Listener No 4236 Oh No! Not Another Playfair, By Mordred

[Ruthrobin]

I usually hate playfairs, so what a joy to have this one with a difference. Thank you so much Mordred (for a nice easy solve, too, that will be perfect to welcome newcomers). Great fun!

[jim360]

Well perhaps it was to some disappointing not to see the Playfair used. Still, at least the EV used it, and revealed something vaguely interesting - it took an online Playfair Breaker just two pairs to break the entire code.

In case that looks like cheating. Well, it was to some extent. But at least I got two parts of the final pattern correct almost as quickly, even if I never bothered to finish cracking the full code by hand.

[Philoctetes]

Re 12 (Trying hard not to give too broad a clue). The name involved does not refer to a "historian", but contributions in other genres. The mistake is easily made, but as irritating to me as confusing a famous Physicist with a Chemist would be to a scientist.

[Texasetes]

I'm afraid the EV will go unattempted as I have no intention of taking out a Torygraph subscription, free or otherwise. But then if the Playfair code yields so easily to an online solver it probably wouldn't have been much of a mental challenge either.

I do sometimes wonder exactly why anyone who so easily resorts to 'help' bothers with puzzles at all. It's like having someone do your homework for you when the homework is optional in the first place.

[jim360]

I don't see it that way at all. In the first place, I don't have the vocabulary (or a Chambers dictionary this week) to be able to go without some form of online word finder. But even then it just spits out possible matches and it's up to me to determine which of those is the correct one. In the second place, I demonstrated to my satisfaction that I am able to get a handle on cracking playfair codes, and since I'm still getting used to them and I won't be submitting the EV I don't see why jumping to the end solution on my first Playfair is an issue. Helps to confirm that I was on the right track.

In the third place, since a computer is still completely unintelligent I can't use it (unless I paid a large amount of money for a special program) to solve these crosswords for me, and just am using it to do the menial work. Which is what tools like computers are there for. Why use a slide rule when you have a calculator?

And finally, even with all of these tools at my disposal it probably took me several days to complete a crossword like that when it first came out and I am now down to measuring time of completion in hours. That's certainly nothing to do with having a faster computer, though I still have a long way to go before I've got the hang of these.

[Cruncher]

Thanks Monkmonk - it was the presumed use of the second word of the clue as an anagram indicator that seemed particularly random

[tilbee]

Is the EV available free online ? I guess I can always try and avoid the associated editorials etc if so.

Sorry Mordred but this week somewhat on the side of the underwhelmed.

[petefoxes]

Finished, also slightly disappointed at the endgame being rather superficial. Some nice clues though.

As someone else who studied that subject I take the point about the individual in 12, though it didn't particularly bother me.

[petefoxes]

> I do sometimes wonder exactly why anyone who so easily resorts to 'help' bothers with puzzles at all.

To improve, presumably.

[the_heisman]

Thanks Philoctetes. Your moniker does suggest rather greater familiarity with this sort of thing than I have. I had assumed that the historian was a person of many parts.

[the_heisman]

Texasetes
It won't make you a bad person. On many occasions I checked the identity of The Guardian setter and bought it for the Araucaria or Paul crossword and quite cheerfully threw the rest away.

[Staurologist]

Those who have complained about the Roman writer in 12 should recall that one of those so-named, born in around 23 AD, a man of many parts, wrote many books about Rome's wars with the Germans, and continued work done by an earlier historian. Those works are not what he is now perhaps best remembered for, but it is not unreasonable to refer to him as a historian.

[Scorpius]

I'm pretty sure that a setter of Mordred's experience would have explored the possibility of making real words, at least from the replacements outside the playfair grid. Of course, if real words had been possible it would not have been necessary to limit the nine letters to one instance each in the grid, but that in itself is a feat, as has been said.

I'm surprised to see 4 instances of non-Ximenean unching draw comment. 2 unches in a five-letter word is not at all uncommon in Listener puzzles, often in cases where the clues are far tougher.

[Philoctetes]

Fair point, Staurologist. But to consider him a "historian" on the basis of those lost works, when his more considerable surviving output is in other genres would be like referring to Isaac Newton as a Theologian on the basis of his "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture". It is either deviously unfair, or, more likely imho, a bit of sloppiness that would not be tolerated referring to a scientist.

[sunny-dave]

Hmmm - all done and dusted in double-quick time - but irritatingly I just can't parse 14Ac.

Can someone drop a gentle hint to [email protected] and save my Sunday evening from frustration.

Ta muchly.

[tilbee]

Response sent.

[sunny-dave]

Thanks tilbee & cruncher - embarrassing blind spot considering I used to earn a crust in computers ...

dave x

[Cloverjo]

Thanks to AHearer for recommending the EV. Very enjoyable. I've never tried an EV before. Having trouble with final bits of top right corner, though.

[cluelessJoe]

Scorpius - 2/5 unches are indeed frowned upon in some quarters and I think editors try to find a way around them where possible. The editor of another puzzle (one mentioned a few times here this week) has gone on record in saying that anything over 37% unching is a no-no as far as he is concerned. I've known him to dismiss submissions from at least 3 setters because they contained a 2/5.
There again, jim360 isn't 2/5 the number of defeats you can suffer before you stand a chance of being knocked out of University Challenge nowadays? Guess we discover later whether you hit the 3/6 .. good luck

[Garaman]

The following is an extract from The Listener’s guide for setters:

Setters should pay particular attention to the incidence of unchecked letters. Guidance on acceptable ‘unching’ is given in the book by Ximenes listed in the Recommendations, but may be summarised as 0 (sometimes 1 may be justified) unches in a 3-letter word, 1 in 4 and 5, 2 in 6 and 7, 3 in 8 and 9 and no more than a ratio of one in three thereafter. Devices such as misprinted entries increase the effective unching and compensating adjustments would be expected from the setter.

‘Guidance’ and ‘Recommendations’ are key here I would have thought meaning that they are not strict rules. Editors may well accept grids with greater incidence of unchecked letters but if I were submitting a puzzle I would want to minimise the chance of rejection.

[JackDeCrow]

Did anyone else find the wordplay in 33d a bit of a stretch? Mind you, I've only just fully understood 14a!