XWord Muggles Forum

Glad I didn't submit my first, crudely-reasoned effort. Thanks to RPardoe for talking me down and pointing me in the right direction. Much more elegant than I originally thought!

I'm a little behind, but I think I'm at the point some of you passed by, where I have arrived at an answer that is probably wrong.

Oh wow...I just realized there is more to what I was looking at that makes it a better answer than I thought. Maybe I was in the right place after all? Haven't submitted yet, but feeling like I could make a great case for it now.

----------

Updated to add that I was correct. While I don't think PGW will create a spam filter for me, he might reduce the maximum number of characters allowed in his entry form. I don't know why I feel the need to justify all my answers to him in great detail

Finally got it, after staring off and on for several days. And it took a hint from a solver to get me there. Which is killing me because there was a point where I noted something -- thinking, "Hmm ..." -- and this did indeed relate to finding the solution. BUT I DIDN'T PURSUE IT BEYOND THE NOTICING. Grrr!!! When will I learn?

It took a while, but it finally came to me. Now to sip some good bourbon and watch football.

FrankieHeck wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:28 pm Oh wow...I just realized there is more to what I was looking at that makes it a better answer than I thought. Maybe I was in the right place after all? Haven't submitted yet, but feeling like I could make a great case for it now.

That was basically my experience: I had the right answer to begin with, but not for the right reason!

FrankieHeck wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:28 pm Oh wow...I just realized there is more to what I was looking at that makes it a better answer than I thought. Maybe I was in the right place after all? Haven't submitted yet, but feeling like I could make a great case for it now.

----------

Updated to add that I was correct. While I don't think PGW will create a spam filter for me, he might reduce the maximum number of characters allowed in his entry form. I don't know why I feel the need to justify all my answers to him in great detail

I did the same, maybe adding more than was necessary ("I was born at an early age...").

Al Sisti wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:02 pm

FrankieHeck wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:28 pm Oh wow...I just realized there is more to what I was looking at that makes it a better answer than I thought. Maybe I was in the right place after all? Haven't submitted yet, but feeling like I could make a great case for it now.

----------

Updated to add that I was correct. While I don't think PGW will create a spam filter for me, he might reduce the maximum number of characters allowed in his entry form. I don't know why I feel the need to justify all my answers to him in great detail

I did the same, maybe adding more than was necessary ("I was born at an early age...").

At some point during my lengthy exposition, I realized I had to be right, and that I was almost certainly, then, explaining his own puzzle to him, which was kind of embarrassing. But I'd already gone on so long that I went ahead and sent it.

FrankieHeck wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:07 pm

Al Sisti wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:02 pm

FrankieHeck wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:28 pm Oh wow...I just realized there is more to what I was looking at that makes it a better answer than I thought. Maybe I was in the right place after all? Haven't submitted yet, but feeling like I could make a great case for it now.

----------

Updated to add that I was correct. While I don't think PGW will create a spam filter for me, he might reduce the maximum number of characters allowed in his entry form. I don't know why I feel the need to justify all my answers to him in great detail

I did the same, maybe adding more than was necessary ("I was born at an early age...").

At some point during my lengthy exposition, I realized I had to be right, and that I was almost certainly, then, explaining his own puzzle to him, which was kind of embarrassing. But I'd already gone on so long that I went ahead and sent it.

Right, that's exactly what I go through every time there's one of these that could be solved randomly; i.e., when he doesn't ask "why." I know he's saying at some point when he's reading my comment -- Chapter 2 perhaps -- "Okay, Okay, already!! I believe you!"

I boldly sent in an answer with no justification.

First time I'm doing a PGW meta and I'm looking blankly at the sheet. It takes time to get used to meta constructors' styles, so I guess it'll take me a couple of puzzles to understand what is going on here.

burak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:01 pm First time I'm doing a PGW meta and I'm looking blankly at the sheet. It takes time to get used to meta constructors' styles, so I guess it'll take me a couple of puzzles to understand what is going on here.

I think this one was particularly hard. You might want to practice on some older ones to get a feel for the style. Last week's, #44 "Shuffling Papers," is a good one to start with, and if you want classic PGW, #29 "Wedge Issues" is a pretty great one. They should all be available on the blog.

damefox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:26 pm

burak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:01 pm First time I'm doing a PGW meta and I'm looking blankly at the sheet. It takes time to get used to meta constructors' styles, so I guess it'll take me a couple of puzzles to understand what is going on here.

I think this one was particularly hard. You might want to practice on some older ones to get a feel for the style. Last week's, #44 "Shuffling Papers," is a good one to start with, and if you want classic PGW, #29 "Wedge Issues" is a pretty great one. They should all be available on the blog.

This one did prove to be a tough one - and it involves an element that has become kind of a go-to move for me, so experienced solvers of my puzzles might have had a leg up. Meanwhile, if you're looking to try your hand at older ones, most are available at the blog's archive page - pgwcc.net/archive. I haven't updated it in a few weeks but will try to do so soon.

Solution to this one is also up as of a few minutes ago. Alas, I don't have another one polished and ready to go right now. After holidays and a vacation, I've had to prioritize my actual work lately. Will try to get another one ready soon ...

pgw

pgw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:19 pm

damefox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:26 pm

burak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:01 pm First time I'm doing a PGW meta and I'm looking blankly at the sheet. It takes time to get used to meta constructors' styles, so I guess it'll take me a couple of puzzles to understand what is going on here.

I think this one was particularly hard. You might want to practice on some older ones to get a feel for the style. Last week's, #44 "Shuffling Papers," is a good one to start with, and if you want classic PGW, #29 "Wedge Issues" is a pretty great one. They should all be available on the blog.

This one did prove to be a tough one - and it involves an element that has become kind of a go-to move for me, so experienced solvers of my puzzles might have had a leg up. Meanwhile, if you're looking to try your hand at older ones, most are available at the blog's archive page - pgwcc.net/archive. I haven't updated it in a few weeks but will try to do so soon.

Solution to this one is also up as of a few minutes ago. Alas, I don't have another one polished and ready to go right now. After holidays and a vacation, I've had to prioritize my actual work lately. Will try to get another one ready soon ...

pgw

I've just read the solution and yeah, if I had to think about for a hundred years I wouldn't have gotten it. But it is very good news that I have more than a few puzzles to print and solve! Thanks for the replies.

I came up with what I think is a somewhat elegant justification for LUKE being the answer: The three long across entries are each parts of a series whose name could be read as another clue: The Chronicles of Narnia, Bring It On, and Child's Play. The answers to those "clues" might be TALE, DARE, and GAME. Those three words could replace LUKE in the puzzle and still have the fill be valid. No other book of the Gospel is "in the right place."

It should've occurred to me to look at the clue numbers though.

Good and gettable meta that I should have gotten, but I had no brain power left after the other three metas for the week. The 17x17 grid and “place” in the title told me pretty quickly that pgw was keying on clue numbers, but I never got to 24 = 2/4. Both Mark and John were “in the right place” for grid order, so having both in order was a good camouflage for the real answer.

I consider myself not to have gotten this one, despite finding the answer after repeated attempts. The first was JOHN in virtue of it being all the way on the right in the grid, the others being all the way on the left (can you even imagine pgw doing that). Then I latched onto the 2-4-6 places in the respective series, and tried hard to get one of the gospels to be in places 1 or 3 among them, which required ordering them by scholarly consensus of composition order rather than MMLJ, and still didn't really work. Finally noticed the grid numbering, and zing! -- done in a few more tries.

It was a slow reveal for me. As soon as I started the meta, I wrote down the Roman numerals 2, 4, and 6 beside the long answers, but didn't know where to go from there. My son was over and said with great confidence that I had to look up Bible verses, so I spent a good day or two doing that with the grid numbers of M, M, L and J. (And also trying to fit Chronicles in there.) Too many paths to try. Then, sitting at the bar over the weekend, my husband pointed out the obvious (to him) fact that I had written a 2 by the long answer that was in grid number 2-something, a 4 by 4-something, etc. Wasn't till after we got home from the bar that I realized Mark was at 2-something! So I thought that was it, but it took me maybe another hour before I realized the ones' place in those grid numbers indicated the total number in the series. As much as I enjoy a sudden aha, I also savor these slow ones.

My first guess was John, the fourth book. When I googled the Narnia books, the puzzle answer showed as the fourth in the series and for the Chucky movies, the puzzle answer was the 3rd spin-off in the series, thus the fourth in the series (assuming movies 2 and 3 were sequels). Stretching to get to an answer, I know. Eventually I got to the correct answer, but I didn't have to bother Peter more than with my one wrong answer.

Hey all -

Two days late, and who knows how many dollars short, I have posted puzzle #46:

https://pgwcc.net/2020/01/23/puzzle-46-taking-reveals/

Thanks for your patience.