Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: PeteBiddlecombe <peterbiddlecombe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 10, 10:57 pm, Steve Ball <pretty.g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PeteBiddlecombe:
He's also asserting that if daily paper crosswords
required this kind of internet search, SuDoku and
the like would take their place very quickly.
Peter, apparently there are some UK barred-grid puzzles that use obscure
words, and require the use of a (usually Chambers) dictionary, right? If a
clue of this sort was entered into a contest here, would the need to open a
dictionary to solve it be considered a fault?
That's a question for the moderator of each contest, though to
be honest I wish the moderators would say something about the
type of cryptic crossword the clue is presumed to belong to. My
guess from the range of answers normally chosen to clue is that
barred-grid style clues wouldn't go down very well. (I say this
because in the barred-grid puzzles, the norm is for half or
more of the answers to be "dictionary words" that you wouldn't
expect even experienced solvers to be able to define accurately.
The vast majority of answers in the contests here are everyday
words.)
If there's nothing bad, per se, about these puzzles and they're just of a
particular kind that requires the use of a dictionary, mightn't a clue that
requires a bit of Googling also be seen as, not faulty, but of a particular
kind. Everybody here has internet access and I can search Google much
quicker than I can search my dead-tree Chambers.
The problem here is the sheer range of stuff that Google covers.
Those UK barred-grid puzzles can need stuff outside the dictionary,
but most of it can be found in a set of maybe 10 reference books.
Google must be worth thousands of books. So someone has to make
a judgement whether "shop" or "store" can fairly indicate:
(a) Harrods or Macy's
(b) any of the shops in my local high street findable
with Google
I'm not objecting to Google being used to replace dead-tree
books, but to the use of Google as an excuse for bringing
in any old obscurity that happens to suit the clue.
I prefer a clue that requires no research, but maybe that's just me.
--
Steve = : ^ )
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Colin Blackburn
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- References:
- SCWC 81
- From: Mark Iredell
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: grammatim
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: PeteBiddlecombe
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: PeteBiddlecombe
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: grammatim
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: grammatim
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Brian Westley
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: PeteBiddlecombe
- Re: SCWC 81 results
- From: Steve Ball
- SCWC 81
- Prev by Date: Re: PVPCWC 65 Announcement (Reminder: entry deadline June 13)
- Next by Date: Re: SCWC 81 results
- Previous by thread: Re: SCWC 81 results
- Next by thread: Re: SCWC 81 results
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|