I reinstalled win2k on my laptop tonight. In the space of ~45 minutes between installing the network driver and a firewall, I was hit by a worm. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

[Nik] This is pretty much exactly why I'm tending to install non-packaged Linux distros; something like Gentoo encourages you to choose exactly which services to turn on rather than the (for example) Red Hat approach of turning everything on and assuming you will remember to turn everything off before you attach your box to the net.

And I never attach my box naked to the net.

I still don't 'get' cryptic clues. Oh well.

[Dunx] I'm coming to the end of the process of making the box dual boot with Gentoo. I'm not sure how long Linux'll last on my desktop this time; I don't get along with it for such purposes. I try again once every few months, when MS release a 'fix' that, for instance, breaks all the media codecs, requiring a reformat.

I'm getting an idea for a game in which players have to make up meaningless technobabble, and the next player has to interpret it as meaning something utterly mundane and non-technological. Not sure where this is coming from...

Breadmaster] Divergent entropy?

[Btd] A group of people unable to decide which Chinese restaurant to go to.

[flerdle] Without banging on too much about it, cryptic clues are really good fun when you get into them - both solving and setting them. Those eight I did were just quickies off the top of my head, so not terribly good examples (as pointed out by various people) - but a really neat clue is a joy to behold.
The basic premise is that the clue is in two parts : The definition and the clue (or wordplay). The definition is a direct reference to the word(s) in question - most usually a synonym, but in the case of names for example it might just be "he" or "she" to signify a male or female name. Also "in (country)" often means that it is a reference to a town/city in that country.
The definition must always either be at the beginning or the end of the clue. Occasionally it is the whole clue, with the crypticity wrapped in the way it is phrased.
The clue part is the interesting bit - this is where a second, indirect reference to the word is made. Here are the main ways that the cryptic part is formed :

• Double definition (a second definition for the same word - though with a different meaning)
• Anagram
• Embedded (the word is in there, usually split between two or more words, but running consecutively)
• Reverse embedded (as above but running backwards)
• Homophones (... sounds like ...)
• Exclusion (removal of specified letters or words)
• Concatenation (joining words together)
• Inclusion (one word placed inside another)
• Puns (word play that suggests the answer)
• Representation (Roman numerals, chemical symbols etc)
• Any combination of the above

I bet I've missed something crucial; but if we did have a game then we could maybe explain each clue as it is solved to help cryptonewbies.

[ferdle] There are a certain number of rules to help solve cryptic crosswords. The word is always defined, usually at the beginning or the end. If the clue is two words long then its usually a double definition (example, office desk (6) = bureau). Ignore all punctuation. Another good hint is to find anagrams. words like 'scrambled', 'mixed', 'blended', 'confused' and many others besides (and some are rather obscure and I don't get them). ~Solving one of Blob's clues (I hope nobody minds, it is an easy one!) STEAM is the soultion to number 3 (anagram hinted by the words in turmoil). I'm still at the early stages of learning. I find it helpful (and frustrating) to attempt crosswords with a friend, who is rather good and happily explains clues when I don't get it. Working a crossword back with the anwsers can also be useful. Is that helpful or just more confusing or not what you wanted? If you want to find more rules and hints how to slove then visit www.guardian.co.uk and go to the crosswords section and there is a page dedicated to 'how to solve' things.

[all] Ummm, little miss untechnological strikes again. How do I do hyperlinks?

btw, sadly the guardian's page only tells you how to solve cryptic crosswords. If only it was a 'How to solve anything' page.... All of life's mysteries could be solved. Like, why is belly button fluff ALWAYS blue?.......

Previewing my move meant I didn't notice/wasn't alerted to the fact I had been simuplosted. Blob's explaniation is far more eloquent than mine! sorry!

Foreign words are often used - but generally only tiddlers, such as "The French" for LE or LA (possibly LES), or "With German" for MIT.

[Lib] I did the same just now. ... And of couerse I meant "knew" not "new"
[Lib again] How to do hyperlinks :
<A HREF="www.thisisthesite.com/thisisthepage.htm">This is what I want it to say</A>

Thanks Blob. Testing my new found hyperlink skill to send ferdle to this aforemetnioned page.

I'll bear in mind that when previewing you're not alerted to a simulpost. Before I can make the necessary changes though, I'll need to sort out my laptop's hard disk because it has various versions of different pages that are stored on a range of servers. At the risk of upsetting the Breadmaster I think I'll need to work out how to set up virtual servers in apache to solve all my problems (notably, the DNS name of my laptop changes according to which network I connect it to).

Meanwhile, the cryptics. I can recommend two books. One is 'Cryptic Crosswords and How to Solve Them' (published I think by Chambers - you can search Amazon for example). The other is Don Manley's Crossword Manual, linked to above. The former is better for jumping in. Basically it lists the devices, and then gives some graded puzzles, with the amount of help diminishing as the book progresses. My main gripe is that the authors do like (a) to show off how clever they are; and (b) literary allusions rather than give you practical advice to clue-solving. Manley's book is much more thorough, but as he treats things more from a historical perspective, you'll find yourself dealing with Victorian mindbenders before getting into the cryptics proper. However, this book does offer an insight into the mind of a setter, which is invaluable.

One thing I dislike is microclassification of clues. Since pretty much every clue involves a combination of devices the only classification is:

• Single definition: usually cryptic, or relying on a pun.
• Double definition: what it says on the tin. One definition might be more cryptic than the other.
• Definition + device: where the device is basically a set of instructions that tell you how to make the desired word.

Because you normally have two indications to the solution, it's very rare that there's any ambiguity in the clue. Although the definition could be as vague as "country" the chances are the device points only to one possible country. In that sense, I find cryptics easier than quick crosswords. On the other hand, the range of words used is often wider, so that makes it harder again.

My all time favourite clue was suggested in an excellent book I read on cryptic crossword solving.

GEGS (9,4)
Answer:(Highlight to reveal hidden text)scrambled eggs*

[BtD] Which featured in a particularly good episode of "Drop the Dead Donkey" if I recall correctly.

[rab] Yes, Cryptics ought to be easier than "Quick" crosswords really, as you're getting two clues in one. Doesn't really work like that though - coz. firstly it could be either end that you're looking for - plus the definition itself is not necessarily straight forward. For example (again off the top of my head, so not necessarily too good), Great Persian holds quiet land (6) might be the cryptic clue, whereas the quick would probably be along the lines of Island country (6). The difference being that whilst the Quick is too vague to be able to pinpoint the country in question - it does not require you to know anything about Persians - and points you to the land being required rather than the Persian himself.
Re GEGS, that was my Dad's favourite clue too - and he told me about it, ooh, thirty years ago - so it's quite an old one.

[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)

Dunno 'bout Martha's. I got the HIJKLMNO one pretty much immediately when I saw it, but it was in the Cryptic Crosswords and How to Solve Them book as part of a special feature on weird clues, so my mind was already pointed in the right direction. One that I saw in a Grauniad crossword, and don't actually think is that great a clue (for reasons I'll explain later) is "K (7)".

[MF] That one is my favorite clue. :-) I was reading down through the game and was about to post it, until I saw that you had got there first. Although I think the clue should actually be
O? (4, 6).
And here's a clue mentioned in the Sandy Balfour book that I recently reviewed at Orange, which although not perfect, you have to admire:
Bust down reason? (9).

Stop putting damn clues and no answers! Some of us are thick, you know!

Would that be (Highlight to reveal hidden text) full circle ?

Round number.

How about open letter?