Listener 4134: Cruciverbalism by Poat

[AHearer]

Thank you, Poat. Quite pretty, but not tough enough to keep me away from the garden for too long this fine weekend. I have to admit I had to rely on the phrase to get me started on the bottom right-hand corner.

[kwyjibo]

Considering how relatively few clues there were compared to most weeks, I didn't think it was that easy.

[Speravi]

Of course, I enjoy the occasional carte blanche, but I believe that we've had too many of late: nevertheless, thanks to Poat for an enjoyable workout.

On the subject of 4131, I consider the preamble to have been inadequate and misjudged, and I am fortified in that belief by its inordinate length. Ten-Four is to be congratulated on an ambitious puzzle that was clearly enjoyed and appreciated by many, and, as always, ultimate responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the editors, rather than the composer. I studied graph theory (exam score 85%) as a final year option on my way to my first in maths — sorry if this sounds arrogant, but my point is: — if someone with that background is unable to divine the intended meaning of the preamble’s instructions, what chance do non-mathematicians stand?

[bellabee]

speravi - whilst not knowing what it is that you are specifically referring to [maths cse grade 4]- may i thank you for that comment. i don't know why the non-maths contingent has been so quiet about that one. maths is supposed to have a precise number of outings in the listener,in fact they only recently re-dated them! apologies for carping about the clueing on this one - hadn't noticed the metre running until freiheit pointed it out.

[midazolam]

While we are on the topic of carte blanche, I would like to add that I feel it is unnecessary to change a puzzle to carte blanche just to make a puzzle harder.

If a puzzle needs to have a number of lines at added instead of highlighting cells and so would look messy with bars (e.g. Ten-Four), the grid layout is slightly unusual (e.g. Poat), or the grid needs adjustment (e.g. Phi) then I think that is fair (giving examples of the carte blanche puzzles this year, which in fact is only 3).

What I find irritating is the need to add the bars unless they give thematic merit (e.g. Pieman - last year). There was no need to add the bars in Ten-Four's puzzle. It was not enjoyable and did make the whole thing look messy.

However, I do enjoy the challenge of carte blanche puzzles, so only three this year means I am sure will have more to come this year.

[Speravi]

I suppose that it's the bunching together, rather than the absolute number, of cartes blanche that has given me the feeling of surfeit. Where are the snows, cricket matches, boat races, and card games of yesteryear?

[Mysterons]

Philoctetes, 22 is a container clue, with zip meaning zilch.

[Philoctetes]

Thanks, Mysterons. The other fairly obscure meaning also threw me, but all is clear now!

[AndrewG-S]

Midazolam, you comment is entirely in line with the Listener guidance which says: "Setters shouldn’t add gratuitous obstacles simply to make a puzzle less solvable. For example, “carte blanche” presentation, jumbled entries and multiple clue types should be used only if thematically justified."

[midazolam]

Thanks AndrewG-S and if anyone wants more carte blanche action then there is one by Schadenfreude in this month's Magpie.

[midazolam]

...well that should be next month (May edition) - available from today.

[cluelessJoe]

... and, in the same excellent publication, there don't seem to be too many grid numbers in evidence in Shark's offering either - though he/she does at least enter a few bars (a practice I wholeheartedly endorse by the way).

[ichkeria]

"On the subject of 4131, I consider the preamble to have been inadequate and misjudged, and I am fortified in that belief by its inordinate length. Ten-Four is to be congratulated on an ambitious puzzle that was clearly enjoyed and appreciated by many, and, as always, ultimate responsibility for ensuring fair play rests with the editors, rather than the composer. I studied graph theory (exam score 85%) as a final year option on my way to my first in maths — sorry if this sounds arrogant, but my point is: — if someone with that background is unable to divine the intended meaning of the preamble’s instructions, what chance do non-mathematicians stand? "

That comment rather makes my point that this puzzle did not require any knowledge of maths to solve it. Having read some comments by "mathematicians" elsewhere about this puzzle, i had to smile at how people tied themselves in knots with mathematical theory and ended up missing the point. A little knowledge a dangerous thing perhaps?
Now that the solution is out i can say what I wanted to say earlier: namely that the one aspect of multi-dimensionality which was relevant to the puzzle was the idea that rows and columns were continuous in two dimensions. This fact, however, was already obvious from the cyclic method of entry of certain answers. So the lines had to be cyclic as well. It was merely applying the principle already stated in the preamble. I had never even heard of graph theory before, and i found the preamble perfectly adequate. A little knowledge of maths perhaps a dangerous thing?

I am not saying the solution was easy to arrive at, far from it, but no way was any recondite mathematical knowledge required. Just logic and common sense from the recesses of one's own brain, like all the best puzzles.

[bellabee]

what a simplistic analogy - yes, the clues continued around the edges of the grid,. yes, it wouldn't require any maths knowledge to realise the lines would do the same - but each answer didn't have to be connected with every other answer without crossing[unlike the ks - and there is the rub] - i won't be responding to any more posts relating to the damned doughnut.

[Speravi]

I am quoted by ichkeria, and feel I had better give a response.

My point was that the preamble was unclear even to someone with knowledge of the relevant area of graph theory, not that knowledge of graph theory was needed. Some solvers managed to deduce what was required — I congratulate them, a fortiori in the case of non-mathematicians. It wasn’t the attempt to interpret or apply any maths in the context of the rubric that was my problem; my difficulty was in the attempt to interpret the English in it! I appreciate that these matters are subjective, and it is only very occasionally that I have been critical of preambles that I have thought unclear to the point of being unfair: however, this is the most egregious example that I can recall since starting the Listener some twenty-five years ago, and I still believe that my criticism was warranted (in a spirit of giving feedback with a constructive intention).

Talking of English and criticism, Pope’s “An Essay on Criticism” contains the often misquoted line:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing”

taken with the line that completes the couplet, a meaning emerges different from that which appears prima facie…

[failedagain]

Pope also writes, "Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss," which could be a motto for this forum.

[ichkeria]

With reference to speravi's reply, preambles can often be the hardest part of a puzzle to construct, never mind to understand. It was probably inevitable that in this case in particular it would prove problematic. All i can say is that, as far as I am concerned, i was left in no doubt having read it, and the instruction, as to what was requited (how to achieve it of course being another matter)

[ichkeria]

I should add that I was not quoting Pope, of course :-)

[ichkeria]

"it wouldn't require any maths knowledge to realise the lines would do the same - but each answer didn't have to be connected with every other answer without crossing[unlike the ks - and there is the rub]"

No, but they could have done. You could have had 21 answers which did just that, which could have been traced by lines.
Now that would have been some construction!

Anyway none of this has anything to do with Poat's brilliant puzzle.