22 comments on “Inquisitor 1766: Mixed Doubles by Kruger”

1. Unlike you I did complete it but I have to say it wasn’t a particularly enjoyable experience. I do appreciate it is hard for setters to come up with new devices but this clueing method simply made me irritated from the off

2. Challenging, certainly, and for a long time I thought I would barely start never mind finish. The clues being mixed up as they were made it difficult to make head or tail of most, and I have mixed feelings about the device. The PDM regarding the partnered items though was a nice one, and when that became clear the solve was a much quicker and more pleasant one.

3. When I saw it was a Kruger puzzle I thought it would be tough but solvable. I really enjoyed the last 2 or 3 by this setter. The themed entries seemed quite distant from the clues (unravel the paired clues, identify a theme, enter a linked answer of a different length somewhere else in the grid) but that leaves 30 answers to fill in normally. But I didn’t really get very far. Only 16 solved and entered and only “m.arks” identified as a themed entry.
   I gave up late in the week thoroughly beaten. This was I think just too hard for my solving abilities.
   Thank you Kruger. I look forward to your next puzzle. And thank you Kenmac for the blog and the explanations.

4. Very hard work. I’ve not seen interlaced clues like this before, and identifying thematic entries was tricky, so it took several sittings before I made much headway. Eventually MARKS led to SPENCER and the denouement was fairly rapid. I’d describe the experience as satisfying rather than enjoyable. But kudos to Kruger for the construction and execution, and to kenmac for the blog.

   Finally, my condolences to all who knew Hi.

5. Similar to others, solved it eventually but only after joining forces with a friend, and a number of false starts.

   I did deduce the logic fairly quickly and also got to MARKS first, then PROCTER, but it still took forever to complete.

   I actually quite liked the “intertwined clues”, which were really hard but doable with sufficient time spent staring at them. However, adding the fact that some of them needed to be changed AND put in a different place was just too much at the same time, because you couldn’t be sure about grid entry and not even about length of answer.

   —

   “Darling, what are you doing?”
   “I’m doing the crossword.”
   “Oh lovely, is it a quick crossword?”
   “No darling, it’s one of those where the clues are cryptic but in this case they come in randomly intertwined pairs, except that 8 of them – and you don’t know which 8 – need to be changed to a related word that you need to enter in a different location to the one indicated by the clue number.”

   I guess that’s why we all do the Inquisitor…

6. After a few weeks away, seeking a bit of R&R from the weekly slog that is the Inquisitor, I was contacted by the newspaper and tempted back to the fold by the offer of the inews online for one calendar year for a mere £29.99. Needless to say, I was tempted and indeed indulged. So here we all are, discussing the Inquisitor once again.

   I found this puzzle to be really tough (due to a lack of match practice on my part perhaps ?) – and as per bingy @1, I didn’t particularly warm to the new ‘jumbled clueing’ device in this offering from Kruger.

   I only managed to solve (and successfully parse) a mere fourteen clues by 09:00 this morning, of which I could only place eleven of the answers into the grid (thankully all successfully). I then admitted that all was lost, and so got nowhere near to the sorting out the endgame swaps.

   Cleverly done now I can appreciate the completed puzzle – but too hard for me on this occasion.

7. I have been tackling the Inquisitor since before it was so christened and I cannot recall a previous one in which I made such meagre progress – a disappointment since I usually enjoy Kruger. I got about as far as Kenmac prior to his getting help. Then, after spending too many fruitless hours, I threw in the towel with a largely blank grid save for a few pencilled alternative letters which had proved to be of no help.
   Sorry, Kruger, this one was not for me and thanks to Kenmac for persevering. RIP George.

8. I’m in the couldn’t be bothered camp, I’m afraid, since I normally enjoy a Kruger, but too many mental leaps and gimmicks just led me to give up.

9. arnold @5 : I should have said, I’ve missed your comments. I’ve said it before (on previous 15 squared blogs) and I’ll say it again, you see (and enlighten us all on) the things that some of us miss entirely and you say the things that some of us want to say, but don’t.

   The 7 or 8 final lines of ‘interpersonal dialogue’ on your post are utterly brilliant, and sum up this particular IQ puzzle for me. I’ve missed your tremendous insightful comments over the last few weeks of IQ abstinence … my word, it’s good to be back.

10. I’ve been at the Inquisitor/Weekend Crossword for about 18 years, on-and-off and I think this is the hardest one I ever successfully completed. I had to cheat like crazy, I don’t mind admitting.

11. me_sat_here_at_home @9 – thank you for the kind comments even if you do rather exaggerate!

    But I’ll admit that the Inquisitor comments section has become an entertaining addition to my week, and if anyone actually enjoys reading my musings then all the better.

12. Well I solved a lot of clues, and identified SAINT and BUTCH, but then eventually gave up after a lot of time banging my head against the proverbial.

    I thought of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid so am now kicking myself. Also thought of Rowan and Martin.

    Even so, not sure I would have finished.

    Didn’t enjoy this much, but probably that’s because I didn’t complete it!

    PS I am finding this week’s even more bewildering….

    PPS I always cheat – doesn’t everyone?

13. The final straw was when I thought the answer to ‘Immature tree, teller’ was BABU, which fitted the letters I had for 29d (a completely different clue) – by this stage my brain had clearly undergone a meltdown.

14. @12 I suppose it depends how you define “cheating”, but if you mean recourse to online anagram and crossword solver tools (plus google), then yes I do the same. As it takes me an estimated 3 to 10 hours each week to complete the Inquisitor even so (and would likely be impossible without), I don’t exactly feel bad about it!

    PS: You might have crossed a line in mentioning this week’s, but I certainly look forward to next Tuesday!

15. Sorry, if I crossed a line. Won’t do it again.

    If I am doing say the Guardian or the Times cryptics then I don’t cheat, because I know that all the answers will be words I am familiar with. In the case of the Inquisitor or the Listener about 50% of the answers will be words I am unfamiliar with so I am not inclined to waste time trying for example to solve an anagram when I can pop it into an anagram solver..

16. I dont feel quite so bad now!
    RIP Hi.

17. I’m very saddened to hear the news of Hi. I’ve enjoyed reading many a Hihoba blog for so long.

    As to the puzzle. My first DNF for ages. Really tough. It didn’t help that I was away on a very active holiday the week this came out so had little time to dedicate to it. I managed a few solves but nowhere near enough to grasp what was going on. Perhaps if there were still a prize offered I’d have had the incentive to persevere.

    Very tough Kruger, you definitely got the better of me.

    Bravo to anyone completing this and kudos to kenmac for the blog. Tough luck on the blog swap!

18. I finished this but it took all week. I had to cheat to find the TELLR-PENN and MARTIN-ROWAN pairings, I had never heard of any of them. I think I enjoyed this, but it was certainly hard work! The fact that I didn’t give up must say something positive about the puzzle. I think the key thing about this puzzle is that it was solvable without needing to guess the thematic material (like some of the word-finder end games). Every entry had supporting wordplay somewhere. Thank you Kruger and kenmac.

19. My pencil was untroubled by this one: I solved a fair few, but not enough to make a start. But unlike PeeDee (and others) I didn’t feel the need to keep trying, and bailed quite soon. Nice to see the solution, and that some solved it!

20. It’s heartening to read that several others had difficulties. I don’t know whether I’d have got to the end in a normal week; thanks to various real-life complications (including unexpected sessions of quality time with the dentist) I found it hard to concentrate, and despite cold-solving a number of clues never actually pencilled anything into the grid. Oh well!

21. Seems like I’m going against the tide here but I enjoyed this, so thank you Kruger. It was most definitely a challenge and progress was slow, but it was satisfying to chip away at it. MARKS was the one that made me suspect what the theme would be but as I couldn’t spot the wordplay for SPENCER, it wasn’t until I worked out BUTCH and SAINT that this was confirmed. My only frustration was that I didn’t complete it entirely as I’d never heard of ROWAN & MARTIN.

22. I’m late to the conversation, and seem to be in the minority. This one went from almost impossible to gloriously completed. I too felt at stages like many others here, but eventually it all came together. Things that seemed impossible clicked into place, then helped in attacking other parts.

    Possibly my favourite so far this year!

    But maybe I feel like that because I finished it.

Comments are closed.