During the early days of my role as a Clerk-of-Course (CoC), I was a very enthusiastic pupil, eager to learn the ins and outs of treasure hunting. For the most part, I consider myself a creative chap and somewhat artistic in nature. I had the habit - and I still do - of wanting to explore new frontiers in anything that I do. In one of the hunts that I set, I experimented with the vertical dimension as reported in this post.
Well 15 years has since elapsed, and we haven't progressed much as far as the vertical dimension is concerned. Several local CoCs in KK have tried, but with limited success. Consequently, exploration and exploitation of the vertical dimension has not progressed much since 15 years ago.
A few weeks ago, while I was going around the sectors, searching for suitable signboards for the KK Challenge 15, I came upon the same signboard, and then nostalgia - it brought back memories of the good old days. That signboard has survived many years of economic ups and downs, of the SARS, of the Covid pandemic. It was then that I decided to use it, and what better way to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the vertical dimension than to reenact the feat?
Q33) A task after final tasks?
When I set this question, I had expected some sort of controversy. After all, when there is a change of wind, it's bound to cause some ripples in the waters. Sometimes it may escalate to a tidal wave, sometimes it will subside swiftly, and sometimes still that change will quickly become the norm. Whatever happens in the end, the initial phase of its introduction will cause something of a stir one way or another.
A grandmaster hunter friend, having discussed some of the key questions in this hunt with me, remarked:
"The CoC is still very good - there will, of course, be some differences of opinion when boundaries are stretched, but there is nothing blatantly wrong.".
But before we investigate those "stretched boundaries", let us now have a look at the riddle and try to make some sense of it.
That word "final" is the ending indicator, and "tasks" is its fodder. It means that on account of that indicator, the solver is to take the final letter of the word "tasks". Meaning the letter S. Therefore, after the question is cryptically analysed, it can be simplified to this:
A task after S
The next step is just to rearrange those words as per the "instruction" of the sentence to become:
S A task
Because we want that "A task" to be after "S".
And that is apparently the end of the simplification process. I'm inclined to say that it shouldn't be very difficult for an average solver to arrive at this point. Ordinarily, upon reaching this stage, the solver would embark on his quest to search for "S A TASK" in the sector. If he can spot any signboard bearing those letters in that exact order, even if the locations of the gaps between those letters are different, that sign should be a valid answer. Space deception has long been the norm in the cryptic world. However, what happens if there is no such sign in the sector?
Well, the solver can try to replace that word "task" with its synonyms one by one, and then try to search the sector again and again on trial and error to see if there is anything there that can match. Obviously, this procedure can be quite daunting and time-consuming, although the scope of search would have been narrowed down substantially because we only need to focus on answers starting with the letter S. But what if the search is still in vain? What then? This is where the solver is expected to think out of the box and find something in the sector that can fit that "S A TASK" somehow. That is when he is expected to find this board:
And then put two and two together, so that, thinking out of the box, he reads "S A TASK" as "S atas K" in his mind! If he sees that "S atas K" in his mind, then the rest is smooth sailing. He simply writes down the answer, which is the smaller signboard on the right, where the letter S is positioned above K. That is to say, S atas K.
S
K
TRADING CO.
If he writes the answer horizontally like what he sees on the left signboard, then that answer is wrong, because it does not obey the significance of "ATAS".
But now we come to the discussion on technical issues, and in order to appreciate the complexity of the matter thoroughly, we need to cover a lot of grounds with plenty of long-drawn analysis and examples. If you're not keen to confuse yourselves with technical issues, this is the end of the post! But if you are brave enough for the challenge, then pray proceed. However, please be warned that it can be mentally exhausting, and I would strongly suggest that you take a short break here before you continue further!
INTERMISSION
Insert advertisements here. Go grab an expresso and perhaps some donuts. Chill, and then come back to torture your brain...
Welcome back! We have 3 main issues worth discussing:
1) Grammar
The sentence says "final tasks". However, normally when we use that word "final" we would be referring to the final ONE, meaning a singular noun. For example, we say final COUNTDOWN; final TRY, final MISSION. These are all singular nouns, you see. Therefore, you can see why "final TASKS" sticks out like a sore thumb! A grammar purist would immediately zoom in on that word "TASKS". The setter can try to use the excuse of saying the "TASK" that he has in mind comprises a chain of several taskS to be performed one after another to complete a process. But that is still a weak justification in my opinion! Actually, I could have used other singular nouns that is spelt with the letter S at the end. But I was adamant to use that word TASK somehow because I couldn't resist the inclination to repeat that word in this sentence! So in the end, I committed the grammatical sin! That, however, did not affect the accuracy of the answer anyway. I opted to sacrifice grammar for the sake of a surface reading that appears intimidatingly cryptic!
2) Space Deception
Master Edgar Dabbi set an interesting question in one of his hunts. It was like this:
Q) Fuzzy
A) COPY
The explanation was that although he expressed that question as a single word - FUZZY - he had intended the solver to separate it into 2 parts, i.e. "FUZZ" and "Y". There's nothing in the question that would suggest such a maneuver. The task was then to find the synonym for "FUZZ" which was the word "COP", which was then reconnected to that "Y" to form the answer, "COPY". I objected to this abomination on grounds of fairness, or rather the lack of it! To me, when the setter expresses something that appears like a noun, and the solver sees that word as a noun, but actually the setter means it as a verb, that is OK. The setter has expressed what he means. It's just too bad if the solver is mislead into believing that that word is a noun! However, if the setter says "FUZZY", he can't then claim to say that he means to say "FUZZ & Y", because there is nothing there in the clue that would even suggest such a separation. At best, he can expect the solver to find the synonyms for "FUZZY" as a single word, and only as a single word! He can't claim immunity on account of "space deception" in his question!
Now compare that with this question in the KK Challenge 15 last Sunday:
Q18) It's alike when partially translated
A18) ASUKA
The explanation is that we need to find something on the board that can be equated to that word ALIKE when translated. But notice that we only translate "SUKA" to "LIKE", and that letter "A" is undisturbed in both the question and answer. The basic premise seems a lot like Edgar's riddle above; it seems like I'm slapping my own face! But am I? Well, not really, because in my question, I've instructed the solver that we want to translate only partially. That word "partially" makes all the difference! The setter has done his part, and it is unfortunate if the solver does not heed that word "partially". So space deception is allowed in the question, but only if there is sufficient information therein to warn the solver of such requirement. There are some exceptions, under very special circumstances, to this rule which I won't discuss here.
But what about space deception in the answer? It has long been an established rule that space deception is allowed in answers. This is because the letters found in the answers are written in the grids of the crosswords without regard to the spaces between words. So spaces between words are ignored. This rule has long been applied in treasure hunt riddles too.
Let us now see how this is done in a treasure hunt scenario.
Q) Goatee's locations in here
A) CHIN SIN ENTERPRISE
"here" means on the signboard.
Goatee's locations = CHINS
CHINS + IN = CHIN SIN
Note the plural of "locations" which results in plural for CHINS. However, when the answer is written, it is written as "CHIN SIN ENTERPRISE", where the "S" is separated from the "CHIN", and it is instead combined together with "IN", which is a word retained from the question. The reason for this separation is because that's how the answer appears on the signboard, on account of the requirement that "answers must be written as seen on the board".
3) Second-Layer Process
Now we come to a more interesting issue. The premise of the riddle is that after solving the original sentence of the question, we arrive at "S A TASK", but is it reasonable and correct to then expect the solver to read that in his mind as "S atas K", meaning "S" on top of "K"?
A loaded question that is very difficult and complicated to answer! As we have seen from the discussion in (2) above, space deception is allowed in the answer. However, strictly speaking, "S A TASK" is not the answer yet. We still need to go through a second-layer process in which we need to rearrange the gaps between the letters in "S A TASK" to become "S atas K", and only after that rearrangement can we then connect to that vertically-orientated S and K on the board.
Grandmaster Hunter VK Chong, a participant of the hunt, objects to this trick! He likens it to giving a question involving 2 separate components which are independent of each other, but after these components have been "solved" they're then expected to be combined for a second-layer process. Let me now conjure up an example to illustrate his point.
Q) Mislead to join relation?
A) ORIENTAL
Where the solver must first find the synonyms for:
Mislead = CON
join = FUSE
So that the question can be simplified to become:
CON FUSE relation
And then here comes the shocker. The setter then expects the solver to join the CON to FUSE, to become CONFUSE (a single word) and then that resultant single word adopted as an anagram indicator to rearrange the letters in the fodder, "RELATION" to become "ORIENTAL". He said to connect CON and FUSE to become a single word CONFUSE (meaning rearranged by deleting the space between them) is essentially the same as rearranging the gaps in "S A TASK" to become "S atas K", because in both cases CONFUSE and ATAS are second-layer processes that must be executed in order to derive the respective answers.
GM Chong has a very good point. But I see it slightly differently. CONFUSE, to me, is adopted as a cryptic indicator for the process of rearrangement of letters in a fodder. Whereas ATAS, although also a process, is a direct instruction of how to deal with the S and K.
I myself have, on numerous occasions, objected to a second-layer manipulation to get a cryptic indicator which is then to be used in that second-layer cryptic process to derive an answer. But there is nothing cryptic about ATAS. I see it as a direct instruction.
Compare that to this treasure clue in the same hunt:
Leading shopping package
Final shopping package
Which, when cryptically analysed will result in:
SP
GE
Which the solver has to "see" in his mind as SP on GE to get SPONGE. I see this as a similar idea with that of S atas K, except that it is the other way round.
In S atas K, we're approaching the riddle from the question to the answer on the board with the provision of ATAS indirectly. In the case of SPONGE, we're approaching the riddle from the answer by looking at the positions of SP and GE post analysis, and then conjuring up the process, i.e. "on" in the mind.
While I see and respect GM Chong's point, in the end we arrived at a stalemate. This is bound to happen when boundaries are stretched, but on the whole, we are all guided by the same fundamentals of cryptic rules.
To end this discussion, may I repeat the comment by that other GM Hunter, thus:
"... there will, of course, be some differences of opinion when boundaries are stretched, but there is nothing blatantly wrong."
No comments:
Post a Comment