New York Times, Wednesday, October 23, 2013

I started 'playing' with this game theme a long time ago. I had SORRY OTHELLO from the very beginning, and would crack myself up constantly with that one — clearly I don't get out enough. But I couldn't find the right other entries to work with it and had to shelve it for a while. Some possibilities that didn't make it, but had great cluing potential, were CANDYLAND WAR (I decided card games didn't qualify), and RISK PERFECTION. Once I found the giveaway BACK TO BACK GAMES, however, I knew the theme was ready for primetime.

I've always been a huge NEIL SIMON fan. I'm glad he's made it into the Shortz era. I'm sure the CHIPMUNKS are excited to be here too.

Fun theme today, two games paired together to give us wacky BACK TO BACK GAMES phrases. Each of the three theme phrases works pretty well, CLUE MONOPOLY evoking a funny image of Clouseau hoarding his clues, and SORRY OTHELLO sounding a trombone wah-wah-wah-wah sound effect in my head. The revealer works really well, tying everything together with a snappy phrase reinterpreted.

I appreciated the long fill today and wanted to point out a good technique Robyn used. Incorporating long fill is often a difficult matter, given the need to keep a puzzle relatively free of ugly short entries. Sometimes constructors (including myself) will push too hard, trying to incorporate parallel long downs or even triple-stacks of long downs to achieve extra snazziness, with the unfortunate result of junky three and four letter fill. Today, Robyn spreads out her long entries via thoughtful black square placement: note how CHIPMUNKS, SARDINE, and CUTLET/BAKERY are spaced through the width of the puzzle (same goes for NEIL SIMON, GOOD COP, and I GOT IT, of course, due to symmetry). Just like with long theme answers, increased spacing in long down placement usually means more flexibility and therefore better fill. Well done!

Robyn's also done well on the short fill front. There's no doubt that a constructor would rather not have AS I or ETH if at all possible, but there will almost always be some of those entries required to hold a puzzle together. I've heard complaints about ISP before, and it makes me scratch my head because I hear that term all the time (internet service provider). It's a good reminder that there's a wide range of opinion regarding what is acceptable and what is not (and that these judgment calls are usually very subjective).

The consistency of the theme is good in that they are all games, but the specificity gave me pause. Ideally, a constructor wants to avoid the question "why did you select these answers instead of X, Y, or Z?", because using a finite and or complete set adds elegance. I don't know if it would have been possible, but it would have been fantastic to see only famous board games (eliminating Twister), or only games with black and white pieces (chess, Othello, Go, etc.). For me, that sort of specificity is a factor that lifts a puzzle from the ranks of good to great.

Fun note from Robyn today; she sounds like someone who ought to come to the ACPT and have a drink with us (hint hint).