Listener 4131 - Carte Blanche en Tore by Ten-Four

[cluelessJoe]

Easiest one of the year for me by a long chalk. Am I getting smarter, or are these Listeners getting simpler?

[tilbee]

Missed the 100th ! It is interesting how different aspects interest different people. I enjoy the clue solving, even if cold solving 40 clues was a little too much for me (wrong solution for 26ac was a killer), When it comes to the end game, I like a (mild )challenge,but anything that requires 3-dimensional awareness totally turns me off. I remember studying graph theory 30 years ago, but nothing as practical as this - all theoretic.

I congratulate those who worked out he end game without recourse to the web.

[tilbee]

Actually well done to anyone who persevered long enough to complete the grid; this was a tough one.

[BlackHugh]

I have also just completed it - after deciding this morning, that with 35 clues cold-solved but only the central one entered, to give up unless I made substantial progress with my morning coffee. God be praised that happened. However I have a mundane question. It is done on Excel - Do you think the Mr. Green et. al. will accept it if I merely print that off? Has anyone done that before?

[tilbee]

Blackhugh, I do not know the rules of submission (since I don't generally). All I can say is that the paper used in the Times is tougher than I feared.

[tenflags]

Thanks for the encouragement Eagle country.. a friendly nudge and onwards and upwards .. or should I say round and over. I'm amazed at folks who managed to cold solve most of these clues first. I needed to logic out the grid fill and solve together from fairly early on.
Still have a couple of word-plays to precisely bottom out but the instruction is evident - albeit I will scratch my head about the third word given the context of the preamble.
Will look at tomorrow - perhaps it will be more obvious then - Too late to be visualising donuts tonight anyway.

[Philoctetes]

It is never too late for donuts ;)

[mullingar]

OK Genii, I have given up if anybody can help with the answers to 2across and 3 across could you email me on [email protected] I don't think I can wait for 3 weeks!

[BlackHugh]

" How long before the Listener publishes just the clues (without a grid) and requires the solvers to provide just a list of answers ?"

S-Matrix please don't tempt the setters! Maybe we'll be given the answers and have to attempt to deduce the clues.

[ichkeria]

The great irony of the denouement of this puzzle is of course that, despite all the indications to the contrary, you don't need any knowledge of graph theory at all to complete the puzzle - just follow the instructions given :-)

[BlackHugh]

Yes - but it is surely not easy to work out how to follow the instruction. I, at least, took some time over that.

[Cruncher]

I'm up for the tortoise prize. FInally put the last pieces together last night. Very tough but a great challenge

[ichkeria]

I didn't say it was easy :-)

[bellabee]

as someone who in fact knew nothing at all about graph theory [unlike yourself, ichkeria] i can say that you are mistaken. the statement in the preamble would appear paradoxical without a basic understanding of graph theory. you are probably trying to suggest that this crossword didn't violate the 'numbers'/words division the listener [for the most part] observes - 4 numericals a year - which is quite enough i think! there are a few people like me who pursue a different kind of 'all correct' that is everything bar those 4. so crosswords like this one [and centigrade/fahrenheit conversion eg] are extremely irksome. i've noticed in the stats that the failure rate for numericals is not high, which suggests that the 4 numericals are rarely daunting for those with the requisite skills, isn't more input in that direction being overly generous?

[Cruncher]

Bellabee - I'm not sure that you need to understand any maths to do this. As long as you understand what is meant by wrap-around answers the rest is just an ordinary day out for the listener solver - not........!

[bellabee]

NOT

[bellabee]

i'd bet you do the numericals cruncher.

[ichkeria]

Cruncher is quite correct and i am afraid bellabee completely misunderstands the point I was making. There is no mathematical knowledge whatsoever required to solve this puzzle, even though it was undoubtedly inspired by mathematics and created by a mathematician.
The only knowledge I possess of graph theory is that which I read in the preamble, plus the interesting but unhelpful stuff I picked up while - idiotically - perusing the web looking for assistance in the final step. Then I realised I was being daft and applied the "wrap-around" knowledge that Cruncher refers to.
Having to apply knowledge of graph theory would have meant having to work out the

[ichkeria]

Cruncher is quite correct and I'm afraid bellabee has completely misunderstood the point of my post. There is no mathematical knowledge whatsoever required to solve this puzzle, although doubtless the puzzle was inspired by mathematics and created by a mathematician. The only knowledge of graph theory which I personally possess is the bit I read in the preamble, plus extra interesting but unhelpful stuff acquired while - idiotically - perusing the web looking for help with the final step. Then I realised I was being daft.
Ask yourself exactly what knowldege of "graph theory" you actually applied to solve the fiinal step and I think you'll agree.
I'm not aware of any "number/words" division in the Listener - there have been many excellent puzzles which combine the two - this was an excellent puzzle and very tough, but I don't think one can class it as one of those "hybrids". .
I think the reason that the failure rate for pure number puzzles is lower is because there are fewer opportunities for error, as a rule, the solving process being one of logic and with fewer extra steps, added bars , highlightings etc etc.