XWord Muggles Forum

bhamren wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:52 pm Submitted and sure I got it. Not waiting for the "confirmation" others have mentioned. It seems that the only confirmation that you get with PGWCC is no email telling you that you are wrong. This is the third PGWCC contest I have gotten.

I have commented previously that I am more in sync with Matt Gaffney. When I get a MGWCC answer wrong (or don't submit one at all because I didn't figure it out, when the answer is revealed I always admit I could have gotten it if I had thought along the correct track. With PGWCC, it took a long time for me to get my first correct answer. When I looked at the correct answer of the ones I didn't get, I didn't have the same vibe that I got with Matt Gaffney's puzzles - some of them were so abstract that I was glad that I didn't put more time into them.

That being said, I am not knocking these puzzles. I realize that Matt has been doing this for YEARS longer than P (I don't even know what PG stands for since there is no link on the site that says who does them)! Now that I have 3, maybe I will get them more regularly. In any case, keep at it. Maybe I will get your "vibe" better eventually.

Not sure about the G, but PW is Peter Washington.

Oops, I ended up with a wrong (though defensible, I think!) answer on this one...

Have any of you tried the U.K. cryptic crosswords in, say, the Guardian or the (London) Sunday Times? I don't tackle them often, but when I do, I usually find them to be: (1) quite a bit harder than the cryptics we commonly see here in the U.S.; and (2) more often genuinely CRYPTIC. That is: The entries they're seeking aren't always 100% clear and definite. They're sometimes only suggested (though generally strongly enough). This makes for some ambiguity along the way. It can be irritating at times -- as often as not, I get only most of the way to completing the puzzle. But it can also make for an engrossing puzzling challenge. And when I do complete a Guardian or Sunday Times cryptic, it can feel very satisfying indeed.

I've sometimes gotten similar feelings from PGWCC puzzles. Their solutions, and even their mechanisms , clueing, and entries, aren't always 100% no-doubters, in the ways they almost always are in WSJCC puzzles, and usually are in MGWCC puzzles. I'm good with Peter G. often making us work harder on, not only his meta thinking, but also his grids. I typically go into a PGWCC preparing for a challenge, thinking that, for me at least, not all meta experiences need to be alike.

So, for me, the PGWCC vibe works just fine, even as I too can often find myself thinking, "What IS Peter getting at here?"

And I can see where these puzzles may not always be for everyone.

I am liking them more now, but it took a while and I do them every week.

On the other hand I like the MMMM less and less over time. I think the reason is that I have to look up so much. I hardly ever listen to music and when I do, it is usually from the 1970’s or early 1980’s

I would love to have a consultation with someone who has finished this one about what I see and have...feel free to PM me... Thanks!

When I first glanced at the title, I thought Pete had done a puzzle called Wooden Idiots. What the heck is that? Oh, wait, idols! This was a smooth solve, to be sure.