Jobs & Education0 min ago
Listener 4164: 4164 by Kea
41 Answers
I was expecting a Kea by the end of the year, but I was surprised to see a Kea numerical
This was an easy numerical (under 1 hour solve) and I am glad it was, partly because of the stinker E grade numerical in the Magpie this month.
If anyone wants a challenge then look at that.
Regarding Kea's numerical, one has to admire the clever construction, but I am left with wanting more.
This was an easy numerical (under 1 hour solve) and I am glad it was, partly because of the stinker E grade numerical in the Magpie this month.
If anyone wants a challenge then look at that.
Regarding Kea's numerical, one has to admire the clever construction, but I am left with wanting more.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by midazolam. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with all of the above, very straightforward and a bit disappointing. I am not a great fan of the numerical puzzles but usually enjoy (in a masochistic sort of way) the challenge of working out how to break into the grid or learning something new about some obscure branch of mathematics - in this case, it was just a bit of a slog (made considerably quicker by using Excel).
Well, I liked it.
OK, yes, it was easy, but the link to the crossword number was fun (although no doubt submitted way in advance and made to 'hang on' until the right week), and did anyone else notice that one clue had two solutions leading to identical entries? That, for me, was the bit I found the most amusing.
Now, where did I leave my anorak....
OK, yes, it was easy, but the link to the crossword number was fun (although no doubt submitted way in advance and made to 'hang on' until the right week), and did anyone else notice that one clue had two solutions leading to identical entries? That, for me, was the bit I found the most amusing.
Now, where did I leave my anorak....
"Decided to use BBC Basic (on Tom Seddons's excellent emulator "Model B") rather than Openoffice.org Calc.
10 lines, in about 10 minutes, then simply run for each clue and entry length.
So, just a little brain exercise but minimal satisfaction. "
Would you - and others - not have got more brain exercise simply by tackling it with pencil, paper and maybe a calculator? Just a thought ...
10 lines, in about 10 minutes, then simply run for each clue and entry length.
So, just a little brain exercise but minimal satisfaction. "
Would you - and others - not have got more brain exercise simply by tackling it with pencil, paper and maybe a calculator? Just a thought ...
I'm just reflecting that while people do puzzles for different reasons - and it can be be fun writing software or using spreadsheets to solve this sort of puzzle, those of us who do them for the "mental exercise" shouldn't really complain if we reduce the exercise element still further by flicking a switch. If I was capable of writing a program in 10 minutes to solve it then I definitely would prefer the "long" option. Same applies to word puzzles. Many of these puzzles can be attempted with an electronic word-search and completed in minutes once you've got started, but where's the chalenge in that?
Yes, I hate and dread the numericals and would happily see them go but this one was possible with paper, pencil and calculator. Kea is certainly capable of producing a fearsome puzzle of Magpie E numerical style and has clearly taken on the task of creating a simpler one to encourage those of us who are not good with programmes etc. Perhaps the disappointed people should spend their empty weekend attempting to write a lively, difficult, imaginative numerical puzzle with a couple of pdms. (Now that's fighting talk!)
Have to agree with all others - this was a good feat of construction but very quickly became trivial once one got the hang of how to whittle down the possibilities for each multiplicand (?) ... anyhow, lots of spare time now. Some could be used on word puzzles in Saturday's Independent (IQ) or today's Sunday Telegraph (EV) - both by Chalicea and both entertaining and also relatively easy run-outs ...
Started today and finished today, so time to catch up on last week's as I try to sort out the asterisked clues in full detail.
I love the numerical puzzles and hope that more people will come to like them too, so I was pleased by this one as it gives others the chance to make a good start. I know that it can be solved by computer, if you have the skills but this can also be solved by native wit, if the attempter is not afraid of numbers. Good luck to those who try, well done to those who succeed.
I love the numerical puzzles and hope that more people will come to like them too, so I was pleased by this one as it gives others the chance to make a good start. I know that it can be solved by computer, if you have the skills but this can also be solved by native wit, if the attempter is not afraid of numbers. Good luck to those who try, well done to those who succeed.
Yup - easy for me too, albeit with a couple of "duh" moments, such as at 2d when, counting upward in multiples of 5, I stopped working things out one multiple before the correct answer and panicked that I'd gone wrong! Also a bit premature in entering another solution (initially two possibilities and I overlooked the correct one), but again fixed it and solved within an hour.
Yes, simple, but I actually quite liked the theme. Perhaps it would have been more fun without such an obvious pair of entry points?
Yes, simple, but I actually quite liked the theme. Perhaps it would have been more fun without such an obvious pair of entry points?
Well done to those who have attempted/solved this. Numericals are not for us, and this sounds as if it has been a pretty dull one. Having polished off 4163, we are still looking occasionally at Mash to see if we can solve it before the solution is published, but with no idea how to get from Grid 1 to Grid 2................
For Mash's puzzle, I wouldn't want to give too much away but the best point of entry might be in focusing on the "one clash will also appear and must be combined into a digit" part of the preamble. There seems to me that for the digits 1-9 there's only one sensible way of doing this with letters - and having found that one way you might see how the puzzle solution is constructed.
