[Blob] This, of course, it what makes one puzzle "easier" than another in my book. For example, whilst the Everyman crossword (Observer) has a tendancy towards irritatingly vague clues, it doesn't a great deal of "general" knowledge - it's helpful to know the odd place name, or big names in various fields but nothing too out-of-the-ordinary. Contrarily, the Private Eye crossword is billed as "difficult", but I complete it about as often as the Everyman (an "easy" crossword). This, I think, is largely because the allusions are generally related in some way to the magazine (Brenda and Brian, for example, refer to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively) rather than to some obscure ode written by a 17th century poet I've never heard of. Horses for courses. I would like to be able to do the Times, or an Arucaria, but doubt I shall ever be able to scale such heights.

[Blob, again] I find that, with practice, and if you're used to a particular setter's style, identifying the definition part of the clue can be fairly straightforward.

[Blob, Lib, et al] Thanks for that, will look over it properly in the morning. Did I mention I never learnt how to play chess either? But don't feel you have to explain here :-)

Just returned home - so it's good to catch up with the cryptic chat. I attempt the Times crossword most days but can only usually complete with the aid of some very clued-up chums and has become part of our 'early doors' at the pub ritual. Coincidentally, 'GEGS' was also a favourite of my Dad, bless 'im - and brings to mind his almost child-like enthusiasm for the infamous 'HIJKLMNO [5]' clue.

[flerdle] Right then - there are 16 pieces on each side - 8 pawns ..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[rab] I certainly agree that you get used to certain setters' styles. No doubt about it. I'm afraid I have to admit that the cryptic I do regularly is the, ahem, Daily Mail (my wife's choice, honest) - which I actually rather like (the crossword that is, not the bloody paper) - some of its clues make my Boulder, Colorado one look positively officious by comparison. I can normally rattle it off in about 20 minutes - but every now & then, I get a setter who's on a completely different wavelength (or planet) and it takes me ages.

[Chalky]Not seen that one before - What a truly excellent riddle, initially !

[Blob] So it's new to you? Out of interest, how long did it take you to solve it?

[Chalky] Just before Blob answers, I've seen it before doing the rounds as a dingbat at quiz nights.

Ah - dingbats. That poor relation. Puzzles for the masses. Well, at least it keeps a classy clue 'alive'. Incidentally, the craze for dingbats - something else that the .. erm .. estimable Daily Mail has to answer for?
dingbat [U S slang]n. something whose name one has forgotten, or does not want to use: a foolish or eccentric person: a tramp: money. Adj. [Austr. & N Z coll.] daft, crazy. [Austr. & N Z coll.] the dingbats: delirium tremens.
Such provenance says it all.

Not too long - the brevity of the answer (just five letters) meant it had to be some clever way of reading the clue, so I just read it to myself in several ways and got there in a minute or so. But that's not to say it might not have taken me a while - perhaps I've seen something similar before, dunno.

O (4,6)