Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

thanks - see what you mean!

Hi all,

Apologies for all the confusion about how to finish this one off! Obviously I can't provide any help but hopefully once people get to the end they can see what I had in mind. Failing that I'll post further thoughts, background etc to this puzzle once the fifteensquared blog for this one comes up.

Here's hoping that people enjoyed it despite the headscratching over the end.

Jaguar (half of Jixaur, with Artix -- who I'd like to thank for helping this puzzle get from gathering virtual dust to actually being finished).

That is all very well, but having solved the crossword and found the clashes, worked out the name, it is unfair that the preamble is so obscure that after all the effort, the final step is indecipherable.
This puzzle ends up as a real disappointment

I think that all is required is to "black out" the 8 clash cells.

But that does not produce eight pairs of non-words.

We did work on the preamble a fair amount and tried to make it fair. Apologies that we ended up not succeeding. When you know the solution to start with it's often tricky to judge how clear or not a preamble is for those starting from the beginning. Obviously, we got it wrong here despite our best efforts.

Yes, the preamble was opaque, and though I have posted my solution I am not 100% clear about the 'apt representation' required.

However, it is very refreshing, after a notable contrasting episode recently, to see a setter accept that criticism by experienced solvers is sometimes justified, and that admitting to the odd misjudgement is a sign of strength. So thanks, Jaguar, for the puzzle and the contrition. I am not sure that you will be welcomed by the thought-police on 15 squared, though, after visiting here!

I think the preamble is a mess to be honest but I have every sympathy for the setter(s). Quite often preambles look like gobbledygook but things usually get resolved (no reference to the puzzle intended !). In this instance it just didn't work although most folk, with helpful nudges from others, seem to have persisted. It can't be easy trying to explain something that is inherently difficult to explain without giving too much away. What I would be interested in is what the test solvers made of this puzzle ?

The version of the preamble that the test-solvers passed by ended up being changed rather dramatically, based on my records, so maybe their opinion is no longer as relevant on that point at least. I think the consensus at the time of test-solving was "tough, but doable".

The preamble that made it to the published version is mostly down to the IQ team (although before it looks like I'm washing my hands after all, I did OK their changes).

I have to say that while I'm apologetic it's pointless to deny that it's been frustrating to read the negative comments. I hope solvers enjoyed the clues, at least; and, while the execution may not have been perfect, I hope they agree that the idea was worth writing an IQ about.

Most of this was enjoyable, despite the preamble. The two phrases in the clashing squares and the historical name were positive elements to it. As has already been said, the confusion over the "non-words" and the "apt representation" are regrettable and it is a shame that it has spoilt it for a lot of people. Nevertheless, thanks for the contribution.