difficulty levels is what’s needed through the week. If something is advertised as entry-level then that’s what it should be. I’m fairly experienced, and there are times I struggle with Everyman and Quiptics, which shouldn’t happen.
Balfour – I’m someone who’s complaining if the Everyman and Quiptic are difficult, not because I can’t do them, but because they are advertised as accessible and if they aren’t, they are putting off solvers who think they cannot do cryptic crosswords and give up. If the Guardian/Observer is providing an entry level puzzle then it needs to provide a puzzle that’s a step up when it advertises that, because all that’s happening now is people who are learning on the Quick Cryptic, regularly solving that one, are getting put off by the Quiptic being challenging and don’t know where to go to find a puzzle to solve next.
I volunteered to blog the Quick Cryptic and support the new solvers into this pastime, because I can see a need to help new people to learn, but there is no point if the next puzzles up don’t match their descriptions.
Personally, I like Vlad, Enigmatist (Io in the FT), Imogen being challenging and Paul pulling out all the stops for myself, but we need a range of puzzles, so that there are routes in for beginners, not all mid challenge or easy, not all difficult, but a choice.
John Perkin as editor had a very simple policy , two easy , two medium , two hard , every week . Not in ascending order, usually Monday and Thursday for easy, Wednesday and Saturday for hard . Of course not every week would be like this but it was the overall average. The Guardian had great easier setters when I was learning, Janus , Quantum , Custos , Logodaedalus and more. Seriously hard setters, Bunthorne , Fidelio, Gemini and Araucaria at times and many in the middle.
Now we have very good and talented setters but nearly all right in the middle . Dynamo may become a very useful addition for Mondays , I would also like to see far more from Carpathian . I have given up hoping for two hard puzzles a week , two a year would be nice.
Shanne @98
First, I really do not think that either last Sunday’s or the previous Sunday’s Quiptic strayed significantly outside the Quiptic zone. The extent to which they may have been felt to do so certainly was not proportionate to the complaints that attended upon them. Secondly, if novice ‘new’ solvers are constantly fed puzzles in their Goldilocks zone, how will their skills develop? An element of challenge is essential; and frankly, if at the first whiff of challenge they give up, your solicitousness on their behalf is rather thrown away.
Secondly, with the moving of the Quiptic from Monday to Sunday, there seemed to me to be a clear mandate for Alan Connor to juice up the Everyman, Do we need two entry-level puzzles on a Sunday, with the Quickie the previous day and a Vulcan or, this week, a Dynamo, to follow? However, when for a short period the Everyman became more challenging, there were demands that it revert to its accustomed level and audible sighs of relief when it did. But when was Everyman ever advertised as entry-level? An expectation appears to have built up over time that it should be so, but need that be an expectation within which AC, as setter, is entrapped?
Some comments on today’s Vlad in the G thread were to the effect that it seemed too tough for a Wednesday or that it really belonged on a Friday or the Saturday Prize slot. I don’t think that solvers with more advanced skills should be expected to switch them off from Saturday afternoon until the following Friday or Saturday while in the meantime solving a series of a predictably easy-to-medium puzzles, however admirably set and clued, which often they are. Roz, I think, is correct in that regard.
In the Guardian Crossword Blog of April this year, Alan Connor said, following a discussion of the new Quick Cryptic puzzle:
“And here’s a suggestion for new solvers. Once you’ve built up a kind of toolbox of these tricks, you might want to try our Quiptic puzzle, which will now appear on Sundays. It’s an online crossword “for beginners and those in a hurry”. Sundays also offer the Observer’s Everyman, introduced in 1945 because the paper’s other puzzle is deliberately and astonishingly challenging. The Everyman has had only six setters; I am the sixth and I like to keep things gentle and solvers satisfied.
Since there’s an unofficial tradition here that the Monday puzzle is not going to take up too much of the start of your week, or leave you with a frustratingly unfinished grid, it’s a matter, perhaps, of working your way further and further through the crosswording week.”
Question: – have you tried solving the Quick Cryptic puzzles? If not, how can you know if the Quiptic and Everyman puzzles are a step up or a leap up?
I enjoyed today’s Vlad, and have no complaints about the difficulty – it’s just the Quiptic and Everyman I will comment on – mostly to reassure new solvers that this is a more challenging puzzle, so please don’t be put off if you can’t solve it.
Part of the angst that I see on 225 and the Graun thread under harder puzzles may be due to unpreparedness for the challenge ahead. I wonder if a system of labeling puzzles easy/moderate/hard would help lessen the shock effect?
I believe most setters use test solvers. These could be a good source of such ratings.
I suspect that everyone would still disagree . I will put my ratings for this week , including today , just to prove a point .
M 2 , T 4, W 8 , Th 6 , F 5 , S 4 .
I think of 1-3 as easy and 8-10 as hard .
This week had a bit more variety , often we get 5/6 nearly every day .
I think there should be two each week that are easier for newer solvers to have a chance and gain confidence , Monday seemed perfect for this.
Unlike Sudokus, there are so many variable factors in a cryptic crossword of 30 clues that even ratings of Easy, Moderate and Difficult would seldom be accurate. From what I’ve heard, a few compilers have more than one test solver and each of those often has a very different opinion on the level of difficulty for any one puzzle.
Also, any rating that implies even a moderate level of difficulty would deter too many punters from even attempting a puzzle, a complete no-no for any puzzles editor.
As someone barely becoming not a beginner, I’d like to emphasise the jump from quick cryptics to any other guardian cryptics of any kind. The quick cryptic is phenomenal for being a very easy cryptic that beginners can not only solve, but appreciate the setting of.
I’ve found almost all other crosswords of that difficulty to be uninspiring, I have been showing my friends the quick cryptic and they’ve all been loving it. If they tried to do a quiptic or everyman, they’d probably only get 3 or 4 clues, so I cannot recommend regularly checking in on them. It would be a waste of their time as it would be too difficult to effectively learn from and would turn them off cryptics altogether. I’d say they’d be able to solve a third or more of only a quarter of recent quiptics or everymans.
The solution we have used is we’ve bought times quick cryptic books and they are a good challenge for them, they are still a big step up from guardian quick cryptics, and many quiptics or everymans are a big step up from them. I think that with more people,than ever wanting to get into cryptic crosswords, especially younger people my age, it’s worth considering how they are realistically meant to do so after grasping the basics.
Eddie@105 stick at it and encourage your friends . I do not know about the Quiptic because it is only online , I do not think the Everyman is suitable now for relative beginners . It used to be perfect , try and find puzzles from 10 years ago .
Did you try the Dynamo puzzle on Monday ? It seemed just right to me. It is the second from this setter and I hope it becomes a regular Monday feature.
I don’t think a ratings system would work. For example, my own ratings system is based around the 25 minutes I spend on a train getting to work (easy = finished before I arrive, medium = finished before I get home, hard = additional evening session required). However I suspect for many expert solvers “hard” means anything that occupies more than about 15 minutes.
In terms of how to improve, I think the only way is practice. I never really got to grips with cryptics until I decided to attempt one every day. Nowadays, beginners have a significant advantage in this connection by being able to access the Guardian’s archive. Download every quiptic you can get your hands on and keep banging away.
The difficulty debate in the preceding posts seems to be based on a presumption that there are only two types of solvers – those that are masterful and those that aspire to be. Under this presumption, the primary purpose of approachable crosswords appears to be as a training aid to move beginners closer to mastery. The odd easy crossword is therefore accepted reluctantly.
But for the Guardian/Observer the two types of solvers will be those that buy the newspaper or a subscriptions and those that hit the website and generate advertising revenue. The objective for publishing puzzles will be to maximise purchases and hits. I suspect that in this analysis the greater impact will come from a preoponderance of puzzles that casual solvers can have a nibble at; not those that challenge the masters.
testing link: admin please feel free to delete!
i would like to see pictures of the bloggers to see if they appear how i imagine them
Van Winkle@108: there is another type of solver who isn’t masterful and doesn’t particularly aspire to be, but enjoys a challenge within a range where they have a reasonable prospect of success. These are often regular solvers who do not deserve to be dismissed as “casual” because they are not consciously in training for something like today’s Enigmatist. That will have been welcome to the masterful (and good luck to them: they deserve to be catered for too) but it’s well above the average level of difficulty and perhaps ought to be marked as such (though regulars will know what to expect from Enigmatist).
gladys@111 – I bring Chambers to my defence (albeit a decent way down the list of possible meanings) – “… unceremonious, relaxed, free and easy …”.
Is the grid for the October Genius puzzle correct? Nothing makes any sense (orientation and length of clues). And the clue for 29 is missing. Or is that all part of the puzzle?
@113
The grid is wrong. The correct grid is shown initially but when you click on “print” you get the wrong one
Admin@114 Aha! Thanks. I thought that would have needed more than a genius to work out.
@113-115
Seems to have been fixed
Yes, all sorted now.
I enter the Genius puzzle almost every month but never win. Does anyone have any idea roughly how many entries there are? I do much better with Premium Bonds!
This amuses me after all the irritation expressed about the Ludwig puzzle – according to Alan Connor’s Guardian Crossword Blog from yesterday, the compilers were Alan Connor with help from Enigmatist!
Yes Shanne@118, I thought that was a bit affected.
Back to Claw’s Genius 256 – the website is telling me that I have missed the entry date but also that the entry date is 2nd November. Any ideas?
This is a comment about Mudd’s FT puzzle 17,864, because I have just finished it and am too late to comment on its blog. 3d AT FIRST BLUSH generated a lot of comment about “blush” vs “flush”. It reminded me of this anecdote, reported in the local Ottawa newspapers at the time:
In the mid-’50s, the Lord Mayor of London visited Ottawa, and was hosted at a formal dinner by the Mayor of Ottawa (Charlotte Whitton, the first female mayor of a Canadian city). They both wore their full ceremonial regalia, but Mayor Whitton also sported a rose on her robe. At the table the Lord Mayor leaned over and asked, “Would you blush if I smelt your rose?”, to which she immediately responded, “Would you flush if I pulled your chain?”
matthew newell @120… that’s happened before. Maybe the closing date need to be set in more than one place. In the past when it happened to me I just kept going back every couple of days until it worked. Maybe an (additional) email will help. I didn’t have that problem with this one (last week sometime?).
Great anecdote cellomaniac @121. 😀
Thanks TimC. Will keep trying – and maybe drop an email
Cellomaniac@121 , brilliant story , wonder if it is actually true ?
I was too late to comment on that puzzle as well , AT FIRST BLUSH relates to childbirth , the baby must change to breathing oxygen , crying helps, a deep breath to give oxygenated blood and the face goes a wonderful pink colour.
I wonder how Guardian solvers feel about the unannounced “special purpose” cryptic puzzles like Sphinx, Ludwig and Omnibus?
To me it’s manipulative, and unnecessary. Their special nature should be flagged. These are “in jokes” and can exclude others who attempt the crossword in good faith.
Alan Connor did finally reveal the Ludwig combo with himself and Enigmatist, but only if you read his column some time later (or came here).
There have been other unknown setter pseudonyms, but often with Special Instructions, a combined effort for a good cause, a tribute or a charity. No one minds that. It’s all out in the open.
If a handful of long term Guardian solvers on 15 squared managed to work out the origin of Omnibus, does that make up for the mental gymnastics and breach of faith for thousands of others who were just looking for their daily fix on the way home from work or over breakfast?
paddymelon@126 – not particularly bothered. As the Guardian crossword has an underlying purpose of selling newspapers, subscriptions or website advertising, it is by nature manipulative.
The Ludwig turned out to be compiled by two experienced setters and was not particularly dependent on the TV programme, apart from being set purportedly by the Einstein of Puzzles. The programme got a five star review in the newspaper, so the experience will be of interest to readers. The issue here is whether the Crossword Editor took advantage of their position to promote their own work.
If the conjectures about the Omnibus are correct, then I have no problem with the concept of multiple compilers. The solving experience was no different from what is usually the case with a new setter, where they have yet to settle on their own voice and show too much of their various influences. Again, the issue is whether there was anything questionable as to how the puzzle came to be published.
I see nothing that would require flagging in the published crossword, once it had been deemed acceptable to publish.
Van Winkle @127 the review I read in the Guardian gave Ludwig 3 stars but the review itself was pretty scathing , especially the fact that nobody noticed the switch . The main issue is the crossword editor using the Guardian puzzle to promote a TV programme where he is a paid consultant , a conflict of interest surely .
Personally I thought the puzzle was very weak, clumsy and disjointed with a very poorly developed theme but maybe this was intentional to match the programme.
We also had a themed Everyman linked in the GEGS (9,4) – A History of Cryptic Crosswords, a BBC Radio 4 programme (for which I can’t find listening figures).
To me it feels more that Alan Connor is trying to promote crosswords in other media. The Radio 4 programme plus themed crossword tie in and the Quick Cryptics seem very much trying to get more people into the dark arts of cryptic crosswords. The link with Ludwig – mainstream BBC1 TV with David Mitchell who has a very high profile (6.017 million views for episode 1) – and the last Sphinx – Steve Pembertton on Taskmaster (Channel 4) also incredibly popular (2nd most popular show on C4 behind Googlebox) – are really promotion of crosswords – advertising on mainstream programmes that reach a lot of people. I wasn’t around for the last Sphinx, but Inside No 9 was also a hit (2 million odd viewers per episode).
me @127 – correction … the review I am misremembering was actually in the Observer (aka the Sunday Guardian), and it was only four stars. Apologies.
Van Winkle @127, I’d say just one experienced compiler. Alan Connor is relatively inexperienced, having only set one kind of crossword for one publication for a comparatively short time.
I don’t object to the special puzzles/TV tie-ins – I think they’re a great idea – but I think they should be bonus content alongside a normal daily puzzle.
Roz @128: “Personally I thought the puzzle was very weak, clumsy and disjointed with a very poorly developed theme but maybe this was intentional to match the programme.”
Maybe they should have printed the puzzle in teal and orange to match the programme’s horrible colour filter. (And don’t get me started on the iffy CGI for the backgrounds in the ridiculous large police HQ and Ludwig’s brother’s house, and the underpowered acting and [cont. p.94].)
Thanks Van Winkle , I only read the Guardian one, I do not like the Observer TV column , I suspect there was one online as well .
Michael @ 132 , I could only take 40 minutes of the first episode before I bailed out. It made Hong Kong Phooey seem like a gritty, neo-realist masterpiece.
I got around to watching Ludwig ep1 the other evening. It raised a chuckle or two. I think puzzlers would enjoy. I would go so far as to say that it plays on and feeds the (but only self-perceived) superiority of puzzlers over more plodden types…
Thanks for the interesting responses to my question @126. I liked Michael R’s suggestion @ 131 that these special puzzles be published as a bonus puzzle along with the usual daily one. I’d have thought that making explicit the link between the crossword to other aspects of British culture would only further the Editor’s presumed intention of promotion of crosswords, as Shanne says @129. It could then be a real talking point in the lunch room or on the train on the way home. Not having these puzzles flagged seems a missed opportunity although there may be business rules precluding the direct link, in the case of the programs that Sphinx and Ludwig referred to.
My thinking has pivoted (just to show I’m down with the kids) wrt the special purpose puzzles. Initially, it did feel as if we, the solvers, were being manipulated and that the G editor had his own agenda/special friends. On reflection, I have become more relaxed and am taking the view that anything that might raise the profile of our passion within the wider public is probably a good thing. As per Shane @129 and pdm above. If the odd TV viewer flirts with crosswords as a result of the programmes, surely our pastime is the better for that. The quality/difficulty/smoothness of the puzzles is a separate matter on which solvers will have their own views. I suspect none of those that have been highlighted in this discussion would have made much sense to new solvers and they’d have been a bit of a wake up for lapsed solvers tempted to re-enter the fray.
Perhaps just improving the variety of puzzles would encourage people , we used to get two very accessible puzzles every week for newer solvers . Now we usually get none , even Vulcan can be hard for newer solvers . Dynamo seems a good option and Carpathian could be given more cryptics. I have given up on expecting two hard puzzles.
I have just done 15 weekday puzzles in a row finishing between the same two railway stations , this means my solving time has not varied by more than 2 minutes either way . Middle of the road seems to be the norm now for the Guardian.
My solving times have varied more than that, but not a lot, but I also know that I am slower at solving than you from what you’ve said, so slight differences are amplified. If I hadn’t sailed through Paul’s crossword from yesterday quite so fast, I’d be a bit more even (No idea why, but I found I was on the right wavelength). The last puzzle that took me longer than the rough time bracket I reckon about right for a daily cryptic was the Enigmatist from the Friday 3 weeks ago.,
Yes Enigmatist the last puzzle to go beyond my 20 minute journey , that is 16 weekday puzzles ago . Not one of the last 15 has been less than 8 minutes , this should not happen . The Guardian has a lot of very good setters producing fine puzzles but the range of dificulty has become so narrow .
Be careful what you wish for, there’s a Steve Pemberton (Sphinx) special on line today. 😉 Don’t know if it’s in the printed edition.
Can I ask what an “S & B” is?
@141
Sloggers & Betters.
Take look here
@Admin, @Shanne: I sent admin an e-mail earlier in the week, containing code for a “Reveal all” button for the blog posts of the Quick Cryptics (see comments #56 and #59 of last weeks post).
Did it get though to you?
Thank you AP, no, it didn’t, but kenmac, the site admin, has just posted on the Site Feedback that there’s a problem with his email.
I did receive it but this has been a hectic week so I haven’t had time to look at it.