Page 2 of 6

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:19 am
by Toby
This was the hardest one in a while, IMO. Lots of plausible paths went...nowhere. And even after I saw the right path, thanks to a hint, it still was a challenge.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:05 am
by Bird Lives
I'd love to join you all, but I got nothin'. I haven't been a subscriber for very long, but my guess is that the number on the board so far -- 53 -- is fairly low for a Saturday morning. Count me among the many that aren't there.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 11:10 am
by Al Sisti
Bird Lives wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 10:05 am I'd love to join you all, but I got nothin'. I haven't been a subscriber for very long, but my guess is that the number on the board so far -- 53 -- is fairly low for a Saturday morning. Count me among the many that aren't there.
It is low. I suspect he's going to take it a little easier on us next week, since he'll probably consider this one a (surprise, to him) Week 4.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:02 pm
by ChrisKochmanski
Not having the best meta week, personally.

Got WSJCC pretty quickly. Yay!

Struggled mightily to the finish line on PGWCC. Whew!

But getting nowhere so far on MGWCC.

And I'm still at sea on Brian Mac's intriguing third meta.

After a health walk around the 'hood (we're still on stay-at-home order here in Michigan), I'll tackle Newsday's Saturday Stumper. I've actually been getting that lately, often without having to google. Maybe that will clear the cobwebs for a full-scale assault on MGWCC and Brian Mac. (Hey, Brian, you may need a name for your puzzles, and a way to abbreviate it -- though probably not using just your first and last initials, please!)

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:02 pm
by MajordomoTom
yep, this was the week I decided to subscribe, and ... I'm really not getting far on this one. There's still daylight left.

Brian's third meta is very nice, you'll love it when you get there.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:06 pm
by MajordomoTom
so, when you submit something, do you get any confirmation of correct/incorrect? Or do you just wait and see? I'm a noob at these with his website/forum.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:23 pm
by Hector
MajordomoTom wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:06 pm so, when you submit something, do you get any confirmation of correct/incorrect? Or do you just wait and see? I'm a noob at these with his website/forum.
You wait and see. You will show up in the "Overall" list whether you're correct or not, and there's an indication of when he last updated the Leaderboard at the bottom, in east-coast time (now, "Last update: 04/18 - 13:24").

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:50 pm
by BarbaraK
MajordomoTom wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:06 pm so, when you submit something, do you get any confirmation of correct/incorrect? Or do you just wait and see? I'm a noob at these with his website/forum.
I don't see you on either list right now (unless you used a different name there.) If you leave the "nickname" field blank, you don't show up on the board.

It won't let you submit twice, so if you're not sure your submission went through, go ahead and try it again.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:50 pm
by BrianMac
This one is putting up a fight for me. I think I've finally found the mechanism, now I just need to flush it out.

Speaking of which...
ChrisKochmanski wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:02 pmthough probably not using just your first and last initials, please!)
...yes, I often thank my parents for that little gift :roll:.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:13 pm
by TMart
Finally on the board. That was downright nasty.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:24 pm
by tonyrobots
Still stumped, though I have what seems like an embarrassment of leads, which cannot possibly be coincidences. Now to connect the dots... (no hints yet, please!)

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:35 pm
by MajordomoTom
BarbaraK wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:50 pm
MajordomoTom wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:06 pm so, when you submit something, do you get any confirmation of correct/incorrect? Or do you just wait and see? I'm a noob at these with his website/forum.
I don't see you on either list right now (unless you used a different name there.) If you leave the "nickname" field blank, you don't show up on the board.

It won't let you submit twice, so if you're not sure your submission went through, go ahead and try it again.
it says I've submitted, so it's not what I thought.

next week, perhaps.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:24 pm
by Geoduck
I still got nuttin' but a bunch of rabbit holes.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:29 pm
by DrTom
Unfortunately I am in the "lots of leads led nowhere" group. I have some ideas on how I should solve it, but that's all. You have me all scared with this "hardest in a while talk" because I am still a noob in the MGWCC and was feeling good cause I got the last two (yes I know they were easy but I got them and I was happy). I will trudge on.

I too have been trying BrianMac's METAs, fun and so far very gettable. I got SIX PACK and just did SPLITTING WOOD and was surprised because it seemed to fit into a pattern for last week's WSJCC (OK, so the puzzle wasn’t from last week, but the concept kinda was)

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:37 pm
by BrianMac
Submitted and on the board. Really liked this one. I am very impressed by those of you who got it so fast. Took me a full day of grappling.
DrTom wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:29 pm I too have been trying BrianMac's METAs, fun and so far very gettable. I got SIX PACK and just did SPLITTING WOOD and was surprised because it seemed to fit into a pattern for last week's WSJCC (OK, so the puzzle wasn’t from last week, but the concept kinda was)
I think you mean Brian Cimmet. ;)

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:51 pm
by ky-mike
Geoduck wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:24 pm I still got nuttin' but a bunch of rabbit holes.
Same here, but this puzzle now has my full attention

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 5:47 pm
by norrin2
So I e-mailed Matt Gaffney and told him that I love hard crosswords and cryptics, but this meta puzzles just kick my butt. I can usually do a week one, sometimes a 2, but never a 3 or 4. I asked him for a hint and he said
"Hi Robert, I hate to say no, but I really can't give even the slightest hint on a live meta. However, many solvers have a buddy or two that they share notes/hints/thoughts with on live metas, and that's something I have no power or desire to regulate. So if you left a note somewhere online (like a solving Facebook group, or in comments at Fiend, or at the Muggles Forum here:
forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=365
Then I'm sure you could find someone to help."
I'm hoping he's right and that one of you nice people will give me a hint. I don't want the answer. I just want to train my brain to figure these things out.
Thank you very much.

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:06 pm
by DrTom
BrianMac wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:37 pm Submitted and on the board. Really liked this one. I am very impressed by those of you who got it so fast. Took me a full day of grappling.
DrTom wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:29 pm I too have been trying BrianMac's METAs, fun and so far very gettable. I got SIX PACK and just did SPLITTING WOOD and was surprised because it seemed to fit into a pattern for last week's WSJCC (OK, so the puzzle wasn’t from last week, but the concept kinda was)
I think you mean Brian Cimmet. ;)
Oops your right, guess I had a Brian f@rt....but Brian I'm sure you could do them too! :oops:

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:09 pm
by DrTom
Hmm and speaking of brain f@rts I am unfortunately running out of gas. I see so many delightful little avenues that all fall apart because there is either not enough to continue or I have to twist and turn so much that I KNOW it could not be explained in an intelligible post META answer or have any stepwise solution. Arrgghh!

Re: #620 - "Two for Two"

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:14 pm
by hcbirker
I have tried so many different mechanisms and have come up with zero. There's still time, though.