“Hello everybody, my name is Alberich,
and I am here at this meeting of Sudokuholics Anonymous
because” (hushed, nervous voice) “I am addicted to Sudoku. Let
me tell my story…
“Some time early in 2005 I noticed these little number squares that were
appearing in all the papers at the time. And well, all my mates were doing them so I thought there was no harm in just trying
it. Just the once, you know. So I did this puzzle in the Times that was labelled ‘easy’ and it was –
nothing to it. Then I tried a ‘difficult’ one in the same paper and that wasn’t too much sweat either. Then”
(looks down at the floor, voice shaking) “I tried this one called ‘Fiendish’ and that’s where the
problems started. Damn thing took me over 4 hours and I still couldn’t complete it without making a few guesses. So
what did I do? I only went and bought the paper the next day to try another ‘fiendish’ one, didn’t I? Just
to see if I could do it any more quickly. And I did – three hours 59 minutes. So basically I got obsessed with the wretched
things, I was spending hours on them each day, neglecting my life, and thought I’d never find a cure…”
Sound familiar? Did
you nearly get the sack for doing nothing at work all day except those pesky little number puzzles? Well I don’t know
about you, but I did find a cure – I just got quite good at them. And now that I no longer needed to prove anything
to myself, I soon found that I could take or leave Sudoku. In fact these days I’m more of a Sudon’tku, although
I do normally solve the Times “fiendish” when I’ve got a spare 30-60 minutes. I’ll never
be as good at them as I am at solving crosswords, since I am far better with verbal problems than mathematical/logic ones
(one of the reasons I have long since stopped even attempting the maths puzzles in the Listener).
It’s not hard to see why these
puzzles are so addictive. They look so simple, and the rules can be learnt in a few minutes. The concept of what’s required
is so basic that it seems any fool should be able to rattle them off, and nobody likes to think of him or herself as a fool.
Hence when these things turn out to be a lot more difficult than they appear, the obvious reaction is “But surely I
MUST be able to do this” followed by frantic attempts at puzzle after puzzle to prove that this is true. Certainly the
concept of “1-9 in every row, column and 3x3 square” appears a lot more solvable to the novice than a crossword
Flower of Aragon
perhaps meets the Queen and gets entangled with Polonius’s French paramour in city of Atlantis, we hear
which, of course, is a nonsensical clue but probably makes no less sense to
the new crossword solver than many real ones.
I do think Sudoku has some advantages over crosswords and these are:
No knowledge is necessary – hence you don’t need
dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks etc. This is particularly useful when you are doing the puzzles on a train or at the
airport, for example. Compare with crosswords where you get to the last answer and are unable to complete it as you have no
idea if “clepsydra” is a word or not – fine if you are at home, but annoying if you are several thousand
feet up in an aeroplane.
No learning of
arcane rules – so once you’ve understood the basic concept
you are pretty well equipped to tackle any Sudoku puzzle you
choose. The progression for the crossword solver is more
fraught with difficulty – even if you’re a moderately good
solver with a wide vocabulary you’re stuck if you don’t know
some of the more arcane abbreviations such as R =
take, U =
posh (one of my bugbears, it’s way out of date) or A = are (unit of land measurement).
Yet the advantages, as I see them, of crosswords are far more numerous:
Sudoku may require no background
knowledge but this is a disadvantage too. You can learn about history, literature, music, geography, and of course increase
your vocabulary by doing crosswords in any of the quality papers. On the other hand, there is nothing at all to be learned
from Sudoku other than, perhaps, how to do Sudoku a bit better.
If you enter a wrong answer in a crossword grid it is usually pretty obvious where
you have made a mistake. It is easy to go back and correct yourself and carry on. If you enter the wrong number into a Sudoku
puzzle almost always you won’t notice, and you’ll carry on filling in numbers until you end up with (say) two
6’s in the same row and it is impossible to tell where you went wrong. The puzzle is effectively ruined.
When completing a crossword, you can derive a lot
of pleasure from each clue in a good cryptic and it doesn’t matter too much if you don’t complete all of them.
Indeed I am quite pleased to be caught out by a good clue from time to time, and gracefully take my hat off to the setter.
Whereas with Sudoku the only real pleasure or satisfaction is in finishing it, and the rest of the solving affords (for me,
anyway) little fun apart from, perhaps, getting past a couple of awkward stumbling blocks as a means to an end.
There are many entry points into
a crossword. Some people work methodically through the clues in order, others make use of checking letters as soon as they
can, and still others start with the final Down clues as these are often believed to be easier. If you are halfway through
a crossword and get stuck, there are several clues you can try to give you a push forward. Contrast with Sudoku where, in
the advanced puzzles, there is always a sticking point with only one way forward once you have filled in the easy part. I
find this “you see it or you don’t” idea frustrating and when it finally comes, the feeling is one of relief
rather than pleasure. Also, you can take a break from a tricky crossword and mull over the clues in your head while walking
the dog, while unless you have the spatial awareness capabilities of a chess grand master, you can only really tackle a Sudoku
puzzle while sitting in front of it.
Perhaps the most important distinction in favour of crosswords is that Sudoku doesn’t have the “chuckle”
factor – there is no ingenuity or wit involved in compiling them, and they have no personality. This is perhaps not
surprising, since the vast majority are compiled by computer. True, there are some “penny drop” moments, but these
are few and far between compared with crosswords. Crossword fans still remember the old chestnuts from many years ago –
and some of these clues are still hotly debated e.g.
Yet it’s pretty unlikely that
a few years from now we will hear conversations like “Gosh, wasn’t it amazing how those two eights ended up in
opposite corners in Sudoku no. 1234” or suchlike.
While on this point, it’s worth mentioning that Sudoku puzzles, like crosswords, do require a certain amount
of fairness in their compilation. I say this as the Times, for example, rigorously check that their Sudoku puzzles
at all levels can be completed by logic alone and no trial and error is required. This is one reason I restrict myself to
this series (and very occasionally the Guardian, which are also checked in this way). Thus the “fiendish”
puzzles in the Times may be tough, but the solver knows that there is always a logical route to filling them in.
I am pleased to say that I have not had to resort to trial and error with these puzzles for a very long time, even though
I am sometimes tempted to do so to save time. However the Sudoku craze means that there is a plethora of puzzles in books,
on websites and even available on your mobile phone, and some of these are very sloppily produced. I have come across puzzles
that are blithely given names like “diabolical”, and in the interests of making these puzzles harder only a small
amount of information is given, usually with the result that some trial and error is needed and there is not always a unique
Finally, I think there is a major difference in that whereas crossword puzzles can only be completed by solving the
clues, Sudoku puzzles – the hardest ones in particular – can often be solved by trial and error in less than half
the time it takes to solve them logically (the “correct” way). Some Sudoku aficionados regard guessing as something
akin to mass murder in terms of morality, and while I wouldn’t go quite that far I would agree that solving a puzzle
this way does render the exercise rather pointless. I will admit that I have done it when totally stuck simply to fill in
the grid, in the same way that sometimes I have entered the last one or two answers of a crossword without really understanding
them. Given a choice between wasting five hours staring at a Sudoku puzzle I’m probably not going to finish or making
an educated guess, filling in the numbers and having a life, I know which I would rather do! Furthermore, there are computer
programs which can complete Sudoku puzzles (what’s the point, other than to check the puzzle works?) whilst as far as
I know, computers can only be used to solve anagrams or list possibilities for individual words in a crossword, and no program
exists that can complete a crossword from scratch. This leads onto the topic of what constitutes cheating – explored here
I am aware that some specialist puzzles rely on techniques
that go way beyond those required even by the harder puzzles in the daily papers. However if you’re good at Sudoku and
you think that a puzzle from an untested source leads to too many variables and no possible solution without guesswork, you
are probably right. Some people argue that any Sudoku is solvable by logic alone. I don’t have the maths to
disprove this, except to say that if we define Sudoku as a 9x9 square with some numbers in and the other squares blank, then
draw a grid, put just the ones and twos into legitimate positions anywhere in the grid, and then try to solve it!
I am at pains to point out that although the balance of pros and cons as I’ve
presented them leans heavily in favour of the cryptic crossword, this is merely a personal opinion and I don’t expect
everyone to agree with me. Perhaps I should have mentioned that since Sudoku doesn’t require any linguistic knowledge,
these puzzles transcend international barriers. Also, I find it very refreshing that this latest craze to hit the nation involves
the use of brain cells, which is more than can be said for violent video games or the endless stream of “reality”
shows featuring Z-list celebrities. As I mentioned in another article on this site, perhaps Sudoku has contributed to some
extent to end the appalling reign of anti-intellectual “laddism” so prevalent in the 90s, no doubt in turn due
to their being championed by a certain attractive female TV presenter!
All of which brings me quite nicely on to the main point. Are crosswords going
to die out and be replaced by Sudoku? The initial evidence once these puzzles caught on certainly pointed that way. Like any
new craze, the papers fell over each other to ram it down our throats, and since more space was needed to accommodate these
puzzles, the crossword was often pushed to the sidelines. Not so long ago the Sunday Telegraph threatened to end
its splendid Enigmatic Variations series, which features many great compilers such as Dimitry and Kea. I don’t know
what their reasons were, but if space was the prime motivator it was noticeable that they had no problem accommodating not
just one, but two Sudoku puzzles. Fortunately the paper listened to reason from EV fans and the series has been retained.
crossword solvers (myself included, I admit) confessed after Sudoku first appeared that the crossword now took second place
to Sudoku, and in some cases lamented that obsession with these new puzzles meant that they now ignored the crossword altogether.
more, go to the puzzle section in any bookshop and you’ll find hundreds of books of Sudoku, often at the expense of
the collections of crosswords which used to grace the shelves. Not good signs!
Yet one year on things have calmed down a bit. Sudoku is evidently here to stay
– those who predicted it would go the way of Rubik’s cube were clearly wrong. But those among the crossword fraternity
(and there were quite a few) who saw Sudoku as a threat to the very existence of crosswords were, fortunately, wrong too,
in my opinion – in the short term at least. The Times hosted a crossword competition in 2006 for the first
time in a few years in spite of, or maybe even because of, the number of Sudoku competitions which have been hosted with much
publicity in the recent year. A look at crossword discussion boards, combined with my own knowledge of some solvers, suggests
that many people whose primary love is the cryptic clue have, after an initial steamy affair with those cute little number
puzzles, returned to the one they love most, the faithful crossword whose endearing ways they spent so long learning. Thus
it would be fair to say that most long-term devotees of the crossword have not abandoned it at all.
We do have to consider, of course, what
the future will bring. Will Sudoku lure potential crossword solvers away, leaving crosswords to the existing solvers plus
only a small number of new ones, with the inevitable result that crosswords will become obsolete? Will the next generation
of puzzle addicts bother to spend years learning about anagrams, homophones, reversals, and the whole canon of abbreviations
– many of which are used only in crosswords – when they can quickly learn how to do Sudoku and challenge their
brains with that and its many variants (Killer, Kakuro etc)?
There is a good musical analogy here. For many years musical commentators have
predicted the demise of classical music since pop burst on the scene. They fear that youngsters are unlikely to take the trouble
to learn to appreciate Mozart, Beethoven or Wagner, and thus unlock the joys these composers have in store, when they can
get instant gratification from the direct, uncomplicated music that pop provides. And on the face of it they would appear
to be right – give a group of teenagers a choice between the latest hit single and Die Walküre, and the
Valkyries won’t be riding very often. But go to a Prom or a concert at the Barbican centre and you will see plenty of
young people thrilling to hear Mahler or Shostakovich for the first time. The few seats at the Royal Opera affordable to those
without a directorship of an oil company are often filled by youngsters who can’t get enough of the Ring or
Turandot. And if this demise was supposed to have started years ago, why do we have to wait ten years to get a ticket
for the Wagner festival in Bayreuth?
The point is, that there will always be a small, but steady group of people who eschew the obvious
forms of gratification and look for something that has a longer lasting value, and relish the journey it takes to get there.
If pop did not exist, would people be humming Schoenberg and Bartok on their way home from school? Of course not, they would
not listen to any music at all. Cryptic crosswords have always been a minority interest – of the people I know, only
a small percentage show any interest in them, and I know people far more intelligent than I am who wouldn’t even
be able to do the cryptic in one of the red top tabloids. Thus I am certain that of the hordes of people who have taken up
Sudoku with such enthusiasm, almost all would not have been interested in crosswords anyway and thus haven’t been lured
away by the siren calls of number squares. In fact I know of a case where the reverse is true – a friend of a friend
(really!) bought the Times just for the Sudoku, but one day got severely delayed by our wonderful rail network. After
finishing the Sudoku and reading the paper cover to cover he found that all he had left to do was attempt the crossword. This
he did and by all accounts he now does it regularly. Remember too, that there will always be people who prefer word games
to number or logic puzzles, and such people will naturally swell the ranks of crossword solvers in years to come.
I don’t want to give the impression
that I am rubbishing Sudoku by comparing it unfavourably to crosswords. I am merely expressing my own opinions, and as I have
already said, I do enjoy Sudoku provided the puzzles are (a) logically achievable and (b) challenging, but not so hard that
they are almost unsolvable without guesswork. This is where my musical analogy has a weakness, since I make no secret
of the fact that with a few notable exceptions, I regard pop, particularly from the 1990s onwards, as ephemeral, vacuous pap.
Though perhaps I can exploit this weakness, since it can serve to illustrate another point.
Some people in the crossword world, both
setters and solvers, have responded to the perceived threat of Sudoku to crosswords by knocking the former at every opportunity.
Letters in newspapers and comments in online discussions are some of the places these views are aired. I think that this achieves
little, other than to suggest that we cruciverbalists are an intolerant bunch of snobs. Nobody sneers at the quick crossword
or other word games in newspapers, so why sneer at Sudoku? Where my musical analogy fits in is that although I have been honest
(and arrogant) enough to state my opinion on music fairly forthrightly, I would never expect to win a convert to my sort of
music by telling someone that what they are listening to is rubbish. Such an approach merely puts people’s backs up
and makes them less open to suggestion. It took me years to get interested in Shakespeare after having my favourite books
ridiculed and the Bard rammed down my throat at school, for instance. As Aesop’s marvellous fable about the sun and
the wind having a bet to get a man to remove his coat illustrates, persuasion is far better than force and we should let crosswords
speak for themselves. Though I do believe they may need a little help…
There is no doubt that the imagery conjured up by crosswords often presents
a quaint, old fashioned world that probably only really existed in the minds of romantic writers. Beaux are bewitched by belles,
cads and bounders abound, the nobility and the clergy play a major role, and so does the monarchy. People often make bloomers;
there’s a lot of love (to indicate the letter O), cricket reigns as the supreme sport, pubs are inns and food is fare
or cheer. And there’s nothing wrong with that – it is nice to have a world into which we can, for a short time,
escape the real world of terrorism, street crime, hopeless public transport, contraflows and the constant ringing of mobile
phones. The only blight on the landscape in Crosswordland is drugs, but although I use pot, E = Ecstasy and H = heroin myself
(only in crosswords!) such references usually suggest that in such an idyllic country the use of these things is universally
frowned upon. Since crossword solvers are by nature interested in words, one can expect them to be reasonably well read and
there is nothing here that won’t have appeared in Jane Austen or other writers of that generation.
Yet it was brought home to me how
out of touch some crossword jargon is when going through a fairly simple crossword with a Czech friend. His English is superb
and he had no problem understanding anagrams, hidden words, homophones, double meanings etc. Common abbreviations weren’t
a problem either. He could see that North = N as Czech commonly uses abbreviations for the compass points
too. I knew I’d lost him when I tried to explain why U = posh, R = take etc. Hardly surprising! And even if one accepts
that abbreviations like this are restricted to Britain, how many new solvers are potentially put off by things like this?
It isn’t that these ideas aren’t “yoof” or trendy, it is just that quite likely nobody under 40 will
have heard of them. And if the potential new solver gets the idea that s/he has to learn a whole list of abbreviations which
make no sense at all in real life, that will be another one to bite the dust. The attractions of Sudoku will seem a whole
is justification in using Chambers abbreviations, even if they
aren’t common in everyday life, in specialist puzzles like the
Listener, Azed, and maybe Saturday prize puzzles. I use a few
in the puzzles on this site safe, I hope, in the knowledge
that most people who come to sample my wares are already keen
solvers. But I don’t believe that U = posh has any
place in a daily cryptic, and the same goes for T =
model (this one is slowly disappearing, I think). I’ve mentioned some of this in my second Ximenes article so please indulge me for repetition,
but I think it’s very important to sort out the deadwood from time to time. I often imagine this conversation with a
potential new solver:
PNS: Girl married man, four letters?
Me: Adam. Ada plus M, common abbreviation for married, equals Adam.
PNS: What does Ada mean? I get the rest.
It’s a girl’s name.
PNS: No it isn’t. I don’t
know anyone called Ada. Bet you don’t either.
Me: Well, er, no.
But many years ago it was a girl’s name and so we use it in crosswords.
Oh, right. (Pause) I think third row, fourth column is an 8.
There are many other examples too, but I will make do with one.
PNS (having another go): Allowed
old woman to meet yob, seven letters.
Me: Granted. Granted means allowed,
old woman is Gran, to meet means Gran joins on to…
PNS: Got it
Me: Ted is a yob.
Me: Ted, teddy boy, was a name given to rebellious kids in the 50s…
PNS: Mmmmm…third row last column is definitely a 7.
To recap, I think that there is
no reason why the various techniques setters use – anagrams, charades etc – should not last for the foreseeable
future. Essentially these ideas are timeless. But there is no doubt that many setters (me too, quite probably) would do well
to look through their store of abbreviations and short words and have a good, timely spring clean.
I am not for a moment suggesting that
crosswords should pander to MTV culture and the like. Revisiting my musical analogy for a moment, that would be as embarrassing
and unsuccessful as those “crossover” albums, which attempt to combine pop and classical styles and usually fail
at both. References to bands manufactured by “talent” shows, or winners of I’m a Celebrity I Need a
Career (or whatever it’s called) are at best impractical, as puzzles often wait a few months
between submission and publishing, by which time these references probably won’t mean anything to anybody. But there
are plenty of modern abbreviations that everyone knows that are rarely used in crosswords, probably as they aren’t in
the current Chambers, that would be perfectly acceptable replacements for some of the old ones: S and L (small and
large), W, D and L (won, drawn and lost) or even U as you – I don’t use it myself but it’s common enough
these days to be a valid abbreviation, I think. I do draw the line at R = are though.
I am a strong opponent of dumbing down, and I believe that crosswords should
play an educational role as well as an entertaining one. I am all for references to the established artistic, musical and
literary canon, as well as famous (and maybe some not-so-famous) battles and historical figures. And if slightly more obscure
references of this kind appear as answers from time to time, I don’t think this will put people off as long as the clues
leading to them are correspondingly solvable. Yet all too often one encounters clues in daily puzzles, not prize or weekend
puzzles, that one needs a degree in English Literature or history to solve. This occurs more often in one paper (I won’t
say which) than the rest, and on encountering such clues my thoughts are twofold, both negative: (a) it appears as if the
setter is saying “Oo! Look how widely read and erudite I am!” and (b) I react by thinking “How the heck
is anyone reasonably expected to KNOW that?” For example “Lupin Pooter” appears every now and then, even
though I’m fairly sure Diary of a Nobody has long since left the established literary canon (maybe I’m
just ignorant). A simple anagram or play on the double meaning of “lupin” would have made the clue solvable and
perhaps educational, but the last clue I saw for this was a cryptic reference to the book itself and therefore impossible
for anyone not familiar with it. I very much doubt that more than one in ten thousand school leavers will have read this book,
and this is precisely the sort of thing we don’t need if we want to woo new fans. Why not change the words in the grid
a bit and replace it with Harry Potter? I feel far more cheated by this sort of thing than some of the oft-discussed non-Ximenean
devices like “indeed” to signify “de____ed” or “egghead” for the letter E.
Moving on, we need to remember that
while many present solvers started by seeing the crossword in the back of their paper every day, wondering what it was all
about, having a go (maybe with the help of a more experienced solver) and slowly learning the tricks of the trade, this is
far less likely to happen these days. The reason is that many of the younger generation get their news online, and may not
buy a paper at all. Hence they are not likely to stumble across the crossword in the same way as those who buy newspapers.
Most papers provide an online version of their puzzles but these tend to be subscription-only, whereas the Sudoku puzzles
(at the moment) are free. Now I think that under L30 for the year for, say, the Times site is very good value
– you get the daily cryptic, Saturday puzzle, Jumbo, Mephisto and Listener. Living as I now do in the Czech Republic
almost all of the time this is an ideal service for me – British newspapers abroad are horrendously expensive and often
the section with the weekend puzzles is missing in the international version. The Guardian site for a similar
price offers the daily and Saturday crosswords, Azed, and some easy cryptics that only appear online. There are sometimes
annoying technical blips, particularly on the Times site which has been maddeningly error prone since they changed
the layout of their pages, but even so these online puzzles are good value for money. The cost is a fraction of the cost
of buying the paper regularly and it seems reasonable that one should be expected to pay something – after all, the
setters deserve their money! However it is unlikely that new or dilettante solvers will fork out so this is definitely a deterrent
to such people. Perhaps the papers in question could operate a scheme such as the New York Times does – you
don’t get the puzzle free on the day it comes out, but there is an archive collection if you don’t mind waiting
a bit. Or maybe offer a free trial period – perhaps three months – after which you have to pay the regular subscription.
It says something about the health of crosswords in relation to Sudoku that the papers are confident enough to charge for
the crossword, but evidently dare not do so for the Sudoku!
I’ve covered a lot of ground here, so will recap a few points. Sudoku
is an interesting new concept, which has gained an enormous amount of popularity. While I personally find crosswords much
more fulfilling, I enjoy Sudoku too and think that it is far more healthy and stimulating than most popular crazes. After
the initial flood of Sudoku puzzles on what seemed like every page of every newspaper, it seems that both types of puzzles
have their devotees (some shared) and if the ranks of Sudoku solvers outnumber the cruciverbalists, we should remember that
cryptic crosswords have always been a minority interest and probably always will be. So long as the newspapers remain faithful
to their crosswords (and we must all write to them if they don’t!) there is no reason why the two types of puzzle shouldn’t
coexist peacefully. It is incumbent on the setters of cryptic crosswords to ensure that a good standard is maintained while
not losing touch with the changes in use of language, in order to appeal to solvers of all ages.
Last of all, perhaps the question you
have been waiting for me to answer is “will any Sudoku be appearing on this site?” The answer, in the form of
a cryptic clue, is
Turning back on (2)